Audra I. Mockaitis (School of Business, Maynooth University)

Christina L. Butler (Kingston University Business School)

We present results from the first of a multi-part study that aims to gauge the extent that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused disruptions to people’s work-related and general wellbeing, and whether individuals with certain characteristics are better able to cope with these disruptions. We examine whether different generations are experiencing and dealing with effects of the COVID-19 pandemic differently.

In this note, we first discuss the changing nature of work before turning to highlight the generational challenges inherent in global leadership roles. We then present an overview of our research together with initial findings.  We close with our thoughts on what these findings mean for organizations as they move forward into the “new normal”.

COVID has accelerated recent organizational changes

Over recent years, as organizations have tried to keep up with the rapid pace of technological change, they have been implementing flatter structures, more flexibility, and more participatory styles. Thus, pre-COVID, organizations were already emerging that are more fluid, and even boundaryless or borderless and are team- or networked-based [22] [18]. Telework and virtual participation were emerging too in tandem with these structural changes. The COVID-19 pandemic has thrust these shifts to the fore overnight for many other organizations around the globe. Owing to the pandemic, electronic forms of interaction at work have taken over as the only form for many and we expect them to remain the norm for the duration of the pandemic with long-lasting consequences for the future of work. For example, the UK Office for National Statistics is reporting that 44% of the labor force is working remotely during the pandemic, whereas in the same period in 2019 only 12% were doing so.

These changes to organizations and to the organization of work appear to bring many benefits to organizations. They can respond to crises or issues arising with little notice (such as the pandemic) and involving multiple locations, saving them time and costs, enhancing organizational innovation, creativity, diversity and social capital, and enabling them to quickly spread knowledge and access to key stakeholders across the globe, to name a few benefits [22].

However, flexibility is a double-edged sword. It is employees who implement and experience new ways of working. Individuals need to interact with and deal with multiple members across many different types of boundaries, focusing on their internal tasks, but also on maintaining and managing relationships with stakeholders around the globe. Increasing flexibility, although seen as beneficial to organizations, has potentially disruptive consequences for employees (e.g., longer working hours and an increase in crosscutting roles including across the home-work divide). Indeed, pre-COVID, the World Health Organization had declared stress as a 21^st century health epidemic resulting in many chronic physical and mental diseases. It is important, though, to take a more nuanced approach to understanding the consequences that may vary by type of employee including the generation of which they are a part.

Pre-COVID, the generational makeup of the global workforce highlighted challenges for Millennials in management roles

As the Millennial generation – the largest generation in modern history to enter the workforce – is now moving into and up the ranks of middle management, it is key to understanding employees’ experiences of work under COVID [14] [17]. According to Hershatter and Epstein [8], Millennials crave stability, structure and clarity in the workplace, factors that are generated by centralized decision-making, well-defined responsibilities, and significant management oversight and that are found in traditional hierarchical organizations.  Millennials also demand work–life balance – including flexible working hours and instant gratification – unlike work-centric Baby Boomers. These requirements have led to difficulties in retaining Millennials [1] [8] [14]. Apart from the possibility of increased flexibility offered by the sudden move to significantly more remote working under COVID, other Millennial work requirements may be harder to meet.

Given what we know about Millennials in the workplace, would Millennials find it more difficult to cope with isolation and work during the pandemic?

What our research shows

We received 422 responses to an online survey sent during the months of April and May, on work-related issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. After omitting invalid responses, our final sample was N=325, representing 41 countries, with 65.4% from Anglo countries and 34.6% from non-Anglo countries. 61% of respondents were female and 39% male, 76% were employed full-time, and all but 12% had a formal university qualification. In terms of age, the mean age of our sample was 45.9 years (min=20, max =74). We divided the sample into three groups to represent three distinct generations as follows: the Millennial generation (N=107) included people aged 24 to 40, Generation X (N=133) included ages from 41 to 55, and the Boomer generation (N=85) – from 56 to 74.

In the first part of this study, we included questions about one’s working life in general, as well as reactions to events over the previous week in terms of general wellbeing and stress. Support from Colleagues (α=.71) and Supervisor (α=.86), pertained to how often help and support, listening to problems and encouragement are offered by colleagues and supervisor. Oldenberg’s inventory [6] measured Burnout (α=.88). These constructs measured respondents’ situations pre-COVID.

The remaining constructs measured the extent of disruption caused during the pandemic. Three items gauged the extent to which respondents rated disruptions by COVID to their work, family and personal routines (α=.67). Vitality (α=.78) measured energy levels during the past week. General stress (α=.77) measured the extent of nervousness and negative mood, Cognitive stress (α=.77) measured difficulties in focus and concentration, and Wellbeing (α=.84) measured general feelings of good health, satisfaction and sense of purpose.

Table 1 presents the results of an ANOVA of differences in responses between generations prior to and during the pandemic. The greatest differences in coping during the COVID-19 pandemic are between the Millennial and Boomer generations. Specifically, Boomers report higher levels of vitality and wellbeing and lower levels of general and cognitive stress during the pandemic, as well as overall lower levels of burnout under usual circumstances. This is despite also reporting lower usual levels of supervisor support. Millennials report more or less the opposite. During the pandemic, Millennials experience significantly lower levels of vitality than other generations and significantly lower levels of wellbeing than Boomers. Despite usually perceiving significantly higher levels of supervisor support at work than Generation X, Millennials still experience high levels of burnout (significantly higher than Boomers). During the pandemic, Millennials report greater overall stress and cognitive stress (significantly higher than the other generation groups).

Why are there such stark differences among the generations?  Why are the Millennials struggling more under COVID?

Butler, Zander, Mockaitis, and Sutton [4] suggest that global leaders who are successful in their roles have developed the  necessary  focus,  drive  and  people-orientation [10] to  confront  changing organizational structures and the changing nature of work itself by practicing three interrelated  roles:  boundary  spanner,  blender and bridge maker.  At the same time, these authors argue that Millennials from around the world may struggle comparatively more than other generations as they move toward or take up management positions. Our findings seem to reflect this analysis.

Organizational boundary spanners create and maintain strong linkages with the external environment to enable information and resources to flow across boundaries and to exert influence on stakeholders in achieving organizational objectives [13]. A desire for “quick” information and a focus on self may lead Millennials to struggle to present business needs in a sufficiently robust manner [5] to engage business audiences across a boundary-spanning environment [2][13][19] compared with other generations, especially when their own line managers are fully immersed in the current crisis and so less available to support direct reports.

Butler et al. [4] suggest that a blender role is important to achieve cultural fusion [12] among team members resulting in the group and the individual being equally, but differently, valued [9][11]. Despite being digital natives [16][20], narcissistic tendencies may interfere with a fully blended team experience for Millennials, especially when all work is conducted virtually, as can be the case during the pandemic, and when line managers are less available. This can lead to a negative impact on stress levels and well-being.

Lastly, successful bridge makers engage readily with the ‘cultural other’ while ensuring successful interaction among people across different national cultural boundaries [15]. DiStefano and Maznevski [7] emphasize the importance of being able to decenter, a challenge for Millennials who are comparatively self-focused. A highly virtual work environment exacerbates the lack of interest in others and increases a focus on self [21], interfering with the ability to see others’ perspectives.

It is thus paradoxical that Millennials, who are characterized by being technologically savvy, are having the hardest time coping with the pandemic. All of our respondents reported similar degrees of disruption to their lives as a result of COVID. Members of other generations appear to be getting on with their lives better than Millennials, despite having relatively more responsibility (e.g., balancing work and family or supervisory roles). They report higher levels of wellbeing and less stress. However, our research suggests that in comparison to other generations, Millennials may need more attention from supervisors (in the form of support and encouragement), who are less available now. Organizations need to respond to this leadership paradox now to move successfully from COVID to the “new normal”.

---

You can read a more detailed report from this study here.

Please cite this paper as:

Mockaitis, A.I. & Butler, C.L. (2023). Disrupted: remote work and life under lockdown during the great COVID-19 pause. MUSSI Working Paper No 17. MUSSI, Maynooth, Ireland.

Further reading:

• Generations: The Real Differences Between Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers, and Silents―and What They Mean for The Future
• Remote: Office Not Required
• Four Thousand Weeks: Embrace your limits. Change your life. Make your four thousand weeks count.
  
  

---

References

1. Anderson, H.J., Baur, J.E., Griffith, J.A., and Buckley, M.R.  (2017), ‘What works for you may not work for (Gen) Me: Limitations of present leadership theories for the new generation’, Leadership Quarterly, 28(1): 245–60.
2. Barner-Rasmussen, W., Ehrnrooth, M., Koveshnikov, A., and Mäkelä, K. (2014), ‘Cultural and language skills as resources for boundary spanning within the MNC’, Journal of International Business Studies, 45(7): 886–905.
3. Butler, C.L., Sutton, C., Mockaitis, A.I. and Zander, L. (2020), ‘The new millennial global leaders: what a difference a generation makes!’ In: Zander, Lena, (ed.) Research handbook of global leadership: making a difference. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. pp. 141-163.
4. Butler, C.L., Zander, L., Mockaitis, A.I., and Sutton, C. (2012), ‘The global leader as boundary spanner, bridge maker, and blender’, Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5: 246–9.
5. Carr, N. (2008), The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, from Edison to Google. New York: Norton.
6. Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., and Bakker, A.B. (2010), ‘Burnout and work engagement: A thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs’, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15 (3): 209-222.
7. DiStefano, J.J., and Maznevski, M.L. (2000), ‘Creating value with diverse teams in global management’, Organizational Dynamics, 29(1), 45–63.
8. Hershatter A. and Epstein, M. (2010), ‘Millennials and the world of work: An organization and management perspective’, Journal of Business Psychology, 25: 211–23.
9. Hewstone, M. and Brown, R. (1986), ‘Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective’. In M. Hewstone, and R. Brown (Eds), Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters. Oxford: Blackwell, 1–44.
10. Holt, K. and Seki, K. (2012), ‘Global leadership: A developmental shift for everyone’, Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 5(2): 196–215.
11. Hornsey, M. and Hogg, M. (2000), ‘Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4: 143–56.
12. Janssens, M. and Brett, J.M. (2006), ‘Cultural intelligence in global teams: A fusion model of collaboration’, Group and Organization Management, 31(1): 124–53.
13. Johnson, K.L. and Duxbury, L. (2010),  ‘The  view  from  the  field:  A  case  study  of  the  expatriate  boundary-spanning role’, Journal of World Business, 45: 29–40.
14. Kwoh, K.L. (2012), ‘More firms bow to generation Y’s demands’, Wall Street Journal, 22 August: B6.
15. Levy, O., Lee, H.J., Jonsen, K., and Peiperl, M.A. (2019), ‘Transcultural brokerage: The role of cosmopolitans in bridging structural and cultural holes’, Journal of  Management, 45(2): 417–50.
16. Palfrey, J. and Gasser, U. (2008), Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives. Philadelphia, PA: Basic Books.
17. Pew  Research  Center  (2018),  ‘Millennials surpass Gen Xers as the largest generation in US labor force’, at www.pewresearch.org (accessed 10 July 2019).
18. Simões, V.C., Da Rocha, A., De Mello, R.C., and Carneiro, J. (2015), ‘Black swans or an emerging type of firm? The case of borderless firms’, The Future of Global Organizing: Progress in International Business Research, Vol. 10: 179-200.
19. Small, G. and Vorgan, G. (2008), iBrain: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind. New York: Harper Collins.
20. Tapscott, D. (2009), Grown Up Digital. New York: McGraw Hill.
21. Weber, J. (2017), ‘Discovering the Millennials’ personal values orientation: A comparison to two managerial populations’, Journal of Business Ethics, 143(3), 517–29.
22. Zander, L., Butler, C.L., Mockaitis, A.I., Herbert, K., Lauring, J., Mäkelä, K., Paunova, M., Umans, T. and Zettinig, P. (2015), ‘Team-based global organizations: the future of global organizing’, In: Van Tulder, R., Verbeke, A. and Drogendijk, R., (eds.) The future of global organizing. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. pp. 227-243. (Progress in International Business Research).