Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Generation Z Perceptions of a Positive Workplace Environment

  • Published:
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The most recent generation to enter the workplace, generation Z, has been stereotyped as being less engaged in the workplace, despite being highly success oriented (Barna, 2018). This discrepancy might be explained by the theory of generations and generation units (Mannheim, 1952), which states that subgroups exist within each generational cohort. The purpose of this study is to identify intra-generational differences among generation Z employees in order to identify the subjective workplace perceptions and proclivities. In order to do so, we deployed Q methodology, which allowed us to identify subgroups within the generational cohort. Results indicated three distinct subgroups within generation Z: Social Investors, Chill Worker Bees, and Go Getters. Social Investors valued a work-life balance, Chill Worker Bees desired a comfortable workplace environment, and Go Getters prioritized advancing their career. All three groups reported prioritizing companies with high moral and ethical standards. These results present HR practitioners, employers, and managers with a new perspective on the distinct generation units within generation Z, including intra- and intergenerational overlap.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abate, J. J., Schaefer, T., & Pavone, T. (2018). Understanding generational identity, job burnout, job satisfaction, job tenure, and turnover intention. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 22(1), 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Barna. (2018, June 6). Is Gen Z the most success-oriented generation? Barna. https://www.barna.com/research/is-gen-z-the-most-success-oriented-generation/

  • Becton, J. B., Walker, H. J., & Jones-Farmer, A. (2014). Generational differences in workplace behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(3), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berezan, O., Kristhen, A. S., Agarwal, S., & Kachroo, P. (2018). The pursuit of virtual happiness: Exploring the social media experience across generations. Journal of Business Research, 89, 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.11.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bova, B., & Kroth, M. (2001). Workplace learning and generation X. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(2), 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620110383645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer, M. (1999). Q is accounting for tastes. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(2), 35–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. R. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, C., Robinson, T., & Trachmann, K. (2018). Migrant perception of social media. Journal of International Communication, 46. http://immi.se/intercultural/nr46/callahan.html

  • David, P., Gelfeld, V., & Rangel, A. (2017). Generation X and its evolving experience with the American dream. Journal of the American Society on Aging, 41(3), 77–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, K. E., & Goldberg, A. P. (1996). Weight control self-efficacy types and transitions affect weight-loss outcomes in obese women. Addictive Behaviors, 21(1), 103–116

  • Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Endres, T. G. (1997). Father-daughter dramas: A Q-investigations of rhetorical visions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25(4), 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889709365483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fedorova, A., Gatti, M., & Menshikova, M. (2016). The expectations of new generations from the changes in consumption, work, and business in the digital age. In SGEM 2016, BK 1: Psychology and psychiatry, sociology and healthcare, education conference proceedings (Vol. 2, pp. 1003–1009). STEF92 Technology

  • Fry, R. (2019). Baby boomers are staying in the labor force at rates not seen in generations for people their age. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/24/baby-boomers-us-labor-force/

  • Gerschenson, M., Stearns, J., Dudoit, K., Fujihara, S., & Kennedy, A. (2017). Teaching generation Z at the University of Hawai’i. In The IAFOR international conference on education—Hawaii 2017 official conference proceedings (pp. 135–150). The International Academic Forum

  • Gibson, J. W., Greenwood, R. A., & Murphy, E. F., Jr. (2009). Generational differences in the workplace: Personal values, behaviors, and popular beliefs. Journal of Diversity Management, 4(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.19030/jdm.v4i3.4959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, A. P., Eigel, L. M., James, J. B., Hartmann, D., & McLean, K. M. (2012). Multiple generations in the workplace: Exploring the research, influence of stereotypes and organizational applications. In J. W. Hedge & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Oxford library of psychology. The Oxford handbook of work and aging (pp. 483–500). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195385052.013.0146

  • Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An organization and management perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9160-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kampen, J., & Tamás, P. (2013). Overly ambitious: Contributions and current status of Q methodology. Quality & Quantity, 48, 3109–3126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9944-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapoor, C., & Solomon, N. (2011). Understanding and managing generational differences in the workplace. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3(4), 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/17554211111162435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirchmayer, Z., & Fratričová, J. (2018). What motivates generation Z at work? Insights into motivation drivers of business students in Slovakia. In Proceedings of the Innovation management and education excellence through vision 2020, Milan, Italy, 25–26

  • Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: Strategies for effective management. Health Care Manager, 19(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1097/00126450-200019010-00011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamsam, T. A., & Sanders, K. P. (2004). Communication for development: Native American tribal perspectives [Paper presentation]. International Communication Association Conference, New Orleans, LA

  • Liesem, K. (2017). Generation Y and the world of work in the future. Journal of Media Research, 10(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.24193/jmr.27.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C. (2015). Types of employee perceptions of information security using Q methodology: An empirical study. International Journal of Business and Information, 10(4), 557–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S139–S157. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In D. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge (pp. 276–322). Routledge & Kegan Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Mannheim, K., & Kecskemeti, P. (Eds.). (1952). Essays on the sociology of knowledge. Routledge and Kegan Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Marron, M. B. (2015). New generations require changes beyond the digital. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 70(2), 123–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695815588912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazer, J. P., & Hess, J. A. (2016). Editor’s introduction. Communication Education, 65(3), 356. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2016.1173715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. (2013). Q methodology (2nd ed.). Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintel. (2016). Marketing to generation X - US - June 2016. Mintel. https://reports.mintel.com/display/748292/

  • Mintel. (2018). Marketing to the iGeneration - US - May 2018. Mintel. https://academic.mintel.com/display/860447/

  • Mintel. (2019a). Marketing to baby boomers - US - July 2019. Mintel. https://reports.mintel.com

  • Mintel. (2019b). Marketing to Generation Z - US - May 2019. Mintel. https://reports.mintel.com

  • Neves, B., & Casimiro, C. (2018). Connecting families? An introduction. In B. Barbosa Neves & C. Casimiro (Eds.), Connecting families?: Information communication technologies, generations, and the life course (pp. 1–17). Policy Press

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Palser, B. (2010). Beneath the tattoos: Despite the stereotypes, Millennials represent a huge opportunity for news organizations. American Journalism Review, 32(2), 48

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Pew Research Center. (2018). The generations defined. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/st_18-02-27_generations_defined/

  • Pires, C., & Luthar, H. (2017). Analysis of how companies should prepare to recruit and manage Generation Z (Unpublished honors thesis, Bryant University)

  • Ramlo, S., & Newman, I. (2011). Q methodology and its position in the mixed methods conundrum. Operant Subjectivity, 34(3), 172–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, D. (2016). A tsunami of learners called generation Z. Public Safety: A State of Mind, 1(1). https://mdle.net/Journal/A_Tsunami_of_Learners_Called_Generation_Z.pdf

  • Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2017). Considering generations from a lifespan developmental perspective. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3(2), 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrøder, K. C. (2004). Mapping European identities: A quantitative approach to the qualitative study of national and supranational identities. In I. Bondebjerg & P. Golding (Eds.), European culture and the media (pp. 191–213). Intellect Books

  • Sharafi, V., Minbashrazgah, M. M., Zarei, A., & Feiz, D. (2017). Identification and classification of entrepreneurial thinking to the issue of international marketing ecosystem using Q method. Journal of Business Management, 9(3), 551–571. https://doi.org/10.22059/JIBM.2017.230360.2544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silvius, A., Kampinga, M., Paniagua, S., & Mooi, H. (2017). Considering sustainability in project management decision making: An investigation using Q-methodology. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1133–1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, A. P., & Dangmei, J. (2016). Understanding the generation Z: The future workforce. South-Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(3), 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Statnickė, G., Savanevičienė, A., & Šakys, I. (2019). The relationship between work engagement of different generations and mobile learning. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 67(6), 1627–1642. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201967061627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephen, T. D. (1985). Q-methodology in communication science: An introduction. Visual Communication Quarterly, 33(3), 193–208

  • Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. University of Chicago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. (1968). Consciousness out—Subjectivity in. Psychological Record, 18, 499–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. (1988). The science of ethics: II Ethical judgment. Operant Subjectivity, 11, 37–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Exel, N. J. A., & De Graaf, G. (2005). Q methodology: A sneak preview. http://sites.nd.edu/lapseylab/files/2014/10/vanExel.pdf

  • Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Generational differences in personality and motivation: Do they exist and what are the implications for the workplace? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 878–890. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810904376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, C. E. (2011). Using Q methodology to explore leadership: The role of the school business manager. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 14(3), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2010.507877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zenor, J. (2018). Us and them: Millennials’ perspective on their political disaffection. Florida Communication Journal, 46(1), 91–105

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jesse King

    Present address: Department of Communication, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-4020, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Communication, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

    Braedon Leslie, Claire Anderson, Cole Bickham, Julia Horman, Audrey Overly, Claire Gentry, Clark Callahan & Jesse King

Authors
  1. Braedon Leslie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claire Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cole Bickham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Julia Horman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Audrey Overly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Claire Gentry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Clark Callahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jesse King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesse King.

Ethics declarations

Informed Consent

Informed consent was collected from all participants.

Conflict of Interest

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leslie, B., Anderson, C., Bickham, C. et al. Generation Z Perceptions of a Positive Workplace Environment. Employ Respons Rights J 33, 171–187 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-021-09366-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-021-09366-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation