Millennials' Work-Life Balance Expecations : A qualitative study among Austrian, Canadian and Taiwanese University Graduates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Work-life balance has become a prominent topic in literature and media, particularly in relation to the millennial generation. This first global generation, shaped by economic, social, and technological shifts, shares similar characteristics and attitudes worldwide. However, beneath these surface-level similarities, substantial differences in their perspectives on work and life exist, which raises the question of whether millennials share similar expectations regarding work-life balance and, if not, how their cultural background influences these expectations. Therefore, this research aimed to explore the impact of culture on work-life balance expectations among millennials in Austria, Canada, and Taiwan. Adopting a qualitative, exploratory research approach, twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with recent university graduates. The findings reveal that culture plays a significant role in shaping millennials' work-life balance expectations, influencing their priorities, values, and behaviors. The study draws upon established literature and empirical insights, highlighting the contributions of cultural dimensions such as individualism vs. collectivism and uncertainty avoidance by Hofstede as well as the performance orientation dimension by GLOBE, in understanding millennials' work-life balance expectations. Furthermore, the significance of Confucian values, including social harmony and filial piety, is highlighted in the Taiwanese context. Additionally, the research highlights the emerging trend of an individualistic mindset across cultures, the influence of gender roles, and the powerful impact of technology and social media. In summary, millennials in the studied cultures demonstrate a strong drive to work hard while seeking flexibility and autonomy in managing their work-life interface. These insights provide valuable guidance for organizations and policymakers in developing effective policies and practices that support millennials' work-life balance, enhance their overall well-being, and contribute to organizational success. By comprehending the influence of culture on millennials' work-life balance expectations, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of this generation and their evolving needs in the modern workplace.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".