Introduction

Undoubtedly one of the main challenges that organizations face today is that of managing a multi-generational work force characterized by four cohorts trying to create a cohesive working space. A number of factors, such as declining fertility rates, broken systems, retirement, and an increased life expectancy, have led nations to constantly extend the terms of the retirement of their professionals (^{Finkelstein, Truxillo, Fraccaroli, & Kanfer, 2015}). These have caused work teams to extend the average age of their employees, and to manage the coexistence of the different generations at work, which are now a reality with important consequences for the administrative management and human resources. The integration of groups belonging to different generations impact primarily on culture, the results, and intra and inter organizational competitiveness. Companies face the massive outflow of the Baby Boomers generation (GBB), employees rich in experience, who are now being replaced by the Digital Generation Y (GY); digital experts and bearers of new values and dissimilar demands on the values, and the ways of working of previous generations with an interest in reconciling work and their personal life (^{Golik, 2013}). In between these two groups, are people of Generation X (GX), who are technologically prepared to face labour challenges and measure success at work within the flexibility that the environment offers them. They seek environments that allow them to maintain healthy and stable relationships (^{Palomino, Medina, & Arellano, 2016}). Finally, there is the Z (GZ) generation. While their presence is not yet known among the organizations due to their young age, they constitute the immediate future of the workforce. Few people in this generation that are working, have definitely proved to be able to act in a multicultural and global media, accompanied by a flexible mind capable of organizing and transmitting information; and for which mobility and training are a constant in their career development (^{Alvarez, 2016}). It is evident that these generations differ in their outlook, attitudes, values, characteristics and behavior (^{Earle, 2003}). Therefore, employers and human resource managers need to provide strategies that give significant value to the work performed by different cohorts, according to their needs, expectations and experiences; in order to enhance their performance and job satisfaction (^{Hernaus & Vokic, 2014}; ^{Kyles, 2005}). Organizations that do not address these differences are likely to be less efficient and competent in the labour market (^{Lyons & Kuron, 2014}) and could experience the possibility of high levels of dissatisfaction, and a brain drain, that would result in serious visible consequences in the repetitive processes of recruitment and selection (^{Kyles, 2005}; ^{Golik, 2013}).

This is especially relevant in a context such as that in Ecuador which has produced changes and developments with regard to employment, social security, health and education (^{CEPAL, 2018}), these have not been designed with management practices of the commensurate human capital with such development. In fact, many of these changes have adjusted existing sectorials policies, leavig less space for innovation and continuity of a change in all the areas, specially in labour standards. (^{CEPAL, 2013}).

Although attitudes and values towards work have been addressed from multiple perspectives (^{Alvarez, 2016}; ^{Chirinos, 2009}; ^{Howe & Strauss, 2007}; ^{Oh & Reeves, 2014}; ^{Palomino et al, 2016}. and ^{Varas & Yanez, 2016}) one of the most widely used to explore differences in attitudes among generations, cultures and professions has been the concept of the Protestant work ethic (PWE), (^{Meriac, Poling & Woehr, 2009}; ^{Meriac, Thomas & Milunski, 2015}). This ethic was established based on the beliefs of Weber in the early twentieth century. It enables the study of attitudes toward work through the degree to which individuals vary in consideration with respect to the work. It is perceived that to work is a positive thing that responds to a criterion of intrinsic value that goes beyond that of purely economic survival, against a consideration of work as something negative that is ‘necessary' to obtain the resources to develop a good quality of life (^{Borgmann, 1992}). The study of PWE through different generations has yielded important results for the management of the workforce in organizational contexts (^{Jobe, 2014}; Meriac, Woehr & Banister, 2010; ^{Real, Mitnick & Maloney, 2010}; ^{Walt & Jonck, 2016}). However, to the best of our knowledge, the study of PWE between different generations in the South American region, and specifically in Ecuador, has not yet been explored.

The objective of this paper is to analyze the current differences in the PWE of four different generations i.e. GBB, GX, GY, GZ, in Ecuador. The study of the attitudes and values ​​towards work, through the PWE of different generations living together in the workplace in Ecuador, is extremely important to assist organizations to develop effective retention practices in both organizational talent and job stability.

Theoretical foundations

PWE and Generational Cohorts

Different authors have studied the comparative value that different generations give to their work, with an emphasis on differences with regard to personal characteristics and organizational preferences. The results of these studies characterize the GBB with the least interest in teamwork and interpersonal relationships, but a good working environment with meaningful tasks. It also reveals that the GX generation demonstrates a high degree of individualism that makes the traditional division between task-related individuals of this generation especially focused on the task. Furthermore, the GY generation are more influential at work; demanding values ​​of freedom and balance between their work and personal life. The most attractive jobs for the young GY are those that offer challenges, allowing them to have the autonomy, flexibility and remuneration commensurate with their effort (^{Bongiovanni & Soler, 2015}; ^{Cennamo & Gardner, 2008}; ^{Hernaus & Vokic, 2014}). In Figure 1 the characteristics of each generation, the values ​​that identify their behaviour, their possible strategies, work motivation, as well as the similarities and differences between them, are described.

Figure 1.  Generational characteristics (Compiled from ^{Alvarez, 2016}; ^{Chirinos, 2009}; ^{Howe & Strauss, 2007}; O & Reeves, 2014; ^{Palomino et al, 2016}. ^{Varas & Yanez, 2016}). 

The discussion about the nature and importance of work for individuals has generally been approached from the neutral perspective of efficiency and technical rationality (^{Giorgi & March, 1990}). However, the issue regarding values ​​towards work is of interest largely because of its strong relationships with organizational commitment, job performance (^{Smith & Smith, 2011}), unemployment, and individual differences (^{Furham, 1984}).

One of the central elements that have tried to account for in these relationships from the approach of attitudes and values towards work has been the concept of the Protestant Work Ethic (PWE). In the early twentieth century, Max Weber through his work ‘Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism' laid the foundation of this concept by linking work with a transcendent vision of life: i.e. hard work is ennobling, it is valuable, it is a central part of life; whereas, self-reliance and delay of gratification are the virtues of individuals (^{Weber, 1958}). Weber's theory is based on four fundamental ideas (^{Furham, 1984}): (a) the believer is called by God to work, and therefore their work should be honest; (b) job success and economic prosperity is a sign of God's grace and consequently successful people are considered his beloved sons; (c) prosperity is supported by the asceticism of people, and saving money is an important value, the systematic use of capital accumulation, and reduced spending on vices and luxuries; and (d) the strong individualism taken from Calvinism which states that each individual has to make their own moral choices and be aware of the ethical implications of their actions. Consequently, this vision describes a set of attitudes related to work as ‘good' for individuals which goes beyond their instrumental character for economic survival, and has special emphasis on individualism against the practice of social welfare (^{Borgmann, 1992}). This approach to the way we understand work has had an extraordinary influence in the workplace throughout the development of capitalism in the twentieth century. Thus, the study of attitudes and values towards work has usually referred to the PWE.

In this context, we have developed different self-reporting tools for assessing the PWE (^{Blood, 1969}; ^{Buchholz, 1978}; ^{Goldstein & Eichhorn, 1961}; ^{Hammond & Williams, 1976}; ^{Mirels & Garrett, 1971}; ^{Ray, 1982}; ^{Ho & Lloyd, 1984}). However, these scales have been limited in their usefulness due to problems related to their validity and reliability. Among these problems, ^{Furham (1984}) states: (a) the construct of erroneous interpretations; (b) inadequate elements and gender as their language; and (c) lack of rigorous studies on its dimensionality. In line with this last question ^{Miller, Woehr & Hudspeth (2002}) point out what they consider to be the most serious problem in these scales: that of their one-dimensional consideration, when in fact, the construct must be approached from a clear multidimensional perspective. Echoing these problems Miller et al. (2002) developed the Multidimensional Profile of Ethics at Work (MWEP) that has become the most widely used assessment tool for estimating the PWE. It has been extensively used to analyze the differences in the existing PWE in various cultural fields (^{Chanzanagh & Akbarnejad, 2011}; ^{Li & Madsen, 2009}; Özatalay & Chanzanagh, 2013; ^{Ryan & Tipu 2016}; ^{Slabbert & Ukpere, 2011}; Woehr, Arciniega, & Lim, 2007); i.e. that which exists between men and women (^{Meriac et al. 2009}); that which occurs at the different stages in their career (^{Pogson, Cober, Doverspike, & Rogers, 2003}); those related to motivation and performance (^{Meriac et al. 2015}); and also those produced when taking into account different generations (^{Meriac et al, 2010}).

In their most commonly used version, the MWEP is a Likert scale with 65 items grouped into seven dimensions (see Figure 2): (1) Centrality of Work, (2) Self-Reliance, (3) Hard Work, (4) Leisure, (5) Morality-Ethical (which is measured by 10 items each (6) Delay of Gratification (which is measured using 7 items) and finally, (7) Wasted Time (which employs 8 items). The psychometric properties of MWEP that have been obtained through the studies of different authors (^{Miller et al., 2002}) are adequate. The construct validity of the MWEP has been established by studying its dimensionality with a confirmatory factor that demonstrates good fit indices. This was carried out by analyzing its relationship with other general variables: such as a general cognitive ability, personality and perceived needs, and specifically labour participation, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction, as well as through studies of the generalizability of the scores obtained from different individuals i.e. workers vs. students. The reliability of the MWEP has also been tested successfully by studying the internal consistency of the scales and the temporal stability of scores: the Alfa coefficient scales are suitable, i.e. greater than 0.80 in all scales, albeit less on the Delay of Gratification scale, .73, and the retest correlation yields producing values above .90 for all the scales except for the Delay of Gratification, which was .83.

Figure 2. :  MWEP dimensions (itself from ^{Miller et al elaboration., 2002}). 

PWE and Generational Differences in Ecuador

The study of attitudes towards work through a generational cohort has been developed primarily in the North American and European areas. These studies reveal that in Latin America there is insufficient empirical evidence to demonstrate this, however, none of the studies have used the MWEP. Given the proximity and immediacy of the experiences of a nation, ^{Didier (2017}) points out that the differences between generations should be described in terms of local events, rather than from global events. That is why in Ecuador, we cannot assume the configuration of generational differences purely by taking characteristics from other contexts, and even more so if it is to contribute to knowledge from a theoretical approach and decision-making from a practical perspective. In particular, Ecuadorians have undergone times of political and economic instability that has coincided with the crisis in world capitalism that hit Latin American and as a result shaped the behavior and expectations of its inhabitants (^{Vanoni & Rodriguez, 2017}).

Figure 3 shows the political and economic events that have influenced the development of Ecuador.

Figure 3.  Historical, Political and Economic facts of Ecuador. (Compiled from ^{Vanoni & Rodriguez, 2017}). 

Ecuadorian society has been marked by countless facts, namely the temporality of generational groups proposed by ^{Howe & Strauss (2007}) and ^{Oh & Reeves (2014}), and that the GBB lived through the economic prosperity of the banana boom and the capitalist development of Ecuador. Unlike the GX who witnessed industrialization, the oil boom, a military dictatorship, the return to democracy, economic crisis, unemployment, and the emergence of the social movements of women, and of environmental protection. By contrast, the GY and GZ generations have grown up in the context of the dollarization, the bank holiday, and lastly the ‘citizens' revolution', situations that have promoted the development of challenging and self-sufficient attitudes.

Studies carried out in different cultural areas, show that there are significant differences between different generations in the dimensions that make up the PWE (^{Jobe, 2014}. ^{Palomino et al, 2016}; ^{Varas & Yañez, 2016}, ^{Walt & Jonck, 2016}). In particular, the older generation, the GBB, tend to give more value to work as a central element in the plan of life, while giving less value to leisure time and a work-life balance. On the other hand, the intermediate generations, GX and GY, also differ from each other in their conception of work, the first in line with the PWE, considering it as a central element in their personal and social development, but compared to the latter they give a greater value to the sense of work, with a view to finding happiness and a connection to social responsibility. By contrast, little is known about the GZ generation, and that which is available focuses on anecdotal evidence collected from magazines and broadcasts, rather than any rigorous empirical studies. However, based on the available evidence it seems that they show a greater commitment to work than previous generations and to work with organizations that have more general social constructs such as the environment, social equity or transparency.

In this context we consider the following research questions:

1. Research Question 1: Where are the differences in the dimensions of PWE between the generations GBB, GX and GY who are currently working in Ecuador?

2. Research Question 2: What is different, and what is similar, about the Ecuadorian GZ compared to previous generations?

Method

Participants

There were 615 participants with an average age of 29.8 years (SD = 15.8, range 16-76 years). The total sample consisted of 60.2 % males, 26.0 % high school students and 60.9 % college students who were either working, or had done so in the past. Data was collected from four organizations in the southern part of Ecuador, one of which was in the public sector, and three from the private sector. The grouping of participants in each cohort generation (see Table 1) was carried out based on the segmentation proposed by ^{Howe & Strauss (2007}) and ^{Oh & Reeves (2014}). All the participants gave their consent. Parental informed consent, and written authorization of the institution was obtained in the case of the GZ generation. All the participants responded to the scale in an anonymous and voluntary way.

Table 1.  Generational demographics. 

^aBorn between 1940 and 1960;

^bBorn between 1960 and 1980;

^cBorn between 1980 and 2000;

^dBorn 2000 onwards

Results

Table 2 illustrates the descriptive statistics as well as the reliability and inter-correlations between the dimensions that constitute the MWEP. The average scores range from Morality-Ethics (4.47) and Leisure (2.91). The reliability scores of the dimensions are suitable: the lowest recorded in Wasted Time (alpha = .687) and the highest in Leisure (alpha = .831). The analysis of the inter-correlations between the dimensions indicates the existence of significant inter-correlations that were positive and moderate in almost all cases.

Table 2.  Descriptive and intercorrelations between the dimensions of MWEP. 

The coefficient of Cronbach's alpha is shown in parentheses.

^aLeisure average was reversed based on the theory of original scale.

^**Correlation significant at the .01 level;

^*significant correlation at the .05 level.

Table 3 shows the results obtained by analyzing the differences between the average size of MWEP in the different generational cohorts. The results show significant differences in the dimensions of Centrality of Work, with a size of medium high effect (partial squared Eta: .081), Wasted Time and Delay of Gratification with average effect size (partial Eta square: .051 and .040 respectively). For the dimensions of Self-Reliance, Morality-Ethics, Leisure and Hard Work, no significant differences were found.

Looking at the generational cohorts to determine why such differences exist, we found that for the Centrality of Work the GZ generation gets a significantly lower average than the other three generations. In addition, the GY generation also obtained scores that were significantly lower than those of the GX generation. With regard to Wasted Time, the GZ and GY generation obtained scores significantly lower than those of the GBB and GX generations. With respect to Delay of Gratification, the generations GBB, GX and GY were indistinguishable from each other, while the GZ generation showed a higher level in the perception of this dimension.

Table 3.  Mean differences between generational cohorts. 

^**The difference between generations is significant at the .01 level

^*The difference is significant at the .05 level

^toTo distinguish differences between generations the Tukey post-hoc test was applied with a significance level of 5

^bDifferences involves subgroups established based on testing Post-Hoc Tukey with: 1 = Z, 2 = Y, 3 = X, 4 = GBB

Discussion

This paper has investigated the differences and similarities regarding attitudes and values to work as expressed through the PWE, of four generational cohorts who live and coexist in working environments. As noted in previous studies (^{Meriac et al, 2010}; ^{Woehr et al, 2007}) of populations such as the US, Korea and Mexico, we have also found evidence of differences between the four generational cohorts in Ecuador. Significant differences were found in the dimensions of Centrality of Work, Wasted Time and Delay of Gratification, whereas for the dimensions of Self-Reliance, Morality-Ethics, Leisure and, Hard Work no differences were found.

Specifically, for the dimension of Centrality of Work the generations GX and GBB obtained significantly higher scores when compared to GY and GZ. This would indicate that the new generations who are entering the labour market consider this dimension more relevant to their life than previous generations.

The dimension of Wasted Time showed similar results: the scores obtained by the GX and GBB generations are significantly higher than those obtained by the generations GY and GZ. These results highlight the fact that the generations GX and GBB attach greater importance to the effective and productive use of their time than the latter. The results also suggest that the GX and GBB generations give more importance to Centrality of Work and Wasted Time. These generations are results-oriented, who are independent and loyal to their companies, they do not waste time because it should be used productively and effectively to achieve the greatest benefits. These attitudes are reinforced by the social, political, and economic factors in Ecuador between 1946-1964 at the time of the banana debacle, and income capitalism (^{Vanoni & Rodriguez, 2017}).

These results help to explain why these two generations give a high value to work and the importance of that time being used in the best way. By contrast, the GY generation has developed in a completely different context which has been influenced by technology and dollarization, at a time when work has lost some of its centrality, and when optimization in terms of production has become less important (^{Figueroa Rodriguez, Diaz & Zapata, 2018}). Finally, with regard to the dimension of Delay of Gratification, the GZ generation obtained significantly higher scores than those obtained from the GY, GX and GBB generations.

This result indicates that the younger generations have a positive assessment to the achievement of reward than previous generations. The GZ generation comprise people who are committed to global welfare, the environment, social equity, and they prefer to work on long-term projects in which they can contribute to these causes, forgoing any immediate gratification if they feel they can do something to preserve the their long term welfare ^{Magallón (2016}). Conversely, the GY generation are those who expect an immediate response to their requests. They have anchored their life toward fulfilling achievements and that is what gives them happiness (^{Varas & Yanez, 2016}).

Our findings are partially in accord with previous studies. However, they do not exactly reproduce the evidence of similar studies of North American populations, such as that of ^{Jobe, (2014}). It is important to recognize that in Ecuador the presence of different cultural groups is clearly evident, whether they are immigrants from other countries (multiethnic), or diverse cultural groups in the state, or peoples of the nation (pluriculturalism) whose coexistence within the same space can influence the perception to work. This factor leads us to postulate whether the differences found between the Ecuadorian generations are independent of culture and ethnicity or not, and it would be important to study the generational differences in relation to these aspects.

An important additional issue is that none of the previous studies have included an analysis of the GZ generation. Our results suggest that this generation differs from previous generations in some of the aspects that make up the PWE. These aspects include: being more willing to delay rewards, being less focused at work, and using their time for productive activities. In this regard, ^{Magallon (2016}) points out that currently the progress of society is linked to the existence of sufficiently strong links between local reality and comprehensiveness, and institutional environments whose relationships depend largely on the skills of the GZ generation who, with their ‘social DNA', have proven to be able to promote communities that allow replicable and sustainable development of the contributions generated. This undoubtedly has important implications in the field of people management processes in organizational contexts. In fact, it constitutes an important input into these management processes that need to be modified in order to incorporate the attitudes and values of the GZ generation whose entry into the labour market is imminent. The study of the characteristics that these processes have to take in order to meet these needs is an issue that requires further research.

However, any evidence of the differences in PWE between various generational cohorts is far from conclusive. By contrast to our results and those of ^{Meriac et al., (2010}) and ^{Jobe (2014}), in which more similarities than differences were found with regard to the dimensions of Leisure, Hard Work and Delay of Gratification, other authors have not found any substantive differences between the different cohorts (^{Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015}; ^{Zabel et al. 2017}). Conversely, the studies have shown the presence of significant differences between the GBB generation, who show a greater inclination for Hard Work and less perspective, versus Delay of Gratification when compared to the GX and GY generations. These disparities indicate the need for further exploration into the existence of such differences and their practical implications (^{Walt & Jonck, 2016}).

Regarding the practical implications, our results indicate that a PWE focused on generational cohorts is a novel input that should be taken into consideration within the strategy for talent management. The dimensions of the PWE may be introduced as skills in the analysis and design of posts, and derive an element of study for recruitment, selection, performance appraisal, and the training of employees. Similarly, the differences can be analyzed for the design of incentive schemes, and quality of life, in order to engage new talent.

Despite the results shown, our study has some limitations that should be noted. Firstly, the GZ sample was only composed of participants aged between 16 to 17 years old, these participants were not considered in this study because their contact with work is zero. This meant that there was very little choice in age within the cohort and, strictly speaking, it can not describe the characteristics of the cohort but only of that age group. In response to this fact, further studies into the characteristics of the GZ generation should incorporate a wider range of ages, and additionally, the adaptation of measuring instruments to the experiential context of those ages.

Secondly, it should be noted that one of the variables that can affect the results is employment status. 90 % of the participants in the GBB, the GX and GY generations indicated on the questionnaire that they were either working, or had worked, at least once; but 69 % of the participants GZ were students who had never worked. This indicates the need to compare the generational cohorts also through those groups of participants without work experience to appreciate the extent to which there are differences in the PWE between those of the same generation who have work experience, and those who have not.

Conclusions

The work described in this manuscript provides a better understanding of the values and attitudes towards differentiated work among the four generations that will, in the near future, coexist in the labour market. The results allow us to advance theoretical knowledge about these generational differences that can be transferred to the field of human resources and incorporated into the decision making about key management practices in the workforce.