The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

Accountability, entitlement, Accountability,

entitlement,
tenure, and satisfaction tenure, and
satisfaction
in Generation Y
Mary Dana Laird 87
Department of Management and Marketing, Collins College of Business, Received 15 October 2013
The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA Revised 10 February 2014
28 March 2014
Paul Harvey Accepted 6 June 2014
Management Department, Peter T. Paul College of Business and Economics,
University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA, and
Jami Lancaster
Department of Energy Management, Oklahoma City University,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Given the entitlement and job mobility associated with Generation Y, the purpose of this
paper is to investigate the moderating effects of psychological entitlement and tenure on the felt
accountability-job satisfaction relationship.
Design/methodology/approach – Survey data from a sample of resident assistants were examined
using hierarchical moderated regression analysis.
Findings – Entitled employees responded to accountability favorably, demonstrating lower job
satisfaction than non-entitled employees when accountability was low, but nearly equal levels when
accountability was high. All participants reported higher job satisfaction when job tenure was lower,
but entitlement-driven satisfaction differences were observed only when accountability was low.
Research limitations/implications – Cross-sectional data warrants longitudinal replication to
establish causation and to give insight into how much time must pass before accountability begins
to reduce the negative effects of entitlement.
Practical implications – Findings suggest that managerial tactics that increase employees’ felt
accountability could reduce the negative impact of psychological entitlement on job attitudes and
related outcomes.
Originality/value – Using a unique sample of Generation Y employees, the results provide an indication
of how supervisors from earlier generations can improve the workplace attitudes of younger workers.
Keywords Tenure, Entitlement, Job satisfaction, Felt accountability,
Conservation of resources theory
Paper type Research paper

In an attempt to attract, motivate, and retain employees from Generation Y, organizational

leaders and managers must consider these individuals’ differing assumptions and
expectations about work. Generation Y, which includes people born between 1980 and
2000, consists of approximately 140 million Europeans, 76 million Americans, and 6.9
million Canadians (Eisner, 2005; Foot and Stoffman, 1998). Given this cohort’s magnitude,
organizations often find they have little choice but to adapt to their younger employees’
unique characteristics (Alsop, 2008).
Many of these individuals were raised under child-centric parental and educational Journal of Managerial Psychology
philosophies that encouraged the development and protection of self-image (Holt et al., Vol. 30 No. 1, 2015
pp. 87-100
2012; Twenge et al., 2012). Recently, this approach has been blamed for an increase in © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
self-centered attitudes because it emphasized instilling self-esteem, but did not always DOI 10.1108/JMP-08-2014-0227
JMP link this esteem to skill development (Twenge and Campbell, 2001). Corroborating
30,1 research suggests that Generation Y is characterized by high self-esteem and self-
centeredness (Holt et al., 2012).
Possibly because of the “trophies for all” mentality associated with Generation Y,
many members have difficulty comprehending that their efforts may result in failure
(Alexander and Sysko, 2011). Recent research found that an ethnically diverse sample of
88 Generation Y university students demonstrated a sense of entitlement to good grades
that was unrelated to their academic abilities (Greenberger et al., 2008). In addition, Ng
et al. (2010) argued that “many of the career goals and expectations from (Generation Y)
are ‘supersized,’ unrealistic, and disconnected between reward and performance” (p. 282).
They supported their argument by showing no relationship between GPA and promotion
expectations in a sample of 24,000 Canadian undergraduates.
Generation Y also appears to be emulating Generation X’s frequent employment
changes. According to the Ethics Resource Center’s (2010) report, Generation Y is twice
as likely as Generation X and three times as likely as Baby Boomers to consider leaving
a job within one year. Similarly, Ng et al. (2010) found that half of their sample of
Generation Y undergraduates did not want, or did not know if they wanted, to find
long-term employment. This mentality partially might explain the short average tenure
of 3.2 years for Generation Y vs 10.3 years for individuals 55 and older (US Department
of Labor Statistics, 2013).
Given the entitlement and mobility associated with Generation Y, organizations may
question how younger employees perceive accountability mechanisms that link
performance to rewards. Stress research suggests that individuals respond differently
to accountability (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Lanivich et al., 2010) and we believe that
entitlement might affect these responses. In particular, we expect that entitled
employees will initially view accountability as an opportunity to receive favorable
evaluations and fulfill their reward expectations (Naumann et al., 2002). As tenure
increases and they receive more negative feedback and fewer rewards than initially
expected, however, entitled employees may come to view accountability as a hindrance
stressor that threatens their coping resources. This possibility led us to examine the
interactive effects of psychological entitlement and job tenure on the accountability-job
satisfaction relationship in a sample of Generation Y resident assistants (RAs).
A goal of this study is to add to the growing body of research that frames
accountability as a workplace stressor and to do so with a unique generational cohort.
We chose a sample of RAs because this occupation generally limits job tenure to four
years, allowing us to study a range of tenure that is consistent with Generation Y’s
aforementioned average of 3.2 years. These employees also can provide insight into
how felt accountability affects young and/or entitled employees’ attitudes. Ultimately,
this information can help organizations develop and present accountability mechanisms
in ways that facilitate younger employees’ job satisfaction, thus decreasing turnover
(Hulin and Judge, 2003) and its related costs in a group that embraces job mobility.

Entitlement and Generation Y

Although it is unfair to paint an entire generation with one brushstroke, data consistently
show that average entitlement levels are high among Generation Y members. For
example, a large empirical study found that a generalized sense of entitlement had
increased slightly from 1996 to 2007 (Trzesniewski et al., 2008). Greenberger et al. (2008)
also reported a 300 percent increase in newspapers’ use of “sense of entitlement” during a
similar time frame (1996-2006).
 An inflated sense of entitlement, or psychological entitlement, is “a stable tendency Accountability,
toward highly favorable self-perceptions and a tendency to feel deserving of high levels entitlement,
of praise and reward, regardless of actual performance levels” (Harvey and Harris, 2010,
p. 1640). Twenge et al. (2012) examined self-perceptions of academic ability, writing skill,
tenure, and
self-confidence, and leadership potential among 6.5 million US undergraduates between satisfaction
1966 and 2009. The authors found that Generation Y members rated themselves more
favorably than previous generations, but consistent with the aforementioned definition of 89
entitlement, scored worse on aptitude tests. A meta-analysis by Twenge et al. (2008) also
observed an increase in narcissism among members of Generation Y, again suggesting a
generational shift toward inflated self-perceptions.
Heightened entitlement can be problematic in the workplace. In particular,
research has associated the construct with conflict, abusive behavior, job frustration,
and low job satisfaction levels (Harvey and Harris, 2010; Harvey and Martinko, 2009).
Although entitlement and felt accountability each have been directly linked to the
latter outcome, we expect the two variables also will interact to affect job satisfaction
as we discuss below.

Accountability
In most organizations rewards are tied to performance appraisal, which is one part of a
formal accountability system. Counter intuitively, employees with similar demands and
expectations often report different levels of accountability (Hochwarter et al., 2007).
This has led many researchers to adopt a phenomenological perspective, which views
accountability as a subjective interpretation of reality rather than an objective condition
(Frink and Klimoski, 1998). Felt accountability, which assesses a subjective evaluation of
objective accountability mechanisms, is defined as “an implicit or explicit expectation
that one’s decisions or actions will be subject to evaluation by some salient audience(s)
with the belief that there exists the potential for one to receive either rewards or sanctions
based on this expected evaluation” (Hall et al., 2003, p. 33).
Felt accountability has been linked to desirable employee outcomes like motivation
(Enzele and Anderson, 1993), attention to others’ needs (Fandt, 1991), citizenship behavior
(Hall et al., 2003), job performance (Hochwarter et al., 2007), and job satisfaction (Thoms
et al., 2002). However, the potential for a “dark side” to accountability also exists (Frink
and Klimoski, 1998, p. 4). In particular, research has found felt accountability to be
negatively associated with helpfulness (Adelberg and Batson, 1978) and pro-social
behavior (Mitchell et al., 1998) and positively associated with wasted resources (Adelberg
and Batson, 1978) and politically motivated behavior that may divert employees from
work tasks (Fandt and Ferris, 1990).
In order to reconcile these findings, we look to conservation of resource (COR) theory
(Hobfoll, 1988, 1989) and recent research that has framed felt accountability as a stressor
that affects strains like job satisfaction, job tension (Laird et al., 2009), emotional labor (Hall
et al., 2003), depressed mood (Hochwarter et al., 2007), and organizational commitment
(Lanivich et al., 2010). Accountability can be framed either as a hindrance stressor, which
prevents goal accomplishment (Cavanaugh et al., 2000), or an opportunity, which fosters
the accumulation of coping resources (Lanivich et al., 2010). In support, research has found
that reputation (Laird et al., 2009), person-environment fit (Lanivich et al., 2010), and
politics perceptions (Breaux et al., 2008) influence the magnitude and directionality of
the felt accountability-job satisfaction relationship. We expect that other factors, like the
entitlement associated with Generation Y, also might affect employees’ interpretations of
accountability, thus influencing their job satisfaction.
JMP Theoretical foundation
30,1 Unlike traditional stress models that lacked predictive capabilities, Hobfoll’s (1989)
COR theory makes predictions about how and why individuals react to stress in
different ways (Wright and Cropanzano, 1998). The theory’s central tenet is that people
strive to retain, protect, and build resources. When these resources are lost, threatened,
or not replenished after a significant investment of resources, individuals experience
90 stress. Importantly, perceptions of the loss or lack of gain of resources are often just as
stress inducing as the actual loss or lack of gain of these resources (Hobfoll, 1989).
COR defines coping resources as “those objects, personal characteristics, conditions,
or energies that are valued by the individual or that serve as a means for attainment of
those objects, personal characteristics, conditions or energies” (Hobfoll, 1989, p. 516).
For example, resources in a work environment include objects like money, personal
characteristics like skills, conditions like job security, or energies like time. Hobfoll also
suggested that “resource loss is disproportionately more salient than resource gain”
(Hobfoll, 2001, p. 343) and individuals must invest resources in order to protect against
resource loss, recover from losses, and gain resources (Hobfoll, 2001).

Hypothesis development
Evidence suggests that psychological entitlement is relatively stable (Campbell et al.,
2004), leading researchers to conceptualize it as a trait-like construct that influences
individuals’ thoughts and behaviors (Snow et al., 2001). It has been associated with
perceptions of inequity (King and Miles, 1994), unethical behavior (Hamilton, 2003),
poor working relationships, job dissatisfaction (Naumann et al., 2002), pay dissatisfaction
(Graham and Welbourne, 1999), supervisor conflict, and turnover intentions (Harvey and
Martinko, 2009).
Despite these negative outcomes, psychologically entitled individuals hold positive
views of themselves (Snow et al., 2001). While it is generally accepted that positive
self-reflective resources are helpful in ameliorating strain (Lewin and Sager, 2007),
Brouer et al. (2011) argued that entitled individuals may experience more stress and
strain because their self-reflective resources are a façade. The entitled employee often
feels confident and optimistic, but the underlying knowledge, skills, and abilities on
which these resources are based may not exist.
In the early stages of a job, we predict these artificially positive self-perceptions will
promote an optimistic perspective on the likelihood of success. Self-efficacy is
positively associated with such perceptions and often leads to high motivation and
performance (Stajkovic and Luthans, 1998). Over time, however, accountability is likely
to provide feedback that exposes entitled employees’ unacknowledged shortcomings. It
has been suggested that entitled individuals react negatively to criticism (Campbell et al.,
2004) and view feedback that does not reinforce their positive self-image as flawed
(Harvey and Martinko, 2009). In support, entitled individuals often prematurely terminate
psychological counseling when their inaccurate self-perceptions are challenged (Snow
et al., 2001). This suggests that entitled employees will deal with critical feedback by
either discounting it (Harvey and Harris, 2010; Harvey and Martinko, 2009) or reluctantly
acknowledging its accuracy. In either case, their resources likely will be depleted by the
effort involved in perceptual filtering or by the loss of inflated self-perceptions.
Compounding this problem is the possibility that entitled employees perceive more
stressors than other employees. This may be caused by the frequency of their unfulfilled
expectations as well as their perceptual biases (Harvey and Martinko, 2009). A study by
Harvey et al. (2014), for example, found that entitled employees perceived more abusive
supervision than less-entitled employees even when rating the same supervisors. Accountability,
To explain this finding, the authors argued that critical feedback triggers self-serving entitlement,
biases that vilify external agents in order to protect inflated self-perceptions. Because it
takes time to accrue critical feedback and to form these biased perceptions, however, we
tenure, and
expect that the resource drain associated with accountability will grow as tenure increases. satisfaction
For some employees, increased tenure can bring opportunities to acquire additional
coping resources in the form of knowledge, skills, and abilities (Hobfoll, 1989). The 91
development of such resources, however, often involves accepting critical feedback in
order to identify and remedy weaknesses. Given the tendency of entitled employees to
reject feedback that threatens their artificial self-reflective resources, the development
of these “earned” resources is likely to be stunted. Over time, this can hurt job
satisfaction as skills do not improve and critical feedback continues.
Based on this logic, we predict that the direction of the felt accountability-job
satisfaction relationship will depend on psychological entitlement and job tenure. We
expect a positive relationship for entitled employees with low tenure, but a negative
relationship for entitled employees with high tenure. Conversely, we predict a
negative relationship for low-entitlement employees who are low in tenure and
a positive relationship for low-entitlement employees who are high in tenure.
Although more speculative, the latter argument is based on the premise that
employees with low psychological entitlement may initially see accountability as
threatening, but are more likely to use feedback to build legitimate resources that can
promote increased job satisfaction over time:

H1. The association between felt accountability and job satisfaction is moderated
by psychological entitlement and job tenure such that:
(a) a positive relationship exists among employees high in psychological
entitlement early in their tenure but becomes negative as their tenure
increases; and
(b) a negative relationship exists among employees low in psychological
entitlement early in their tenure but becomes positive as their tenure increases.

Method
Sample
We tested the hypothesized three-way interaction between felt accountability,
psychological entitlement, and job tenure in a sample of 181 RAs from a variety of US
universities. The sample included 70 males and 111 females and was obtained during a
national conference for individuals who occupy these positions.
The job duties are fairly consistent across US universities and involve enforcing
dormitory rules, resolving conflicts, and organizing activities for student residents. Nearly
all of the RAs in our sample served the dual role of university employee and student. In the
former role, they share many characteristics with traditional employees. These include
possessing disciplinary and resource allocation authority over subordinates (i.e. student
residents), collaborating and organizing with coworkers (i.e. fellow RAs), and reporting to a
supervisor who provides formal performance appraisals. These appraisals carry significant
weight as RA positions frequently have terminal contracts that are renewed or allowed to
expire at the end of each academic year depending on the evaluation’s favorability.
This sample was chosen for several reasons. One is the presence of a formal,
consequential accountability system. Another was the population’s demographics.
JMP Given that most RA positions are held by undergraduates, this population allowed us
30,1 to capture an entire sample of Generation Y members. The participants’ average age
was 20.15 years with a standard deviation of 1.87. The sample population, within two
standard deviations of the mean, was born between 1987 and 1994, which are within
the dates associated with Generation Y.
We also utilized an RA sample because it has the unique characteristic of capping job
92 tenure at four years (sample mean ¼ 2.93 years), as most of these positions are vacated
upon graduation. Due to Generation Y’s strong turnover tendencies (Broadbridge et al.,
2007) and their average US tenure of 3.2 years, this time horizon seemed appropriate.
Although the relatively narrow tenure range carries the risk of muted effect sizes because
of restricted variance levels, we felt this range restriction was needed to ensure a valid
test of the hypothesized relationship in the Generation Y context. Additionally, given
psychological entitlement’s power to distort workplace perceptions (Campbell et al., 2004;
Harvey and Martinko, 2009; Harvey et al., 2014), we expect that it will begin to interact
with accountability to impact satisfaction within a small number of feedback cycles.
A longer time horizon might show stronger effect sizes, but also could introduce nuisance
variance into the design as workplace dynamics (e.g. promotions, raises) evolve over time
and distort the results. Naturally, this is a threat whenever temporal effects are studied,
but our hope is that the upper limit on tenure and the stable nature of the job would help
to minimize distortion.

Measures
Unless otherwise noted, all responses were recorded using five-point scales (1 ¼
“Strongly Disagree,” 5 ¼ “Strongly Agree”).
Accountability. We measured felt accountability with Hall et al.’s (2003) eight-item
scale (α ¼ 0.76). A sample item was “I am held accountable for my actions at work.”
Entitlement. We measured psychological entitlement with Campbell et al.’s (2004)
nine-item scale (α ¼ 0.84). A sample item was “Great things should come to me.”
Job satisfaction. We measured job satisfaction with Camman et al.’s (1983) three-item
scale (α ¼ 0.88). A sample item was “All in all, I am satisfied with my job.”
Job tenure. We measured job tenure in years and months and then converted it into a
five-point categorical scale (1, 1-20 months; 2, 21-40 months; 3, 41-60 months; 4, 61-80
months; 5, 81-100 months).
Controls. We controlled for gender (1, male, 2, female) and social desirability, which
was measured with three items from Paulhus’ (1991) scale (α ¼ 0.61).

Results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations are shown in Table I. The hypothesized
relationship was tested using hierarchical moderated regression. The control variables
were entered in the first step, followed by accountability, entitlement, and tenure scores
in the second step. The three two-way interaction terms were entered in the third step,
followed by the three-way interaction term in the final step.
The results of this analysis are shown in Table II. The three-way interaction
(B ¼ −0.01, p o 0.05) depicted in Figure 1 suggests that at low levels of accountability
entitled participants (1 SD above the mean) reported lower job satisfaction scores than
less entitled participants (1 SD below the mean). However, at higher levels of
accountability the entitled participants reported higher job satisfaction levels that
roughly matched those of less entitled employees. This finding held at high and low
levels of tenure, thus contradicting H1a. While inconsistent with our hypothesis, this Accountability,
finding may have important implications for managerial tactics that can offset the entitlement,
negative effects of entitlement as we discuss below.
The interaction also suggests that accountability levels did not significantly impact
tenure, and
job satisfaction levels for unentitled participants. This effect was observed at both high satisfaction
and low tenure levels (i.e. the slopes for both low-entitlement lines depicted in Figure 1
were insignificant), contrary to our prediction in H1b. 93
It is noteworthy that our results indicate the potential for high levels of accountability
to neutralize the impact of entitlement on job satisfaction, at least within our Generation
Y sample. As Figure 1 shows, when accountability was low, participants’ entitlement
levels had a significant impact on satisfaction levels. However, Figure 1 also indicates
that participants with high and low levels of entitlement reported nearly equal levels of
job satisfaction when accountability was high. Low tenure employees with high and low
entitlement scores reported similar satisfaction scores, as did high tenure employees with
either high or low entitlement levels. Thus, the impact of entitlement appears to have
been diminished at higher levels of accountability.

Discussion
Generation Y’s arrival into the workforce has presented organizations and scholars
with a number of questions and opportunities. One consistent observation is that

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Gender 1.61 0.49 −

2. Social desirability 3.45 0.64 0.14 −
3. Felt accountability 3.60 0.68 −0.11 0.13 −
4. Psychological entitlement 2.57 0.81 −0.07 −0.13 0.21** − Table I.
5. Job tenure 2.93 1.39 0.12 −0.08 −0.05 0.02 − Means, standard
6. Job satisfaction 4.38 0.63 0.07 0.18* 0.11 −0.17* −0.01 deviations, and
Notes: n ¼ 181; *p o0.05, **p o 0.01 correlations

Job satisfactiona
B R2 ΔR2

Step 1 0.04 0.04*

Gender 0.11
Social desirability 0.08
Step 2 0.07 0.03
Felt accountability (A) −0.44
Psychological Entitlement (B) −1.25**
Job tenure (C) −0.07
Step 3 0.10 0.03
A×B 0.30**
A×C −0.02
B×C 0.03*
Step 4 0.13 0.03*
A×B×C −0.01* Table II.
Notes: aUnstandardized regression coefficients shown; n ¼ 181; *p o 0.05, **p o0.01 Regression results
JMP 5
30,1
4.5

4
Low Entitlement
Job Satisfaction

3.5
94 Low Tenure
Low Entitlement
3 High Tenure
High Entitlement
Low Tenure
2.5
High Entitlement
High Tenure
Figure 1. 2
Three-way
interaction between
1.5
felt-accountability,
psychological
entitlement, and 1
job tenure Low Accountability High Accountability
Felt Accountability

existing managerial practices regarding performance evaluation and reward are often out
of step with this cohort. This poses a challenge for accountability research, which had
indicated complex, often contradictory, findings even before this generational shift started.
Thus, in an attempt to broaden our understanding of the factors that impact employees’
interpretation of accountability, we examined the moderating effects of psychological
entitlement and job tenure on the felt accountability-job satisfaction relationship.
Data collected from a sample of Generation Y RAs revealed some unexpected, but
potentially encouraging, results. Contrary to our expectations, the highly entitled
participants appeared to thrive under conditions of higher accountability. Whereas
entitled participants reported relatively low satisfaction levels when accountability was
low, their satisfaction scores rose to the level of their less-entitled peers under
conditions of high accountability. Indeed, nearly all of the variance in satisfaction
scores at high accountability levels was caused by job tenure, with higher tenure being
associated with slightly lower job satisfaction regardless of entitlement level. Thus, it
appears that entitled participants viewed high levels of accountability favorably and
not as a hindrance stressor as we had expected.
These findings could have important implications for the study of Generation Y as
well as workplace entitlement beyond this generational cohort. Although entitlement has
been recognized as a significant, contemporary problem facing organizations, effective
managerial interventions have proven elusive. Harvey and Harris (2010) attributed this
difficulty to the deeply ingrained psychological processes that produce and maintain a
heightened sense of entitlement. While replication with similar and distinct samples is
needed to assess the generalizability of our results, the present study provides initial
evidence that a tactic for managing entitled employees might lay, somewhat ironically, in
the very accountability systems that Generation Y is thought to dislike.
This conclusion may seem counterintuitive in light of our overview of Generation Y,
and it is not the finding we anticipated, but post hoc reflection leads us to believe that a
conceptual explanation exists. Our reasoning is rooted in attribution theory, which
suggests that biased causal perceptions are most likely to occur in ambiguous situations.
A study by Harvey and Martinko (2009) indicated that entitlement was associated with a Accountability,
pronounced self-serving attributional bias, which is a tendency to attribute desirable entitlement,
outcomes to oneself and negative outcomes to outside factors. They argued that this bias
helps shield a sense of entitlement from the contradictory causal data associated with
tenure, and
negative feedback, thus reinforcing inflated self-perceptions. These inflated self-perceptions, satisfaction
in turn, can cause entitled employees to form the unrealistic expectations for praise and
rewards associated with entitlement. 95
Formal accountability systems, however, have the capacity to remove the ambiguity
that facilitates these self-serving perceptions. By clarifying the relationship between
performance and rewards (Hall et al., 2003), accountability systems make it more difficult
to erroneously claim responsibility for success and pass blame for failure. More accurate
perceptions may cause a decrease in the inflated expectations that are associated with
entitlement biases. Therefore, accountability might facilitate a reduction in the unmet
reward expectations and associated disappointment that is common among entitled
individuals (Harvey and Martinko, 2009), thus promoting higher job satisfaction. If this
helps entitled employees form a more honest view of their strengths and weaknesses, it
also might help them identify areas for personal improvement and allow them to build
the coping resources that can promote favorable workplace attitudes. We acknowledge
that these are speculative, post hoc explanations for our findings, but argue that they
could provide a foundation for additional research into tactics for managing entitled
employees.

Limitations and future research directions

Our findings should be interpreted in light of several potential limitations of the study
design. First, the cross-sectional data does not allow for causation inferences. While our
sample of RAs helped to offset this problem by allowing us to examine subjects at
various temporal stages of very similar jobs, the inability to measure within-person
variance over time remains a limitation. Second, data were gathered via self-report
surveys, introducing the possibility of single-source/common method bias. Although
most of our study variables would be difficult to measure accurately from a third-party
perspective, Spector (2006) has noted that single-method designs can artificially
suppress observed effect sizes. Finally, although the limited variance in job tenure was
a deliberate aspect of the study design, we do acknowledge the possibility that a longer
time horizon might have produced different findings.
We are optimistic, however, that our findings could provide direction for scholars
studying the entitlement phenomenon, both within Generation Y and beyond. As noted,
researchers have struggled to identify tactics that managers can use with entitled
employees. The finding that high levels of accountability might neutralize some of
entitlement’s negative effects suggests a potential direction in which this research
might proceed. Beyond the need for replication of the current study in different
samples, future research also might incorporate longitudinal designs in order to help
establish causality and to gain a better understanding of how soon in an entitled
employee’s tenure the effects of accountability begin to surface.

Practical implications
Leaders and managers who were expected to “sink or swim” when they entered the
workforce may be frustrated by the accommodations provided to Generation Y
(Alexander and Sysko, 2011). However, it should be noted that Generation Y brings a
JMP number of desirable characteristics to the workplace. They often want an intellectual
30,1 challenge, strive to make a difference, and seek employers who value professional
development (Brown, 2004). In order to attract, motivate, and retain young employees,
which becomes increasingly important as the “Baby Boomer” generation retires,
organizations must understand and strategically adapt to the work expectations of
Generation Y.
96 A commonly voiced frustration about this cohort is their sense of entitlement.
However, the fact that entitled employees responded favorably to accountability opens
up a realm of possibilities for improving workplace attitudes and related outcomes.
In order to increase felt accountability, organizations might find renewed interest in
management by objective (MBO), which requires managers and employees to develop the
goals by which employees will be evaluated. Not only is Generation Y accustomed to
being involved in decisions, but research suggests that setting and achieving personal
goals and performing meaningful work matters to this generation (Allen, 2004).
In addition to MBO, organizations could implement 360-degree reviews, which ask
members of employees’ immediate work circles to provide performance feedback.
Possibly because of the group-based educational approach that they experienced (Lowe
et al., 2008), Generation Y is sociable (Brown, 2004), likes learning from colleagues and
managers they respect (Corporate Leadership Council, 2005), and tends to trust peer
opinion and social consensus (Hershatter and Epstein, 2010). Therefore, Generation Y
employees might perceive multiple-source feedback to be more valid than traditional
top-down evaluations, increasing the chances that they would view accountability as
an opportunity to learn and grow.

Conclusion
While it is dangerous to over-generalize, especially when discussing a population as
large and diverse as Generation Y, scholars must also recognize that the
generational shift underway is an important issue facing contemporary managers.
Organizational research has, thus far, been regrettably quiet on the issue of
workplace entitlement while organizations have searched for answers. As our study
suggests, even factors as ubiquitous as felt accountability may resonate differently
with younger employees. Thus, we hope that scholars will consider the possibility
that past theory and research may need to be revisited as Generation Y becomes the
largest segment of the working population.

References
Adelberg, S. and Batson, C. (1978), “Accountability and helping: when needs exceed resources”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 343-350.
Alexander, C. and Sysko, J. (2011), “A study of the cognitive determinants of generation Y’s
entitlement mentality”, Academy of Educational Leadership in 2011 Proceedings of the
Allied Academies International Conference, Orlando, FL, Dream Catcher Group LLC,
Arden, NC, pp. 1-6.
Allen, P. (2004), “Welcoming Y”, Benefits Canada, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 51-53.
Alsop, R. (2008), The “Trophy Kids” go to Work: How the Millennial Generation is Shaking Up the
Workplace, Jossey-Bass, New York, NY.
Breaux, D., Munyon, T., Hochwarter, W. and Ferris, G. (2008), “Politics as a moderator of the
accountability-job satisfaction relationship: evidence across three studies”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 307-326.
Broadbridge, A., Maxwell, G.A. and Ogden, S.M. (2007), “Experiences, perceptions and expectations Accountability,
of retail employment for generation Y”, Career Development International, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 523-544.
entitlement,
tenure, and
Brouer, R., Wallace, A. and Harvey, P. (2011), “When good resources go bad: the applicability of
conservation of resources theory on psychologically entitled employees”, in Perrewé, P. satisfaction
and Ganster, D. (Eds), Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being, Vol. 4, Emerald,
Bingly, pp. 109-150. 97
Brown, S.C. (2004), “Where this path may lead: understanding career decision-making
for postcollege life”, Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 45 No. 4,
pp. 375-390.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G.D. and Klesh, J.R. (1983), “Assessing the attitudes and
perceptions of organizational members”, in Seashore, S.E., Lawler, E.E. III, Mirvis, P.H.
and Cammann, C. (Eds), Assessing Organizational Change: A Guide to Methods, Measures,
and Practices, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 71-138.
Campbell, W., Bonacci, A., Shelton, J., Exline, J. and Bushman, B. (2004), “Psychological
entitlement: interpersonal consequences and validation of a self-report measure”, Journal of
Personality Assessment, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 29-45.
Cavanaugh, M., Boswell, W., Roehling, M. and Boudreau, J. (2000), “An empirical examination of
self reported stress among US managers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1,
pp. 65-74.
Corporate Leadership Council (2005), HR Considerations for Engaging Generation Y Employees,
Corporate Executive Board, Washington, DC.
Eisner, S.P. (2005), “Managing generation Y”, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 70 No. 4,
pp. 4-15.
Enzele, M. and Anderson, S. (1993), “Surveillant intentions and intrinsic motivation”, Journal of
Personal and Social Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 257-266.
Ethics Resource Center (2010), “Millennials, Gen X and Baby Boomers: who’s working
at your company and what do they think about ethics?”, available at: http://ethics.org/
files/u5/Gen-Diff.pdf (accessed October 7, 2013).
Fandt, P. (1991), “The relationship of accountability and interdependent behavior to enhancing
team consequences”, Group and Organizational Studies, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 300-312.
Fandt, P. and Ferris, G. (1990), “The management of information and impressions: when
employees behave opportunistically”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 140-158.
Foot, D.K. and Stoffman, D. (1998), Boom Bust & Echo 2000: Profiting from the Demographic
Shift in the New Millennium, Walter & Ross Macfarlane, Toronto.
Frink, D. and Klimoski, R. (1998), “Toward a theory of accountability in organizations and human
resource management”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 16,
pp. 1-51.
Graham, M. and Welbourne, T. (1999), “Gainsharing and women’s and men’s relative pay
satisfaction”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 1027-1042.
Greenberger, E., Lessard, J., Chen, C. and Farruggia, S. (2008), “Self-entitled college students:
contributions of personality, parenting, and motivational factors”, Journal of Youth
Adolescence, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 1193-1204.
Hall, A., Frink, D., Ferris, G., Hochwarter, W., Kacmar, C. and Bowen, M. (2003), “Accountability
in human resources management”, in Schriesheim, C. and Neider, L. (Eds), New Directions
in Human Resource Management, Information Age, Greenwich, CT, pp. 29-63.
JMP Hamilton, M. (2003), “The era of entitlement: what Alabama Judge Roy Moore, file ‘sharers,’ and
the Catholic Church have in common”, available at: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton
30,1 (accessed October 11, 2013).
Harvey, P. and Harris, K. (2010), “Frustration-based outcomes of entitlement and the influence of
supervisor communication”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 11, pp. 1639-1660.
Harvey, P. and Martinko, M. (2009), “An empirical examination of the role of attributions in
98 psychological entitlement and its outcomes”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30
No. 4, pp. 459-476.
Harvey, P., Harris, K.J., Gillis, W.E. and Martinko, M.J. (2014), “Abusive supervision and the
entitled employee”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 204-217.
Hershatter, A. and Epstein, M. (2010), “Millennials and the world of work: an organization
and management perspective”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No 2,
pp. 211-223.
Hobfoll, S. (2001), “The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process:
advancing conservation of resources theory”, Applied Psychology: An International Review,
Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 337-421.
Hobfoll, S.E. (1989), “Conservation of resources: a critical review of evidence”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 44 No. 9, pp. 513-524.
Hochwarter, W., Ferris, G., Gavin, M., Perrewé, P., Hall, A. and Frink, D. (2007), “Political skill as a
moderator of the felt accountability – job performance relationship: longitudinal
convergence of mediated moderation results”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 102 No. 2, pp. 226-239.
Holt, S., Marques, J. and Way, A. (2012), “Bracing for the millennial workforce: looking for ways
to inspire generation Y”, Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, Vol. 9 No. 6,
pp. 81-93.
Hulin, C. and Judge, T. (2003), “Job attitudes: a theoretical and empirical review”, in Borman, W.,
Ilgen, R. and Klimoski, R. (Eds), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 255-276.
King, W. and Miles, E. (1994), “The measure of equity sensitivity”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 133-142.
Laird, M., Perryman, A., Hochwarter, W., Ferris, G. and Zinko, R. (2009), “The moderating effects
of personal reputation on accountability – strain relationships”, Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 70-83.
Lanivich, S., Brees, J., Hochwarter, W. and Ferris, G. (2010), “P-E fit as a moderator of the
accountability – employee reactions relationships: convergent results across two samples”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 425-436.
Lewin, J.E. and Sager, J.K. (2007), “A process model of burnout among salespeople: some new
thoughts”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 12, pp. 1216-1224.
Lowe, D., Levitt, K.J. and Wilson, T. (2008), “Solutions for retaining generation Y employees in the
workplace”, Business Resonance Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 43-57.
Mitchell, T., Hopper, H., Daniels, D., George-Falvy, J. and Ferris, G. (1998), “Power, accountability
and inappropriate actions”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 47 No. 4,
pp. 497-517.
Naumann, S., Minsky, B. and Sturman, M. (2002), “The use of the concept ‘entitlement’
in management literature: a historical review, synthesis, and discussion of
compensation policy implications”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 145-166.
Ng, E., Schweitzer, L. and Lyons, S. (2010), “New generation, great expectations: a field Accountability,
study of the millennial generation”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 281-292.
entitlement,
tenure, and
Paulhus, D.L. (1991), “Measurement and control of response biases”, in Robinson J.P., Shaver P.
and Wrightsman L.S. (Eds), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes, satisfaction
Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Snow, J., Kern, R. and Curlette, W. (2001), “Identifyuing personality traits associated with attrition 99
in systematic training for effective parenting groups”, The Family Journal: Counseling and
Therapy for Couples and Families, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 102-108.
Spector, P. (2006), “Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend?”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 221-232.
Stajkovic, A. and Luthans, F. (1998), “Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a meta-
analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 240-261.
Thoms, P., Dose, J. and Scott, K. (2002), “Relationships between accountability, job satisfaction,
and trust”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 307-323.
Trzesniewski, K., Donnellan, M. and Robins, R. (2008), “Do today’s young people really think they
are so extraordinary? An examination of secular changes in narcissism and self-enhancement”,
Psychological Science, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 181-188.
Twenge, J. and Campbell, K.W. (2001), “Age and birth cohort differences in self-esteem:
a cross-temporal meta-analysis”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 5 No. 4,
pp. 321-344.
Twenge, J.M., Campbell, W.K. and Gentile, B. (2012). “Generational increases in agentic
self-evaluations among American College students, 1966-2009”, Self and Identity, Vol. 11
No. 4, pp. 409-427.
Twenge, J.M., Konrath, S., Foster, J.D., Campbell, K.W. and Bushman, B.J. (2008), “Egos inflating
over time: a cross-temporal meta-analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory”, Journal
of Personality, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 875-902.
US Department of Labor Statistics (2013), “Tenure of American workers”, available at: www.bls.
gov/spotlight/2013/tenure/pdf/tenure.pdf (accessed January 12, 2013).
Wright, T. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), “Emotional exhaustion as a predictor of job performance
and voluntary turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 3, pp. 486-493.

Further reading
Derber, C. (1978), “Unemployment and the entitled worker: job entitlement and radical political
attitudes among the youthful unemployed”, Social Problems, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 26-37.
Ferris, G., Mitchell, T., Canavan, P., Frink, D. and Hopper, H. (1995), “Accountability in human
resource systems”, in Ferris, G., Rosen, S. and Barnum, D. (Eds), Handbook of Human
Resource Management, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 175-196.
Frink, D. and Klimoski, R. (2004), “Advancing accountability theory and practice: Introduction to
the human resource management review special edition”, Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Lerner, J. and Tetlock, P. (1999), “Accounting for the effects of accountability”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 125 No. 2, pp. 255-275.
Tetlock, P. (1992), “The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: toward a social
contingency model”, in Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 331-376.
JMP About the authors
30,1 Dr Mary Dana Laird is an Assistant Professor of Management at The University of Tulsa. She
earned her PhD in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management from Florida
State University. Her research interests include personal reputation, stress, organizational
politics, and political skill. Dr Mary Dana Laird is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: mary-laird@utulsa.edu
Dr Paul Harvey is an Associate Professor of Management at the Peter T. Paul College of
100 Business and Economics. He has a PhD in Organizational Behavior from Florida State University
and studies the impact of workplace perceptions and emotions.
Jami Lancaster works in the energy industry. She earned a BSBA in Management
from The University of Tulsa and is pursuing a MS in Energy Legal Studies at Oklahoma
City University.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com