Employing the feminist interpretive focus group method, findings in this study demonstrate how different generational perspectives of professional women, socialized at different periods of time, intersect in the current workforce to explain conflict around work and life. In particular, the authors found conflict centers around two well-documented discourses thematic in their focus groups, which organize the way people think about work—paying one’s dues and face-time. Using interpretive focus groups to draw out the different interpretive frames of the generations, this study deconstructs the interpretations, providing a hopeful place to begin a theoretical and practical conversation that bridges the different perspectives of women across generations as they negotiate work and life. Findings have implications for organizational, work/life, and qualitative communication studies.
AshcraftK. L. (2005). Feminist organizational communication studies: Engaging gender in public and private. In MayS.MumbyD. K. (Eds.), Engaging organizational communication theory (pp. 141-169). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
AshcraftK. L.MumbyD. K. (2004). Reworking gender: A feminist communicology of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
AlvessonM.KarremanD. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53, 1125-1149.
BrinckerhoffP. C. (2007). Generations: The challenge of a lifetime for your nonprofit. Saint Paul, MN: Fieldstone Alliance.
6.
BuzzanellP. M. (1995). Reframing the glass ceiling as a socially constructed process: Implications for understanding and change. Communication Monographs, 62, 327-354.
7.
BuzzanellP. M.LiuM. (2005). Struggling with maternity leave policies and practices: A poststructuralist feminist analysis of gendered organizing. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 1-25.
8.
Coleman GallagherV.FioritoJ. (2005). Generational differences in attitudes about unions: A segmented dispositional marketing approach. Southern Business Review, 31, 35-49.
9.
CordenizJ. A. (2002). Recruitment, retention, and management of Generation X: A focus on nursing professionals. Journal of Healthcare Management, 47, 237-250.
10.
DausienB.HansesA.InowlockiL.RiemannG. (2008). The analysis of professional practice, the self-reflection of practitioners, and their way of doing things: Resources of biography analysis and other interpretive approaches. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/312
11.
DodsonL.SchmalzbauerL. (2005). Poor mothers and habits of hiding: Participatory methods in poverty research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 949-959.
12.
DouW.WangG.ZhouN. (2006). Generational and regional differences in media consumption patterns of Chinese Generation X consumers. Journal of Advertising, 35, 101-110.
13.
DurkinD. (2008). Youth movement. Communication World/, March-April, 23-25.
14.
EckmanE. W. (2002). Women high school principals: Perspectives on role conflict, role commitment, and job satisfaction. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 57-77.
15.
EisnerS. P. (2005). Managing Generation Y. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 70, 4-15.
16.
ElmoreC. (2009). Turning points and turnover among female journalists: Communication Resistance and repression. Women’s Studies in Communication, 32, 232-254.
17.
FaberB. D. (2001). Gen/ethics? Organizational ethics and student and instructor conflicts in workplace training. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10, 291-317.
18.
FairhurstG.SarrR. (1996). The art of framing: Managing the language of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
FletcherJ. K. (1999). Disappearing acts: Gender, power, and relational practice at work. Cambridge: MIT Press.
21.
GlaserB. G.StraussA. L.1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
22.
GoldenA. G.KirbyE. L.JorgensonJ. (2006). Work-life research from both sides now: An integrative perspective for organizational and family communication. In BeckC. (Ed.), Communication yearbook30 (pp. 143-195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
JorgensonJ. (2000). Interpreting the intersections of work and family: Frame conflicts in women’s work. Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue Electronique de Communication, 10. Retrieved from http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v10n3400.htm#Dois
32.
KirbyE. L. (2000). Should I do as you say, or do as you do? Mixed messages about work and family. La Revue Electronique de Communication, 10. Retrieved from http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v10n3400.htm#Dois
33.
KirbyE. L.GoldenA. G.MedvedC. E.JorgensonJ.BuzzanellP. M. (2003). An organizational communication challenge to the discourse of work and family research: From problematics to empowerment. In KalbfleischP. J. (Ed.), Communication yearbook27 (pp.1-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
KirbyE. L.KroneK. J. (2002). “The policy exists but you can’t really use it”: Communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 50-77.
35.
KirbyE. L.WielandS.McBrideM.C. (2006). Work-life communication. In OetzelJ.Ting-ToomeyS. (Eds.), Handbook of conflict communication (pp. 327-357). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
LeavyP. L. (2007). The practice of feminist oral history and focus group interviews. In Nagy Hesse-BiberS.LeavyP. L. (Eds.), Feminist research practices: A primer (pp. 149-186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
LindlofT. R.TaylorB. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
MartinC. A.TulganB. (2006). Managing the generation mix: From urgency to opportunity (2nd ed.). Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
39.
MartinJ. (1990). Deconstructing organizational taboos: The suppression of gender conflict in organizations. Organization Science, 1, 339-359.
40.
McCannR. M.DaileyR. M.GilesH.OtaH. (2005). Beliefs about intergenerational communication across the lifespan: Middle age and the roles of age stereotyping and respect norms. Communication Studies, 56, 293-311.
41.
McCannR. M.GilesH. (2006). Communication with people of different ages in the workplace: Thai and American data. Human Communication Research, 32, 74-108.
42.
MedvedC. E.KirbyE. L. (2005). Family CEOs: A feminist analysis of corporate mothering discourses. Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 435-478.
43.
MillerS. (2004, August). SHRM Survey: Generations hold differing views on work/life balance. Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management.
44.
MullanyL. (2006). “Girls on tour”: Politeness, small talk, and gender in managerial business meetings. Journal of Politeness Research, 2, 55-77.
45.
ParkerK. (2011, March14). Born-again feminism: How a movement that’s grown stale in America can draw new inspiration from its abaya-clad sisters in the Middle East. Newsweek, pp. 11-12.
46.
PerlowL. A. (1997). Finding time: How corporations, individuals, and families can benefit from new work practices. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
47.
RapoportR.BailynL. (1996). Relinking life and work: Toward a better future. New York, NY: Ford Foundation.
TretheweyA. (1997). Resistance, identity, and empowerment: A postmodern feminist analysis of clients in a human service organization. Communication Monographs, 64, 281-301.
50.
TwengeJ. (2006). Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—and more miserable than ever before. New York, NY: Free Press.
51.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). 2007 Statistics. Washington, DC: Author.
52.
WilliamsA.GilesH. (1996). Intergenerational conversations: Young adults’ retrospective accounts. Human Communication Research, 23, 220-250.
53.
WilliamsA.OtaH. (1997). Young people’s beliefs about intergenerational communication. Communication Research, 24, 370-394.
54.
WolbergJ.PokrywczynskiJ. (2001). A psychographic analysis of Generation Y college students. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(5), 33-52.
55.
ZemkeR.RainesC.FilipczakB. (2000). Generations at work: Managing the clash of veterans, boomers, Xers, and Nexters in your workplace. New York, NY: American Management Association.
