Examining employee retention and motivation: the moderating effect of employee generation
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-05-2021-0101 |
| Published date | 18 April 2022 |
| Date | 18 April 2022 |
| Pages | 385-402 |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
| Author | C. Christopher Lee,Hyoun Sook Lim,Donghwi (Josh) Seo,Dong-Heon Austin Kwak |
Examining employee retention and
motivation: the moderating effect
of employee generation
C. Christopher Lee, Hyoun Sook Lim and Donghwi (Josh) Seo
School of Business, Central Connecticut State University, New Britain,
Connecticut, USA, and
Dong-Heon Austin Kwak
College of Business Administration, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, USA
Abstract
Purpose –This study explored moderating effects of employee generations on factors related to employee
retention and motivation in the workplace.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors developed a survey instrument and collected the survey
data via Amazon Mechanical Turk. After filtering out bad responses, the authors ended up with 489 sample
cases for this study. The authors used structural equation modeling for data analysis.
Findings –Evidence showed that only transformational leadership was significantly related to retention of
Generation X employees and only work–life balance had a significant relationship with intrinsic motivation.
For Generation Y employees, transformational leadership was the only factor affecting their retention while
both transformational leadership and autonomy showed significant impacts on their intrinsic motivation.
Generation Z employees reported that only transformation leadership affected their retention while
transformational leadership, corporate social responsibility and autonomy were significantly related to their
intrinsic motivation in the workplace. All three generations showed statistical significance between intrinsic
motivation and employee retention.
Practical implications –This study could help business practitioners increase employees’work motivation
and retention.
Originality/value –First, our results revealed interesting similarities and differences between generations in
terms of the factors that affected employees’retention and motivation. Second, this study proved that
employees’generation affects the impacts of transformational leadership, CSR, autonomy, WLB and
technology on their motivation and retention in the workplace. Third, the results of our study also showed that
employees of different generations are intrinsically motivated by different factors, proving the importance of
considering generational differences in motivation literature.
Keywords Employee generation, Generational differences, Retention, Motivation
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
For the past several decades, employee retention has been an important topic to both scholars
and practitioners because employees, the most valuable assets of an organization, are the
ones who add to its value, quantitatively and qualitatively (Anitha, 2016). Therefore,
employers have taken steps to ensure that employees stay with the organization for as long as
possible (Alferaih et al., 2018). Doing so is challenging because the workforce is becoming
more confident and demanding due to changes in markets and demographics (Anitha, 2016).
A disengaged workforce leads to higher turnover rates that increase the costs of recruiting
and selecting new employees (Malinen et al., 2013).
The objectiveof this study is to examine the moderating effects of employee generations on
factors related to employee retentionand motivation in the workplace. In doing so, this study
makes a significant contributionto literature in several ways. First, although there have been
numerous studies on factors that affect employees’retention such as a manger’s leadership
style (e.g. Khan and Wajidi, 2019), a firm’s commitment to corporate social responsibility
(e.g. Valentine and Godkin, 2017), autonomy (e.g. Kim and Stoner, 2008), work–life balance
Examining
employee
retention and
motivation
385
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2049-3983.htm
Received 20 May 2021
Revised 3 January 2022
24 March 2022
Accepted 27 March 2022
Evidence-based HRM: a Global
Forum for Empirical Scholarship
Vol. 10 No. 4, 2022
pp. 385-402
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2049-3983
DOI10.1108/EBHRM-05-2021-0101
(e.g. Koubova and Buchko, 2013) and technology (e.g. Haar and White, 2013), there are no
studies that have examined the effect of these five factors on employee retention and the
underlying mechanism of these relationships. Second, few studies have examined effects of
these five factors on different generations of employees –Gen X, Gen Y (also known as the
Millennials) andGen Z. Studies have focused on certain generations such as Gen Y (e.g. Garc
ıa
et al., 2019) or Gen X (e.g. Westerman and Yamamura, 2007), but no studies have been
conducted to understand the different effects of the five factors on employee retention
spanning three different generations. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics(2021),
while 40% of the 2020 American workforce comprises Gen X and 44% of Gen Y, Gen Z
represented 15% of the American workforce. This indicates that Gen Z has also become an
important generation to consider when examining generational differences of employee
retention. Finally, no studies have reported the effects of these variables on retaining
employees from these various generations during the pandemic. Retaining employees is a
challengeat the best of times, but it has become even more challenging during the pandemic. A
recent survey of working age people in various industries found that about 40% of
respondentsexpressed strong intention to quit their current job in the next three to six months
(De Smet et al., 2021).
2. Literature review and hypotheses
2.1 Employee generations
Based on the generational theory originated from the work of Mannheim (1970), generations
refer to groups of individuals (i.e. cohorts) born in the same period, sharing similar historical
events and social experiences. This means that a cohort of individuals who shared common
historical and social experiences are more likely to share similar characteristics, attitudes and
behaviors (Strauss and Howe, 1991). Given that the main objective of this study is to examine
generational differences in effects of leadership styles, corporate social responsibility,
autonomy, work–life balance and technology on intrinsic motivation and employee retention,
we will use the generational theory as our theoretical framework to develop hypotheses in the
next sections.
2.2 Effects of leadership across generations
Transformational leadership is defined as transforming the values and priorities of
followers and motivating them to perform beyond their expectations (Kark et al., 2003).
Concurrently, Wilkesmann and Schmid (2014) reported that one characteristic of strong
leaders is the ability to motivate and influence people. Motivation was also found to be a
complex act that had several factors involved. Employees, who were proactive both at
workandintheirpersonallives,werepositivelyaffectedbyboththeiremployer’s
leadership style and ability to foster a team and showed stronger motivation (Felfe and
Schyns, 2014;Khan and Wajidi, 2019). GerholdandWhiting(2020)explored the
motivations of employees over several generations, from Boomers to Gen Z, and the
leadership skills that inspired them. They found no significant differences among
generations. Rather the differences were driven more by an employee’sstageoflifeand
career than age. They reported that leadership fundamentals were a constant. These
fundamentals, building strong teams, providing feedback and understanding employees’
motivations, were multi-generationally relevant skills. In addition, Diskiene et al. (2019)
found that the relationship between a leader’s emotional and social intelligence and an
employee’s motivation to work was undeniable, although there was some variance
depending on the latter’s age. Interestingly, younger workers relied less on their leader’s
emotional stability to motivate them than older, more experienced workers.
EBHRM
10,4
386
To continue reading
Request your trial