Prepare for the impact of the multi-generational ...

18 downloads 0 Views 83KB Size Report
can have their say and even be a star (Paul, 2001). Furthermore, their .... Harris (2005) states baby boomers may begin to feel resentment toward the younger ...
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6166.htm

INVITED VIEWPOINT

Prepare for the impact of the multi-generational workforce! Rocky J. Dwyer CENTRUM Cato´lica, Pontificia Universidad Cato´lica del Peru´, Lima, Peru

The multigenerational workforce! 101 Received 18 October 2008 Accepted 20 November 2008

Abstract Purpose – In spite of technology and its subsequent organizational advantages, the purpose of this paper is to advocate the need for public sector leadership to understand and consider the forthcoming pivotal role and challenges associated with the unique values and characterises of a multiple generation workforce will have in the attainment of organizational goals and objectives. Design/methodology/approach – An examination of the literature is utilized to identify management techniques and work methodologies regarding generational differences and unique characteristics of four organizational workgroups – veterans, baby boomers, generation X, and Y, which may be an underlying factor in the attainment of organizational success. Findings – This paper advocates that an understanding of generational differences may enable management to structure strategies and transformation techniques to motivate employees to the full extent of their skills and abilities in order to support the realization of organizational goals and objectives. Originality/value – This paper enhances personal knowledge and understanding at the theoretical and practical levels enabling business leaders to gain insight regarding the generational differences and unique characteristics of four organizational workgroups – veterans, baby boomers, generation X, and Y. Without understanding these different cohorts’ values, management strategies and techniques cannot be fully utilize nor can employees be fully motivated to the full extent of their skills and abilities, in order to support organizational goals and objectives. Keywords Workplace, Baby boomer generation Paper type Viewpoint

Around the corner or around the world, lightning speed technology advances continue to inundate consumers; and businesses alike with the latest and brightest must have gadgets. At the same time, governments around the world battle the harsh realities of increased levels of world wide poverty, the certainty of globalized climate change, and the unprecedented downward cycle of a previous buoyant global economy. From a government perspective, its management cadre might wonder – what will happen next? Many officials are likely to ponder the advantages of our entrance into the golden techno savvy age (TSA) where the extent of interdependence between technology and humankind has been moulded into one, and in time benefits to all will flow forth. However, establishing how accurately public sector organizations benefits from TSA will never be easy. Frequently, within government we see cited “technology and business alignment.” In comparison, we rarely hear about how other support functions within the public sector such as – service to the public, accountability, service deliverables or human resources are out of alignment.

Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy Vol. 3 No. 2, 2009 pp. 101-110 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1750-6166 DOI 10.1108/17506160910960513

TG 3,2

102

Table I. Summary of generational groups

While technology will always be important within the public sector, and in spite of technology and its subsequent organizational advantages, at some point, public sector leadership will need to consider the forthcoming pivotal role and challenges; multiple generations in the workplace will impinge on multilateral approaches to dealing with issues that transcend borders either at home or abroad. With the arrival of generation Y in the workplace, process management, and integration has taken on a new face, a fresh perspective and a new urgency. This is the generation that will be taking the wheel and driving a very different workplace and now is the time to groom this cadre for a new work world, which lies ahead. Dawn (2004), Rowh (2007), Smola and Sutton (2002), and Tulgan (2004) have argued that an awareness of the various generations present in today’s workforce and their corresponding stereotypes is becoming increasingly important for organizations. Currently, North America, and particularly Canada, is in a very unique situation: one in which four generations share the workplace (Table I). In the new work world, older, middle-aged, and younger workers share common work responsibilities; however, their personal values, approaches to work duties, communication styles, language, and perceptions of each other may differ greatly. Thus, these differences make conflict in the workplace quite likely; and so it is increasingly important for organizations to be aware of the differences and unique characteristics of each group in order to more effectively manage and recruit a multi-aged workforce. There is general consensus around the different age cohorts in today’s workforce, as shown in Table I. This paper specifically examines the premise that generational differences exist between the four distinct groups of people we call veterans, baby boomers, generation X, and those known as generation Y. Without understanding these differences in values, management strategies and transformation techniques cannot be fully utilized to motivate employees to the full extent of their skills and abilities in order to support

Generation name

Also referred to as

Birth years

Veteran

Baby boomer

Traditionalists Roaring twenties Depression babies World War II Boomers

1922-1946 1946-1966

Generation X

Baby bust generation

1967-1979

Generation Y

Baby boom echo The nexters The millennials

1980-1995

Defining events for the generation Great depression Visit of King George VI World War II Atom bomb Civil rights movement Cold war Cuban missile crisis Vietnam Quebec crisis Women’s rights movement New feminism New conservatism Energy crisis First personal computers Increasing high school violence Celebrity scandals (Clinton, OJ) Increase in diverse families Reality TV Terrorist acts (9/11, government scandals)

shifts in organizational goals and objectives. When the management cadre bridge existing gaps between different work cohorts to improve organizational effectiveness and create a values-based environment that supports divergent employee views and values, it creates a win-win situation for both the organization and the employees alike. Veterans: a generation in question Veteran is the term used by Zemke et al. (2000) to describe the generation born from 1922 to 1946. The life-defining events for this generation include the great depression, the election and death of Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), for Americans. For Canadians it was the 1936 visit of George VI as well as World War II. Other authors, such as Lancaster and Stillman (2002), use the term “Traditionalists” to describe this generation born from 1900 to 1946. Foot and Stoffman (1998), on the other hand, breaks these years into three generations: (1) Roaring twenties – 1920 to 1929. (2) The depression babies – 1929 to 1939. (3) World War II – 1940 to 1946. For the sake of simplicity, the term “veterans” is used in the paper when referring to the generation born before the baby boomers. While the numbers of this cohort are diminishing with age, there are still members who remain active in the workforce. Baby boomer: knowing them A member of the Baby boom generation is one who was born during the rapid increase in birthrate between 1946 and 1966 (Statistics Canada). Their life-defining events include the American civil rights movement, the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam War, the Cold War, and the Quebec crisis. Their attitudes and values include personal growth, ambition and collaboration with their goal being “to put their stamp on things” (Kovary and Buahene, 2005, p. 6). The women’s rights movement became activated in 1963 with the publication of The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, and the concept of equal pay for equal work. Generation X According to Foot and Stoffman (1998, p. 26), generation X is not a separate generation, but rather the concluding stages of the baby boom generation. They state “Newspaper articles, media pundits, and even Statistics Canada often confuse generation X with the baby-bust generation that followed it ‘the Baby Boom generation’”. To be consistent with other literature, this study will accept that generation X and the baby-bust generation are the same. Generation X was born between 1967 and 1979. In the 1960s, there was a decrease in the annual number of births due the increasing involvement of women in the labour force and the commercial introduction of the birth control pill. This decline in births resulted in the smaller generational cohort (Foot and Stoffman, 1998, p. 28). The life-defining events of generation X include the evolution and institutionalization of the women’s rights movement with an emphasis on cultural differences, women’s rights movement, the energy crisis, and the first introduction of personal

The multigenerational workforce! 103

TG 3,2

104

computers (Zemke et al., 2000). Life for generation X was considered better than for the preceding boomer generation. It was easy to attend any university of choice, or find any job due to lack of competitors (Foot and Stoffman, 1998). Generation Y This generation is the children of the baby boomers who were born between 1980 and 1995 (Foot and Stoffman, 1998). In other literature, this generation has been classified using a variety of terminology including “the baby boom echo” (Foot and Stoffman, 1998, p. 30), “the nexters” (Zemke et al., 2000), and “the millennials” (Lancaster and Stillman, 2002). Generation Y is the first generation born into a technologically based world (Smola and Sutton, 2002). They have “[. . .] never known a world without cellular phones, compact discs and video games” (Hatfield, 2002, p. 73). Their lifestyle has been defined by increasing high school violence, and celebrity scandals such as Clinton and OJ, which took away the “hero” image of celebrities. Further defining the generation is an increase of diversity including ethnic, linguistic, non-traditional families, and sexual alignments as well as the change of media to include talk shows, reality TV, and internet where everyone can have their say and even be a star (Paul, 2001). Furthermore, their lives were impacted by terrorist acts such as 9/11 and government scandals (Kovary and Buahene, 2005). Additionally, the Y generation has experienced parents losing their jobs due to restructuring and downsizing. According to Dawn (2004), they grew up with a focus on family, and had lives, which were scheduled and structured. At this point in their lives, Dawn (2004) suggests the Y generation is seeking learning opportunities and challenges. The generational gap is changing organizations Supervisory roles Through interviews with different generations over a period of ten years, Tulgan (2004) discovered that the face of the workforce is changing as a result of generational differences within the four groups. For example, he found long-term employment relationships are decreasing, and that employees prefer short-term rewards in comparison to long-term rewards. Additionally, the majority of interviewees desired immediate pay increases, as well as other incentives to maintain high levels of productivity, morale and retention. Furthermore, he concluded employees relate better to the supervisor, when supervisors spend more time understanding employees, meaning supervisory roles today require more time and skill than in the past to deal with employee-related issues, and represent the face of the organization. Generation Y managing baby boomers Regardless of supervisory age, Zetlin (1992) denotes the generation gap will have to be dealt with by the organization. For example, Zetlin’s research found supervisors from one generation managing another generation (i.e. generation Y managing baby boomers), created a problematic generation gap, which must be bridged. In his influential article, “Young managers face a generation gap”, he notes generation Y managers want to prove that they are capable of performing the functions normally associated with such authoritative positions. However, quite frequently the older subordinate workers are alienated, and thus create a larger generation gap. Zetlin argues that rather than demonstrating they should be in the supervisory position, the Y generation managers

should earn the respect and trust of their subordinates – in other words, “prove themselves.” Zetlin articulates several methods to bridge this generation gap. The first of which is the need to “prove yourself”. This involves instigating an open door policy, communicating with staff on a regular basis, and admitting that you do not have or know all the answers. Second, Zetlin encourages generation Y supervisors to develop confidence and competence to recruit, evaluate, and terminate employees regardless of age and especially in situations when generational respect is an inherent aspect of their personal values. Baby boomers – required beyond retirement Furthermore, according to Dychtwald et al. (2004), the generation gap may last longer than expected in the workplace. These researchers suggest the number of anticipated baby boomer retirements will outstrip supply and organizations will likely face a shortage of talented workers. According to Dychtwald et al. (2004) between 2000 and 2010, the projected number of employees reaching retirement age will increase by 55 percent, whereas the number individuals entering the workforce between 25 and 34 will increase by 8 percent and the number of employed individuals between the ages of 35 and 44 will decrease by 10 percent. With a predicted generation X population smaller than the boomer generation by approximately 10 million people, Fusaro (2001) predicts there will be a lack of workers. Fusaro (2001) further articulated the major crisis for companies will be to find skilled workers if the older workers are not attracted and retained. Thus, it supports the argument that baby boomers are still required in the workforce, both in terms of their experience and competencies. In fact, many large employers have joined Wal-Mart and McDonald’s in explicitly targeting retirees for hiring and include: Days Inn, Disney, Home Shopping Network, and temporary-help firms, such as express services and Kelly services, are making increasing use of senior workers. The Royal Bank of Canada has responded to the aging of both the workforce and its customers by employing its own retirees to sell retirement products (Reingold, 1999, p. 113; Coleman, 1998, p. 21; Hickins, 1999; Raphael, 2000; Goldberg, 2000). Moreover, Dychtwald et al. (2004) alerts us to another challenge with respect to increasing market segmentation as baby boomers age. While no Canadian studies have been completed, in the USA “today’s mature adults control more than 70 percent of the total wealth” (Dychtwald et al., 2004, p. 50) and many organizations cannot afford to lose such a customer base. In view of the aforementioned fact, Dychtwald et al. further argue, “employees are your face to the marketplace. It’s good business to have employees who reflect the age composition of your customer base [. . .]” (Dychtwald et al., 2004, p. 50). As more organizations recognize this shift in the marketplace, they will attempt to retain their cadre of baby boomers employees (Dychtwald et al. 2004, p. 50). This would suggest the generation gap between the Y generation and boomers is not likely to disappear in the near future. Knowing why organizations change While workplace diversity adds depth, breadth, and scope to organizations, it also has the potential to adversely affect individual and group performance, thus creating obstacles, which may impede the attainment of broader organizational goals and bottom line results. For example, older employees are more likely to have a career path

The multigenerational workforce! 105

TG 3,2

106

over a lifetime, generally have a nine to five workday, and be intensely loyal to the organization, dress more conservatively and use language that is markedly different from the younger generations. In comparison, the younger workforce entrants are more likely to make a statement with their work apparel, utilize variable work hours, which correspond to personal needs and social commitments, and demonstrate personal loyalty to career rather than to the organization. In addition, the rapid evolution of technology has given the youngest generations, abilities, and expectations that may have little to do with standard organizational practices. While most experts suggest that these changes will enrich the workplace and can be managed, leadership is critical to creating positive outcomes. However, in order to be successful, these generational differences need to be recognized and understood by all. Working with generational differences According to Smola and Sutton (2002, p. 363), once several generations of employees are in the workforce together managers should be “[. . .] encouraged to deal with generational differences. Failure to do so may cause misunderstandings, miscommunications, and mixed signals.” Organizational culture and conflict With the introduction of generation Y into the workforce, the organizational culture will change. These changes may result in tensions between the baby boomers and generation Y because baby boomers are seen by managers to be resistant to change, unlike the generation Y who is viewed as being willing to embrace and value change (Kunreuther, 2003). Kidwell (2003) suggests introducing continuous quality improvement (CQI), programs which emphasizes empowered decision-making, which will assist in dealing with the changes and the tensions that may occur as a result of organizational change. Although boomers may resist CQI changes in an organization, organizations can take steps to reduce those resistant to change such as “education and communication, participation, negotiation, cooperation, and eventually termination” (Kidwell, 2003, p. 895). The implementation of CQI can be successful if managers use the positive reactions from all employees and lessen the negative reactions. Kunreuther (2003) study revealed the Y generation is more concerned about conflict between work and family as compared to the baby boom generation. Additionally, the generation Y employee is more likely and willing to accept changes within the organizational structure. In comparison, in order for baby boomers to work well together, they must learn to value contributions from their younger generation colleagues, while at the same time be interested and willing to share their valuable experience with others. In other words, baby boom management must reflect their own values while at the same time support the values of generation Y in the workplace. Generational diversity training Harris (2005) states baby boomers may begin to feel resentment toward the younger generation employees who have assumed the right of position ownership. Harris claims the solution to this challenge involves training and education concerning shifting generational changes occurring in the workplace. Furthermore, Harris suggests that organizations utilize a variety of training techniques: classroom, seminars and computer – based training which is interactive and flexible, taking into

account the different learning styles of each generation. He further notes that regardless of the training method, all training programs can provide insight as to what shapes each different generation, their values and work ethics. Thus, he postulates that training everyone in the organization about generational diversity should help the organization run more smoothly as generational differences are understood and become a part of the organizational fabric.

The multigenerational workforce! 107

Motivating all generations Hill (2002) discusses various challenges for baby boomer supervisors in the management of generation Y employees in the workplace. The major challenge, according to Hill, is that baby boomers must recognize the various similarities and differences between themselves and their younger generation work colleagues. The main difference, he argues, is motivation. He notes that while generation Y employees are willing to work as long and as hard as their older counterparts, the baby boomer generation, they are more interested in balancing their work lives with their personal lives. Additionally, Hill (2002) further notes that individual development is very important to Y generation employees and they consider this their evaluation criteria and measure of successful on-the-job performance. To further motivate the generations, Herzberg (1968) suggests using intrinsic motivators such as offering growth, advancement, responsibility, recognition, and achievement to employees. These factors will result in job satisfaction, which will lead to the retention of employees, regardless of their generational cohort. Although, Herzberg (1968) states that to motivate employees, the majority of managers will want to offer an increase in salary, improved working conditions, security, etc. However, he reveals that these hygiene factors will not lead to job satisfaction. Rather the absence of the hygiene factors will result in job dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1968). The motivation-hygiene theory presented by Herzberg “[. . .] suggests that work be enriched to bring about effective utilization of personnel” (Herzberg, 1968, p. 8). When applied to the job, Herzberg (1968, p. 8) affirms that the motivated employees will increase their performance levels, and the liking of their jobs, which will result in lower absenteeism and a higher rate of promotion. Hence, the turnover rate of organizations will decrease. Connecting the generations together Hatfield (2002, p. 72) presents what she terms “the differences of the four generations” and outlines how this gap can be bridged. She notes boomers are expected to “arrive early and leave late [. . .] the longer the day, the higher the pay [. . .] they will use their keen appreciation for democracy and teamwork to form task forces in order to accomplish projects and goals” (p. 72). On the other hand, according to Chester (Hatfield, 2002, p. 73), Y generation employees can be expected to “refuse to blindly conform to traditional standards and time-honoured institutions.” Hatfield (2002) suggests once these differences have become understood, it will be a straightforward process for managers to “manage, motivate, and reward employees accordingly” (Hatfield, 2002, p. 73), thus enabling organizations to bridge the generation gap and move toward a successful organization whose employees have different “talents, values, ideas, and perspectives” (p. 73). Bridging the generation gap, according to Hatfield, involves “providing team sessions, offering regular meetings, and allowing different work arrangements for all employees” (Hatfield, 2002, p. 74). She further notes the sole purpose of team sessions is

TG 3,2

108

to assist staff members develop beneficial working relationships that will assist the organization in the event planning is required or should a crisis arise (p. 74). Furthermore, she advocates that the utilization of a different set of values and beliefs from a variety of generations result in a strong and successful team. For example, she believes this concept can be exploited during regular team meetings to bridge the generation gap if everyone is encouraged to share experiences and ask questions about each other. This understanding, she says, will lead to good working relationships and assist in creating stronger teams (Hatfield, 2002, p. 74). Hatfield (2002, p. 74) states offering flexible work arrangements will benefit all workplace generation employees. Boomers benefit, should they eventually reach burnout and desire a break from their long hours and generation Y employees will appreciate a flexible work arrangement that supports personal choices with respect to their lifestyles. Hatfield also proposes that another way to bridge the generation gap is to offer encouragement and rewards. Since it is unlikely that one reward system will please everyone in the workplace, she notes the importance of ensuring that rewards and encouragement are structured to each individual based on their values and beliefs (Hatfield, 2002, p. 74). For example, an achievement reward could be a choice between time-off or performance bonus payment. With different generations valuing different things, rewards that cater to these values have a significant influencing factor in assisting retention of vital employees. In comparison to younger managers, Zetlin (1992) found older employees view their jobs differently than younger managers. He determined “a younger manager might be concerned with career advancement, future salary and bonuses, while the older worker focused on job security and benefits” (Zetlin, 1992, p. 13). He further suggested younger managers may simply need to understand these differences, and be flexible in their thinking in order to obtain support from baby boomers. He also noted that upper management could support younger managers by allowing these younger managers to hire and fire older employees, evaluate performance in small doses, assign these younger managers an advisor other than their current supervisor – who may be older and who can provide support and assist the younger manager. Thus, employees under younger managers are allowed to take credit for the groups/teams success, which should ensure that these younger managers gain employee trust and cooperation (Zetlin, 1992, p. 12). Additionally, Zetlin (1992) notes that organizational leadership should provide newly promoted younger managers with specific details regarding their promotion to management when a baby boomer has been passed over for promotion in favour of a younger person. In addition to other researchers, Williams (2000) presents several ways to bridge the generation gap and to derive benefits from it. He notes each generation is at a different point in their life; so understanding personal values and attributes of each generation has benefits. For example, baby boomers most likely have a family and, in keeping with generational values, has no issue with working longer hours as compared to married Y generation employees. Conclusions The literature pertaining to generational differences, in particular, baby boomers and generation Y provided some common themes that existed in all areas reviewed. First of

all, there is very limited published academic research focusing on generational differences during the 1990s (Smith, 2001) in general, and with respect to baby boomers and generation Y workforce participants, in particular. Smith (2001) notes, “this sharp shift of journalistic and scholarly attention away from the generation gap means that most discussion of the generation gap is period-bound and lacks perspective.” Thus, there is a need to investigate this issue. By addressing the gap that exists in the current literature, this study has the potential to make a valuable contribution towards understanding generational differences among four generational cohorts currently co existing in the workplace. Within the context of understanding these generational differences and their implications for the workplace, this study adds to the body of knowledge by highlighting the salient and germane dimensions and components found to be important in understanding generational differences, which were supported by the literature review. Within the context of the workplace, an understanding of the literature with respect to the various generations – veterans, baby boomers, generation X, and Y can enable managers within the public sector to effectively tailor and formulate recruitment policies and ongoing human resource programs for these distinctive groups. There is a requirement for these organizations to revise and retool recruitment, retention, and development strategies with respect to the integration of various generations into the workforce environment. These new approaches need to be broader in focus, employee-centered, and collaborative. These approaches will advance the development and growth of individuals as opposed to the narrow focus of the organizational paradigm that is concerned with very specific pre-determined organizational objectives. References Coleman, D.R. (1998), “Baby boom to baby bust: flexible work options for older workers”, Benefits Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 18-28. Dawn, S. (2004), “From one generation to the next”, NZ Business, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 40. Dychtwald, K., Erickson, T. and Morison, B. (2004), “It’s time to retire retirement”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 48-57. Foot, D.K. and Stoffman, D. (1998), Boom Bust & Echo 2000: Profiting from the Demographic Shift in the New Millennium, 2nd ed., Mac-Farlane, Walter & Ross, Toronto. Fusaro, R. (2001), “Needed: experienced workers”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 20-1. Goldberg, B. (2000), Age Works: What Corporate America Must Do to Survive the Graying of the Workforce, Free Press, New York, NY. Harris, P. (2005), “Boomer vs. echo boomer: the work war?”, Training & Development, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 44-50. Hatfield, S.L. (2002), “Understanding the four generations to enhance workplace management”, AFP Exchange, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 72-4. Herzberg, F. (1968), “One more time: how do you motivate employees?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 46, pp. 53-62. Hickins, M. (1999), “The silver solution”, HR Focus, May, p. 1. Hill, R.P. (2002), “Managing across generations in the 21st century: important lessons from the ivory trenches”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 60-6.

The multigenerational workforce! 109

TG 3,2

110

Kidwell, R.E. Jr (2003), “Helping older workers cope with continuous quality improvement”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 No. 10, pp. 890-905. Kovary, G. and Buahene, A. (2005), “Recruiting the four generations”, Canadian HR Reporter, p. R6, May 23, 2005. Kunreuther, F. (2003), “The changing of the guard: what generational differences tell us about social-change organizations”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 450-7. Lancaster, L.C. and Stillman, D. (2002), When Generations Collide: Who They Are. Why They Clash How to Solve the Generational Puzzle at Work, Harper Collins, New York, NY. Paul, P. (2001), “Getting inside Gen Y”, American Demographics, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 42-50. Raphael, T. (2006), “Employers in every industry watch hospitals’ staffing solutions”, Workforce, available at: www.workforce.com/feature/00/05/47 (accessed September 12, 2006). Reingold, J. (1999), “Brain drain”, Business Week, September 20. Rowh, M. (2007), “Managing younger workers”, Office Solutions, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 29-32. Smith, G.P. (2001), Here Today, Here Tomorrow Transforming Your Workforce from High-turnover to High-Retention, Dearborn Trade Publishing, Chicago, IL. Smola, K.W. and Sutton, C.D. (2002), “Generational differences: revisiting generational work values for the new millennium”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 363-82. Tulgan, B. (2004), “Trends point to a dramatic generational shift in the future workforce”, Employment Relations Today, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 23-31. Williams, G. (2000), “Stop-gap measures”, Entrepreneur, September, pp. 89-97. Zemke, R., Raines, C. and Filipczak, B. (2000), Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace, AMACOM, Toronto. Zetlin, M. (1992), “Young managers face a generation gap”, Management Review, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 10-15.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints