Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate differences between three generational groups currently in the workforce (Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y), in work values, job satisfaction, affective organisational commitment and intentions to leave. The study also seeks to examine generational differences in person-organisation values fit. Design/methodology/approach – A total of 504 Auckland employees representing a range of industries completed an online questionnaire. Generation X (57 per cent) was defined as those born between 1962-1979, Baby Boomers (23 per cent) were born 1946-1961 and Generation Y (17 per cent) were born 1980-2000. The remainder (3 per cent) were born 1925-1945. Findings – The youngest groups placed more importance on status and freedom work values than the oldest group. Baby Boomers reported better person-organisation values fit with extrinsic values and status values than Generation X and Generation Y but there were no other generational differences in fit. Where individual and organisational values showed poor fit there were reduced job satisfaction and organisational commitment, and increased intentions to turnover across all three generational groups. Research limitations/implications – The study was cross-sectional and based on self-report data, limiting the generalisability of findings. Practical implications – Values are important in guiding behaviour and enhancing work motivation. Organisational values must be able to meet the needs of different employees, and organisations need to clarify their work values and expectations with staff. Originality/value – The paper presents evidence that person-organisation values fit is important for all generational groups and popular notions about generational differences should not be over-generalised.

Purpose: This introduction seeks to provide a brief background to the notion that there are generational differences at work and to introduce the papers included in this special issue of the Journal of Managerial Psychology.Design/methodology/approach: The current context concerning generational differences at work is briefly outlined followed by a description of the core theory underpinning the notion of generational cohorts. Criticisms of this theoretical premise are provided before a brief outline is given to each article in the special issue.Findings: There is evidence for changes in personality profiles across generations, and for differences in attitudes towards work and careers. However, effect sizes tend not to be large, and some findings are inconsistent with popular stereotypes regarding generational differences. Little support was found for differences in work values or motivation.Practical implications: Contrary to popular hype concerning generational differences at work, managerial time may be better spent considering employee needs relating to age (maturity), life‐cycle and career stage differences than developing generationally specific management policies and practices. Significant methodological problems remain in generational research.Originality/value: The papers facilitate a critical understanding of the challenges facing generational research and its limitations, and provide a litmus test against which popular stereotypes can be compared.

Background: The negative effects of in-person workplace bullying (WB) are well established. Less is known about cyber-bullying (CB), in which negative behaviours are mediated by technology. Drawing on the conservation of resources theory, the current research examined how individual and organisational factors were related to WB and CB at two time points three months apart. Methods: Data were collected by means of an online self-report survey. Eight hundred and twenty-six respondents (58% female, 42% male) provided data at both time points. Results: One hundred and twenty-three (15%) of participants had been bullied and 23 (2.8%) of participants had been cyber-bullied within the last six months. Women reported more WB, but not more CB, than men. Worse physical health, higher strain, more destructive leadership, more team conflict and less effective organisational strategies were associated with more WB. Managerial employees experienced more CB than non-managerial employees. Poor physical health, less organisational support and less effective organisational strategies were associated with more CB. Conclusion: Rates of CB were lower than those of WB, and very few participants reported experiencing CB without also experiencing WB. Both forms of bullying were associated with poorer work environments, indicating that, where bullying is occurring, the focus should be on organisational systems and processes.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the direct and buffering effects of three workplace contextual factors – constructive leadership, perceived organizational support, and organizational anti‐bullying initiatives – on bullying and its relationships with relevant criteria. Further, the paper aims to investigate the effectiveness of organizational initiatives against bullying as perceived by targets and non‐targets.Design/methodology/approach: Data were collected from 727 employees in nine New Zealand healthcare organizations. Of these, 133 employees were classified as bullied, as they had experienced at least two negative acts per week over the last six months.Findings: Correlations revealed negative relationships between the three contextual work factors and bullying. Moderated regression showed that perceived organizational support buffered the relationship of bullying with self‐rated job performance, and that organizational initiatives against bullying buffered the relationship of bullying with both wellbeing and organizational commitment. Targets consistently gave lower ratings than non‐targets of the effectiveness of organizational initiatives to address bullying.Originality/value: There is scant research on workplace factors that may reduce bullying and buffer its negative effects. This paper makes an original contribution in providing evidence of the importance of three contextual factors, and of buffering effects for perceived organizational support and organizational initiatives against bullying.