TYPE Original Research PUBLISHED 31 January 2024 DOI 10.3389/feduc.2024.1323104 Intergenerational climate at OPEN ACCESS higher education: validity of the Spanish version of the workplace EDITED BY Wang-Kin Chiu, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China REVIEWED BY Anna Cierniak-Emerych, intergenerational climate scale Wroclaw University of Economics, Poland Scott King, Shenandoah University, United States David Rodríguez-Gómez 1*, Teresa Gonzalez-Ramirez 2 and *CORRESPONDENCE Carme Armengol 1 David Rodríguez-Gómez 1 Center for Research and Studies for Organizational Development, Universitat Autonoma de david.rodriguez.gomez@uab.cat Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain, 2 Departament of Diagnostic and Research Methods in Education, RECEIVED 17October 2023 University of Seville, Seville, Spain ACCEPTED 12 January 2024 PUBLISHED 31 January 2024 CITATION An ageing workforce and the coexistence of different generations in the Rodríguez-Gómez D, Gonzalez-Ramirez T and same work environment has garnered the interest of practitioners and Armengol C (2024) Intergenerational climate theoreticians with regard to the climate and interactions that occur between at higher education: validity of the Spanish version of the workplace intergenerational these generations. Although there are various instruments that attempt to climate scale. measure the intergenerational climate in organizations, there are no studies Front. Educ. 9:1323104. that demonstrate the effectiveness of such instruments in the Spanish university doi: 10.3389/feduc.2024.1323104 context. This article presents the analysis of the psychometric properties of COPYRIGHT the Spanish version of the Workplace Intergenerational Climate Scale (WICS) © 2024 Rodríguez-Gómez, Gonzalez-Ramirez and Armengol. This is an adjusted to the specific context of higher education institutions and administered open-access article distributed under the to a sample of 1,116 university teachers. After the analyses were carried out, an terms of the Creative Commons Attribution instrument with 16 items was obtained (4 less than the original questionnaire), License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, and we can affirm that the resulting questionnaire is appropriate to measure the provided the original author(s) and the intergenerational climate among university teachers in the fields of teaching, copyright owner(s) are credited and that the research and management in the Spanish university context. However, more original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic detailed, and individual analysis of each of the areas (i.e., teaching, research and practice. No use, distribution or reproduction management) would likely yield slightly different models but a better fit. is permitted which does not comply with these terms. KEYWORDS reliability analysis, factor analysis, intergenerational climate, intergenerational interaction, generational relay 1 Introduction The study of the climate in organizations has its beginnings in the first half of the 20th century and arose from the need to understand the influence that the state of mind of workers has on work performance. Numerous researchers have since focused their studies on determining the existing climate in organizations and how it affects the behaviour, productivity, and satisfaction of workers (e.g., Langford, 2009; Grobler and Rensburg, 2019; Loh et al., 2019; Pecino et al., 2019). Currently, longer life expectancies are driving a change in the policies of European countries, promoting actions to prolong the working life of workers (Scharn et al., 2018). One of the direct consequences of this type of policy is an ageing workforce and the coexistence of different generations in the same work environment, issues that have garnered the interest of practitioners and theorists with regard to the climate and the interactions that occur between Frontiers in Education 01 frontiersin.org Rodríguez-Gómez et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1323104 said generations (e.g., Johnson and Johnson, 2010; North and Fiske, climate of an organization to a multilevel vision in which variables are 2015; Lloyd-Jones and Worley, 2018; Tang and Martins, 2021). incorporated that allow studying the climate of an organization by Despite the existence of studies focused on intergenerational modulating the behaviour and impact of these variables. In this relationships in different work contexts, those that focus on the context, the report titled “Building leaders for the next decade” educational field and, specifically, on higher education are scarce (Bresman and Rao, 2018) is an example of this new stage. Bresman (Castro-Ceacero et al., 2023). In many cases, the analysis of the and Rao’s (2018) analysis on intergenerational leadership, exploring intergenerational dimension in higher education institutions focuses aspects such as the perception of different generations about on the existence of students of different ages in the same classroom leadership, the most important barriers when accessing leadership (Pstross et al., 2017; Heffernan et al., 2021) or on the importance of positions, and the conception of how to exercise leadership based on intergenerational relationships to combat educational inequity generations, suggests that the variable generation is a key aspect in (Hunter et al., 2018). team management to achieve a good organizational climate. The few studies that address the analysis of intergenerational Hence, scientific effort should focus on identifying the factors that relationships in universities as a workplace, associate it, on the one affect the intergenerational climate in organizations and on building hand, to processes of discrimination, job engagement or professional instruments that allow their measurement so that a body of knowledge satisfaction (McConatha et al., 2022) and, on the other hand, to on the variables that affect the climate of an organization can be built processes of learning, knowledge sharing or the reduction of in a valid and reliable way. In this sense, one of the instruments that knowledge loss (Bratianu and Leon, 2015; Dzimińska and Warwas, most comprehensively measures intergenerational relationships in the 2022). Although there is no clear and standardized proposal of workplace is the Workplace Intergenerational Climate Scale (WICS) nomenclature, characteristics and interval of years in which to place developed by King and Bryant (2017). This instrument, composed of each generation (Mehra and Nickerson, 2019), we agree with several 5 related subscales, allows the intergenerational climate of authors that currently, we can find up to 3 different generations living organizations to be measured more precisely through the eyes of the together in the same work environment, sharing workspaces, people who compose an organization and provides a comprehensive functions and tasks (e.g., Ropes, 2013; North and Fiske, 2015; Polat image of the intergenerational climate in the workplace as well as a and Yılmaz, 2020): Baby Boomers (born between 1946–1964), more nuanced examination of the aspects in which the organization Generation X (born between 1965–1980), Generation Y and excels and in which it needs to improve. Millennials (born between 1981–2000). These are 3 generations with The WICS, when used to evaluate the intergenerational climate of different experiences, ways of acting, thinking and understanding of a workplace from this multidimensional approach, provides a means working life. Consequently, although we can find employers that avoid to measure various aspects of moderating variables (absence of age the presence of multiple generations in their organizations, with stereotypes, human resources policy favourable to intergenerational actions and policies against the hiring and retention of older workers communication, frequency of intergenerational contact, etc.).However, (Ghosheh, 2008), the truth is that, as we have already commented, in at this time, there are no studies that show the effectiveness of the most organizations, these generations coexist, and the policies to WICS in the Spanish context or in the university context. Thus, after harmonize coexistence are quite varied. In these multigenerational adapting the questionnaire to the specificities of Spanish universities, contexts, it is vitally important to understand and promote the it is necessary to analyse and contrast the validity of the resulting relationships that are established between people of different instrument. In this sense, the fundamental objective of this work was generations to ensure not only a good work environment but also to to verify the psychometric properties, in terms of structural validity facilitate the personal and professional development of the members and internal consistency, of the Spanish version of the Workplace of the organization, taking advantage of the learning and exchange of Intergenerational Climate Scale (WICS) when applied in knowledge that can occur between colleagues of different generations Spanish universities. (intergenerational learning IGL) and, ultimately, the processes of The current Spanish Law of Universities (Ley Orgánica, 2023) cocreation and innovation in the organization (Gerpott et al., 2021; establishes that full-time faculty at public universities must perform Tang and Martins, 2021). functions related to teaching, research and knowledge transfer, and Many studies point to the physical, cognitive and social benefits institutional management. The development of these functions involves of intergenerational contacts, experiences and programmes interaction with colleagues in clearly different university contexts (e.g., (Hatton-Yeo and Ohsako, 2000; López et al., 2015, 2017). However, faculties, departments, teaching and research units and groups). despite the importance of the subject, it must be recognized that many The analyses presented in this article are divided according to the experiences of intergenerational learning are not sufficiently known, three main functions mentioned above (i.e., teaching, research, and analysed and disseminated. The effects of this type of learning have management), thus respecting the specificity of the relationships been little explored, and it is necessary that they begin to become an maintained in each of them. object of study. Chronological age acts as one of the organizational referents of the society in which we operate, operating as a central referent of the 2 Materials and methods identity of individuals. This age-based vision of intergenerational relationships is giving way to another that aims to address those This research was conducted as part of the project “PRUNAI— variables that may have the greatest impact on the climate of an University and Intergenerational Learning” (ref. PID2019- organization. In other words, we have transitioned from focusing 107747RB-I00), funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy analyses fundamentally on the age variable and how it influences the and Competitiveness. Frontiers in Education 02 frontiersin.org Rodríguez-Gómez et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1323104 TABLE 1 Demographic characteristics of the participants (N = 1,116). 2.1 Population and sample Age m = 51.21 (sd = 10.31) The fieldwork was carried out between February 2021 and July Gender 2021 and consisted of applying a self-administered online Male 53.1% questionnaire. During the 2021–2022 academic year, the total number Female 45.5% of academics working in the Spanish higher education system reached Nonbinary 0.4% 133,484 (58,299 women and 75,185 men). The average age of the NA 0.7% teaching and research staff was 49.4 years. Almost 7% of these faculty Other 0.3% members were older than 67 years, and only 8.6% of the active teaching staff were younger than 35 years (Ministerio de Universidades, 2023). Generation A simple random sampling was used to select 1,116 university Baby Boomer (older than 57 years) 34.7% professors employed in public universities (593 men and 508 women), Generation X (56–41 years of age) 48.9% accepting a maximum margin of error of ±3% and a confidence level Millennials (40–21 years of age) 16.4% of 95% (p = q = 0.50 and k = 2). All participants provided informed Position consent before beginning to answer the questionnaire. The consent Adjunct lecturer 6.7% form clearly stated that participation was free and voluntary and that Predoc researcher 3.2% participants could withdraw from the study at any time. Anonymity Postdoc researcher 2.9% and data protection were also guaranteed. Assistant lecturer 17.5% The sample only includes university professors with experience in Professor 22.2% the three areas analysed (i.e., teaching, research and management). University-school professor 0.2% Each participant completed the same scale three times, one for each Associate professor 45.7% of the three areas analysed, considering, as it was stated above, that the University-school lecturer 0.7% colleagues with whom they interact in each of these areas is different Visiting lecturer 0.1% and that according to the role theory in organisations (Turner, 2001; Emeritus lecturer 0.8% Sluss et al., 2011), the behaviour and roles assumed by each individual in an organization are continuously constructed and reconstructed Experience (years) m = 21.41 (sd = 11.45) according to the context and the people with whom we interact. Teaching period (6-year-interval) m = 3.46 (sd = 2.17) Table 1 provides information on the sociodemographic Research period (6-year-interval) m = 2.22 (sd = 1.91) characteristics of the participants. Management positions experience m = 0.88 (sd = 1.46) (years) 2.2 Instrument Knowledge field Arts and humanities 20.7% The WICS is a questionnaire that allows measuring the attitudes Science and bioscience 16.7% and perceptions of the members of an organization about other Health science 16.5% colleagues of different ages in their workplace (King and Bryant, Social sciences and law 34.3% 2017). The questionnaire is originally composed of 20 items grouped Engineering and architecture 11.8% into 5 subscales: (a) lack of generational stereotypes (LGS), (b) positive intergenerational affect (PIA), (c) intergenerational contact (IC), (d) workplace generational inclusiveness (WGI) and (e) workplace model proposed and its adjustment to the research data through intergenerational retention (WIR). different goodness-of-fit indices. There are several authors who In the Spanish version of the questionnaire, the items were recommend the use of EFA when starting, as is our case, from a prior translated by the researchers and subsequently revised by a theory and seeking to determine, a priori, the number of factors and professional translator. Since psychometric literature suggests that the relationships among them (Ferrando and Anguiano-Carrasco, accuracy drop when the scale points are below five or above seven 2010; Marsh et al., 2014; Martínez-Clares and González-Lorente, (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994; Johns, 2010) and that reliability is 2019). EFA was performed following the principal components optimized with a seven-point scale (Colman et al., 1997), although the method and a direct oblimin rotation of the factors, without fixing the original version of the instrument used a 4-point scale, in this version factors. The responses to the 9 items with negative statements were of the WICS, all items are scored using a 7-point Likert scale of recoded inversely. agreement/disagreement, except for the IC scale, which is indicated Second, to verify the adequacy of the structure obtained with EFA, by frequency. The first draft of the WICS in Spanish was tested with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out using the 20 university professors to identify ambiguities or difficult-to- maximum likelihood method. To assess the goodness-of-fit of the understand constructions. models, 3 types of measurements were used: absolute [chi-square (χ2) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)], incremental [comparative fit index (CFI), normed-fit index (NFI), and Tucker– 2.3 Data analysis Lewis index (TLI)], and parsimony [parsimony ratio (PRATIO), parsimony comparative fit index (PCFI), and parsimony normed-fit IBM SPSS for Windows 26.0 was used to analyse data. Once the index (PNFI)] fit indices (Kline, 2005; Hooper et al., 2008). data were collected, EFA was carried out to evaluate the measurement Additionally, Akaike information criterion (AIC) was used to compare Frontiers in Education 03 frontiersin.org Rodríguez-Gómez et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1323104 the different models. Lower AIC values indicated a better fit (Akaike, • Factor C: The third factor addresses aspects related to the degree 1987). For a better understanding and interpretation of the results, of intergenerational inclusiveness in the workplace. each of these measures is described below: • Factor D: This last factor is directly linked to intergenerational retention in the workplace. • Chi-square and degrees of freedom (χ2/df). The use of degrees of freedom allows the effects of the sample size on the χ2 value to Focusing on the last dimension analysed (i.e., IC—Factor E), the be minimized. This measure is optimal if χ2/df is less than or Bartlett test of sphericity and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of equal to 3, and it is considered acceptable with values equal to or sampling adequacy (KMO = 0.854, KMO = 0.845, KMO = 0.872, less than 5 (Gupta and Geetika, 2020). respectively) suggested that the EFA results were feasible; however, • RMSEA is considered one of the strongest goodness-of-fit some KMO values were somewhat lower but acceptable according to indices; a value less than 0.08 is considered acceptable, and a the criteria established by Kaiser (1974). value less than.05 is considered optimal (Gupta and Geetika, The percentage of the variance explained by the univariate 2020). A perfect fit is represented by a null value, which means solution obtained for each of the areas was somewhat higher than that that there is no difference between the observed variation and the indicated in the previous EFA (63.82, 62.91 and 63.40%, respectively). implicit variance in the model. Likewise, the factorial load of the various factors demonstrated the • The NFI evaluates the decrease in the χ2 statistic of the adopted consistency of this last dimension. model with respect to the base model. However, this value tends Next, CFA was carried out for the 3 areas analysed: teaching, to be negatively biased. The nonnormed fit index (NNFI), better research and management. For each of these areas, 3 different models known as the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), corrects these negative were generated that were subjected to comparisons. The first model bias problems. However, as it is not a normalized index, values was derived directly from the previous EFA. The second model can be greater than 1, making it difficult to interpret. Both indices eliminated those items that had a lower correlation with their must reach a minimum value of 0.90 (Byrne, 2010). respective factors: PIA4, WIR4, LGS4, and PIA3. The third model • The CFI compares the chi-square of the tested model with that of included the correlations between the errors with modification indices the theoretical model. This value, which is between 0 and 1, is greater than 10 (CE). considered acceptable when it exceeds 0.90 (Shi et al., 2018). Figures 1–3 show the flow diagrams of the final model obtained • The above indices of absolute and incremental fit often perform for teaching, research and management. better with simple models, with less rigorous models showing a The goodness-of-fit of each model was assessed based on absolute, better fit (Mulaik et al., 1989). For this reason, the parsimony incremental and parsimony fit indices (see Table 3). ratio (PRatio), the PCFI and the PNFI were calculated. The As seen in Table 4, in none of the models was the chi-square value model with higher parsimony indices is considered better (James acceptable, i.e., less than or equal to 3 (Kline, 2005). Values less than et al., 1983). or equal to 5 were considered a reasonable fit (Marsh and Hocevar, 1985). p values less than 0.05 confirmed the inadequacy of the model Finally, Cronbach’s alpha values were used to estimate the (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1996). reliability of each dimension considered. The different analyses (i.e., Considering, as already mentioned, that χ2 is sensitive to a large EFA, CFA and Cronbach’s alpha) were carried out taking into account sample such as the one used here, the RMSEA index was used to assess the 3 main areas pertaining to university teachers in the Spanish model adjustments. In this case, values ranging from 0.05 to 0.08 were context: teaching, research and management. considered acceptable (MacCallum et al., 1996). The results indicated that according to this index, Model 3 had the best fit for all 3 areas. Regarding the incremental fit index or the baseline comparison 3 Results results (i.e., CFI, TLI and NFI), for all areas, Model 3 had values closer to 1 and, therefore, a better fit (Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Hu and Table 2 provides the matrix of rotated components for the items Bentler, 1998; West et al., 2012). on the scale. In the 3 EFAs performed (i.e., teaching, research and Regarding the parsimony fit indices or parsimony-adjusted management), the Bartlett test of sphericity and the Kaiser–Meyer– measures (i.e., PRATIO, PCFI and PNFI), considering that the more Olkin sampling adequacy measure (KMO = 0.854, KMO = 0.845, complex the model is, the lower the fit index, the results indicated a KMO = 0.872, respectively) suggested that the results were feasible. better fit of Model 1 for the 3 areas (i.e., teaching, research However, the percentage of the variance explained by the factors and management). obtained (55.90, 54.97 and 57.57%) as well as the distribution and Finally, the Akaike information criterion (Akaike, 1987) indicated factorial load of the items in each factor indicated an inadequacy of that the model with a lower AIC value and, therefore, with a better fit the theoretical model with respect to the empirical model and for the dataset was Model 3 in the fields of teaching, research suggested a need to debug various factors to increase the percentage and management. of explained variance. Despite what is suggested by the parsimony fit index, the calculation of the total variance explained for Model 3 revealed better • Factor A: This first factor retains its link to the dimension of the results than those obtained for original Model 1 for the fields of absence of intergenerational stereotypes. teaching (64.55%), research (63.45%) and management (63.80%). • Factor B: The second factor obtained considers elements of To verify the construct and discriminant validity of the intergenerational interactions in work contexts. instrument, the standardized correlation coefficients between factors Frontiers in Education 04 frontiersin.org Rodríguez-Gómez et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1323104 TABLE 2 Matrix of rotated components. Teaching Research Management Factor A—Absence of stereotypes LGS1. Colleagues from a generation other than mine are not interested in making friends outside of their 0.623 0.541 0.641 generationa LGS2. Colleagues from other generations complain more than colleagues my agea 0.653 0.652 0.679 LGS3. Colleagues from other generations usually talk about things that do not interest me a 0.556 0.572 0.585 LGS4. Colleagues from a generation other than mine tend to work differently from colleagues my age a 0.712 0.695 0.769 PIA4. People work better when they work with other people of the same agea 0.503 0.479 0.475 Factor B—Intergenerational interactions PIA1. I feel comfortable when colleagues from other generations try to talk to me 0.775 0.763 0.774 PIA2. I like to interact with my colleagues from other generations 0.847 0.844 0.864 PIA3. My colleagues from generations other than mine are very interesting people 0.666 0.679 0.657 WGI3. I am able to communicate effectively with colleagues of different generations 0.596 0.586 0.607 WGI4. Working with colleagues of different ages enhances the quality of my professional life 0.677 0.687 0.740 Factor C—Intergenerational inclusiveness WGI1. I believe that the environment in my workplace is positive for people of all ages −0.760 0.724 −0.672 WGI2. Colleagues of all ages are respected in my workplace −0.743 0.756 −0.690 WIR4. In my workplace, young and competent workers tend to be ignored in promotion processes a −0.643 0.683 −0.530 Factor D—Intergenerational retention WIR1. My colleagues make older people feel like they should retirea 0.710 0.717 −0.632 WIR2. I feel pressured by younger colleagues to give up my responsibilities a 0.913 0.883 −0.922 WIR3. I feel pressured by older colleagues to give up my responsibilities a 0.603 0.576 −0.740 Factor E—Intergenerational contact IC1. How often do you have conversations with colleagues from other generations? 0.753 0.714 0.703 IC2. How often do you have conversations with colleagues from other generations related to nonwork 0.892 0.884 0.880 topics? IC3. How often do you talk to colleagues from other generations about your personal life? 0.862 0.864 0.874 IC4. How often do you eat during the week with colleagues from other generations (except for periods 0.668 0.692 0.710 with restrictions caused by COVID-19)? The meaning of the acronyms of the original scale is as follows: lack of generational stereotypes (LGS), positive intergenerational affect (PIA), intergenerational contact (IC), workplace generational inclusiveness (WGI); workplace intergenerational retention (WIR).aReverse scored. and between factors and variables were analysed. In the 3 areas, high 4 Discussion correlations were obtained between the factors and their corresponding variables, with values ranging between r = 0.678 and The main aim of the present study was to verify the structural r = 0.912 for teaching; r = 0.665 and r = 0.908 for research; and r = 0.703 validity and internal consistency of the Spanish version of the WICS and r = 0.901 for management. These results confirmed the five-factor when it was applied in working environments in higher structure proposed for the instrument. education institutions. Likewise, the absence of high correlations between the 5 factors As Rodriguez-Santero and Gil-Flores (2019) suggested, in the allowed ruling out that 2 factors may represent the same dimension. analysis of the instrument, we opted for an individual analysis of the The highest values were found between Factors A (absence of items, allowing an assessment of the true structure of the set of items stereotypes) and D (intergenerational retention), with r ranging from that compose the WICS and thus avoid the bias derived from r = 0.441 for the field of teaching and r = 0.400 for the field of item parcelling. management. These data confirmed the discriminant validity of After the analyses were carried out, an instrument with 16 items the instrument. grouped into 5 factors was obtained, presenting a better goodness- Finally, the analysis of the reliability of the WICS, estimated using of-fit measurement for the labour context of Spanish higher education Cronbach’s α, was good for Factor B (intergenerational interaction) institutions (see Table 5). The original instrument proposed by King and acceptable for the rest of the factors for the 3 areas analysed, and Bryant (2017) had 20 items grouped into 5 factors. considering the small number of items that composed each dimension Beyond the IC dimension (Factor E) that, as we have already (see Table 4) (Cortina, 1993; Schmitt, 1996; Taber, 2018). mentioned, we kept apart from the rest, by using a Likert frequency Frontiers in Education 05 frontiersin.org Rodríguez-Gómez et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1323104 FIGURE 1 Final model for teaching. scale, the remaining dimensions presented slight variations, even As already mentioned, in Spain the professional activity of altering the distribution of items with respect to the original proposal. university professors is linked to three main areas: teaching, The dimensions “Absence of Intergenerational Stereotypes” research and management. Each of these areas has its own operating (Factor A) and “Intergenerational Retention” (Factor D) remain fairly structure and involves a specific type of relationships. In order to stable, with the simple loss of 1 item each (i.e., LGS4 and WIR4, identify whether there were differences in the intergenerational respectively). The dimensions “Positive Intergenerational Affect” and climate in these three areas, they were analysed independently. “Intergenerational Inclusiveness” gave rise to 2 new dimensions that, However, contrary to what might be expected if we take into in essence, retained their theoretical basis. The new dimension account that, as indicated by the Role theory in organizations, “Intergenerational Interaction” (Factor B) is composed of 4 items, 2 of individuals play different roles in their daily lives depending, among each of the original dimensions (i.e., PIA1, PIA2, WGI3, and WGI4). other elements, on the context and the group with which they relate The new dimension “Intergenerational Inclusiveness” (Factor C) is (Anglin et al., 2022), the model was quite similar and stable for the composed of only 2 items (i.e., WGI1 and WGI2). 3 areas analysed (i.e., teaching, research and management), Frontiers in Education 06 frontiersin.org Rodríguez-Gómez et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1323104 FIGURE 2 Final model for research. although the adjustment measures for the area of management were and administrators with those who do not usually perform teaching more solid. These results only highlight the differential nature of the and research functions. type of relationships that are maintained when temporarily Regarding the reliability of the instrument, the values were, in occupying management positions in Spanish universities. The general, acceptable although somewhat low for the dimensions Spanish university system, unlike other university systems that opt “Absence of Intergenerational Stereotypes” (Factor A) and for a professionalization of management (Croucher and Woelert, “Intergenerational Retention” (Factor D). 2021), promotes the involvement of university professors in In summary and based on the psychometric properties of the management tasks in coordination with administration and services Spanish adaptation of the WICS to the university work context, the personnel (Sierra-Sánchez et al., 2020; Ley Orgánica, 2023). The proposed instrument is appropriate to measure the intergenerational management activities are very broad, not very homogeneous (e.g., climate existing among university Spanish-speaking teachers in the rector of the university, member of the government team, positions fields of teaching, research and management. in deanships, and department heads or study heads, among others) The measurement of the intergenerational climate, beyond and imply temporary professional relationships between academics offering data on the existing professional relationships in the Spanish Frontiers in Education 07 frontiersin.org Rodríguez-Gómez et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1323104 FIGURE 3 Final model for management. university context, is fundamental for innovation in and improvement There are multiple practical implications of the instrument that of our universities. The existence of an adequate intergenerational has been developed herein for a university context such as that climate is a key element for the retention of talent and to avoid the loss explored in this study; internal adjustment of the instrument was of organizational knowledge (Ramsey et al., 2016), as well as to necessary not only because of sociodemographic evolution but also facilitate processes of knowledge sharing and professional because of ageing and scarce generational turnover of the faculty in development (e.g., Dietz et al., 2022), which are essential to increase most Spanish universities, as indicated in the “Ley Orgánica del the capacity for innovation in and improvement of our universities Sistema Universitario” (“Organic Law of the University System”) (Ley (e.g., Le and Lei, 2019; Sahibzada et al., 2022). Likewise, there are Orgánica, 2023). The results obtained allow conducting a differentiated several studies that link to other key organizational variables, such as diagnosis of each area of competence. Thus, for example, if an communication (Strawser et al., 2021), job satisfaction and job organization scores low on the intergenerational workplace retention engagement (e.g., McConatha et al., 2022), ageism and negative subscale, management can dedicate resources to highlighting how stereotypes (e.g., Lagacé et al., 2019), and generational identity (Lyons promotions are based on merit rather than seniority and how the et al., 2019). contributions of each employee are valued, regardless of how long they Frontiers in Education 08 frontiersin.org Rodríguez-Gómez et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1323104 TABLE 3 Goodness-of-fit indices of the factorial models of teaching, research and management. χ2/df (p) RMSEA CFI TLI NFI PRATIO PCFI PNFI AIC Teaching model Model 1 6.691 (0.000) 0.071 0.889 0.867 0.873 0.833 0.741 0.727 773.139 Model 2 (without PIA4, 8.898 (0.000) 0.084 0.903 0.872 0.892 0.758 0.684 0.676 524.898 WIR4, LGS4, and PIA3) Model 3 (without PIA4, 5.316 (0.000) 0.062 0.951 0.930 0.941 0.697 0.663 0.656 332.555 WIR4, LGS4, and PIA3) + CE Research model Model 1 6.669 (0.000) 0.071 0.884 0.861 0.867 0.833 0.737 0.723 770.868 Model 2 (without PIA4, 8.447 (0.000) 0.082 0.903 0.871 0.891 0.758 0.684 0.675 502.346 WIR4, LGS4, and PIA3) Model 3 (without PIA4, 5.563 (0.000) 0.064 0.944 0.921 0.906 0.712 0.672 0.664 347.442 WIR4, LGS4, and PIA3) + CE Management model Model 1 6.130 (0.000) 0.068 0.902 0.882 0.886 0.833 0.752 0.738 716.999 Model 2 (without PIA4, 7.899 (0.000) 0.079 0.914 0.886 0.903 0.758 0.692 0.684 474.956 WIR4, LGS4, and PIA3) Model 3 (without PIA4, 4.627 (0.000) 0.057 0.958 0.940 0.948 0.697 0.668 0.660 300.845 WIR4, LGS4, and PIA3) + CE TABLE 4 Analysis of the reliability of the WICS for the 3 dimensions discussed. Subscales Teaching (α) Research (α) Management (α) Factor A—Absence of stereotypes 0.622 0.590 0.620 Factor B—Intergenerational interactions 0.804 0.802 0.810 Factor C—Intergenerational inclusiveness 0.789 0.770 0.752 Factor D—Intergenerational retention 0.679 0.668 0.687 Factor E—Intergenerational contact 0.779 0.781 0.795 have been working there or how close they are to retirement. If a generations that are just now entering the university workforce. While workplace earns high scores for generational inclusiveness, the those belonging to the Boomer generation are in the process of institution can use this potential for senior faculty to effectively retirement, the young people of generation Z (born from 2001), also mentor new faculty. Conversely, new teachers could provide senior known as centennials, the crystal generation or new silent generation, teachers with new trends that they may not be as familiar with. These among others, are accessing working life, although its presence in aspects can be specified in specific policies that attend to emergency university contexts is still very scarce. situations such as the one Spain is entering due to the lack of Despite the strengths of this study (i.e., having a broad sample of generational change and internal adjustment of the Spanish Spanish public university faculty; strong evidence for external validity university system. by using a random sample; more accurate data by using a 7-point Future research about intergenerational climate in Higher Likert scale; addressing an urgent but little explored issue in university Education Institutions should consider the role played by the work contexts; or contributing to the debate and development of Frontiers in Education 09 frontiersin.org Rodríguez-Gómez et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1323104 TABLE 5 Final proposed items for the intergenerational climate scale for university teachers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Factor A—Absence of stereotypes Factor A—Ausencia de estereotipos LGS1. Colleagues from a generation other than mine are not interested in making friends outside of their generation.b LGS1. Los colegas de una generación distinta a la mía no están interesados en hacer amigos fuera de su generación.a,b LGS2. Colleagues from other generations complain more than colleagues my age.b LGS2. Los compañeros de otras generaciones se quejan más que los compañeros de mi edad.a,b LGS3. Colleagues from other generations usually talk about things that do not interest me.b LGS3. Los compañeros de otras generaciones suelen hablar de cosas que a mí no me interesan.a,b Factor B—Intergenerational interaction Factor B—Interacción intergeneracional PIA1. I feel comfortable when colleagues from other generations try to talk to me. PIA1. Me siento cómodo cuando compañeros de otras generaciones intentan hablar conmigo.a PIA2. I like to interact with my colleagues from other generations PIA2. Me gusta interactuar con mis compañeros de otras generaciones. WGI3. I am able to communicate effectively with colleagues of different generations. WGI3. Soy capaz de comunicarme efectivamente con colegas de diferentes generaciones.a WGI4. Working with colleagues of different ages enhances the quality of my professional life. WGI4. Trabajar con compañeros de diferentes edades mejora la calidad de mi vida profesional.a Factor C—Intergenerational inclusiveness Factor C—Inclusión intergeneracional WGI1. I believe that the environment in my workplace is positive for people of all ages. WGI1. Creo que el ambiente en mi lugar de trabajo es positivo para personas de todas las edades.a WGI2. Colleagues of all ages are respected in my workplace. Los colegas de todas las edades son respetados en mi lugar de trabajo.a Factor D—Intergenerational retention Factor D—Retención intergeneracional WIR1. My colleagues make older people feel like they should retire. b WIR1. Mis compañeros hacen que las personas mayores sientan que deberían jubilarse.a,b WIR2. I feel pressured by younger colleagues to give up my responsibilities. b WIR2. Me siento presionado por colegas más jóvenes para que renuncie a mis responsabilidades.a,b WIR3. I feel pressured by older colleagues to give up my responsibilities. b WIR3. Me siento presionado por colegas mayores para que renuncie a mis responsabilidades.a,b Factor E—Intergenerational contact Factor E—Contacto intergeneracional IC1. How often do you have conversations with colleagues from other generations? IC1. ¿Con qué frecuencia mantienes conversaciones con compañeros de otras generaciones?a IC2. How often do you have conversations with colleagues from other generations related to nonwork topics? IC2. ¿Con qué frecuencia mantienes conversaciones con compañeros de otras generaciones relacionadas con temas no laborales?a IC3. How often do you talk to colleagues from other generations about your personal lives? IC3. ¿Con qué frecuencia habla con colegas de otras generaciones sobre su vida personal?a IC4. How often do you eat during the week with colleagues from other generations (except for periods with restrictions caused by COVID-19)? IC4. ¿Con qué frecuencia comes durante la semana con compañeros de otras generaciones (excepto en periodos de restricciones provocadas por el COVID-19)?a a Spanish translation of the item. b Reverse scored. The meaning of the acronyms of the original scale is as follows: lack of generational stereotypes (LGS), positive intergenerational affect (PIA), intergenerational contact (IC), workplace generational inclusiveness (WGI); workplace intergenerational retention (WIR). Frontiers in Education 10 frontiersin.org Rodríguez-Gómez et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1323104 policies and strategies to foster a good intergenerational climate in Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review higher education institutions), it also has some limitations that must & editing. CA: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, be taken into account. First, the search for a single model for 3 areas Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. studied (i.e., teaching, research and management) meant making some decisions that reduced the goodness-of-fit in some cases. A detailed and individual analysis of each of the areas would likely yield Funding slightly different models but a better fit. Second, the elimination of the 4 items with respect to the original instrument should be the object of The author(s) declare financial support was received for the a more detailed analysis, with the goal of determining if its formulation research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was was clear and univocal in the Spanish university context and for the 3 supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation work areas studied. (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación de España—MCIN) under Grant PID2019-107747RB-I00. Data availability statement Conflict of interest The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because there is an embargo period of 1 year. Requests to access the The authors declare that the research was conducted in the datasets should be directed to the corresponding author after absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could this period.” be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer Ethics statement review process and the final decision. This study was conducted in accordance with the Academic Integrity Code of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Publisher’s note All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors Author contributions and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the DR-G: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Writing claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TG-R: Conceptualization, endorsed by the publisher. References Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 52, 317–332. doi: 10.1007/ Dzimińska, M., and Warwas, I. (2022). Intergenerational knowledge transfer through BF02294359 geographic and virtual mobility in the higher education context. J. Intergener. Relatsh. 20, 245–264. doi: 10.1080/15350770.2021.1897725 Anglin, A. H., Kincaid, P. A., Short, J. C., and Allen, D. G. (2022). Role theory perspectives: past, present, and future applications of role theories in management Ferrando, P. J., and Anguiano-Carrasco, C. (2010). El análisis factorial como técnica research. J. Manag. 48, 1469–1502. doi: 10.1177/01492063221081442 de investigación en psicología. Pap. Psicól. 31, 18–33. Bentler, P. M., and Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis Gerpott, F. H., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Wenzel, R., and Voelpel, S. C. (2021). Age of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 88, 588–606. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588 diversity and learning outcomes in organizational training groups: the role of knowledge sharing and psychological safety. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 32, 3777–3804. doi: Bratianu, C., and Leon, R. D. (2015). Strategies to enhance intergenerational learning 10.1080/09585192.2019.1640763 and reducing knowledge loss: an empirical study of universities. Vine 45, 551–567. doi: 10.1108/VINE-01-2015-0007 Ghosheh, N. (2008). Age discrimination and older workers: theory and legislation in comparative context. Conditions of work employment series, 20. International Labour Bresman, H., and Rao, V. (2018). Building leaders for the next decade: how to support Office, Geneva the workplace goals of generation X, Y, and Z. Universum, Sweden Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: basic concepts, Grobler, A., and Rensburg, M. J. V. (2019). Organisational climate, person– applications, and programming. Routledge, London organisation fit and turn over intention: a generational perspective within a South African higher education institution. Stud. High. Educ. 44, 2053–2065. doi: Castro-Ceacero, D., Rodriguez-Gomez, D., Muñoz-Moreno, J. L., and Calatayud, A. 10.1080/03075079.2018.1492533 (2023). The intergenerational climate of Spanish university research. Stud. High. Educ. 48, 1696–1707. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2023.2211088 Gupta, S., and Geetika, M. (2020). Academic self-handicapping scale: development and validation in Indian context. Int. J. Instr. 13, 87–102. doi: 10.29333/iji.2020.1346a Colman, A. M., Norris, C. E., and Preston, C. C. (1997). Comparing rating scales of different lengths: equivalence of scores from 5-point and 7-point scales. Psychol. Rep. 80, Hatton-Yeo, A., and Ohsako, T. (2000). Intergenerational programmes: public, policy 355–362. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1997.80.2.355 and research implications. An international perspective. UNESCO, Hamburg Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and Heffernan, K., Cesnales, N., and Dauenhauer, J. (2021). Creating intergenerational applications. J. Appl. Psychol. 78, 98–104. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98 learning opportunities in multigenerational college classrooms: faculty perceptions and experiences. Gerontol. Geriatr. Educ. 42, 502–515. doi: 10.1080/02701960.2019.1613235 Croucher, G., and Woelert, P. (2021). Administrative transformation and managerial growth: a longitudinal analysis of changes in the non-academic workforce at Australian Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., and Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: universities. High. Educ. 84, 159–175. doi: 10.1007/s10734-021-00759-8 guidelines for determining model fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 6, 53–60. Dietz, L., Burmeister, A., and Fasbender, U. (2022). “Age and knowledge exchange: Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: ability, motivation, and opportunities” in Age and work. eds. H. Zacher and C. W. sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol. Methods 3, 424–453. Rudolph (New York: Routledge), 259–276. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424 Frontiers in Education 11 frontiersin.org Rodríguez-Gómez et al. 10.3389/feduc.2024.1323104 Hunter, K., Wilson, A., and McArthur, K. (2018). The role of intergenerational Ministerio de Universidades. (2023). Estadística de personal de las universidades. relationships in challenging educational inequality: improving participation of working- Curso 2020–2021 [University staff statistics. 2020–2021 academic year]. Gobierno de España. class pupils in higher education. J. Intergener. Relatsh. 16, 5–25. doi: Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Alstine, J. V., Bennett, N., Lind, S., and Stilwell, C. D. 10.1080/15350770.2018.1404382 (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychol. James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., and Brett, J. M. (1983). Causal analysis: assumptions, Bull. 105, 430–445. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.430 models, and data. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA North, M. S., and Fiske, S. T. (2015). Intergenerational resource tensions in the Johns, R. (2010). Likert items and scales (fact sheet 1). Survey Question bank, workplace and beyond: individual, interpersonal, institutional, international. Res. Organ. University of Strathclyde. Behav. 35, 159–179. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2015.10.003 Johnson, M., and Johnson, L. (2010). Generations, Inc.: From boomers to linksters-- Nunnally, J. C., and Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, managing the friction between generations at work. AMACOM, Netherlands New York. Jöreskog, K., and Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Mooresville: Pecino, V., Mañas, M. A., Díaz-Fúnez, P. A., Aguilar-Parra, J. M., Padilla-Góngora, D., Scientific Software Inc. and López-Liria, R. (2019). Organisational climate, role stress, and public employees' job satisfaction. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 16:1792. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16101792 Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika 39, 31–36. doi: 10.1007/BF02291575 Polat, S., and Yılmaz, Y. (2020). Barriers to intergenerational learning: a case of a workplace in Turkey. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 41, 431–447. doi: 10.1108/ King, S. P., and Bryant, F. B. (2017). The workplace intergenerational climate scale LODJ-07-2019-0330 (WICS): a self-report instrument measuring ageism in the workplace. J. Organ. Behav. 38, 124–151. doi: 10.1002/job.2118 Pstross, M., Corrigan, T., Knopf, R. C., Sung, H., Talmage, C. A., Conroy, C., et al. (2017). The benefits of intergenerational learning in higher education: lessons learned Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford from two age friendly university programs. Innov. High. Educ. 42, 157–171. doi: 10.1007/ Press, New York s10755-016-9371-x Lagacé, M., Beeck, L. V. D., and Firzly, N. (2019). Building on intergenerational Ramsey, C. M., Parisi, J. M., Rebok, G. W., Gross, A., Tanner, E. K., Carlson, M. C., climate to counter ageism in the workplace? A cross-organizational study. J. Intergener. et al. (2016). Attendance and retention of older adults in school-based volunteer Relatsh. 17, 201–219. doi: 10.1080/15350770.2018.1535346 activities: the role of school climate. J. Intergener. Relatsh. 14, 27–42. doi: Langford, P. H. (2009). Measuring organisational climate and employee engagement: 10.1080/15350770.2016.1138274 evidence for a 7 Ps model of work practices and outcomes. Aust. J. Psychol. 61, 185–198. Rodriguez-Santero, J., and Gil-Flores, J. (2019). Attitudes towards statistics of doi: 10.1080/00049530802579481 education sciences students. Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Le, P. B., and Lei, H. (2019). Determinants of innovation capability: the roles of survey of attitudes towards statistics (SATS-36)/Actitudes hacia la estadistica en transformational leadership, knowledge sharing and perceived organizational support. estudiantes de ciencias de la educacion. Propiedades psicometicas de la version espanola J. Knowl. Manag. 23, 527–547. doi: 10.1108/JKM-09-2018-0568 del survey of attitudes toward statistics (SATS-36). Rev. Electron. Investig. Eval. Educ. 25:1b+. doi: 10.7203/relieve.25.1.12676 Ley Orgánica (2023). Ley Orgánica 2/2023, de 22 de marzo, del Sistema Universitario. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 70, de 23 de marzo de 2023. BOE-A-2023-7500 Ropes, D. (2013). Intergenerational learning in organizations. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 37, 713–727. doi: 10.1108/EJTD-11-2012-0081 Lloyd-Jones, B., and Worley, J. A. (2018). “Intergenerational tensions in the workforce” in Diversity in the workforce. eds. M. Y. Byrd and C. L. Scott (New York: Routledge), Sahibzada, U. F., Jianfeng, C., Latif, K. F., Shafait, Z., and Sahibzada, H. F. (2022). 190–213. Interpreting the impact of knowledge management processes on organizational performance in Chinese higher education: mediating role of knowledge worker Loh, M. Y., Idris, M. A., Dormann, C., and Muhamad, H. (2019). Organisational productivity. Stud. High. Educ. 47, 713–730. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1793930 climate and employee health outcomes: a systematic review. Saf. Sci. 118, 442–452. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.052 Scharn, M., Sewdas, R., Boot, C. R. L., Huisman, M., Lindeboom, M., and Beek, A. J. V. D. (2018). Domains and determinants of retirement timing: a systematic review of López, S. M. M., Abellán, P. M., and Escarbajal, A. (2017). Envejecimiento activo, longitudinal studies. BMC Public Health 18:1083. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5983-7 programas intergeneracionales y educación social. Dykinson, S.L., Madrid Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychol. Assess. 8, 350–353. López, M. T., González, V. Y., and Sánchez, A. J. (2015). Personas mayores y solidaridad doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350 intergeneracional en la familia. El caso español. Dykinson, Madrid Shi, D., Maydeu-Olivares, A., and DiStefano, C. (2018). The relationship between the Lyons, S. T., Schweitzer, L., Urick, M. J., and Kuron, L. (2019). A dynamic social- standardized root mean square residual and model misspecification in factor analysis ecological model of generational identity in the workplace. J. Intergener. Relatsh. 17, models. Multivar. Behav. Res. 53, 676–694. doi: 10.1080/00273171.2018.1476221 1–24. doi: 10.1080/15350770.2018.1500332 Sierra-Sánchez, J., Sotelo-González, J., and Vivar-Zurita, H. (2020). X-ray of Spanish MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., and Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and universities: management, structure, educational programmes and budgets (Radiografía determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol. Methods 1, de las universidades españolas: gestión, estructura, programas formativos y 130–149. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130 presupuestos). Cult. Educ. 32, 738–775. doi: 10.1080/11356405.2020.1819121 Marsh, H. W., and Hocevar, D. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to Sluss, D. M., Van Dick, R., and Thompson, B. S. (2011). “Role theory in organizations: the study of self-concept: first-and higher order factor models and their invariance a relational perspective” in APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, across groups. Psychol. Bull. 97, 562–582. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.97.3.562 Vol. 1. Building and developing the organization. ed. S. Zedeck (Washington, D.C.: Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J., Parker, P. D., and Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural American Psychological Association), 505–534. equation modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory Strawser, M. G., Smith, S. A., and Rubenking, B. (2021) Multigenerational factor analysis. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 10, 85–110. doi: 10.1146/annurev- communication in organizations: insights from the workplace. Routledge, New York clinpsy-032813-153700 Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting Martínez-Clares, P., and González-Lorente, C. (2019). Competencias personales y research instruments in science education. Res. Sci. Educ. 48, 1273–1296. doi: 10.1007/ participativas vinculantes a la inserción laboral de los universitarios: Validación de una s11165-016-9602-2 escala. Rev. Electron. Investig. Eval. Educ. 25, 1–18. doi: 10.7203/relieve.25.1.13164 Tang, J., and Martins, J. T. (2021). Intergenerational workplace knowledge sharing: McConatha, J. T., Kumar, V. K., and Magnarelli, J. (2022). Ageism, job engagement, challenges and new directions. J. Doc. 77, 722–742. doi: 10.1108/JD-08-2020-0129 negative stereotypes, intergenerational climate, and life satisfaction among middle-aged and older employees in a university setting. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 19:7554. doi: Turner, R. H. (2001). “Role theory” in Handbook of sociological theory. Handbooks of 10.3390/ijerph19137554 sociology and social research. ed. J. H. Turner (Boston, MA: Springer) Mehra, P., and Nickerson, C. (2019). Organizational communication and job West, R. F., Meserve, R. J., and Stanovich, K. E. (2012). Cognitive sophistication does satisfaction: what role do generational differences play? Int. J. Organ. Anal. 27, 524–547. not attenuate the bias blind spot. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 103, 506–519. doi: 10.1037/ doi: 10.1108/IJOA-12-2017-1297 a0028857 Frontiers in Education 12 frontiersin.org