Rita Yuni Mulyanti, Ernie Tisnawati Sule, Maman Kusman, Hilmiana (2016) Employee Engagement On Multiple Generations
Employee engagement is known as a concept that describes the emotional and intellectual condition of an employee in the organization ( Richman, 2006). Markos and Sridevi found that employee engagement is a strong predictor of positive organizational performance and shows a bidirectional relationship between employers and workers . Employee engagement shows an emotional attachment to th e organization and work so that employees can work with great enthusiasm. The statement was supported by Sundaray (2011) which states that attention to employee engagement will enhance organizational effectiveness in terms of employee productivity, profita bility, retain employees, customer satisfaction and adaptability.Gallup found that there is difference level of engagement between generations . Baby boomers tend to be more engaged than the younger generation (generation X and Y). That fact gives an im portant signal for the company's leaders to understand well each of the traits and behaviors of generations in companies they lead.This article aims to understand the level of Baby Boomers, X - ers and Y - ers engagement based on their characteristics. This ar ticle was compiled through the study and review of the literature relevant to the characteristics of the generation and engagement. Based on the literature review showed that the characteristics of the generation in the workplace that includes the meaning of the work, the view of the authorities, work - life balance, and the recognation the level of employee engagement. The difference can be used as a basis for corporate leaders to make policy or approach in improving employee engagement. It can be concluded that the characteristics possessed by each generation can affect the level of their engagement.
Keywords: generation differences, generation characteristics, engagement, workplace
 Anantatmula, V.S., & Shrivastav, B. (2012). Evolution of Project Teams for Generation Y Workforce . International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 5 1 : 9 - 2 6.  Aon Hewitt. 2014. 2014 Trends in Global Employee Engagement. Aon Hewitt  Cennamo dan Gardner, 2008. Generational Differences In Work Values, Outcomes And Person - Organisation Values Fit . Journal of Managerial Psychology. Vol. 23 pp. 891 - 906.  Costanza, David P. Jessica M. Badger, Rebecca L. Fraser, Jamie B. Severt, Paul A. 2012. Generational Differences in Work - Related Attitudes : A Meta Analysis. J Bus Psychol (2012) 27:375 – 394.  Gallup. 2013 . State of the Global Workplace . Gallup Handa, Meenakshi and Aastha Gulati. Employee Engagement Does Individual Personality Matte r. Journal of Management Research Vol. 14, No. 1, Jan. – March 2014, pp. 57 – 67.  Luntungan, Hubeis, Sunarti dan Maulana. 2014. Strategi Pengelolaan Generasi Y di Industri Perbankan . Jurnal Manajemen Teknologi Vol.13 | No.2.  Macey and Benjamin Schneider. 2008. The Meaning of Employee Engagement . Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1 (2008), 3 – 30.  Marcos, S and Sandhya Sridevi. 2010. Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance . International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 5, No. 12.  Par k, Jeongdoo dan Dogan Gursoy. 2012. Generation Effect on Work Engagement among U.S Hotel Employees . International Journal of Hospitality Management 31, 1195 – 1202.  Zemke, Ron, Raines and Filipczak. 2000. Generations At Work : Managing The Clash Of Vete rans, Boomers, Xers, And Nexters In Your Workplace . American Management Association, 1601 Broadway, New York, NY 10019.  Jora R. Bansal and Khanz Sanober. 2014. Motivating multigenerational human resource. International Journal of Organizational Behavior a nd Management Perspectives © Pezzottaite Journals, Volume 3, Number 4, October - December '2014 ISSN (Print): 2279 - 0950 (Online): 2279 to 0969  Murphy Jr., EF, Gibson, JW, & Greenwood, RA (2010). Analyzing generational value among managers and non - managers f or sustainable organizational effectiveness. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 75 (1), 33 - 43.