You can’t ignore millennials: Needed changes and a new way forward in entitlement research

Abstract

As millennials ood the workplace, both researchers and practitioners agree that entitlement is increasing. Given the increasing number of millennials in the workforce and their high levels of entitlement, HRM must nd ways to capitalise on this phenomenon. However, the existing state of the eld is problematic. Past entitlement research has overwhelmingly ignored millennials, used a limiting trait conceptualisation, and primarily investigated negative eects for the entitled individuals.

This article seeks to provoke that HRM must address the millennial entitlement phenomenon by making needed changes and taking a new way forward in entitlement research. Specifically, we argue that HRM scholars must (a) adopt a new state conceptualisation of entitlement and (b) move beyond the sole focus on negative eects to look for positive eects for individuals, teams, organisations, and society. Millennial entitlement—for better or worse —is a pressing issue for HRM, and we believe it may be for the better.

1 INTRODUCTION

Millennial entitlement is the new management crisis. The Wall Street Journal calls it an “epidemic” (Zaslow, 2007), and TIME Magazine declares that we are experiencing the “age of entitlement” and a “crisis of unmet expectations” (Franklin, 2014; Stein, 2013). Arguably, entitlement has been an issue for years—this phenomenon is nothing new. But the generation that is posed to comprise three‐quarters of the global workforce by 2025 (EY, 2015)—the millennial generation—is considered the most entitled generation yet (Twenge, 2006, 2010, 2014; Yi, Ribbens, & Morgan, 2010), and their high levels of entitlement are a global phenomenon (Hoyle, 2017; Ng, Lyons, & Schweitzer, 2012; Yi et al., 2010). Thus, as millennials continue to ood the workforce, HRM must address this pressing issue. Surprisingly, relatively little academic research has investigated entitlement in the workplace, and even less has considered the central role of millennials.

We believe that millennials and millennial entitlement must be investigated, but there are several dominant assumptions in the literature hindering our research (a) entitlement as a trait (which precludes contextual inuence), (b) the singular focus in research on the entitled individual, and (c) entitlement only has negative eects. We view these three assumptions as critical shortcomings in entitlement research and argue that to properly address the “millennial entitlement epidemic,” researchers must (a) adopt a new conceptualisation of entitlement that allows for contextual inuence and (b) investigate both the negative and positive impact of millennial entitlement at multiple levels.

This article is a call for HRM scholars to stop ignoring millennials and address this pressing issue. It begins with a discussion on the millennial generation related to entitlement, before oering a state conceptualisation of entitlement and new way forward in millennial entitlement research to help advance HRM scholarship.

2 WHY MILLENNIALS?

The very idea that generations (e.g., baby boomers, Generation X, and millennials) are dierent is debatable. As Lyons and Kuron (2013) note, it can be dicult to make generalisations about generations due to fractured and contradictory evidence. Moreover, it can be hard to separate generation eects from age and maturation eects (Lyons & Kuron, 2013; Rudolph, Rauvola, & Zacher, 2018). Contradicting each other, Lyons and Kuron (2013) argue that despite these challenges, generational dierences are robust, whereas Rudolph et al. (2018) contend that generational research should be abandoned in favour of a lifespan developmental perspective.

We believe that as this pertains to millennials and entitlement, both camps are right: Millennials are a dierent generation, but the emergence of their entitlement in an organisational setting may uctuate depending on context. Millennials, also known as Generation Y or Gen Y, are the generational cohort that follows Generation X and precedes Generation Z. Although no precise birth years exist for when the millennial generation starts or ends, researchers typically use birth years beginning in the early 1980s and ending in the mid‐1990s to 2000 (Rudolph et al., 2018). A recurring theme is that millennials are more entitled than previous generations (e.g., Anderson, Baur, Grith, & Buckley, 2017; Buonocore, Russo, & Ferrara, 2015; Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; De Hauw & De Vos, 2010; Twenge, 2010; Yi et al., 2010).

Millennials are perceived as having “inated self‐ esteem, unrealistic and grandiose expectations for prime work, promotions, and rewards, and a general lack of patience and willingness to drudge through unglamorous components of work” (Thompson & Gregory, 2012, p. 241). Indeed, some of the characteristics and stereotypes associated with millennials are attributed to every generation as they come of age; however, researchers believe that some characteristics including high levels of entitlement are unique and enduring (Thompson & Gregory, 2012).

To better understand millennials’ attitudes and behaviours in the workplace, Thompson and Gregory (2012) contend that it is critical to gain “a deeper understanding of the broader educational, economic, social, and political contexts in which Millennials came of age” (p. 238). Even though characteristics of the millennial generation vary by region depending on these contexts, millennials are more similar worldwide than previous generations and represent a “global generation” (Pew Research Center, 2010). Edmunds and Turner (2005) assert that the dening social inuences of the modern age (including technology, communications, and globalisation) have made it possible for millennials worldwide to experience the same formative experiences, resulting in an emergent global generation that shares similar characteristics (cf. Alexander & Sysko, 2012; Berset‐Price, 2016).

Relative deprivation theory (Crosby, 1976) ties in to the educational, economic, and social contextual factors experienced by millennials and can be used to explain their high levels of entitlement. Millennials expected to get “good” jobs and achieve high standards of living (Alexander & Sysko, 2012). Parents and teachers set the expectation for millennials that if you work hard, then you will be successful when you grow up. Additionally, they pushed college education. Consequently, millennials are the most educated generation yet, further elevating their expectations upon entering the workforce (Pew Research Center, 2010).

Unfortunately, many millennials came of age during the Great Recession (Berridge, 2014), and consequently, economic prospects were grim as they entered the workforce, resulting in unemployment and underemployment (Associated Press, 2011; Chohan, 2016). Additionally, millennials often have more debt and are confronted with a much higher cost of living compared with past generations at their age (Allison, April, 2018; Barr & Malik, March, 2016; Buckley, Viechnicki, & Barua, 2015). Compound this with the fact that older employees are retiring later in life and leaving fewer “good” jobs for the incoming millennial workforce (Burtless & Bosworth, 2013). Moreover, millennials have beneted the least from the economic recovery relative to other generations and are still catching up (Lowrey, 2013). Average incomes of millennials fell at twice the rate and have recovered at a much slower
pace compared with those of older generations (Smith, 2012). In short, poor job prospects combined with a challenging economic state means that many millennials have started out with a perceivably distinct disadvantage, as compared with previous generations.

These shared circumstances result in millennials feeling deprived, not getting what they believe they deserve or expect, and as a result their unmet expectations are often perceived as entitled (Buckley et al., 2015; De Hauw & De Vos, 2010). Relative deprivation theory explains that millennials feel that their situation is worse than what they perceive they are entitled.

Millennials are a dierent generation, and the high entitlement they bring to the workplace creates a challenge for HRM and necessitates an increased research focus. Unfortunately, the eld predominantly conceptualises entitlement as a trait, which presents a barrier to research progress. We challenge the assumption that entitlement is exclusively a trait in an attempt to provide a new direction for entitlement research.

3 A NEW CONCEPTUALIZATION OF ENTITLEMENT

The dominant assumption in the entitlement literature is that entitlement is a trait. Entitlement is a concept that management scholars have adopted from the eld of psychology with little scrutiny. Entitlement rst emerged as a component of the trait narcissism in the personality psychology literature (Raskin & Terry, 1988). Then in 2004, Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, and Bushman made entitlement a popular individual dierence variable of its own, dening it as “a stable and pervasive sense that one deserves more and is entitled to more than others” (p. 31).

They categorised entitlement as a trait, reecting a stable sense of entitlement across situations. Although primarily researched in psychology, the concept of entitlement has received research attention from several other disciplines as well, including law, sociology, anthropology, political science, philosophy, and marketing (Naumann, Minsky, & Sturman, 2002). Although these various elds rely on dierent denitions and assumptions in their examinations of entitlement, they all conceptualise entitlement as a trait or a right, with most emphasising that actual deservingness is irrelevant.

We challenge this prevailing assumption that entitlement is a trait and argue that it limits the advancement of knowledge in contemporary dynamic organisational settings. Entitlement as a trait implies stability across time and setting and thus precludes investigations of Rudolph et al.’s (2018) lifespan developmental perspective. O’Leary‐Kelly, Rosen, and Hochwarter (2017) similarly acknowledge that dening entitlement as a stable trait is a key limiting factor in prior research because (a) its similarity to other individual traits (e.g., narcissism, superiority, and self‐esteem) limits new insight into organisational phenomena and (b) it neglects contextual factors. These limitations permit only marginal incremental contributions to management research, precluding HRM research that might address the numerous inuences on entitlement in the workplace (because if trait entitlement is stable, it is not inuenced by contextual factors). Consequently, we believe that a new conceptualisation of entitlement is needed.

We propose that entitlement be conceptualised as a state, rather than a trait, and oer a succinct yet broad denition of state entitlement that we believe will move the eld forward: State entitlement is a context‐dependent sense that one unjustiably deserves more. The prevalent (trait) denition of entitlement includes a reference to “others”, that is, that one is entitled to more than others (Campbell et al., 2004). We view this as limiting and intentionally do not include “others” in our denition. The emergence of the millennial workforce has necessitated this modification to the denition, in large part because of their proposed altruistic interest in improving the quality of life for all (Elam, Stratton, & Gibson, 2007; Gloeckler, 2008). That is, millennials are not solely focused on self‐serving attainments, but rather seek to improve conditions for everyone.

This, however, is an empirical question needing investigation, and one that can now be investigated using our new state conceptualisation of entitlement. State conceptualisation provides for dierentiation from other constructs, particularly traits (e.g., narcissism): Traits are stable, whereas states allow for variability across time and situations. This provides research opportunities for state entitlement outcomes to be compared with trait entitlement outcomes, with dierences leading to new insights. By incorporating variability, the state conceptualisation also enables researchers to determine how the emergence of millennial entitlement varies according to the context and thus investigate the lifespan development perspective proered by Rudolph et al. (2018). Our state conceptualisation of entitlement supports Rudolph et al.’s (2018) idea that perceptions of entitlement may change over time due to maturation, context, and other inuences.

Using state entitlement, researchers can take into account contextual factors (e.g., an individual’s situation or motives) and see whether or how entitlement changes over time. Thus, we believe that a state conceptualisation of entitlement overcomes the inherent barriers of a trait conceptualisation and will allow HRM research to examine potential consequences and implications—both positive and negative—of millennial entitlement for individuals, organisations, and society. Using this state entitlement conceptualisation, next, we provide a roadmap for a new way forward in millennial entitlement research.

4 A NEW WAY FORWARD IN MILLENNIAL ENTITLEMENT RESEARCH

Our second challenge is to move HRM research beyond the remaining two limiting foci. Specifically, we provoke the following: (a) millennial entitlement aects not only entitled individuals, but also those around them (i.e., co‐workers, managers, and subordinates), organisations, and society, and (b) millennial entitlement has positive eects, challenging the traditional notion that entitlement only has negative eects. We urge HRM scholars to utilise our state conceptualisation of entitlement, so they can investigate positive eects of millennial entitlement. State entitlement allows for the incorporation of contextual factors and changes over time (cf. Rudolph et al., 2018), providing researchers the opportunity to further our understanding of millennial entitlement at the individual, unit, and societal levels in addition to cross levels.

4.1 Individual level

Past entitlement research has primarily investigated entitlement at the individual level. Scholars have emphasised multiple negative consequences of entitlement for entitled individuals, including behavioural, attitudinal, and well‐being outcomes (Tomlinson, 2013): counterproductive work behaviour (Grijalva & Newman, 2015), the perception of increased salary deservingness (Campbell et al., 2004), job frustration (Harvey & Harris, 2010), turnover intent (Harvey & Martinko, 2009), stress (Maynard, Brondolo, Connelly, & Sauer, 2015), and decreased job satisfaction (Foley, Ngo, & Loi, 2016; Harvey & Martinko, 2009; Maynard et al., 2015). Although this research has provided important insights, it does not take a state perspective or investigate millennials specifically, it exclusively looks at the negative, and it primarily treats entitled individuals in isolation.

We caution that past entitlement research might not directly translate to the millennial generation due to the generation’s unique characteristics discussed above. Therefore, replicating past entitlement studies using a state perspective with a millennial sample could provide important new insights. For example, the study of millennials’ perceptions of increased salary deservingness from a state perspective could consider variables such as education level and career life stage. By using referent cognitions theory and Rudolph et al.’s (2018) lifespan development perspective, perceptions of increased salary deservingness (entitlement) might be high for a millennial with a college degree looking for his/her rst job out of college. When good job prospects are scarce, the millennial experiences negative outcomes because he/she feels deprived compared with what he/she believes he/she deserves, or is entitled to.

Millennial entitlement might not be stable (i.e., aected by context) because this same individual’s perceptions of increased salary deservingness might change later in his/her career. Research is needed to determine if millennial state entitlement changes have corresponding eects on the negative outcomes they experience. By using a state conceptualisation of entitlement that enables researchers to capture these changes, new insights can be shed on all sorts of phenomena. However, we also urge future research to move beyond the narrow focus on the negative and explore a potential positive side of millennial entitlement. Initial research suggests that millennial entitlement may be related to positive behaviours. One stream of research has provided evidence that entitlement has desirable positive correlates including empathy, life satisfaction, self‐esteem, gregariousness, concern for others, and conscientiousness (Brummel & Parker, 2015).

Additionally, Neville and Fisk (2018) found evidence for entitlement leading to positive eects in negotiations, and Zitek and Vincent (2015) found that entitlement positively relates to creativity. Another stream of research has provided evidence that millennials have higher levels of desirable traits including self‐esteem (Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2010; Twenge & Campbell, 2001), assertiveness (Twenge & Campbell, 2001), and external locus of control (Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2010) compared with previous generations. Furthermore, Kowske, Rasch, and Wiley (2010) found evidence that millennials have higher levels of company satisfaction and satisfaction with job security, recognition, and career advancement compared with previous generations.

HRM scholars can combine and build upon these two streams of research to investigate positive eects of millennial entitlement. Utilising a state conceptualisation of entitlement, research can investigate the inuence of contextual factors on millennial entitlement and whether these correlates (or other, new outcomes) are impacted. For example, perhaps education level impacts the level of millennial entitlement, which then has a corresponding eect on the aforementioned positive correlates. Given the lack of research on millennial state entitlement and positive outcomes, there are innumerable research opportunities.

In addition to investigating the positive eects of high millennial entitlement, we urge research to expand beyond the current focus on the entitled individual. Entitled individuals do not work in isolation and can greatly aect those around them (e.g., co‐workers, managers, subordinates), especially as workplaces become more saturated with millennials high in entitlement. We argue that it is perhaps even more important to study the eects of millennial entitlement on others (rather than just the eects on the entitled millennials), as one entitled millennial has the potential to aect many (e.g., others in their team or workplace). For example, while one entitled millennial may experience increased creativity and satisfaction, that one entitled millennial may have similar benecial eects on numerous others in the workplace, aecting the creativity and satisfaction of many.

Additionally, we note that those perceiving the entitled millennial’s behaviour may experience dierent outcomes than the entitled millennial experiences. A state conceptualisation of entitlement allows researchers to investigate contextual inuences that might increase or decrease state levels of entitlement, aecting the impact of entitlement on others. Additionally, a state conceptualisation of entitlement allows for contextual factors of the perceiver (e.g., personality, developable skills, and demographics) to be taken into account in how he/she perceives and reacts to millennial entitlement. Thus, we next discuss three specific groups of people entitled millennials are likely to impact: co‐workers, managers, and subordinates.

4.1.1 Millennials’ co‐workers

The rst group of people millennials are likely to impact is their co‐workers. Co‐workers tend to have high levels of interaction and therefore have the ability to aect one another. Thus far, research has only looked at the negative impact of entitled individuals on co‐workers. Specifically, perceived co‐worker entitlement behaviour was associated with increased tension and depressed mood at work, decreased satisfaction and citizenship for employees low in attention control (Hochwarter, Meurs, Perrewé, Royle, & Matherly, 2007), and increased job tension in the absence of political skill (Hochwarter, Summers, Thompson, Perrewé, & Ferris, 2010).

These initial ndings indicate that there are important impacts of entitlement on others, but there is still much research to be done. Utilising our state conceptualisation of entitlement (which allows the context to impact entitlement and perceptions of it), research should incorporate contextual inuences and look to nd ways to capitalise upon positive eects (and mitigate negative). We argue that individual dierences are important to consider in entitlement and can act as a contextual factor impacting millennial state entitlement or as a moderator aecting the millennial entitlement —outcome relationship. For instance, it is possible that the co‐worker’s traits (e.g., trait entitlement, equity sensitivity, core self‐evaluations, and altruism), developable skills (e.g., attention control and political skill), or demographics (e.g., age, gender, nationality, race, tenure and position) impact the level of the millennial’s state entitlement.

Research is needed to identify whether co‐worker traits reduce or increase levels of millennial entitlement and thus have a positive impact on outcome variables. Furthermore, generational dierences may be an important individual dierence to investigate in how entitled millennials impact their co‐workers. For example, baby boomers, Generation Xers, and other millennials may react dierently to entitled millennials. Evidence suggests that baby boomers and Generation Xers react more strongly and negatively towards millennial entitlement, whereas other millennials may react positively because they may be more understanding of their peers and even feel similarly due to shared experiences and situational factors (Angeline, 2011).

Expanding our research focus to include co‐workers (and others) allows us to also look at cross‐level relationships. One obvious research avenue to pursue relates to teams. Millennials have a strong team orientation (Elam et al., 2007), perhaps even stronger than Generation Xers (Borges, Manuel, Elam, & Jones, 2010). This strong team orientation combined with high entitlement can have aggregated impacts at the unit level (e.g., team, department, organisation, etc.), perhaps aecting important team performance antecedents such as team climate (e.g., Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, & Boerner, 2008) or collective ecacy (e.g., Gully, Incalcaterra, Joshi, & Beaubien, 2002). Of course, these impacts could vary as millennial entitlement varies, hence the importance of utilising a state conceptualisation of entitlement. Various organisational cultures (a unit level variable) may value team orientation more than others, aecting levels of millennial state entitlement (an individual level variable), which may then have eects on individual creativity, satisfaction, etc.

Questions:

1. Critically appraise the argument(s) presented by the author(s).

2. What is the method – how does the author(s) convince their readers?

3. Discuss the limitations of the research conducted by the author(s), beyond the limitations provided by the author(s).