Content area
This qualitative study explored and compared the core values of the two youngest workforce generations to date; work-eligible Gen Z and Gen Y (Millennials). The theoretical platforms underlying this study include theories of value alignment, person to organization fit, and related theoretical fields that strengthen the argument for the need to understand values of emerging workforce generations. The study was based on two research questions: What core values do Gen Y (Millennials) and Gen Z require in their place of employment? How do Gen Y and Gen Z believe their core values differ in terms of alignment with the core values of the organizational leadership in their place of employment? An exploratory research approach was used to answer the research questions using data collected through a minimum of 10 (five Gen Y and five Gen Z) recorded semistructured interviews, seven questions each, conducted in Zoom audio or by telephone. Exploratory research is typically conducted to gain insight on topics that have not been studied in depth. Since the Gen Z cohort is just beginning to enter the workforce, the cohort’s views and perspectives regarding value alignment with their respective workplace value has not been studied in depth. Data were collected for Gen Y participants between ages 43 and 48. Data were collected for Gen Z participants between ages 23 and 28. The participants must be currently employed, and have worked in their occupation for at least 3 consecutive years. The U.S. office of Personnel Management reports the average starting age for full-time employment is 20. Interview data were analyzed by applying MS Word Transcription, manual transcription where needed, and in vivo coding (Saldana, 2021) methods. This study had a specified homogenous focus on the scope of Gen Y and Gen Z work values, further narrowed by the related age range specification within each of those cohorts, and the narrow collection specification of work values data. Therefore, saturation was presumed satisfied. Sufficient and relevant information was presumed to have been collected from 10 participants (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Specifically, there was no need to extend data collection, interviews, and analysis beyond the initial examination of five Gen Y or five Gen Z participants.