“<i>We aren't your reincarnation!</i>” workplace motivation across X, Y and Z generations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The primary purpose of this research is to examine generational differences in valuing the sources of employees' overall motivation in the workplace across Generation X, Generation Y and Generation Z with a view of assisting managers in making employment decisions and maintaining multigenerational staff. Design/methodology/approach The respondents in the study live and work in Canada and provided answers to self-administered online surveys between the fourth quarter of 2017 and the end of January 2020. To assess subjects' work motivation, the study employed Gagné et al. 's (2014) multidimensional work motivation scale (MWMS) alongside a three-item measure of employees' overall motivation (designed for this study). The authors assessed measures of validity and reliability and tested the hypothesis about generational differences in work motivation using structural equation modelling (SEM). Findings The six motivators regress differently to employees' overall motivation. Generation Z is more sensitive to amotivation than Generation X and Generation Y. Extrinsic regulation-material is a valid source of overall work motivation for Generation Z only. Only Generation X values extrinsic regulation-social as a source of employees' overall motivation. So is introjected regulation by Generation Y. Unlike Generation Z, both Generation X and Generation Y employees value identified regulation as a source of overall work motivation. Finally, intrinsic motivation contributes more to Generation Z employees' overall work motivation than it does for Generation X and Generation Y. Research limitations/implications Further work needs to be done to establish whether variations in valuing the sources of motivation may also be spawned by age or status of the respective groups. Future investigations can expand the authors’ focal theme to include additional organisational outcomes, alternative geographical settings and/or include country's economic development as an additional variable. Moreover, further research can address the implications of national culture on shaping generational differences in employee's motivation as well as aiding companies to redesign work tasks considering today's uncertainty as well as increasingly competitive, global environment (e.g. the rise of artificial intelligence). Practical implications It is vital to offer motivators that are valued by each of the three generations, i.e. X, Y and Z, before being able to attract the best candidates of each generation. Organisations should not only create an inclusive and understanding multigenerational working environment but also be able to communicate strong branding via new communication channels successfully (e.g. social media networks), which Generation Yers and Generation Zers utilise better than any other generation in employment. Finally, the authors suggest that service organisations with diverse generational composition should adopt new measures of workplace agility to survive interminable disruptions (e.g. the coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19] pandemic). Originality/value This is the first study of its kind to examine generational differences between Generation X, Generation Y and Generation Z in valuing workplace motivation from a western cultural perspective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".