Millennials and Technology: Addressing the Communication Gap in Education and Practice

63Gibson and Sodeman

Millennials and Technology: Addressing the Communication Gap in Education and Practice

Lindsey A. Gibson, PhD

+DZDLL�3DFL¿F�8QLYHUVLW\

William A. Sodeman, PhD

D.W. Johnston School of Business

Martin Methodist College

Dr. Lindsey A. Gibson is an Assistant

Professor of Organizational

0DQDJHPHQW� DW� +DZDLL� 3DFL¿F�University where she is also the co-

chair of the MBA program. She

received her Ph.D. in Business Administration with a

concentration in Management from New Mexico State

University. Her research is published in the -RXUQDO�RI� 0DQDJHPHQW� (GXFDWLRQ and in the popular book

'HYLDQW� DQG� &ULPLQDO� %HKDYLRU� LQ� WKH� :RUNSODFH� She

teaches in both the Masters of Organizational Change

DQG� 0%$� SURJUDPV� DW� +DZDLL� 3DFL¿F� 8QLYHUVLW\�

William A. Sodeman is Professor

and Division Chair of Business in the

D.W. Johnston School of Business at

Martin Methodist College in Pulaski,

Tennessee. His research interests

include mentorship, social media, and corporate social

performance. He earned a Ph.D. degree in strategic

management at the University of Georgia, and has taught at the

University of Georgia, Marquette University, the University

RI� 6RXWKHUQ� ,QGLDQD�� DQG� +DZDLL� 3DFL¿F� 8QLYHUVLW\�

Abstract

Technology has transformed how educators teach

and practitioners interact in the business community.

However, research suggests that recent graduates,

ZKLOH� WHFKQRORJLFDOO\� DGHSW�� DUH� GH¿FLHQW� LQ� VRIW�

skills. This article investigates the current makeup

of the millennial generation and the relationship

between millennials and technology. Implications

for Organizational Development (OD) programs

and educators are explored and pedagogical

solutions are presented. The concept of reciprocal

mentoring is offered as a solution for practitioners

to use within organizations.

.H\ZRUGV� technology, millennials,

organizational development, reciprocal mentoring

_______________

Organization Development Journal z Winter 201464

Contact Information:

Lindsey A. Gibson, PhDPhone: (808) 544-0227

FAX: (808) 544-2403

Assistant Professor of Organizational

Management

+DZDLL�3DFL¿F�8QLYHUVLW\1132 Bishop Street, Suite 504-12

Honolulu, HI 96813

Email: [email protected]

��

William A. Sodeman, PhD

Professor of Business

D.W. Johnston School of Business

Martin Methodist College

433 W. Madison St.

Pulaski, TN 38478

Email: [email protected]

The current landscape of knowledge delivery in

higher education has seen remarkable changes from

past decades with a shift from traditional models

to an emphasis on market demands (Friga, Bettis,

& Sullivan, 2003; Jackson & Chapman, 2012;

Navarro, 2008; Pheffer & Fong, 2004; Rynes &

Trank, 1999; Zell 2001; Schomaker, 2008). The

issues affecting the labor market in the United

6WDWHV� DUH� HOHPHQWV� WKDW� VWURQJO\� LQÀXHQFH� KRZ�

and what higher education institutions offer in their

curricula. As technology continues to become

more prevalent in all areas of the job market, higher

education institutions also place a heavy emphasis

on incorporating technological skills into curricula

and classroom delivery.

These changes have strong implications for

Organizational Development (OD) educators and

programs. To remain competitive, OD programs

and educators are forced to either adapt to changing

trends or lose students to competing programs that

have embraced these changes. The question remains:

are current trends in technological knowledge

delivery serving our students well by creating

well rounded graduates and future employees?

Previous research provides some answers to this

question. Sevens (2005, p. 3) reports “High-tech

companies in areas like Silicon Valley value strong

communication skills despite the emphasis on skills

in technology.” This evidence-based statement


provides a foundation for this discussion.

Research on the millennial generation, who

make up the vast majority of today’s traditional

OD students, suggest that technology usage both

in the classroom and through online applications

are one of the best ways to connect with students.

The literature emphatically supports technology

in the classroom and curricula delivery, but with

a constantly connected student body, researchers

question the implications technology has on

students’ abilities to manage themselves and others

effectively in the workplace. Scholars recognize

that because millennials are so comfortable

learning and adapting to technological change,

WKDW� WKH\�DUH�GH¿FLHQW� LQ� VRIW� VNLOOV� �+HUVKDWWHU��

Epstein, 2010; Jackson & Chapman, 2012; Meyers

& Sadaghiani, 2010; Navarro, 2008; Hartman &

0F&DPEULGJH�� 6RIW� VNLOOV� DUH� GH¿QHG� DV�

an individual’s ability to communicate effectively

through both written and oral skills, utilizing critical

thinking and problem solving skills, and building

and maintaining relationships with others (Sahni,

2011). The current emphasis on technology in OD

programs may be pushing aside opportunities for

students to develop the very skills future employers

seek in graduates—the ability to manage people

and relationships through strong leadership and

communication skills.

This article seeks to address three main

objectives. First, the current literature on the

millennial generation is explored. Second,

an investigation of the relationship between

technology usage and the communication ability

of millennial OD students is discussed. Finally,

solutions that allow technology to work in concert

with OD educators and practitioners to improve the

soft skill ability of millennial students are presented

and discussed.

When did students change?

“Kids these days. Just look at them. They’ve got

those headphones in their ears and a gadget in every

hand. They speak in tongues and text in code. They

ZHDU� ÀLS�ÀRSV� HYHU\ZKHUH�� 'RHV� DQ\RQH� UHDOO\�

understand them?”

Eric Hoover,

the Chronicle of Higher Education

(2009, p. 1)

Each generation has its identifying

characteristics that shape their assumptions through

milestone social and cultural events and how

generational members view the world, authority,

and commitment. Baby Boomers (born between

1943-1960) saw many highlights within U.S.

history such as the civil rights movement, the lunar

ODQGLQJ�� DV� ZHOO� DV� ¿UVW�KDQG� NQRZOHGJH� RI� WKH�

social and cultural turmoil concerning the Vietnam

War (Mangold, 2007). Generation X (born

between 1961-1980) saw many changes in family


structure and dynamics with a spike in single parent

households (Gibson, 2009), were major players in

WKH�'HVHUW�6WRUP�&RQÀLFW��.XSSHUVFKPLGW��

and saw new modernizations such as the microwave

oven (Brown, 1997) and MTV. Technological

innovation began to gain speed during this time.

Video games and a single family computer became

the standard in the American household.

Millennials (born between 1981-2000) were

raised during the dot.com boom, and have seen

the development of MP3 players, YouTube, and

smartphones as well as the impact of technology in all

aspects of their lives from healthcare, transportation,

to communication. This generation has been (and

continues to be) greatly shaped by the technological

advances present during their childhood, college

career, and into the workplace. This generation is

known for its ability to multitask and utilize many

technological devices simultaneously. This is a

stark difference from previous generations. In fact,

the differences between millennials and previous

generations are becoming more prevalent within

the workplace (Gibson, 2009) with the biggest

barriers to success including communication and

technology.

Millennials and Technology

“They have grown up with technology, and are

XVHG� WR�KDYLQJ�� DFFHVV� WR� LW��0LOOHQQLDOV� ORYH�

technology so much that half of them would rather

give up their sense of smell than a critical device.”

Russ Warner, Entrepreneur (2013, p. 1)

+XI¿QJWRQSRVW�FRP

Scholars suggest that millennials have “seen

the rise of a pervasive, ever-present connectivity

and access to capture, process, send, and receive

information through multiple devices (wireless

handheld computer, smartphones, PDA-phone

hybrids, and next generation handheld gaming

devices) anytime and anywhere, like never before

(Chelliah & Clarke, 2011, p. 277).” The emergence

of social networking sites such as Facebook,

LinkedIn, Instagram, and Twitter creates an even

more connected millennial generation. A recent

study suggests that 96% of the millennial generation

belong to at least one social network (Childs,

Gingrich, & Piller, 2010). This technological culture

RI� PLOOHQQLDO� VWXGHQWV� LQÀXHQFHV� WKH� ZD\� WKLV�

generation approaches higher education, what they

demand of curricula, as well as how knowledge is

transferred (Kirkwood & Price, 2005). Millennials

expect technology to play a large role in the

learning process by allowing access to vast areas

of informational sources to be incorporated into the

actual delivery of knowledge through multimedia

modes with an emphasis on entertainment during

the learning process (Franz, 1998; Gardner, 2006;

Chelliah & Clarke, 2011).


Is Technology the Achilles Heel of Millennials?

“Most Gen Y-ers [millennials] do not recognize

that how they communicate affects how they are

perceived in the workplace”

Jason Ryan Dorsey,

Gen Y speaker and author of the

bestselling book Y-Size Your %XVLQHVV�(2013, p. 1)

� ,Q�UHVHDUFK�LQYHVWLJDWLQJ�WKH�VSHFL¿F�VNLOOV�DQG�

knowledge needed for student success in the 21st

century, Miles & Wilson (2004) note that technical

competency is a necessary skill for our graduates.

What is surprising, however, is that technological

savviness is not the only major skill necessary

QRU� LV� LW� WKH� PRVW� LPSRUWDQW�� 7KH\� LGHQWL¿HG� D�

large number of skills including communication,

problem-solving, interpersonal, critical thinking,

and personal skills. Even more surprising,

research from the United States, India, United

Kingdom, Australia, Malaysia, Japan, Singapore,

DQG� +RQJ� .RQJ� UHFRJQL]H� VHYHUH� GH¿FLHQFLHV� RI�

new employees in executing soft skills. These

GH¿FLHQFLHV�DUH�QRW�GLVFLSOLQH�VSHFL¿F��7KH\�VSDQ�

many different industries such as engineering,

business, agriculture, and software development

(Zaharim, Yusoff, Omar, Mohamed, & Muhamad,

2009; Jackson, 2009; Cole & Thompson, 2002;

Sahni, 2011; Begel & Simon, 2008; Wharton,

2002; Tanyel, Mitchell, & McAlum, 1999). From

FXUUHQW� UHVHDUFK�� LW� DSSHDUV� WKDW� EHLQJ� SUR¿FLHQW�

LQ� WHFKQRORJ\� LV� D� QHFHVVDU\� EXW� QRW� VXI¿FLHQW�

foundation for success in current organizations.

Are we teaching what students need to know?

“Successful careers require the ability to

communicate effectively both orally and in writing;

these critical competencies will become more

YDOXDEOH� DV� WHFKQRORJ\� LQWHQVL¿HV� WKH� VLJQL¿FDQW�

role of messages in the workplace.”

Betsy Stevens (2005, p. 2)

Technology will only continue to advance at

an exponential rate; its integration into everyday

business functions will establish technology as a

major form of communicating between individuals

and work units along with external individuals

and organizations. If issues with soft skills are

not addressed now, future generations will only

DGG�IXHO� WR� WKLV�¿UH�� 6HYHQV��FRQWHQGV� WKDW�

success on the job is contingent upon an individual’s

ability to express and articulate ideas, input, and

feedback clearly. While the current generation of

OD students prefer to communicate in a language

of text messaging slang with its own acronyms and

symbols, it is imperative for educators to provide

them with the all the necessary tools to build career

success through professionally honed verbal and

written communication skills.

Accrediting bodies such as AACSB International


(Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of

Business) and ACBSP (Accreditation Council

for Business Schools and Programs) established

VWDQGDUGV� WR� DGGUHVV� WKLV� LQVXI¿FLHQF\� LQ� FXUUHQW�

curricula (Stowe, Parent, Schwartz, & Sendall,

�� 7KH� LQWHQWLRQ� RI� HVWDEOLVKLQJ� VSHFL¿F�

standards by accrediting bodies is to make business

schools receptive to the desires of employers.

Research back from the early 1990s even recognize

that business schools attempt to address the needs

of the business community, but there still appears

to be a disconnect between the skills that graduates

acquire and what employers feel they are capable of

doing on the job (Aiken & Martin, 1994). Greenan,

Humphreys & McIlveen (1997) suggest that trends

in higher education should focus upon a skill-based

approach to knowledge transfer. This premise

supports what employers are looking for: graduates

that can effectively interact with colleagues and

clients through many forms of communication.

The establishment of standards of excellence is

a step in the right direction toward addressing the

soft skills gap in current curricula. However, there

DUH� SUHVVXUHV� IURP�PDQ\�GLUHFWLRQV� WKDW� LQÀXHQFH�

the decision process of determining what is taught

in the classroom. Program rankings are one of the

major pressures (Gioia & Corley, 2002). These

often highly publicized rankings make schools

compete for the most recognition, often tailoring

to the desires of students rather than the necessities

for success in order to attract prospective students.

Alumni and organizational donations are another

major pressure. These donations, while highly

ZHOFRPHG�� FDQ� LQÀXHQFH� WKH� W\SH� RI� NQRZOHGJH�

conveyed to students. For example, Google has

generously donated funds to many universities while

also instructing how the funds will be used (Hartley,

2011). Microsoft similarly followed suit in 2013 by

donating 1.7 million dollars to the University of

Washington by designating that the funds be used

for studying technology’s role in policy making

as well as R & D for new technological devices

(Bishop, 2013). Higher education institutions are

WKHQ�IRUFHG�WR�LQFRUSRUDWH�VSHFL¿F�NQRZOHGJH�LQWR�

core courses, possibly at the risk of eliminating

essential soft skills training.

How can OD educators help millennials

be successful?

The biggest challenge facing OD programs

today is creatively addressing the issue of

emphasizing soft skills in a highly technological

environment. In the New Media Consortium

(NMC) Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education

Edition, many scholars recognize that one of the

many barriers to implementing change into our

FODVVURRPV� LV� WKH� GH¿FLHQW� WHFKQRORJLFDO� DELOLW\�

of a large percentage of faculty (Johnson, Becker,

Estrada, & Freeman, 2014). This issue may even


be creating a larger divide between faculty and

millennial students effectively interacting with each

other. Both educators and students PXVW�VSHDN�WKH�

VDPH�ODQJXDJH for effective learning to take place.

One of the exciting aspects of utilizing

technology in OD programs is the possibility that

technology can actually be used to help millennial

students develop necessary soft skills. While the use

of online platforms such as Canvas or Blackboard

are not new in OD programs, current research by

Bowen, Chingos, Lack, & Nygren (2013) found

that online learning is just as effective as traditional

face-to-face methods. This is an encouraging

perspective as online classes grow in demand.

To help address technological changes, the

2014 Horizon Report outlines possible solutions for

educators to implement that will improve student

success while utilizing current technology. First,

WKH� FRQFHSW� RI� WKH� ÀLSSHG� FODVVURRP� LV� UHODWLYHO\�

new in the literature but is gaining momentum from

VXFFHVV�QRWHG�E\�VWXGHQWV�� 7KH�ÀLSSHG�FODVVURRP�

is a concept where class time is utilized for student

collaboration and problem-solving assignments

instead of a traditional lecture. Lectures and

supplemental materials can be recorded and

uploaded for students to view on their own time.

,QVWUXFWRUV� FDQ� VSHFL¿FDOO\� FKRRVH� DVVLJQPHQWV�

WKDW�DUH�GLI¿FXOW��DQG�KLV�KHU�UROH�LQ�WKH�FODVVURRP�

becomes that of a coach. The instructor then leads

the students on a journey of guided discovery.

2'� LQVWUXFWRUV� FDQ� FKRRVH� VSHFL¿F� DVVLJQPHQWV�

WKDW�DOORZ�VWXGHQWV� WR�ZRUN�RQ�VSHFL¿F�VRIW�VNLOOV��

those that enhance collaboration, communication,

and problem solving. The particular appeal of

this solution to instructors is its relative ease

of implementation. Instructors have noted that

PLQLPDO� ZRUN� LV� UHTXLUHG� WR� HQJDJH� WKH� ÀLSSHG�

classroom method into their courses.

Another possible way for educators to

speak the millennial language is the concept of

JDPL¿FDWLRQ�� &XUUHQW� VWDWLVWLFV� VKRZ� WKDW� WKH�

majority of people (68%) who consider themselves

“gamers” are under the age of thirty (Johnson, et

DO�� S�� *DPL¿FDWLRQ� LV� D� SKHQRPHQRQ�

that takes game-like elements and integrates it into

traditional frameworks. Recreational examples of

JDPL¿FDWLRQ� FDQ� EH� VHHQ� LQ� PRELOH� DSSOLFDWLRQV�

(apps) such as the Starbucks app, where users

can track their purchases and earn points for free

goods; the WeightWatchers app where users can

see the calories they have consumed and make

healthier food choices; and Waze, a GPS app that

lets drivers and passengers use and provide updated

WUDI¿F�LQIRUPDWLRQ��7KH�XVH�RI�JDPL¿FDWLRQ�LQ�2'�

programs can help improve motivation and interest

in students.

How can OD practitioners help millennial

employees be successful?


organizations. The idea of reverse mentoring

was extended to reciprocal mentoring by Harvey,

McIntyre, Heames, & Moeller (2009): where an

ROGHU� RUJDQL]DWLRQDO� PHQWRU� FDQ� VKDUH� VSHFL¿F�

knowledge with a younger mentee and vice

versa. This concept is particularly applicable to

OD professionals and millennials. A reciprocal

PHQWRULQJ� UHODWLRQVKLS� LV� PXWXDOO\� EHQH¿FLDO� WR�

both parties. Each individual is able to gain new

knowledge while teaching another the skills they

possess. The organizational mentor is able to

teach the millennial employee proper business

communication and etiquette, verbal presentations

skills and tips, as well as institutional knowledge.

The millennial employee can help teach colleagues

on effective uses of cutting edge technology. This

FDQ� EHQH¿W� WKH� RUJDQL]DWLRQ� LQ�PXOWLSOH� IDFHWV�� DV�

ZHOO� DV� GHPRQVWUDWLQJ� ÀH[LELOLW\� DQG� DGDSWDELOLW\��

Figure 1.1 shows a reciprocal mentoring relationship

as it relates to an organizational mentor and a

millennial mentee.

What does the future hold?

The 2014 Horizon Report forecasts trends

in technology and how they will impact higher

HGXFDWLRQ� LQ� WKH� QH[W� WKUHH� WR� ¿YH� \HDUV�� 0DQ\�

of these trends, such as training faculty for

stronger technological skills, new pedagogical

PHWKRGRORJLHV� OLNH� WKH� ÀLSSHG� FODVVURRP� DQG�

JDPL¿FDWLRQ��DV�ZHOO�DV�DGDSWDELOLW\�WR�HYHU�FKDQJLQJ�

Educators and millennial students must speak

the same “language” in order for effective learning

to take place. The same concept applies to OD

practitioners working with millennial employees.

Research suggests mentorship would be a viable

solution to the communication gap between OD

practitioners and millennial employees, however,

traditional mentoring practices will be less effective

in connecting with millennials. The concept of

virtual mentoring is emerging, and is one that

resonates well with the millennial generation.

Emelo (2011) recognizes that millennials see

mentorship as a method of learning rather than

career advancement. Creating a virtual exchange

where employees can pose questions and ask for

DGYLFH�� DQG� DQ\RQH� ZLWK� WKH� VSHFL¿F� NQRZOHGJH�

can respond, creates a safe environment of idea

exchange as well as making knowledge available

around the clock.

Reverse mentoring is another concept gaining

popularity with the millennial generation. Instead

of traditional mentoring models where an older,

more experienced individual imparts knowledge on

a young individual, reverse mentoring occurs when

a younger individual teaches an older organizational

PHPEHU�VSHFL¿F�VNLOOV��VXFK�DV�XWLOL]LQJ�VRFLDO�PHGLD�

or technology. Murphy (2012) and Chaudhuri &

Ghosh (2012) found that reverse mentoring actually

encourages cross-generational relationships within


needs future empirical testing to ensure the validity

of this mentoring method as it applies to millennial

mentees. More research is also needed to investigate

ZD\V� WHFKQRORJ\� FDQ� FRQWLQXH� WR� EH� EHQH¿FLDO� LQ�

the higher education classroom and in the corporate

boardroom.

~~~~~~~~~~

technology are addressed here. However, to gain

a better understanding of what the future holds for

future generations, we must look at the students

currently enrolled in K-12. While this generation

KDV�QRW�RI¿FLDOO\�EHHQ�QDPHG��D�+DUYDUG�%XVLQHVV�

Review article by Howe & Strauss (2007) forecasts

a positive future for those born between 2005-2025.

While millennials have struggled to communicate

effectively within the business community, this next

generation may take the leadership reins from the

millennials. Technology has been integrated into

the grade school classroom to form collaborative

programs in ways the millennials never dreamed.

It will be the job of higher education to continually

meet the technological needs of this upcoming

generation. The model of reciprocal mentoring

Figure 1: %HQH¿WV�RI�D�UHFLSURFDO�PHQWRULQJ�UHODWLRQVKLS�ZLWK�millennials


divide? 2Q�7KH�+RUL]RQ��(4), 276-285.

Childs, R. D., Gingrich, G., & Piller, M. (2009).

The future workforce: Gen Y has a r r i v e d

3XEOLF�0DQDJHU��8(4), 21.

Cole, L., & Thompson, G. (2002). Satisfaction of

Agri-business employers with college graduates

they have hired. 1$&7$�-RXUQDO��(1), 34-39.

Dorsey, J. R. (2013). Quotation retrieved from

KWWS��EORJ�PDUNHWZLUHG�FRP��

JHQHUDWLRQ�\�FRPPXQLFDWLRQ�EOXQGHUV�

Emelo, R. (2011). What if millennials ran your

mentoring program? &KLHI� /HDUQLQJ� 2I¿FHU��

10(5), 32-36.

Franz, R. S. (1998). Whatever you do, don’t

treat your students like customers! -RXUQDO� RI�

0DQDJHPHQW�(GXFDWLRQ��(1), 63-69.

Friga, P.N., Bettis, R. A., & Sullivan, R. S. (2003).

Changes in graduate management education

and new business school strategies for the 21st

century. $FDGHP\� RI� 0DQDJHPHQW� /HDUQLQJ�

DQG�(GXFDWLRQ��(3), 233-249.

Gardner, S. F. (2006). Preparing for the Nexters.

American -RXUQDO� RI� 3KDUPDFHXWLFDO�

(GXFDWLRQ��(4), 87-87.

Gibson, S. E. (2009). ENHANCING:

intergenerational communication in the

classroom: Recommendations for successful

teacher-student relationships. 1XUVLQJ�HGXFDWLRQ�

perspectives, 30(1), 37-39.

References

Aiken, M. W., & Martin, J. S. (1994). Requisite

skills of business school graduates: Perceptions

of senior corporate executives. -RXUQDO� RI�

(GXFDWLRQ�IRU�%XVLQHVV��(3), 159.

Begel, A., & Simon, B. (2008). Struggles of

QHZ� FROOHJH� JUDGXDWHV� LQ� WKHLU� ¿UVW� VRIWZDUH�

development job. 3URFHHGLQJV� RI� WKH� ��WK�

6,*&6(� WHFKQLFDO� V\PSRVLXP� RQ� FRPSXWHU�

VFLHQFH�HGXFDWLRQ� 226-230.

Bishop, T. (2013). Can policy keep up with

technology? New UW lab gets 1.7 million from

0LFURVRIW�� KWWS��ZZZ�JHHNZLUH�FRP��

policy-technology-uw-creates- lab-17m

PLFURVRIW�

Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., Lack, K. A., &

Nygren, T. I. (2013). Interactive learning online

at public universities: Evidence from a six-

campus randomized trial. -RXUQDO� RI� 3ROLF\�

$QDO\VLV�DQG�0DQDJHPHQW��(1), 94–111.

Brown, B. L. (1997). New learning strategies for

generation X. (5,&�'LJHVW�1R��

Chaudhuri, S., & Ghosh, R. (2012). Reverse

mentoring: a social exchange tool for keeping

theboomers engaged and millennials committed.

+XPDQ� 5HVRXUFH� 'HYHORSPHQW� 5HYLHZ��(1),

55-76.

Chelliah, J. & Clarke, E. (2011). Collaborative

teaching and learning: Overcoming the digital


stereotyping students became a thriving industry

and a bundle of contradictions. Retrieved from

WKH� &KURQLFOH� RI� +LJKHU� (GXFDWLRQ� DW� KWWS��

FKURQLFOH�FRP�DUWLFOH�7KH�0LOOHQQLDO�0XGGOH�

+RZ��

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). The next 20

years: how customer and workforce attitude

will evolve. +DUYDUG�%XVLQHVV�5HYLHZ��

41-52.

-DFNVRQ�� '�� $Q� LQWHUQDWLRQDO� SUR¿OH� RI�

industry-relevant competencies and skill gaps

in modern graduates. ,QWHUQDWLRQDO�-RXUQDO�RI�

0DQDJHPHQW�(GXFDWLRQ��(3), 29-58.

Jackson, D. & Chapman, E. (2012). Non-technical

skill gaps in Australian business graduates.

(GXFDWLRQ��7UDLQLQJ��

Johnson, L., Becker, S., Estrada, V. & Freeman, A.

2014. Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education.

Austin, TX: NMC.

Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2005). Learners and

OHDUQLQJ� LQ� WKH� WZHQW\�¿UVW� FHQWXU\��:KDW� GR�

we know about students’ attitudes towards and

experiences of information and communication

technologies that will help us design courses?

6WXGLHV�LQ�+LJKHU�(GXFDWLRQ��(3), 257-274.

Kupperschmidt, B. (1998). Understanding

generation X employees. 7KH� -RXUQDO� RI�

1XUVLQJ�$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ��(12), 36-43.

Mangold, K. (2007). Educating a new generation:

Gioia, D. A., & Corley, K. G. (2002). Being good

versus looking good: Business school rankings

and the circean transformation from substance

to image. $FDGHP\�RI�0DQDJHPHQW�/HDUQLQJ�

DQG�(GXFDWLRQ��(1), 107-120.

Greenan, K., Humphreys, P., & McIlveen, H.

(1997). Developing transferable personal

skills: part of the graduate toolkit. (GXFDWLRQ��

7UDLQLQJ��(2), 71-78.

Hartley, M. (2011). Google unveils new research

IXQGLQJ� IRU� 8QLYHUVLW\� RI� :DWHUORR�� KWWS��

EXVLQHVV�¿QDQFLDOSRVW�FRP��JRRJOH�

unveils-new-research-funding-foruniversity-of-

ZDWHUORR�"BBOVD ��GE

Hartman, J. L. & McCambridge, J. (2011).

Optimizing millennials’ communication styles.

%XVLQHVV�&RPPXQLFDWLRQ�4XDUWHUO\��(1), 22-

44.

Harvey, M., McIntyre, N., Heames, J. T., & Moeller,

M. (2009). Mentoring global female managers

in the global marketplace: Traditional, reverse,

and reciprocal mentoring. The International

-RXUQDO� RI� +XPDQ� 5HVRXUFH� 0DQDJHPHQW��

20(6), 1344-1361.

Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials

and the world of work: An organizational and

management perspective. -RXUQDO�RI�%XVLQHVV�

Psychology, 25, 211-223.

Hoover, E. (2009). The millennial muddle: How


Teaching baby boomer faculty about millennial

students. 1XUVH�(GXFDWRU��(1), 21-23.

Meyers, K.K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials

and the workplace: A communication perspective

on millennials’ organizational relationships and

performance. -RXUQDO�RI�%XVLQHVV�3V\FKRORJ\��

25, 225-238.

Miles, C. L., & Wilson, C. (2004). Learning

RXWFRPHV� IRU� WKH� WZHQW\�¿UVW� FHQWXU\��

Cultivating student success for college and

the knowledge economy. 1HZ�'LUHFWLRQV� IRU�

&RPPXQLW\�&ROOHJHV�� 87-100.

Murphy, W. M. (2012). Reverse mentoring at

work: Fostering cross-generational learning

and developing millennial leaders. +XPDQ�

5HVRXUFH�0DQDJHPHQW��(4), 549-574.

Navarro, P. (2008). The MBA core curricula of

top-ranked U.S. business schools: A study in

failure? $FDGHP\� RI� 0DQDJHPHQW� /HDUQLQJ�

DQG�(GXFDWLRQ��(1), 108-123.

Pfeffer, J. & Fong, C. T. (2004). The business

schools ‘business’: Some lessons from the US

experience. -RXUQDO� RI� 0DQDJHPHQW� 6WXGLHV��

41(8), 1501-1520.

Rynes, S. L. & Trank, C. Q. (1999). Behavioral

science in the business school curriculum:

Teaching in a changing institutional

environment. $FDGHP\�RI�0DQDJHPHQW�5HYLHZ��

24(4), 808-824.

Sahni, L. (2011). The impact of soft skill training

induction programme on new entrants.

0DQDJHPHQW�(GJH��(2), 40-47.

Schoemaker, P.J.H. (2008). The future challenges

of business: Rethinking management education.

&DOLIRUQLD� 0DQDJHPHQW� 5HYLHZ�� (3), 119-

139.

Stevens, B. (2005). What communication skills

do employers want? Silicon Valley recruiters

respond. -RXUQDO� RI� (PSOR\PHQW� &RXQVHOLQJ��

42(1), 2-9.

Stowe, K., Schwartz, L., Parent, J., & Sendall, P.

(2010). Are business school students prepared

to present? The pedagogy of presentation skills

in business schools. -RXUQDO�RI�WKH�$FDGHP\�RI�

%XVLQHVV�(GXFDWLRQ��

Tanyel, F., Mitchell, M. A., & McAlum, H. G.

(1999). The skill set of success of new business

school graduates: Do prospective employers and

university faculty agree? -RXUQDO�RI�(GXFDWLRQ�

IRU�%XVLQHVV��(1), 33-37.

Warner, R. (2013) 0LOOHQQLDO�ZRUNHUV��8QGHUVWDQG�

WKHP�RU�ORVH�WKHP��5HWULHYHG�IURP�KXI¿QJWRQSRVW�

FRP�� KWWS��ZZZ�KXI¿QJWRQSRVW�FRP�UXVV�

ZDUQHU�PLOOHQQLDOV�MREVBEB��KWPO�

Wharton, G. (2002). Faculty perceptions of

communication skills and needs of business

school undergraduates in Singapore. %XVLQHVV�

&RPPXQLFDWLRQ�4XDUWHUO\��(4), 39-59.


Zaharim, A., Yusoff, Y. M., Omar, M. Z., Mohamed,

A., Muhamad, N. (2009). Engineering

employability skills required by employers

in Asia. 3URFHHGLQJV� RI� WKH� �WK� :6($6�

International Conference on Engineering

(GXFDWLRQ�

Zell, D. (2001). The market-driven business school:

Has the pendulum swung too far? -RXUQDO� RI�

0DQDJHPHQW�,QTXLU\��(4), 324-338.

FzG

Millennials and Technology: Addressing the Communication Gap in Education and Practice

Documents

Transcript of Millennials and Technology: Addressing the Communication Gap in Education and Practice