PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF GENERATIION

PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF
GENERATION Y CHARACTERISTICS IN INDONESIA

FATMA DEWI VIDIASIH WULANSARI, ST, MSM
School of Business and Management, Institute of Technology Bandung (SBM ITB)
Jl. Ganesha No. 10, Bandung 40132
Email: wulan@sbm.itb.ac.id

PROF. DR. IR. JANN HIDAJAT TJAKRAATMADJA, MSIE
School of Business and Management, Institute of Technology Bandung (SBM ITB)
Jl. Ganesha No. 10, Bandung 40132
Email: jannhidajat@sbm.itb.ac.id

Since early 2000s, many employers faced new challenge when a new generation, with significantly different characteristics, entered the job market: Generation Y (Gen Y). This paper aims to identify the characteristics of Gen Y in Indonesia and whether they were affected by sex (female/male) or education level (undergraduate/graduate) factors. Comparison with Gen Y in other countries (US, UK, Australia) will also be presented. Based on the results, this paper will provide suggestions for HR people in developing suitable strategy and programs. This paper was mainly based on the results of a quantitative study with 300 final year students from four top Indonesian universities.
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
Employers around the world are facing similar issues in today’s business world, such as capital, sustainable business strategy, research and development, and talent. McKinsey War of Talent research concluded that talent is the most important element in this globally competitive era (Fishman, 1998). In recent years, since the beginning of the twenty-first century, employers meet a new talent-related challenge as a new generation, Generation Y, with a different set of characters compared with their predecessors, enters the job market. The different character is much attributed to the technological, demographical, and sociological shifts in the recent years (McCrindle, 2006; Eisner, 2005; Career Development International, 2003).
Who are they? Definitions of Gen Y were varied from source to source (UK Graduate Recruitment Bureau, 2007; Reese, Rowings, and Sharpley, 2007; Australia Bureau of Statistics, 2006), however it was generally agreed that people who was born between early 1980s and late 1990s are considered as Gen Y, though some sources stated earlier starting year at 1976-1977 and the latest birth year of 1994-1995. This generation occasionally referred as the Millennial Group, the Internet Generation, or the Echo Baby Boomers.
Carolyn Martin, the author of several books on Generation Y, stated that failing to engage Gen Y will cause midlevel positions crisis in the near future, as quoted by revolution.blogs.com (retrieved on May 2008) from Millennial Leaders blog. This crisis will lead to an even more severe succession issue for key leadership positions within a decade or so.
In this highly competitive business era, it has never been more difficult before to manage Human Resource function in the Company, especially in the recruitment and retention of potential and qualified talents. Therefore, the critical element to sustain business success will be to attract the talented fresh graduates, which are now dominated by Gen Y, to work for the company’s entry level positions and be its future leader.
1.2 Objective
This paper aims to identify Indonesian Gen Y characteristics, as well as explore the effect of two factors: sex (female/male) and education level (undergraduate/graduate) towards the characteristics. In this study, final year students in top four universities in Indonesia (Institute of Technology Bandung, University of Indonesia, University of Parahyangan, and Prasetiya Mulya Business School) will represent Gen Y. The students were coming from both undergraduate and graduate level. Understanding Gen Y characteristics will help companies to prepare their employment branding and retention strategy. The right strategy and programs will undoubtedly give a company competitive advantage to attract and retain the best talent in this war for talent era. The result will also help companies to decide whether they need to differentiate their employment branding strategy to attract different sex or education level.
1.3 Research Questions
Based on earlier explanation in background, there were three research questions arising:
i. What are the key characteristics of Gen Y in Indonesia?
ii. Does sex affect the emergence of dominant key characteristics of Gen Y?
iii. Does education level affect the emergence of dominant key characteristics of Gen Y?
1.4 Originality
Researches on Gen Y and its relation with recruitment were quite numerous however most references are coming from Australia, Europe, and US. Almost none came from Asia, not to mention Indonesia. Thus, the researcher believes that this study will contribute to the academic and business field as follow:
 Gen Y characteristics in Indonesia will be proposed as a result from this study. This will be the first formal study published, as far as the researcher knowledge, which defines the characteristics of Gen Y in Indonesia.
 Analysis of education level factor in affecting organizational attributes’ importance rating has not been discussed in the literatures that the researcher found so far.
 Sex factor had been used in UK study (Terjesen, Vinnicombe, and Freeman, 2007) however this was the first use in a study in Indonesia, as far as the researcher know.
2. Literature Review
In the following sub chapters, the writers will present a thorough literature review, starting from Generation Y characteristics and expectations, and then followed by recruitment subject where the employment branding played crucial roles.
2.1 Generation Y
As an emerging generation in the workforce market, who already occupies a sixth of total workforce in 2005 (Eisner, 2005), Gen Y affects the way of companies do recruitment. Employers, who do not address the needs of Gen Y quickly, will lose in the war of talent.
2.1.1 Definition
Generation Y has varied definitions, the year of birth of this generation range between 1974 up to 2000. According to UK Graduate Recruitment Bureau, its range is from 1980 to 2000, while Free Dictionary stated that it is from early 1980s to late 1990s. McCrindle (2006) stated that according to Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2006, Gen Y was born in 1980 up to 1994. Another version of Reese, Rowings, and Sharpley (2007) declared that the range would be from 1978 to 1989. Despite these varied definitions, it is generally agreed that people who was born between early 1980s and late 1990s are considered as Generation Y. However, it should be remembered that labeling generations is all about stereotypes. Labels are given according to certain characteristics which fit into majority of the population.
Various other labels had been given to Gen Y according to events which have shaped their generational profile. These labels are namely the Millennial, Echo Boomers, Internet Generation, and other labels.
Eisner (2005) stated that Gen Y claims 15% of current workforce, while the three generations preceding Gen Y are Traditionalist (10% of workforce), Baby Boomers (45%), and Gen X (30%) composed the remaining population. Their successor, Gen Z, has not emerged yet in the workplace until one more decade. More members of Gen Y will enter the workforce in the coming years, thus strategy to attract the best-fitted of them would be very critical as they occupied a growing percentage of the total workforce and would be the future leaders.
2.1.2 General Characteristics
The general characteristics of Gen Y are significantly differed with the generations preceded them, as the technological, demographical, and sociological shifts have changed the culture and general characters of people who is living in a different era. Differed with their parents’ generation, Gen Y is accustomed with internet versus the post mail, fascinated with technological gadgets, prefers experiential marketing and friends’ recommendation when choosing new products, has no brand loyalty, and credit-dependent versus credit-savvy (McCrindle, 2006). They are also usually very technological-savvy, anti-commitment, very confident about themselves, ambitious, optimistic, well-educated, has entrepreneurial spirit, hungry to learn, and enjoys traveling (Redmond, 2007; Wikipedia, 2007; Sotherton, 2006; McCrindle, 2006). Gen Y also reflects some values held by Traditionalists of strong sense of morality, willing to fight for freedom, sociable, and values home and family (Eisner, 2005).
2.1.3 Work-related Expectations
There were quite plentiful researches on the attitudes of Gen Y towards work and career. According to Wikipedia (retrieved on December 2007), a 2007 survey titled Gen Y at work (distributed to over 2000 HR managers across all industries) found that Gen Y workers expect to be paid more, have flexible work schedule, rapid promotion in a year, more personal time, and access to state-of-the-art technology.
It is also said that many Gen Y workers are having difficulty in taking orders and not responding to authority from other generation. (Redmond, 2007) stated quite similarly that Gen Y wants a career with the following characters: long-term career development and multiple experiences within a single organization, sense of purpose and meaning to the work, access to mentors and other company champions, work-life flexibility, tech-savvy work environment, and primary loyalty is to networks before their employers
Despite the loyalty decline compared with previous generations, the interesting fact is that Gen Y care a lot about ethics, Redmond (2007) stated that according to a 2006 survey 72% of the final graduates will make sure of the company’s ethical conduct before receiving offer.
McCrindle (2006) added several other employer offers which attract Gen Y, such as a challenging role, a fun workplace, ease to apply online, great recruitment advertising, and well-known brands. Queensland Tourism Industry Council (2007) published a paper on Generation Y Profile, which adds on several employment offers that would attract Gen Y: job variety, feedback and rewards, work-life balance, care about employees, utilize and appreciate employees’ knowledge, and good career development. Streeter (2004) quoted similarly that Gen Y would need better connected managers, interesting and challenging projects, and ongoing development opportunities.
Hira (2007) stated in her article for Fortune that Gen Y was ambitious, demanding, and question everything, so if there wasn't a good reason for long commute or late night, don't expect Gen Y would be willing to do it. When it comes to loyalty, the companies they work for are last on their list - behind their families, their friends, their communities, their co-workers, and themselves.
Wikipedia quoted a recent 2008 survey by FreshMinds Talent and Management Today, which suggested that Generation Y are generally more ambitious, brand conscious and tend to move jobs more often than ever before. The survey of over 1,000 people, entitled Work 2.0, also revealed several misconceptions about Generation Y, including that they are as loyal as their predecessors and believe that their job says something about them as individuals.
Another study is published in a book on Millennial Leaders (Fields, Wilder, Bunch, and Newbold, 2007). The book says that one of the most significant changes in the workplace that will affect the way Gen Y approaches work is job security. Gen Y’s success will be increasingly linked to their ability to acquire as wide a variety of marketable skills that they can as they move along the career ladder. Gen Y is often frustrated with entry-level jobs and expecting the following things in their career: quick feedback, meaningful involvement, pumped up recognition, and job security.
2.2 Recruitment
Dessler (2005) stated that recruiting is a more complex activity than most managers think it is. Recruitment efforts should make sense in terms of the company’s strategic plans. Some recruiting methods are superior to others, depending on who you are recruiting for and what your resources are. The success you have with your recruiting actually depends on non-recruitment HR issues and policies.
Attracting the best talent, and retaining them, would be one of the major issues over the next few years if employers are not ready to adapt with different needs of the workforce.
Prior to attracting the candidates, company should first define the talent pool or candidate sources. There are two main sources of candidates: internal and external. The internal sources consist of finding internal candidates, rehiring, and succession planning. External sources, which are relevant for this study of attracting Gen Y, have the following details (Dessler, 2005): Advertising, Employment Agencies, Temp Agencies and Alternative Staffing, Off shoring/Outsourcing White Collar and Other Jobs, On Demand Recruiting Services (ODRS), Executive Recruiters, College Recruiting, Referrals and Walk-Ins, and Recruiting via the Internet. The last three, College Recruiting, Referrals and Walk-Ins, and Internet Recruiting, would be the main focus when Generation Y is involved.
In regard with external candidates, strategy to attract applicants is central to recruiting as employers want to attract the best candidates who are fit and qualified to work for them (Terjesen, Vinnicombe, and Freeman, 2007).
Earle (2003) stated that finding strategies that appeal to the current three generations of workforce, which are Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y, presents unique challenges. This is even more difficult today, as newer worker generation gets more demanding than ever. In order to develop an effective plan to attract the target generations, it is very important to understand their needs and expectations. Thus, it is also clear that attracting the newest generation, Gen Y, would require different attraction tools apart from the tools used for older generations.
The process of attracting candidates is closely related with retention strategy. McKeown (2002) stated that effective retention begins before the actual hiring, it started from attracting candidates. He coined the term of Recruitment for Retention, which comprised of:
 Accepting the fact that lifetime employment gets more and more rare, and that employees will eventually move out of the company.
 Use different hiring models suitable for the company, such as full-time employment, temporary worker or free agent usage, outsourcing, and other models.
 Emphasize employee ‘fitness’ with the organization culture and values, in addition to their skills relevant to their job.
This employee ‘fitness’ will be an even more relevant key in attracting the newest entrant to the job market, Generation Y, which will be described in the next sub chapter.
This process of attracting candidates is also strongly related with identification of important organizational attributes which are perceived attractive by the targeted candidates. The workplace preference of the candidates, influenced by their perception of the company’s organizational attributes, will be affected by the generational difference (Terjesen, Vinnicombe, and Freeman, 2007) as well as:
• Gender (Terjesen, Vinnicombe, and Freeman, 2007)
• Educational level (Covin, 1994)
These two factors are chosen as the main factors that will be studied because of their importance in the recruitment process. Gender has become more important as more corporations are realizing that gender diversity is important to be maintained. This often become one of the recruitment measurement or key success indicator in corporations. As for educational level, companies, such as British American Tobacco, Citibank, and Johnson and Johnson, are treating candidates from undergraduate and MBA levels differently. Thus, this factor is important to be considered in recruitment. Other factors may also influence the workplace preference, such as ethnic (McWhirter, 1997), family values, childhood town, et cetera.
3. Research Methodology
This study is part of a more comprehensive research titled ‘Attracting Generation Y Graduates: Identification of Important Organizational Attributes which Affects Workplace Preference’ that also analyzed important organizational factors for Gen Y when choosing workplace as well as examined the relationship between organizational attractiveness and likelihood to apply.
3.1 Instrument Design and Revision
The initial questionnaire was designed based on literature study. There were thirty statements that the respondents should rate in a 6-point scale with 1 = never and 6 = always.
This initial questionnaire was distributed to 40 respondents during the preliminary qualitative study, where they were filling up the questionnaire then giving inputs to improve the questionnaire. The inputs were varied from rephrasing the statements up to the scaling explanation. The respondents were also asked to give inputs on other characteristics that represented their generation but not yet included in the questionnaire.
These 40 respondents were coming from diverse background including sex, education level, major, GPA, and organization activities, and ethnicity. The control variable is age range which was between 19 to 29 years old, including those born from the year of 1980 to 1990.
Inputs from Qualitative Study
The 6-point scaling explanation for section 2, Gen Y Characteristics, was revised because of several inputs. Some respondents stated that despite their understanding on the scale explanation meaning, it would be better if the original scale (1 = Never to 6 = Always) was not used to measure all the statements. For example, ‘You feel like you have entrepreneurial spirit’ statement was better rated with a 6-point scale where 1 = totally disagree to 6 = totally agree.
There was also a rephrasing effort for some of the statements to ease the understanding. For example, the original statement of ‘You enjoy writing blog as a way to keep online diary’ was changed into ‘You write blogs or online notes’. This was done to clarify the meaning. The respondents were asking whether the original statement meant that they knew the place or they did it. As the researcher meant that they actually did the download process, therefore the statement was rephrased to convey the actual meaning better. Another example is done to complete the actual meaning of the statement as shown in the change from ‘You want to help those less fortunate than you’ into ‘You want to help those less fortunate than you and be involved in social activity’. The rephrasing eliminated one statement as it was combined with other, thus leaving 29 statements. Additional eleven statements were then added based on the discussion with the respondents on other characteristics important for them and defined themselves and their peers well. There were 15 statements remained intact.
3.2 Quantitative Data Collection
This field study, as the data is collected in natural condition and has no controlled variable except age range (19 to 29) which defined Gen Y, will be analytical in nature. The population for the study was the final year students of both undergraduate and MBA students in two major cities in Indonesia. The unit of analysis was the individuals, the final year students, who responded to the survey. The time horizon for data collection would be one time over a three-month period, which made it cross sectional study.
This research used non probability sampling methods, meaning that not everyone had the same chance to get the questionnaire. The sampling procedure was a purposive sampling, informing school officials and students who assisted in distribution to give the questionnaire to respondents with certain characteristics (final year students or recently graduated alumni, with a balance proportion in sex, organization experience, and GPA).
The four campuses (ITB: Institute of Technology Bandung, UI: University of Indonesia, UNPAR: University of Parahyangan, PMBS: Prasetiya Mulya Business School) were chosen based on the relatively good reputation, the ease of contact, and location restriction.
From the total 420 questionnaires distributed, there were 303 questionnaires received, with three invalid respondents who were over 30 years old, resulting in a total of 300 data to be analyzed. The questionnaires were administered majorly with the help from the school officials and students. The researcher leveraged her network to distribute the questionnaire to the key persons in each target faculty or major. The key persons distributed the questionnaire to their network with a reminder for finding balance between female and male respondents, as well as academic and organization records. The key persons were previously taken through the questionnaire details so that they can clarify the questions from respondents. Once finished, the questionnaires were taken by or sent back to the researcher.
Prior to the mass questionnaire distribution, the researcher administer the test to few person in order to check the time needed to fill up the questionnaire, the clarity of the questions, and the overall format. The results were used to revise the questionnaire again.
3.3 Data Analysis Procedures
Frequency distribution, correlations, mean, and standard deviation will be obtained with SPSS 17.0 using the descriptive statistics function. Analysis using t-tests, univariate anova, and regression analysis will be used to answer the research question.
First of all, before in-depth analysis, the researcher would check the reliability of measures with Cronbach’s Alpha. The reliability coefficient will be better when it gets closer to 1.0. In general, reliabilities less than 0.60 are considered to be poor, those in 0.70 range is acceptable, and those over 0.80 is considered good (Sekaran, 2003). Researcher would need ensure that the statements in the questionnaire will all be in one direction (positively-worded) and changed the ones that are not. Data validity will also be checked by analyzing Corrected Item-Total Correlation scores (Yamin and Kurniawan, 2009).
Frequency distribution would be obtained for all personal data or classification variable to know the respondent profile. Descriptive statistics (frequency and mean) will be used again for determining the dominant Indonesian Gen Y characteristics, while the t-test and univariate anova will be used for checking the effect of sex and education level.
4. Findings and Analysis
4.1 Reliability and Validity
Based on all respondents’ sample, reliability and validity test were done. All items were valid with corrected-item total score ranged between 0.207 and 0.551 for each item. As each item scored higher than rtable = 0.1150 (df = N-2 = 289 due to 9 incomplete data and  = 0.05), thus all items were considered valid. Cronbach’s Alpha score was 0.869 (>0.6) which meant all questionnaires’ items were reliable.
Table 1: Summary of Reliability and Validity Statistics
Questionnaire Corrected Item-Total Score (Range) r-table
( = 0.05) Validity Test Result Cronbach Alpha Reliability Test Result
Gen Y Characteristics 0.207 – 0.551 0. 1150
N = 291, df = 289 Valid .869 Reliable
Based on the data above, the researcher concluded that all the questionnaires’ sections were valid and reliable. However, there were validity issues if the researcher performed validity tests in two respondents’ categories with fewer people: female (with only 129 completed questionnaires) and graduate (with only 59 complete questionnaires). For Female respondents, there were three invalid questionnaire’s items:
 Char5: Write blogs or online notes.
 Char8: Use email to communicate with your parents.
 Char31: Skeptical or ignorant about the politics.
This means ‘writing blogs’, ‘using email to communicate with parents’, and ‘skeptical about politics’ are not valid or accurate in measuring Female Gen Y characteristics. As for Graduate respondents, there were ten invalid questionnaire’s items:
 Char4: Download free (illegal) music from the Internet.
 Char5: Write blogs or online notes.
 Char8: Use email to communicate with your parents.
 Char25: Good at multitasking.
 Char26: Very loyal towards certain brands (e.g. gadget, consumer products).
 Char29: Rather consumptive and have a high lifestyle.
 Char30: Image conscious, you care about what others think about your image.
 Char31: Skeptical or ignorant about the politics.
 Char32: Prefer experiential marketing (live events) rather than TV and paper ads.
 Char33: Prefer computerized/practical works vs. manual works.
This means Gen Y who had taken Master degree would not be accurately described with ‘downloading illegal music’, ‘writing blogs’, ‘using email to communicate with parents’, ‘good at multitasking’, ‘brand loyalist’, ‘consumptive’, ‘image conscious’, ‘skeptical about politics’, ‘preferring experiential marketing’, and ‘preferring computerized works’.
For this study, the three invalid items for female respondents and ten for graduate respondents were excluded when analyzing Gen Y characteristics respondents by category. Researcher who wants to use the questionnaire for further study should also eliminate those ten items from the questionnaire.
4.2 Key Characteristics
The following table showed the average rating for top, middle, and lowest-rated Gen Y Characteristics and comparison with similar studies in other countries (in more concise phrase) to answer “what are the key characteristics of Gen Y in Indonesia?” and do further analysis:
Table 2A: Top-Rated Gen Y Characteristics Comparison
Indonesia (2009) UK (Redmond, 2007; Terjesen et al, 2007) USA (Eisner, 2005) Australia (McCrindle, 2006; Sotherton, 2006)
TOP-RATED CHARACTERISTICS OF GEN Y IN INDONESIA
40:Value home and family - Value home and family -
23: Value diversity Diverse Ethnically diverse Value diversity
36: Value integrity and morality Admire integrity Strong sense of morality Youthful idealism
35:Value good education Educated Well educated Most formally educated
7: Connect 24/7 with own gadget Connected 24/7 Connected 24/7 Connected
16:Express feelings freely Freedom for initiative Speak up Speak up more freely
20:Independent Independent Independent consumers Independent thinker
15:Enjoy socializing - Sociable Social yet disconnected
21:Optimist and positive Optimistic Positive Want positive environment
6: Active in social network sites The world is a click away Spent a lot of time virtually Live on the web
17:Hungry to learn Active learning Seeks development Hungry to learn
19:Know what they want in life and ready to achieve it Opinionated, goal-oriented, success-driven Needs to succeed Uncertain (contra)
22:Confident about future Self confident Confident Empowered
37:Value personalized approach and customized treatment Customized and targeted Value customization -
24:Creative and resourceful Resourceful, innovative Creative challenge Creative
Table 3A showed the top-rated characteristics of Gen Y in Indonesia and the comparison with other studies. The highest-rated attribute was ‘consider home and family very important’. This confirmed the Eastern culture where home and family plays major part in a student’s life, rather differently with Western culture where students were more independent. However, Eisner (2005) also mentioned that Gen Y values home and family higher in the US. ‘Tolerant, value diversity, and respect differences’ high rating was confirming Indonesian motto of ‘Bhinneka Tunggal Ika’ or ‘Unity In Diversity’. As for other highly-rated characters, it was rather similar with findings from other studies in UK, US, and Australia. They are more independent, freely expressing their feelings, more creative, and enjoying socialization. They also valued integrity and good education. Interesting fact was on item 19: know what they want and ready to achieve it. In Australia, Gen Y was considered empowered with education, trainings, and other knowledge however, yet some of them were still uncertain about their future. This might be due to the stages in Gen Y life. For example, Gen Y knew what they want in life when they were still at school, however when they graduated and started to work, they might have confusion between idealism and reality in the field.
As for mid-rated characteristics, it seemed that Gen Y in Indonesia also possessed these traits: impatient, consumptive, involved in social activity, good at multitasking, concern about environment, entrepreneurial, and image-conscious. However, if compared with other characteristics, Gen Y in Indonesia did not consider those traits reflect them too much. This might be due to the culture and situation in Indonesia. For example, Indonesians were known as very patient people, and even though many younger generations were expecting things faster, it had not became their main traits yet. Young people in big cities in Indonesia, especially Jakarta, were known to be consumptive, however as the respondents were students, they were still having limited budget to spend. Concern to environment and entrepreneurial spirit were also mid-rated. This was quite clear as government and media support towards these two elements were very good in developed countries, yet still a growing issue in Indonesia. Image conscious were rated middle probably because the culture in Indonesia that did not consider those caring about their image and appearance good. However, this trait had already started to arise in the younger generation in Indonesia. Interestingly, Gen Y in Indonesia considered they as brand loyalists (mid-rated), this was in the contrary with other findings in other countries where they were more perceived as brand switchers.
Table 2B: Mid-and-Low-Rated Gen Y Characteristics Comparison
MID-RATED CHARACTERISTICS OF GEN Y IN INDONESIA
Indonesia (2009) UK (Redmond, 2007) USA (Eisner, 2005) Australia (McCrindle, 2006; Sotherton, 2006)
Impatient, want quick and fast Impatient Expect immediacy Like fast process
Involved in social activity Global, community minded Socially conscious Social-driver
Consumptive, high lifestyle Lifestyle-centered More discretionary income High disposable income
Good at multitasking - Multitask ability Multitasker
Environmental concern Environmental - Concern environment
Entrepreneurial spirit Entrepreneurial - Enjoys entrepreneur
Image conscious - - Image conscious
Brand loyalist Anti-commitment Lack of loyalty Brand switchers
LOWEST-RATED CHARACTERISTICS OF GEN Y IN INDONESIA
Use email with parents
Write blogs/online notes Techno-savvy Technically literate Excellent tech handler

In the other side, the lowest-rated characteristics, yet emerged in other studies, were related with the varied usage of internet. Many of Indonesian Gen Y were not used to communicate with their parents with email, nor did write blogs or online notes. This might be caused by the still low penetration of internet in the households and the fact that their parents’ generation were not used to using the internet. However, this finding was also in line with Gen Y description that was stated rarely using emails now (Redmond, 2007) because they preferred communicating through social network sites (see ‘char6’ among the top-rated characteristics).
4.3 Gen Y Characteristics by Sex
The following table showed the mean and significance level of significant characteristic, compared in term of sex, excluding the three variables that were eliminated earlier from validity results: write blogs or online notes, use email to communicate with your parents, and skeptical or ignorant about the politics.
Table 3: Significant Characteristics which Differentiated Gen Y by Sex
Character Sex N Mean Std Dev Sig.
(2-tailed)
9** You use text message (SMS) to communicate with your parents. F 134 4.88 1.275 .035
M 166 4.54 1.451 .032
10** You take photos with your phone and share it with friends. F 134 4.34 1.425 .000
M 166 3.49 1.517 .000
14** You enjoy and allocate special time for traveling. F 133 4.81 1.156 .048
M 166 4.54 1.173 .047
30** You are image conscious; you care about what others think about your image. F 134 4.32 1.161 .019
M 165 3.98 1.295 .018
40** You consider your home and family very important. F 134 5.47 .864 .037
M 165 5.25 .902 .036
There were 5 differentiating characteristics, where all of them were more preferred by female respondents. All items were significant at p<0.05. The results were not surprising, as it was obvious that female were more used to take photos with their phone and communicate better with parents. It was also quite clear that female might be more images conscious and consider home and family very important.
4.4 Gen Y Characteristics by Education Level
The following table showed the mean and significance level of significant characteristic, compared in term of education level. In this analysis, the researcher excluded ten items (item 4, 5, 8, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33) as per validity test results.
Table 4: Significant Characteristics which Differentiated Gen Y by Education Level
Character Edu N Mean StDev Sig.
(2-tailed)
12** You love publicity and enjoy being the center of attention S1 237 3.94 1.404 .042
S2 62 3.53 1.388 .042
24** You are creative and resourceful (find alternatives to solve a problem) S1 237 4.78 .909 .045
S2 62 5.03 .809 .033
Education Level did not act as good differentiating factor here as it was only differentiating two characteristic at p<0.05 among 30 valid Gen Y characteristics. For ‘love publicity and enjoy being the center of attention’ attribute, graduate students scored lower. This might be due to the maturity level of graduate students that did not consider publicity as very important anymore, while undergraduate students were still usually seeking to prove themselves thus loving the attention. Graduate students considered themselves as more creative and resourceful. This might be due to the education level. They were more used to solve problems on their own thus more confident in their ability to be creative and resourceful.
4.5 Sex and Education Level Significance as Differentiating Factors
To answer the research questions: ‘does sex affect the emergence of dominant key characteristics of Indonesian Gen Y?’ and ‘does education level affect the emergence of dominant key characteristics of Indonesian Gen Y?’ the researcher performed univariate analysis of variance. The researcher also added extra factor, Current University (where the respondents currently study), to be analyzed as fixed factor, so there were total three factors with dependent variable Gen Y Characteristics (average from all 30 characteristics score). First of all, the Levene’s test was performed and the result displayed p-value at 0.837 (>0.05), thus variance homogeneity assumption in Anova was fulfilled. Then, the univariate anova was done as follow:
Table 5: Univariate Anova – Tests of Between-Subjects Effects – Gen Y
Source Type III Sum
of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Partial Eta Squared
Sex .850 1 .850 3.427 .065 .012
Education Level .196 1 .196 .788 .375 .003
Current University 3.833 3 1.278 5.151 .002 .050
Sex
Hypotheses 0 (H0):
Hypotheses 1 (H1):
Female & male give similar effect to Gen Y Character score.
Female & male did not give similar effect to Gen Y Character score.
If Fcalc > Ftable or p-value < 0.05 then H0 is rejected, otherwise it would be accepted. The table above showed p-value for Sex at 0.065 (>0.05) thus we should accept H0 which means there was no significant difference between female and male respondents in term of Gen Y characteristics. Sex is only significant as differentiator at p<0.1.
Education Level
Hypotheses 0 (H0):
Hypotheses 1 (H1): Undergraduate & graduate gives similar effect towards Gen Y character.
Undergraduate & graduate did not give similar effect towards Gen Y character.

The p-value for Education Level was 0.375 (>0.05), there was NO significant difference between undergraduate and graduate respondents in influencing Gen Y characteristics score.
Current University
Hypotheses 0 (H0):
Hypotheses 1 (H1): ITB, UI, UNPAR, PMBS give similar effects to Gen Y character score.
ITB, UI, UNPAR, PMBS did not give similar effects to Gen Y character score.

The p-value for Current University was 0.02 (<0.05), there was significant difference between respondents in different universities in influencing Gen Y characteristics score. Using Tukey Method, a post hoc analysis as shown in table 6 was done to review similarity and differences among universities:
 ITB, UI, and UNPAR respondents were considered similar thus grouped in subset 1
 ITB and PMBS respondents were considered similar thus grouped in subset 2

PMBS respondents was rather similar with ITB but different with UI and UNPAR. It might be because PMBS can be considered new university if compared with others, while its similarity with ITB probably was due to the majority of the respondents who were business and business-minded Industrial Engineering students (undergraduate or master).
Table 6: Univariate Anova – Post Hoc Test for Current University
University Respondents Subset 1 Subset 2
UNPAR 70 4.3364
UI 93 4.4397
ITB 95 4.4874 4.4874
PMBS 42 4.6931
Sig. .295 .080
Comparison
If compared with each other, it was clear that Current University (p-value of 0.002<0.01) hold the place as the most significant differentiator, followed by Sex (p-value of 0.065<0.1). Education level did not act as good differentiator as the p-value was 0.375>0.1.
It was interesting that both Sex and Education Level (as moderating variables) was not considered as significant differentiating factor (at p<0.05), this means that Gen Y characteristics could be more universally applied against different sex and education level, yet more specifically influenced by current university.
5. Conclusion and Implications to HR Managers in Indonesia
Based on the study, Gen Y in Indonesia has indeed similar characteristics with Gen Y in countries like US, UK, and Australia. This finding was relatively similar with the findings from other studies (Redmond, 2007; McCrindle, 2007; Eisner, 2005; Earle, 2003). There were differences, though, in term of the lowest-rated attributes regarding internet (use email to communicate with parents and write blogs), probably because the relatively low internet penetration in Indonesia in comparison with the high penetration in those developed countries. There was also an indication that culture may affect the rating of Gen Y key characters in the top-rated attribute in Indonesia (consider home and family very important) which showed the Eastern culture where home and family plays more major part in a student’s life versus in the Western culture. From the findings, we can conclude that Generation Y in major cities in Indonesia had similarities with those in developed countries. The key difference was due to a factor that we could do little about: low internet penetration.
Using this research, HR managers should manage their employment branding effort by emphasizing their companies’ culture and program that are suitable with Gen Y characteristics. HR managers should also design their workplace policy, programs, and workplace environment in order to adapt with the different needs of this new generation. For example, as Gen Y values home and family highly, employers may provide more flexible work option to enable (Gen Y) workers occasionally work from home thus have more time for family. HR managers should also consider benefits and company leisure activities which include family members. As for meeting the character of valuing good education and hunger for learning, employers should consider providing online learning facility as well as scholarship to continue further degree. HR managers may also want to provide coaching for the supervisor of new Gen Y workers so that they can understand the different way of thinking and adapt their supervising style. In the other hand, Gen Y should also be coached to understand company culture and generational difference to enable more effective work relationship. These were only few examples on how HR managers can utilize this research result regarding Gen Y characteristics
Another interesting finding about Gen Y Characteristics was that Sex and Education Level did not differentiate significantly, while Current University was considered a good differentiator. This means that Indonesian Gen Y characteristics could be more universally applied against different sex and education level, yet influenced by current university. Thus, HR managers or recruiters do not need to design different strategy for attracting Gen Y with different sex (female and male) as their characteristics were quite similar. There were even less need to differentiate employment branding or retention strategy for Gen Y with different education level. Uniquely, different approach when recruiting in different universities should be done as there were significant differences among respondents coming from different university. For example, companies might design two approaches, one when coming to PMBS and another were used for recruiting UI and UNPAR students. ITB students might be included in both strategies. However, this decision should be strengthened by reviewing the results of important organizational attributes (according to Gen Y) findings.
In regards with Knowledge Management, HR managers should notice that as Gen Y wants to connect 24/7 and socialize actively in social network sites, this could be indication that they are more willing to share. This tendency should be strengthened by promoting knowledge sharing culture through intranet. Employees and company will both benefit from the sharing of best practices, lesson learned from failure stories, project documentation, and work tips. Another usage of this research result is on education field where schools and teachers should adjust their teaching methods to make it more suitable with Gen Y needs, for example: utilizing online media for discussion forum, material sharing, and task collection.
5.1 Limitations
This research is limited that the Gen Y was represented by Indonesian final year students only in Jakarta and Bandung area. Further study should be conducted to check applicability of the results for respondents in smaller cities. The number of graduate respondents were also limited (62 respondents) thus needs to be studied further with more adequate sample numbers.
5.2 Future Research
There are several future research suggestions to build further, based on this, such as seeking whether there is other significant element that may affect the different ratings of characteristics perception, such as major of study; family background (parents’ education, income, cultural origins); and childhood location (metropolitan, suburbs, small town). There could also be further study on the development of different talent attraction strategies and activities or employment branding and retention strategy, tailored to the findings of this research. It would also be interesting to review the implications of these findings in university teaching methods and curriculum, as well as in Knowledge Management field.
References
Career Development International. (2003). Employers must adapt to meet the needs of Generation Y. Career Development International.
Covin, T. J. (1994). Perceptions of family-owned firms: the impact of gender and education level. Journal of Small Business Management.
Dessler, G. (2005). Human Resource Management (10th Edition). USA: Prentice Hall.
Earle, H. A. (2003). Building a Workplace of Choice: Using the Work Environment to Attract and Retain Top Talent. Journal of Facilities Management.
Eisner, S. P. (2005). Managing Generation Y. Advanced Management Journal.
Fields, B., Wilder, S., Bunch, J., and Newbold, R. (2007). Millennial Leaders: Success Stories From Today’s Most Brilliant Generation Y Leaders. USA: Millenial Leaders.
Fishman, C. (1998, July). The War for Talent: Interviews with Authors. USA: FastCompany Magazine Issue 16.
Hira, N. A. (2007, May). Attracting the TwentySomething Workers. Fortune Magazine.
McCrindle, M. (2006). New Generations at Work: Attracting, Recruiting, Retraining, and Training Generation Y. Australia: McCrindle Research.
McCrindle, M. (2007). Bridging the Gap. Australia: McCrindle Research.
McKeown, J. L. (2002). Retaining Top Employees (BriefcaseBooks). USA: McGrawHill.
McWhirter, E. H. (1997). Perceived Barriers to Education and Career: Ethnic and Gender Differences. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 124-140.
Queensland Tourism Industry Council, N. (2007). Generation Y Profile. Australia: Queensland Tourism Industry Council.
Redmond, P. (2007). Life According to Generation Y. Liverpool, UK: University of Liverpool.
Reese, M. P., Rowings, L., and Sharpley, T. (2007). Employee Benefits of the Future. Employee Benefit Plan Review.
Sekaran, Uma (1992, 2003). Research Methods for Business – A Skill Building Approach (2nd Ed.). USA: John Wiley and Sons
Sothertons, N. (2006). Generation Y. Australia: Sothertons Chartered Accountants.
Streeter, B. (2004). Next generation employees, yeah, they’re different. American Bankers Association Journal.
Terjesen, S., Vinnicombe, S., and Freeman, C. (2007). Attracting Generation Y Graduates: Organizational Attributes, Likelihood to Apply, and Sex Differences. Career Development International Journal.
Yamin, S., Kurniawan, H. (2009). SPSS Complete. Indonesia: Salemba Infotek.

Internet Sources
www.evolution.blogs.com (retrieved on May 2008) from Millennial Leaders blog
www.freedictionary.com (retrieved on May 2008)
www.wikipedia.com (retrieved on December 2007 and May 2008)