1. Introduction
Quality of life (QoL) research increasingly recognizes the workplace as a critical social environment shaping individuals’ subjective, eudaimonic, and relational well-being [1,2,3]. Contemporary organizations are no longer understood solely as economic entities but as psychosocial systems in which managerial practices influence perceptions of justice, autonomy, psychological safety, and value alignment—core dimensions of employees’ overall QoL [4,5,6]. Within this context, employee benefits have moved beyond their traditional role as supplementary economic tools and have become symbolic and structural practices that shape how employees construct meaning at work and experience well-being across life domains [7,8].
These dynamics have been further intensified by recent transformations in the nature of work [9,10]. Digitalization, automation, AI-supported workflows, and the normalization of flexible and hybrid work arrangements have fundamentally altered what employees expect from organizations and how work is experienced as a life domain [11]. As a result, the workplace increasingly functions as a central arena in which economic rationality intersects with human-centered well-being, identity construction, and self-actualization [2,12]. From a sustainability perspective, this shift highlights that organizational viability depends not only on financial performance but also on how work systems are designed to support meaningful and resilient work experiences [4].
Within this transformed work landscape, Generation Z has emerged as a critical organizational actor with distinctly different sets of values [13]. Entering working life under conditions shaped by digitalization, technological embeddedness, and heightened individual awareness, this generation brings value orientations that place strong emphasis on autonomy, ethical sensitivity, psychological well-being, and meaningful engagement with work [14]. Rather than evaluating work primarily through economic rewards or traditional benefit packages, Generation Z increasingly assesses organizations based on the quality of the work experience they offer, including perceptions of fairness, transparency, and value alignment [15]. What makes Generation Z particularly significant for sustainable organization management is that their expectations directly challenge conventional managerial logics. For this generation, work functions not merely as an economic necessity but as a space in which well-being, identity, and purpose are negotiated [14]. Consequently, organizational practices that signal care, justice, and social responsibility become central determinants of their quality of work life (QoWL) [16]. These characteristics position Generation Z as a strategically important group through which tensions between human-centered value creation and financial sustainability become especially visible.
Accordingly, the meaning of work is increasingly defined by questions of purpose and value creation beyond economic outcomes [4]. As employees become more value-oriented, organizations are expected not only to generate financial outputs but also to demonstrate ethical orientation, social contribution, and commitment to QoWL [17]. This shift reframes meaning as an organizational concern, linking employees’ search for purpose with managerial choices about how value is defined, communicated, and sustained within organizations [18].
However, this deepening demand for meaning creates an inevitable strategic tension for organizations. Meeting employees’ expectations grounded in justice, well-being, autonomy, and a humane approach typically requires additional cost, deliberate resource allocation, and long-term investment decisions [4,17]. In contrast, managerial approaches that prioritize short-term financial discipline and cost containment may limit organizations’ capacity to sustain meaning-generating practices and can lead to adverse outcomes for employee experience, motivation, and overall QoL [19,20]. This tension places contemporary organizations at a critical intersection between human-centered value creation and economic resilience—an intersection conceptualized in this study as the cost of meaning. Managing this trade-off is no longer a peripheral human resources management (HRM) concern but a central strategic challenge, requiring organizations to balance financial rationality with investments that support long-term sustainability and organizational resilience.
This tension also brings renewed attention to the long-standing divide between HRM and financial decision-making in organizations. Traditionally, financial decision-making has emphasized efficiency, cost control, risk management, and measurable performance outcomes [21], whereas HRM has focused on relational and value-based dimensions such as employee engagement, well-being, organizational culture, and long-term talent development [22,23]. Under contemporary conditions marked by technological transformation, labor market volatility, and rising well-being expectations, these orientations no longer operate as separate functional domains. Instead, they converge within managerial decision-making processes that require balancing financial discipline with human-centered value creation. From this perspective, investment in people is no longer viewed merely as an ethical or social consideration but as a strategic choice directly linked to financial sustainability and organizational resilience [24,25]. Consequently, value creation is increasingly defined through managerial judgments that integrate economic efficiency with indicators such as employee experience, QoWL, and cultural alignment. Such shift reframes managers not as reactive cost controllers but as strategic decision-makers responsible for allocating resources in ways that support both long-term financial performance and sustainable organizational value [22,23].
At this point, employee benefits emerge as one of the most concrete yet symbolically powerful mechanisms through which organizations govern the employee experience [26]. Although traditionally designed as non-wage incentives [27], employee benefits have evolved into strategic practices that shape QoWL, subjective well-being, and employees’ interpretations of organizational intent [28]. Benefits such as flexibility, health support, or development opportunities function not only as material provisions but also as signals of justice, care, and value alignment, thereby influencing employees’ relational and emotional attachment to the organization [6,29].
At the same time, under conditions of economic uncertainty and budgetary pressure, employee benefits are increasingly evaluated through financial sustainability logics that frame them as cost items requiring control and justification [30]. This perspective intensifies the long-standing tension between short-term cost rationality and long-term human-centered value creation [31]. However, growing evidence suggests that well-designed benefit practices generate strategic returns through higher commitment, performance, talent retention, and organizational reputation, thereby strengthening financial resilience over time [31,32,33]. Viewed through this lens, employee benefits operate as a strategic governance mechanism through which managers allocate resources, manage trade-offs between meaning and cost, and align employee well-being with sustainable organizational value creation [34,35].
Despite the growing body of research on the meaning of work and employee well-being, existing studies largely examine these domains independently of financial sustainability considerations [36,37]. Prior literature has extensively explored how meaningful work contributes to employees’ psychological and eudaimonic well-being through job design, leadership, and organizational culture [36,38], while employee benefits are predominantly treated either as transactional reward mechanisms or as cost items within financial decision-making frameworks [39]. In parallel, research on financial sustainability has primarily focused on efficiency, cost control, and performance outcomes, offering limited insight into how meaning-oriented and well-being-related employee expectations are integrated into organizational decision-making under conditions of financial constraint [40,41]. As a result, there remains a lack of integrative understanding of how the meaning of work, employee well-being, and financial sustainability interact within organizations through concrete governance mechanisms such as employee benefits. This fragmentation obscures the strategic role of employee benefits as a mechanism through which meaning-oriented well-being processes are translated into organizational outcomes related to cost management and long-term sustainability. Addressing this gap, the present study examines employee benefits as a focal point where meaning, employee well-being, and financial sustainability intersect, and proposes the Meaning–Cost Balance (MCB) Framework (Figure 1) to explain how this interaction is constructed within sustainable organizational systems.
The necessity of the present study is grounded in a central organizational contradiction that has become increasingly salient in contemporary work contexts. While organizations face heightened pressure to maintain cost discipline and financial sustainability, contemporary employees increasingly emphasize meaning, well-being, and value alignment in their work experiences—a tension that becomes particularly visible in the case of Generation Z [42]. Entering the workforce under conditions characterized by economic uncertainty, intensified performance expectations, and constrained organizational resources, Generation Z employees simultaneously demonstrate stronger sensitivity to purpose, fairness, and psychosocial well-being than previous cohorts [43,44]. This combination renders Generation Z a particularly revealing analytical group for examining the meaning–cost tension, as their expectations make the trade-offs between meaning-oriented practices and cost-driven managerial decisions more explicit. Focusing on Generation Z therefore enables the study to capture this tension at its most visible point, clarifying how organizations navigate the balance between meaning creation and financial sustainability through employee benefits.
Based on this focus, the study is guided by the following research questions:
RQ1: How do Generation Z employees construct meaning around employee benefit practices, and how do these meanings shape their perceptions of well-being and quality of work life?
RQ2: How do HR and finance managers evaluate employee benefits within organizational decision-making processes, particularly in relation to cost considerations and financial sustainability?
RQ3: How do meaning-oriented employee experiences and cost-oriented managerial evaluations interact in practice to produce a balance between employee well-being and financial sustainability?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Research Design
This study is grounded in an interpretivist epistemological stance, which assumes that meanings, experiences, and organizational realities are socially constructed and best understood through the subjective interpretations of individuals [45]. From this perspective, employee well-being, meaning of work, and perceptions of employee benefits are treated as context-dependent phenomena shaped through interaction, organizational practices, and sensemaking processes [46]. This epistemological positioning provides the foundation for adopting a qualitative research design focused on capturing how different organizational actors construct and negotiate meaning around employee benefits within their specific decision-making contexts [47].
Building on this epistemological foundation, the research adopts a qualitative, exploratory, and multi-layered design to examine how Generation Z employees construct meaning around employee benefit practices and how these meaning-making processes intersect with organizational approaches to financial sustainability. Given that QoL and well-being are inherently subjective and shaped through lived experiences, a qualitative approach provides an appropriate methodological foundation for capturing eudaimonic well-being, relational perceptions, and organizational meaning-making dynamics. Qualitative inquiry enables an in-depth understanding of how individuals and managers interpret practices within their specific organizational and decision-making contexts [48].
The research design is grounded in the Gioia methodology, which facilitates the inductive development of theory from qualitative data through a systematic progression from first-order participant statements to higher-level conceptual categories [49]. This approach is particularly suited to the present study, as it allows for the integration of multiple analytical levels—individual experiences, relational interpretations, and or-ganizational decision logics—within a coherent theoretical structure. By capturing per-spectives from both Generation Z employees and managerial actors in HR and finance, the design enables a comparative examination of how the meaning–cost balance is con-structed and negotiated across different organizational roles.
2.2. Data Collection Strategy
Data were collected in November 2025 through semi-structured in-depth interviews. This method was selected as it is particularly suitable for meaning-construction research, allowing participants to articulate their experiences and perceptions within their own narrative frameworks [50]. The interview questions (Appendix A and Appendix B) were designed to explore how participants conceptualize employee benefits, the symbolic meanings they attribute to these practices, and how they perceive organizational financial policies related to employee benefits.
The development of the interview questions followed the systematic steps proposed by Kallio et al. [51]: (i) defining the research objectives and key questions, (ii) identifying relevant thematic areas, (iii) formulating open-ended questions, (iv) developing non-leading probing questions, (v) structuring the questions in a logical sequence, (vi) conducting a pilot interview to assess content validity, and (vii) finalizing the interview guides based on feedback obtained during the pilot phase.
Interviews were conducted via online platforms (Zoom and Microsoft Teams) and lasted approximately 45–60 min. With participants’ informed consent, all interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Prior to each interview, participants were informed about the purpose of the study, confidentiality procedures, and data usage limitations, and informed consent was obtained in accordance with ethical research standards.
2.3. Participants and Sampling
Purposeful sampling was employed in this study [52]. The research focused on two participant groups drawn entirely from the Turkish context: (i) Generation Z employees working across various sectors with at least one year of full-time experience, and (ii) mid- and senior-level HR and finance managers responsible for planning, budgeting, and developing sustainability-related policies concerning employee benefits. These groups were selected because they represent complementary analytical perspectives: employees provide lived accounts of subjective and eudaimonic well-being, while managers reflect organizational-level decision-making processes related to QoWL and financial sustainability. This dual-sample design enables the examination of QoL both as an individual experience and as an institutional outcome shaped by managerial choices.
The selection of Türkiye as the empirical context was theoretically and contextually motivated. Türkiye represents an emerging economy characterized by economic volatility, inflationary pressures, and cost-sensitive organizational environments, in which tensions between employee well-being expectations and financial sustainability concerns become particularly salient [53,54]. In such contexts, employee benefits and welfare practices increasingly function as flexible and negotiable instruments through which organizations manage trade-offs between human-centered practices and cost constraints, especially under conditions of macroeconomic uncertainty [55].
Participants were recruited using a purposeful sampling strategy aimed at capturing analytically relevant variation rather than statistical representativeness [52]. Generation Z employees were identified through professional networks, university alumni platforms, and initial contacts who met the inclusion criteria (full-time employment and generational age range). HR and finance managers were recruited through professional HR and finance networks, LinkedIn contacts, and referrals using a snowball sampling approach.
The inclusion of participants from different sectors and organizational settings was intentionally designed to enhance analytical variation rather than statistical representativeness [56]. Sectoral and organizational diversity enabled the study to examine whether meaning–cost dynamics related to employee benefits emerged consistently across different contexts, rather than to compare sectors or organizational sizes. This approach aligns with qualitative research principles emphasizing transferability through contextual richness and pattern identification rather than representativeness.
In total, 35 participants were interviewed (15 Generation Z employees and 20 HR and finance managers), as summarized in Table 1 and Table 2. In line with qualitative research principles, this sample size was deemed sufficient based on the criterion of data saturation [57]. As data collection progressed, recurring themes and patterns began to emerge, and no substantively new codes were identified in later interviews, indicating that an adequate level of conceptual depth had been reached. Accordingly, the data collection process was concluded once thematic saturation was achieved.
Table 1 presents the demographics of the Generation Z employee participants, demonstrating diversity in age, gender, education level, sector, and length of professional experience. This heterogeneity enabled the exploration of varied perspectives on QoWL, employee benefit perceptions, and well-being expectations among young employees.
Table 2 summarizes the demographics of the HR and finance managers, who likewise represent a broad range of sectors, organizational roles, and professional backgrounds. Owing to their managerial responsibilities and extensive experience, these participants provided in-depth insights into the strategic, financial, and cultural considerations shaping employee benefits management.
2.4. Data Analysis
The data were analyzed using the six-phase thematic analysis approach proposed by Braun and Clarke [50], combined with an inductive, theory-building orientation guided by the Gioia methodology [49]. First, all interview transcripts were read repeatedly to achieve deep familiarity with the data. During this phase, meaningful units of text were identified, and initial codes were generated in a data-driven manner. Although the preliminary analysis was informed by sensitizing concepts related to meaning, value, cost, balance, and sustainability, the coding process remained inductive, allowing themes to emerge directly from participants’ narratives rather than being imposed a priori.
In the first-order coding stage, interview transcripts were examined line by line, and informant-centric codes were developed using participants’ own expressions to capture their lived experiences, interpretations, and sensemaking processes. These first-order codes were continuously compared across interviews to identify patterns, similarities, and divergences among participants from different roles and organizational contexts. This constant comparative process supported analytic rigor and ensured that the emerging code structure remained grounded in the empirical material.
In the second-order analysis, conceptually related first-order codes were clustered into more abstract themes through iterative comparison with relevant theoretical concepts from the literature on meaningful work, employee well-being, and financial sustainability. Throughout this stage, the analysis involved repeated movement between the data, emerging themes, and the developing theoretical framework. Analytical rigor was further supported by maintaining a transparent audit trail documenting coding decisions, theme refinement, and analytical reflections.
To move from descriptive categorization to theoretical abstraction, second-order themes were subsequently aggregated into higher-level dimensions representing key analytical constructs. This multi-stage modeling process enabled a systematic and transparent transition from empirical observations to higher-level theoretical interpretation. The resulting aggregate dimensions were analytically integrated into the MCB Framework, which provides the conceptual foundation for the study’s findings and explains how meaning-oriented and cost-oriented logics interact within sustainable organizational systems.
2.5. Ethical Principles and Trustworthiness
The study was conducted in full accordance with established ethical research principles. Participation was voluntary, and all participants were informed about the purpose of the study, confidentiality procedures, and their right to withdraw at any stage without consequence. Participant identities were kept confidential, and all data were anonymized prior to analysis and reporting. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Beykoz University Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee Secretariat (Ethics Approval No: 25/2).
To enhance the trustworthiness of the study, several methodological strategies were employed in line with qualitative research standards. Credibility was supported through member checking, whereby selected participants reviewed the emerging themes and interpretations, and revisions were made based on their feedback. Dependability and confirmability were strengthened through data source triangulation, drawing on both Generation Z employees and HR/finance managers, as well as through the use of reflective field notes to minimize researcher bias throughout the analysis process. Finally, transparency and auditability were ensured by systematically documenting all stages of data collection and analysis, thereby enhancing the overall rigor and verifiability of the research [58].
3. Findings
3.1. Findings Related to Generation Z Employees
The narratives of Generation Z employees indicate that perceptions of employee benefits are structured around two interrelated dimensions: (i) how employee benefits are interpreted as sources of meaning and signals of organizational intent, and (ii) which types of employee benefits most strongly support QoWL. Together, these dimensions demonstrate that Generation Z evaluates the work experience not primarily through economic compensation but through multi-layered well-being considerations, including value alignment, justice, autonomy, and psychological safety.
Participant accounts reveal that employee benefits function simultaneously as symbolic and functional elements within organizational life. On the one hand, benefits are interpreted as symbolic indicators reflecting how the organization values and positions its employees. On the other hand, they operate as concrete support mechanisms that directly influence Generation Z employees’ QoL, perceived freedom, opportunities for development, and emotional stability. This dual interpretation highlights that benefits are experienced not merely as material provisions but as integral components of the broader employee experience.
Accordingly, the findings related to Generation Z are organized into two thematic areas. The first area, the meaning dimension (Table 3), captures how employees interpret employee benefits and how these interpretations shape perceptions of justice, recognition, autonomy, and psychological safety—key determinants of QoL-relevant outcomes. The second area, preferred types of employee benefits (Table 4), identifies which benefit practices are perceived as most supportive of QoWL, work–life balance, and eudaimonic well-being.
Taken together, the meaning dimension presented in Table 3 and the preferred benefit types outlined in Table 4 indicate that Generation Z’s approach to employee benefits forms a holistic configuration in which symbolic meanings (perceptions of organizational intent and value alignment) and functional practices (concrete supports enhancing well-being) are closely intertwined. This integrated structure provides the empirical foundation for the MCB Framework proposed in the study and demonstrates how employee benefits simultaneously contribute to identity-related meaning-making processes and lived QoL experiences within organizational settings.
3.1.1. Meaning Perception of Generation Z Employees
The narratives of Generation Z employees (Table 3) indicate that employee benefits are perceived not merely as functional support mechanisms within the organization–employee relationship but as powerful symbolic expressions of organizational intent. Participants consistently described employee benefits as visible indicators of how organizations value their employees, with direct implications for perceptions of justice, recognition, autonomy, and psychological safety—core components of individual well-being and subjective QoL.
Within this framework, the meaning attributed to employee benefits by Generation Z is structured as a multi-layered configuration encompassing justice and recognition, value alignment and autonomy, psychological safety, and emotional attachment. The sub-themes below outline the core components of this structure and illustrate how employee benefits shape the QoWL experience.
Perceived fairness and recognition
Participants frequently located their sense of organizational justice in the scope, consistency, and equitable implementation of employee benefits. Transparent and fair benefit practices were associated with feeling valued and included, whereas reductions, inconsistencies, or perceived inequities in benefits were described as sources of fragility that undermined trust and weakened the sense of belonging. These accounts suggest that employee benefits function as an integral element of the psychological contract between Generation Z employees and their organizations.
Value alignment and autonomy
Benefits that supported flexibility, personal development, and individual choice were interpreted as central sources of meaning at work. Participants emphasized that benefits aligned with their personal values and life priorities transformed work from a set of tasks into a personally meaningful activity. In this respect, employee benefits were experienced as QoL resources that support autonomy, self-actualization, and eudaimonic well-being.
Psychological safety and emotional well-being
Health insurance, psychological counseling, and welfare-oriented support practices were consistently evaluated as indicators of organizational care and protection. The presence of such benefits was associated with emotional stability and a sense of security, while their absence or limited provision heightened feelings of uncertainty and reduced organizational trust. Taken together, these accounts suggest that employee benefits function as important sources of psychological safety for Generation Z employees.
Loss of meaning and fragility
Several participants linked benefit reductions, standardization, or ambiguous implementation practices to experiences of feeling undervalued and emotionally distanced from the organization. In such cases, work was described as becoming “just about money,” signaling a loss of meaning and weakened relational attachment. This theme underscores the sensitivity of employee benefits as a domain through which meaning can be both constructed and eroded.
Symbolic value and emotional attachment
Beyond their material function, employee benefits were frequently described as symbolic gestures that communicate care, sincerity, and a humane organizational stance. Even relatively small or personalized practices—such as special leave days or individualized support—were perceived as meaningful expressions of recognition that strengthened emotional attachments and reinforced a sense of belonging.
Taken together, these findings show that the meaning of employee benefits for Generation Z is constructed across three interconnected layers: an individual layer grounded in psychological well-being (justice, autonomy, safety), a relational layer reflecting trust and value alignment between employee and organization, and an experiential layer shaping daily work practices and emotional stability. This multilayered meaning structure provides empirical support for the Meaning Dimension of the MCB Framework proposed in the study, illustrating how employee benefits contribute simultaneously to eudaimonic well-being and broader QoL-relevant outcomes among Generation Z employees.
3.1.2. Preferred Types of Employee Benefits Among Generation Z Employees
The preference patterns observed among Generation Z employees indicate that employee benefits are evaluated as part of a holistic QoL domain rather than as isolated functional provisions. Accordingly, participants prioritized benefit practices that integrate functional support with psychological and experiential value. As summarized in Table 4, these preferences are organized into five interrelated subthemes reflecting distinct but complementary aspects of QoWL and eudaimonic well-being.
This general tendency reveals the thematic areas in which Generation Z’s expectations regarding employee benefits are concentrated, and the subheadings below explain in detail the fundamental dimensions of this preference pattern, each reflecting distinct aspects of subjective well-being, identity-related meaning-making, and the QoWL experience: Autonomy and life control
Remote work arrangements, hybrid models, and flexible scheduling were consistently identified as the most valued benefits. Participants emphasized that such practices enhanced subjective well-being by increasing perceived control over time and workload, thereby fostering a sense of autonomy. Flexibility was described not only as a practical arrangement but also as an autonomy-enabling space that deepened the meaning of work.
Self-actualization and value alignment
Benefits related to learning and development—such as training budgets, certification programs, mentoring, and structured development plans—were interpreted as central to personal growth and eudaimonic well-being. Participants associated these practices with identity development and increased motivation, indicating that development-oriented benefits were experienced as meaningful resources rather than solely as instruments of career advancement.
Well-being and security
Health insurance, psychological counseling, wellness programs, and similar supports were evaluated as essential protective benefits. Participants linked the presence of these practices to emotional stability and a sense of security, particularly during periods of uncertainty. These benefits were thus perceived as foundational resources that sustain well-being and reinforce positive organizational perceptions.
Rest and renewal
Flexible leave policies, additional vacation days, and personal leave arrangements were identified as important QoL-related benefits. Participants highlighted that opportunities for rest and recovery contributed not only to physical renewal but also to emotional balance and sustained performance, underscoring the role of rest-oriented benefits in long-term well-being.
Meaning-making and value harmonization
Finally, volunteering leave, social contribution initiatives, and corporate social responsibility projects were described as meaning-enhancing benefits by a substantial number of participants. These practices were perceived as aligning organizational goals with employees’ personal values, thereby strengthening a sense of belonging and purpose at work.
Taken together, the preferred benefit types identified by Generation Z cluster around core QoWL-related dimensions encompassing autonomy and life control, self-actualization and value alignment, welfare and safety, and rest and sustainable performance. This pattern indicates that employee benefits are experienced not merely as functional supports but as a multi-layered experiential configuration shaping subjective QoL, psychological stability, and identity development. In this respect, the findings empirically ground the Individual Well-Being and QoWL dimension of the MCB Framework and demonstrate how benefit practices influence broader QoL-relevant outcomes for Generation Z employees.
3.2. Perception of Financial and Strategic Balance
Interviews with HR and finance managers indicate that employee benefits are evaluated through two interrelated but distinct decision logics: (i) financial rationality centered on sustainability, budget discipline, and cost–impact assessment, and (ii) strategic considerations aligned with employee expectations, generational dynamics, and organizational culture. Together, these logics position employee benefits simultaneously as budgetary items subject to financial control and as strategic investments contributing to organizational commitment, employer branding, and long-term resilience. These patterns are systematized in Table 5, which presents the Gioia-based structure of managers’ meaning–cost perceptions.
The managerial perspective on employee benefits is organized into several interrelated subthemes, each reflecting how financial and strategic considerations shape organizational decisions and, indirectly, QoWL outcomes for employees: Financial rationality and measurability
Managers consistently emphasized that decisions regarding employee benefits are constrained by budget limits, economic volatility, and cost pressures. The introduction or expansion of benefits was typically justified through measurable indicators such as return on investment (ROI), short- and medium-term cost–impact balance, and budget feasibility. These accounts indicate that benefit management increasingly operates within a data-driven decision environment.
Data-driven decision making and prioritization
Beyond single cost indicators, managers reported evaluating multiple data sources simultaneously, including employee demand, market benchmarks, turnover metrics, satisfaction data, and cost analyses. This integrative approach frames employee benefits not merely as expenditures but as investment tools whose sustainability is assessed through both financial and behavioral outcomes, such as performance and commitment.
Human-centered approach as investment
Several managers highlighted that benefits related to health, flexibility, and development often entail short-term costs but generate strategic returns over time. These returns were described in terms of talent retention, sustained commitment, employer brand strength, and reduced turnover. In this context, employee benefits were framed as investments supporting the sustainable management of the employee life cycle rather than as discretionary expenses.
Generational differences and strategic alignment
Managers identified the evolving expectations of Generation Z—particularly regarding flexibility, development opportunities, and psychological well-being—as a key driver of benefit redesign. These expectations were reported to influence not only HR practices but also financial planning and strategic prioritization. Failure to align benefits with generational expectations was associated with risks such as increased turnover and reduced competitiveness in talent markets.
Cultural values and corporate image
Finally, managers emphasized that certain benefits serve a symbolic function by communicating organizational values and cultural orientation. Practices such as volunteering leave, development support, and flexible work arrangements were described as visible expressions of a human-centered organizational stance. These findings suggest that employee benefits function not only as financial decisions but also as mechanisms through which corporate identity and value orientations are conveyed to employees.
When considered collectively, these subthemes reveal that managerial evaluations of employee benefits are structured around two aggregate dimensions: (i) the financial sustainability dimension, characterized by budget discipline, measurability, and cost–impact considerations, and (ii) the strategic balance dimension, in which human-centered benefit practices contribute to organizational resilience through long-term commitment, cultural alignment, and generational sensitivity. Together, these dimensions empirically support the Financial Sustainability and Strategic Balance layers of the MCB Framework and demonstrate how resource allocation and benefit design decisions shape both organizational performance and QoWL-relevant outcomes.
3.3. Shared Thematic Structure of the MCB Framework
When the findings obtained from Generation Z employees and managers are considered together, their perspectives—although distinct in emphasis—converge around a shared organizational value structure. Employee narratives primarily articulate the Meaning Dimension of employee benefits through perceptions of justice, autonomy, psychological safety, and value alignment, which shape subjective well-being and QoWL. In contrast, managerial accounts frame employee benefits within a Financial Sustainability Dimension, emphasizing budget discipline, cost–impact assessment, and data-driven decision-making. Importantly, both groups situate employee benefits at the intersection of organizational culture, value orientations, and generational expectations, forming a Strategic Balance Dimension. As summarized in Table 6, these perspectives converge into three aggregate dimensions that operate at different levels of organizational life yet constitute interdependent components of a single QoL-relevant value creation system.
This integrated structure clarifies how meaning-oriented employee experiences intersect with managerial evaluations of financial and strategic realities. The thematic patterns indicate that employee benefits shape organizational outcomes through three interrelated dynamics: Sources of meaning: justice, recognition, and autonomy
Employee accounts demonstrate that employee benefits function as central sources of meaning rather than as purely material supports. Benefits associated with flexibility, development, health, and psychological support were described as meeting fundamental needs for justice, recognition, autonomy, and safety, thereby strengthening subjective and eudaimonic well-being. Conversely, ambiguity or reductions in benefits were associated with experiences of fragility, loss of meaning, and weakened organizational attachment. Together, these patterns show that Generation Z’s evaluations of employee benefits form a meaning-centered well-being configuration
Pressure of financial rationality and measurability
Managerial narratives position employee benefits within a financial sustainability logic focused on cost–impact balance, budget discipline, and measurable outcomes. Decisions regarding benefit design and continuation were described as directly shaping resource allocation priorities, financial resilience, and long-term performance objectives. At the same time, managers recognized that benefits supporting employee well-being generate organizational value over time through enhanced commitment, retention, and performance, leading certain practices to be framed as strategic investments rather than discretionary costs.
Strategic balance between meaning and cost
A third dynamic common to both participant groups concerns the alignment of employee benefits with organizational culture and generational expectations. Employees interpreted the symbolic content of benefits as indicators of organizational intent and values, while managers viewed cultural consistency and generational sensitivity as essential for sustaining competitiveness and organizational legitimacy. This shared emphasis highlights employee benefits as cultural instruments that shape organizational identity and the employee–organization relationship.
Taken together, these dynamics demonstrate that meaning and cost are not opposing logics within organizational life but mutually reinforcing processes. As illustrated by the Gioia structure summarized in Table 6, employees’ meaning-making and well-being experiences intersect with managerial assessments of financial sustainability and strategic alignment within a cyclical value creation system. In this cycle, stronger meaning attribution to employee benefits is associated with favorable behavioral outcomes—such as commitment, performance, and intention to stay—which contribute to organizational resilience and long-term strategic capacity. Enhanced financial resilience, in turn, enables organizations to sustain and redesign meaning-generating benefit practices. Collectively, this integrated thematic structure provides the empirical foundation for the cyclical relationship articulated in the MCB Framework, linking the Meaning Dimension, the Individual and Organizational Well-Being/QoWL Dimension, and the Strategic Balance Dimension, and illustrating how these interconnected layers jointly shape employee experiences and broader QoL-relevant outcomes within organizational settings.
4. Discussion
This study advances understanding of employee benefits by demonstrating that, in contemporary organizations, they function not merely as economic support tools or cost elements but as multidimensional mechanisms situated at the intersection of meaning-making, employee well-being, and financial sustainability [59,60]. While Generation Z employees interpret employee benefits primarily through justice, autonomy, psychological safety, and value alignment [30,61], managers frame the same practices through budget discipline, cost–impact considerations, and long-term resilience [31,33]. Taken together, these perspectives suggest that meaning and cost represent complementary rather than competing organizational logics. This integrative view provides the foundation for the MCB Framework, which conceptualizes meaning, QoWL–related well-being, and financial sustainability as interconnected dimensions of a unified value creation system.
The mutually reinforcing relationship between meaning and cost identified in this study operates through a cyclical organizational mechanism. First, meaning-oriented employee benefit practices—such as flexibility, development opportunities, and well-being support—enhance employees’ perceptions of justice, autonomy, and psychological safety. These perceptions translate into behavioral outcomes, including higher commitment, sustained performance, and reduced turnover intentions. Second, these behavioral outcomes contribute to organizational financial resilience by lowering replacement costs, stabilizing productivity, and strengthening employer reputation. Enhanced financial resilience, in turn, enables organizations to maintain, justify, and further invest in meaning-generating benefit practices. Through this feedback loop, meaning and cost do not function as opposing forces, but as interdependent components of a dynamic value creation process, as conceptualized in the MCB Framework.
4.1. Theoretical Interpretation of the Findings
The findings extend existing meaning-of-work literature by demonstrating that meaning is not produced solely through task characteristics, leadership behaviors, or individual cognitive framing, but is also actively shaped through organizational practices that carry symbolic and relational significance. While earlier studies emphasize job design and leadership as primary sources of meaning [62,63], the present findings show that employee benefits function as salient organizational signals through which meaning is constructed and interpreted [4,64]. This shifts the theoretical locus of meaning from individual-level sensemaking processes toward organizational-level governance practices, suggesting that meaning should be conceptualized not only as an experiential outcome but also as a strategically mediated organizational phenomenon. In this respect, the study expands the symbolic HRM perspective [65] by illustrating how benefit practices operate as carriers of organizational intent, ethical stance, and value priorities.
A second contribution concerns the relationship between employee benefits and eudaimonic well-being. The findings indicate that employees’ interpretations of benefits are closely linked to autonomy, development, value alignment, and psychological safety—core elements of eudaimonic well-being. Rather than treating well-being as a downstream consequence of motivational or reward systems, the findings suggest that employee benefits actively constitute the conditions under which eudaimonic well-being is produced and sustained. This insight moves beyond dominant reward–incentive frameworks in the employee benefits literature by positioning benefits as psychosocial resources that shape QoL rather than as transactional tools [7]. In doing so, the study complements and extends job demands–resources perspectives [24] by highlighting that benefits provide not only instrumental resources for performance but also symbolic resources that support meaning-making, identity development, and perceived life control.
From a managerial perspective, the findings challenge the conventional cost–well-being dichotomy frequently observed in sustainable HRM debates. Managers’ evaluations reveal that employee benefits are not treated as purely discretionary costs but are increasingly framed as strategic investments whose value unfolds over time through enhanced commitment, retention, and performance. Such reframing calls into question theoretical approaches that conceptualize financial sustainability primarily as a constraint on human-centered practices, and instead supports a dynamic view in which financial resilience emerges as an outcome of how meaning and well-being are governed within organizations. This interpretation aligns with recent evidence suggesting that well-being-oriented practices contribute to long-term organizational outcomes, including financial resilience and sustained competitiveness [66]. Accordingly, the findings reframe financial sustainability not as a constraint on human-centered practices but as a dynamic outcome shaped by how meaning and well-being are managed within organizations.
Finally, the findings shed light on the cultural and generational dimensions of employee benefits. Generation Z’s interpretations emphasize that benefits serve as symbolic expressions of organizational identity and ethical positioning. This supports emerging research on identity work and organizational culture, which highlights how HR practices communicate values and shape employees’ sense of belonging [67,68]. By showing how benefit designs convey cultural messages and influence relational bonds, the study underscores the role of employee benefits as mechanisms through which organizations negotiate meaning, culture, and generational expectations simultaneously.
4.2. Theoretical Contributions
This study makes several theoretical contributions to the literature on meaningful work, employee benefits, and sustainable organization management by integrating perspectives that have largely been examined in isolation. First, the study contributes to the meaning-of-work literature by reconceptualizing employee benefits as a core organizational mechanism through which meaning is constructed and communicated. While prior research has predominantly focused on job design, leadership behaviors, and individual sensemaking processes as sources of meaning [62,63], the findings demonstrate that benefit practices function as symbolic organizational signals that shape perceptions of justice, recognition, autonomy, and value alignment. In this respect, the study extends symbolic HRM perspectives by positioning employee benefits as active carriers of organizational intent rather than as peripheral compensation elements.
Second, the study advances the employee benefits literature by moving beyond reward–incentive and transactional frameworks. By linking benefit practices to eudaimonic well-being, identity development, and QoL outcomes, the findings position employee benefits as psychosocial and relational resources that shape lived work experiences. This perspective complements job demands–resources models [7,24] by highlighting the symbolic and meaning-oriented functions of benefits alongside their instrumental role in supporting performance.
Third, the study contributes to sustainable HRM and financial sustainability research by challenging the assumed opposition between employee well-being and financial resilience. The findings show that managerial evaluations of employee benefits incorporate both cost rationality and long-term investment logic, thereby reframing benefits as strategic assets whose value unfolds over time through commitment, retention, and performance. This contribution shifts the analytical focus from static cost–benefit trade-offs to a dynamic understanding of how human-centered practices contribute to organizational resilience [33,66].
Finally, the study offers an integrative theoretical contribution through the MCB Framework. By systematically linking meaning-making processes, individual and organizational well-being, and financial sustainability within a single cyclical structure, the framework addresses a key fragmentation in the literature. The MCB Framework provides a conceptual lens for understanding how organizations translate meaning into well-being outcomes and, ultimately, into sustainable value creation, thereby advancing theory at the intersection of HRM, organizational behavior, and strategic management.
4.3. Practical Implications
The findings offer several practical implications for organizations seeking to balance employee well-being and financial sustainability within contemporary work contexts. First, the results indicate that employee benefits should be treated as a strategic governance mechanism rather than as a purely operational HR function. In practical terms, this implies that benefit design and revision processes should be explicitly linked to organizational strategy cycles, with employee benefits evaluated not only in terms of immediate cost but also in relation to long-term outcomes such as employee commitment, retention, and organizational resilience.
Second, the findings highlight the importance of operationalizing cross-functional collaboration between HR and finance functions. Rather than operating as separate domains, organizations may establish joint HR–finance working groups responsible for the evaluation and periodic review of employee benefit portfolios. Within such structures, HR units can systematically provide data on employee experience, perceived fairness, benefit utilization, and well-being outcomes, while finance units assess budgetary constraints, per-employee benefit costs, and longer-term financial implications. Regular review mechanisms (e.g., quarterly benefit assessment meetings) can support shared decision-making by integrating human-centered insights with financial analysis.
Third, the results underscore the need for generationally sensitive benefit design, particularly with respect to Generation Z. For this cohort, employee benefits function not only as material provisions but also as symbolic signals of organizational intent and ethical orientation. Organizations may therefore prioritize benefit practices that support flexibility, development opportunities, psychological safety, and social contribution, and periodically assess how these practices are interpreted by younger employees through structured feedback mechanisms such as pulse surveys or focus groups. Such practices can help organizations proactively manage engagement and turnover risks in competitive labor markets.
Fourth, the findings demonstrate that data-driven benefit management can be operationalized without undermining human-centered approaches. Organizations may combine human-centered indicators—such as employee satisfaction with benefits, perceived value alignment, utilization rates, absenteeism, turnover intentions, and retention patterns—with financial indicators including per-employee benefit expenditure, cost-to-retention ratios, and replacement or productivity-related costs. Evaluating employee benefits through this integrated indicator set enables organizations to assess both experiential value and financial sustainability, supporting more informed and defensible resource allocation decisions.
Finally, the Meaning–Cost Balance (MCB) Framework provides a practical decision-support lens for managers operating under conditions of uncertainty. By explicitly conceptualizing employee benefits as the intersection of meaning creation, well-being outcomes, and financial sustainability, the framework can guide managers in structuring benefit-related decisions, prioritizing investments, and communicating trade-offs transparently within the organization. In this respect, the MCB Framework can serve not only as an analytical model but also as a practical reference point for institutionalizing sustainable, human-centered, and financially resilient management practices.
4.4. Strategic Positioning of the MCB Framework
MCB Framework is strategically positioned at the intersection of employee experience, sustainable HRM, and financial decision-making. Unlike approaches that treat meaning, well-being, and financial sustainability as separate or sequential concerns, the MCB Framework conceptualizes these dimensions as interdependent elements of a single cyclical value creation system. In doing so, it responds to the growing need for integrative frameworks that account for both human-centered and economic imperatives in contemporary organizations.
A key distinguishing feature of the MCB Framework lies in its treatment of employee benefits as a strategic governance mechanism. Rather than positioning benefits as downstream outcomes of HRM policies or as static cost items, the framework situates them at the core of managerial decision-making processes. Through this lens, meaning-oriented benefit practices shape individual well-being and QoWL, which in turn contribute to behavioral and performance-related outcomes that support financial resilience. Financial sustainability, rather than constraining meaning-generating practices, is thus conceptualized as an enabling condition that allows organizations to sustain and redesign employee benefit systems over time.
The cyclical logic embedded in the MCB Framework also differentiates it from linear models of employee well-being or investment-return frameworks. By emphasizing feedback loops between meaning, well-being, and financial outcomes, the framework captures how organizational value is continuously produced, reinforced, and recalibrated. This perspective aligns with system-oriented approaches to sustainability, in which long-term organizational viability depends on the dynamic alignment of human and economic resources.
From a strategic standpoint, the MCB Framework offers a middle ground between cost-centered and purely humanistic approaches to employee management. It provides a conceptual language through which managers can articulate and legitimize investments in employee well-being without decoupling them from financial accountability. In this sense, the framework supports strategic decision-making under conditions of uncertainty by making visible the trade-offs and complementarities between meaning and cost.
Overall, the strategic positioning of the MCB Framework lies in its capacity to bridge fragmented literatures and managerial logics. By integrating meaning-making processes, individual and organizational well-being, and financial sustainability within a unified conceptual structure, the framework contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of sustainable organization management. It thus serves not only as an explanatory model but also as a strategic reference point for organizations seeking to align employee experience with long-term financial and organizational resilience.
5. Conclusions
This study addressed a critical gap in the literature concerning the lack of integrative understanding of how organizations simultaneously manage employees’ meaning-based well-being expectations and cost-driven financial rationality through concrete organizational practices such as employee benefits. By examining employee benefits at the intersection of meaning and cost, the findings demonstrate that these practices function not merely as supplementary reward mechanisms or cost items, but as strategic governance tools through which human-centered well-being and financial sustainability are actively balanced within organizations.
The findings reveal that Generation Z employees interpret employee benefits as key sources of meaning that shape perceptions of justice, autonomy, psychological safety, and value alignment—core components of subjective and eudaimonic well-being. In parallel, HR and finance managers evaluate the same practices through financial sustainability logics emphasizing measurability, budget discipline, and long-term resilience. Importantly, the study shows that these meaning-oriented and cost-oriented perspectives do not operate in opposition. Rather, they interact dynamically, producing a cyclical value creation process in which meaning-enhancing benefit practices contribute to commitment, performance, and retention, thereby reinforcing organizational financial resilience.
By integrating these perspectives, the Meaning–Cost Balance (MCB) Framework provides a conceptual explanation of how employee benefits translate individual meaning-making processes into organizational-level outcomes. The framework reframes financial sustainability not as a constraint on well-being-oriented practices, but as an outcome that is partly generated through the strategic management of meaning, employee experience, and quality of work life. In this respect, the study advances sustainable organization management by demonstrating how meaning can be treated as a manageable and value-generating organizational resource.
From a practical standpoint, the findings suggest that employee benefits should be designed and evaluated through joint HR–finance governance mechanisms that account for both human-centered outcomes and financial implications. Rather than relying solely on short-term cost considerations, organizations are encouraged to assess benefit practices in terms of their long-term contributions to employee well-being, organizational commitment, and resilience—particularly in relation to the evolving expectations of Generation Z.
Finally, while its qualitative design limits statistical generalizability, this study offers a transferable conceptual framework that can inform future quantitative, comparative, and longitudinal research. Future studies may empirically test the cyclical relationships proposed in the MCB Framework across different cultural and institutional contexts, further advancing research on employee well-being, employee benefits, and financial sustainability within organizational settings.
Conceptualization, Ü.D.İ. and D.N.Ö.; methodology, Ü.D.İ.; software, Ü.D.İ. and D.N.Ö.; formal analysis, Ü.D.İ. and D.N.Ö.; resources, Ü.D.İ. and D.N.Ö.; data curation, Ü.D.İ.; writing—original draft preparation, Ü.D.İ.; writing—review and editing, Ü.D.İ. and D.N.Ö. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Beykoz University Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee Secretariat (Decision No. 25/2) on 17 November 2025.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The data that support the findings of this study consist of qualitative interview transcripts collected from participants under conditions of confidentiality. Due to the sensitive nature of the interview data and to protect participant privacy, the full transcripts cannot be publicly shared. De-identified excerpts relevant to the analysis are included within the manuscript, and additional anonymized data may be made available by the corresponding author upon reasonable request and subject to ethical approval. Such requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the Beykoz University Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee Secretariat, to ensure compliance with ethical and legal standards. Requests may be directed to:
The authors declare that there are no financial or non-financial competing interests associated with the research, authorship, or publication of this article.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Meaning–Cost Balance (MCB) Framework. The MCB Framework integrates meaning, individual well-being and QoWL, and financial sustainability within a unified structure, positioning employee benefits as a strategic mechanism that aligns human-centered value creation with long-term organizational resilience.
Demographics of Generation Z Employees (n = 15).
| Participant Code | Age | Gender | Education Level | Sector | Role/Title | Years of Experience |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 22 | Female | Bachelor’s | Technology | Software Developer | 1 year |
| C2 | 25 | Male | Master’s | Finance | Analyst | 3 years |
| C3 | 23 | Female | Bachelor’s | Services | Customer Representative | 2 years |
| C4 | 28 | Male | Bachelor’s | Manufacturing | Engineer | 5 years |
| C5 | 24 | Female | Bachelor’s | Education | Research Assistant | 2 years |
| C6 | 21 | Male | Associate | Logistics | Operations Staff | 1 year |
| C7 | 27 | Female | Bachelor’s | Healthcare | Clinical Assistant | 4 years |
| C8 | 26 | Male | Master’s | Consulting | Project Specialist | 3 years |
| C9 | 23 | Female | Bachelor’s | Media | Content Editor | 2 years |
| C10 | 25 | Male | Bachelor’s | Energy | Field Engineer | 3 years |
| C11 | 22 | Female | Bachelor’s | Tourism | Sales Assistant | 1 year |
| C12 | 26 | Female | Bachelor’s | Public Sector | Administrative Staff | 3 years |
| C13 | 28 | Male | Bachelor’s | Telecommunications | Operations Specialist | 5 years |
| C14 | 24 | Male | Bachelor’s | Food Production | Product Specialist | 2 years |
| C15 | 27 | Female | Master’s | Banking | Credit Analyst | 4 years |
Demographics of HR and Finance Managers (n = 20).
| Participant Code | Age | Gender | Education Level | Sector | Role/Title | Years of Experience |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Y1 | 38 | Female | Master’s | Technology | HR Manager | 12 years |
| Y2 | 42 | Male | Bachelor’s | Services | Finance Manager | 15 years |
| Y3 | 36 | Male | Master’s | Manufacturing | HR Business Partner | 10 years |
| Y4 | 45 | Female | Bachelor’s | Healthcare | Deputy CFO | 18 years |
| Y5 | 39 | Female | Master’s | Education | HR Director | 14 years |
| Y6 | 47 | Male | Master’s | Energy | Finance Director | 20 years |
| Y7 | 34 | Female | Bachelor’s | Food | HR Specialist | 9 years |
| Y8 | 41 | Male | Master’s | Manufacturing | Accounting Manager | 16 years |
| Y9 | 40 | Female | Bachelor’s | Retail | HR Coordinator | 13 years |
| Y10 | 43 | Male | Master’s | Telecommunications | Finance Manager | 17 years |
| Y11 | 37 | Female | Master’s | Consulting | Talent Manager | 11 years |
| Y12 | 48 | Male | Bachelor’s | Banking | Finance Director | 21 years |
| Y13 | 35 | Male | Bachelor’s | Automotive | HR Business Partner | 10 years |
| Y14 | 44 | Female | Master’s | Logistics | CFO | 19 years |
| Y15 | 39 | Female | Bachelor’s | Public Sector | HR Manager | 14 years |
| Y16 | 46 | Male | Master’s | Education | Finance Coordinator | 18 years |
| Y17 | 38 | Female | Bachelor’s | Healthcare | HR Officer | 12 years |
| Y18 | 49 | Male | Master’s | Finance | CFO | 22 years |
| Y19 | 33 | Male | Bachelor’s | Technology | HR Business Partner | 8 years |
| Y20 | 42 | Female | Master’s | Retail | Finance Manager | 15 years |
Meaning–Cost Perception of Generation Z Employees.
| 1st-Level Codes (Participant Quotes) | 2nd-Level Themes | Higher-Level Structure (Aggregate Dimension) | Core Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| “Side benefits make me feel that the organization cares about me.” (C4) | Perceived Fairness and Recognition | Individual Layer | Meaning Dimension (Individual Well-Being) |
| “When they’re not granted fairly, my sense of belonging decreases.” (C7) | |||
| “When they aren’t applied equally to everyone, my trust is shaken.” (C12) | |||
| “Flexibility gives me a sense of freedom.” (C1) | Value Alignment and Autonomy | Individual Layer | Meaning Dimension (Individual Well-Being) |
| “Benefits aligned with my values make the work more meaningful.” (C10) | |||
| “Educational support is very meaningful because it helps me grow.” (C2) | |||
| “Health insurance gives me a sense of security.” (C12) | Psychological Safety and Emotional Well-Being | Experiential Layer | Meaning Dimension (Individual Well-Being) |
| “Providing psychological support is very important.” (C6) | |||
| “I want to feel safe.” (C15) | |||
| “When some benefits are cut, I feel undervalued.” (C3) | Loss of Meaning and Fragility | Experiential Layer | Meaning Dimension (Individual Well-Being) |
| “When benefits decrease, my connection to the organization weakens.” (C11) | |||
| “When side benefits are reduced, the job becomes just about money.” (C9) | |||
| “Even small gestures show that they care about people.” (C5) | Symbolic Value and Emotional Attachment | Relational Layer | Meaning Dimension (Individual Well-Being) |
| “Things like a birthday leave are very valuable.” (C8) |
Preferred Types of Employee Benefits That Support the QoWL for Generation Z Employees.
| Type of Benefit | 1st-Level Codes (Participant Quotes) | 2nd-Level Theme | Higher-Level Structure (Aggregate Dimension) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible/Hybrid Work | “Being able to work from home gives me a sense of freedom.” (C1) | Autonomy and Life Control | Individual Well-Being/QoWL |
| Training and Development | “As I improve myself, I feel more committed to the job.” (C2) | Self-Actualization and Value Alignment | Individual Well-Being/QoWL |
| Health and Psychological Support | “Private health insurance makes me feel safe.” (C12) | Well-Being and Security | Individual Well-Being/QoWL |
| Leave/Vacation Flexibility | “Leave is very important for mental recovery.” (C9) | Rest and Renewal | Individual Well-Being/QoWL |
| Social Impact/Volunteering | “Participating in social projects brings meaning to my work.” (C5) | Meaning-Making and Value Harmonization | Individual Well-Being/QoWL |
Meaning–Cost Perception of HR and Finance Managers: Gioia Structure.
| 1st-Level Codes (Participant Quotes) | 2nd-Level Themes | Higher-Level Structure (Aggregate Dimension) | Core Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| “Resources are limited; we must first protect the essential benefits.” (Y2) | Financial Rationality and Measurability | Financial Sustainability Dimension | Organizational Well-Being |
| “Every investment’s return is constantly questioned.” (Y10) | |||
| “Without budget approval, adding new benefits is impossible.” (Y6) | |||
| “To sustain benefits, we conduct cost–impact analyses.” (Y8) | Data-Driven Decision-Making and Prioritization | Financial Sustainability Dimension | Organizational Well-Being |
| “Having measurable impact makes decision-making easier.” (Y12) | |||
| “We can’t defend proposals to management without data.” (Y14) | |||
| “Some benefits are short-term costs but create long-term commitment.” (Y4) | Human-Centered Approach as Investment | Strategic Balance Dimension | Human-Centered Sustainability |
| “Meaningful benefits are actually strategic investments.” (Y3) | |||
| “Human-centered benefits generate long-term gains.” (Y15) | |||
| “Younger employees’ expectations change rapidly; flexibility is essential.” (Y11) | Generational Differences and Strategic Alignment | Strategic Balance Dimension | Human-Centered Sustainability |
| “The search for meaning is no longer just an HR issue; it’s strategic.” (Y9) | |||
| “We must design policies suitable for the new generation.” (Y18) | |||
| “Some benefits are not only financial but reflect the cultural identity of the organization.” (Y5) | Cultural Values and Corporate Image | Strategic Balance Dimension | Human-Centered Sustainability |
| “Value-driven benefits show the organization’s stance.” (Y17) | |||
| “The message embedded in benefits is part of the corporate culture.” (Y20) |
Shared Thematic Structure of the MCB Framework (Consolidated Gioia Table).
| 1st-Level Codes (Participant Quotes) | 2nd-Level Themes | Higher-Level Structure (Aggregate Dimension) | Core Dimension |
|---|---|---|---|
| “When benefits are fair, I feel valued.” (C4) | Sources of Meaning: Justice, Recognition, and Autonomy | Meaning Dimension | Individual Well-Being |
| “Young employees search for meaning; their expectations change rapidly.” (Y11) | Generation-Focused Meaning Expectations | Meaning Dimension | Individual Well-Being |
| “The ROI of every benefit is questioned.” (Y10) | Pressure of Financial Rationality and Measurability | Financial Reality Dimension | Organizational Well-Being |
| “Training or flexibility increases commitment in the long term.” (Y5) | Organizational Value and Investment Logic | Financial Reality Dimension | Organizational Well-Being |
| “Some benefits aren’t luxuries; they are investments in the future.” (C10) | Strategic Balance Between Meaning and Cost | Strategic Balance Dimension | Human-Centered Sustainability |
| “As meaning increases, performance increases as well.” (Y4) | Cyclical Production of Value (Feedback Effect) | Strategic Balance Dimension | Human-Centered Sustainability |
Appendix A. Generation Z Employee Interview Form
What is your age, educational background, and current job position?
How long have you been working in this organization?
What does the concept of “employee benefits” (e.g., meal card, flexible working, health insurance, development opportunities, etc.) mean to you?
In your opinion, what makes an employee benefit “meaningful”?
How do you evaluate the employee benefits offered by your organization? Are they satisfactory for you? How would you evaluate the impact of these benefits on your overall quality of life (e.g., psychological well-being, work–life balance, wellness, sense of freedom)?
What kind of relationship do you see between the organization’s investment in employee benefits and your work motivation?
In your opinion, how should organizations balance employee satisfaction and financial sustainability?
Some organizations may restrict employee benefits due to cost concerns. How do you think this affects employee commitment and your psychological well-being?
What do employee benefits tell you about an organization’s values and culture? What do these benefits mean for your psychological bond with the organization and your perception of quality of life?
What types of employee benefits do you think organizations should invest in more in the future
What does the expression “the cost of meaning” evoke for you? How do you think organizations should manage this cost?
Based on your own experience, what do you think a “fair, well-being-supportive, and sustainable employee benefits system” should look like?
Appendix B. HR/Finance Manager Interview Form
What is your role and area of responsibility within your organization?
Could you briefly provide information about the number of employees and the general human resources structure of your organization?
What role do employee benefits play in your organization’s strategic human resources planning?
Which criteria (cost, market average, employee demand, etc.) are considered when creating employee benefits budgets?
Which indicators (e.g., ROI, turnover, performance, etc.) do you use to measure the financial impact of employee benefits?
How do you balance employee demands and financial constraints from a financial sustainability perspective?
How do economic fluctuations (inflation, cost increases, etc.) affect your employee benefits policies?
What strategies does your organization follow to position employee benefits not as a “cost” but as an “investment”?
How do the expectations of Generation Z employees regarding employee benefits differ from previous generations?
How does this generation’s “search for meaning” reflect in your organization’s financial decision-making processes?
Which trends (flexibility, personalization, digitalization, etc.) do you predict will become prominent in employee benefits management in the upcoming period?
What does the concept of “the cost of meaning” mean to you? How can your organization manage this balance?
1. Diener, E.; Oishi, S.; Tay, L. Advances in subjective well-being research. Nat. Hum. Behav.; 2018; 2, pp. 253-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30936533]
2. Ryff, C.D. Well-being with soul: Science in pursuit of human potential. Perspect. Psychol. Sci.; 2018; 13, pp. 242-248. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699836] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29592644]
3. Tortia, E.C.; Sacchetti, S.; López-Arceiz, F.J. A human growth perspective on sustainable HRM practices, worker well-being and organizational performance. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 11064. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su141711064]
4. Bailey, C.; Yeoman, R.; Madden, A.; Thompson, M.; Kerridge, G. A review of the empirical literature on meaningful work: Progress and research agenda. Hum. Resour. Dev. Rev.; 2019; 18, pp. 83-113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534484318804653]
5. Newman, A.; Donohue, R.; Eva, N. Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev.; 2017; 27, pp. 521-535. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.01.001]
6. Le, H.; Jiang, Z.; Fujimoto, Y.; Nielsen, I. Inclusion and affective well-being: Roles of justice perceptions. Pers. Rev.; 2018; 47, pp. 805-820. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-03-2017-0078]
7. Peluso, A.M.; Innocenti, L.; Pilati, M. Pay is not everything: Differential effects of monetary and non-monetary rewards on employees’ attitudes and behaviours. Evid. Based HRM; 2017; 5, pp. 311-327. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-07-2015-0031]
8. Theurer, C.P.; Tumasjan, A.; Welpe, I.M.; Lievens, F. Employer branding: A brand equity-based literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev.; 2018; 20, pp. 155-179. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12121]
9. Cascio, W.F.; Montealegre, R. How technology is changing work and organizations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav.; 2016; 3, pp. 349-375. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062352]
10. Parker, S.K.; Grote, G. Automation, algorithms, and beyond: Why work design matters more than ever in a digital world. Appl. Psychol.; 2022; 71, pp. 1171-1204. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apps.12241]
11. Kniffin, K.M.; Narayanan, J.; Anseel, F.; Antonakis, J.; Ashford, S.P.; Bakker, A.B.; Bamberger, P.; Bapuji, H.; Bhave, D.P.; Choi, V.K.
12. Sonnentag, S. Dynamics of well-being. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav.; 2015; 2, pp. 261-293. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111347]
13. Zahra, Y.; Handoyo, S.; Fajrianthi, F. A comprehensive overview of Generation Z in the workplace: Insights from a scoping review. SA J. Ind. Psychol.; 2025; 51, a2263. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v51i0.2263]
14. İlhan, Ü.D. Kuşaklar Açısından Çalışma Değerleri ve Örgütsel Bağlılık; Nobel Yayıncılık: Ankara, Türkiye, 2019.
15. Smite, D.; Brede Moe, N.; Hildrum, J.; Gonzalez Huerta, J.; Mendez, D. Work-from-home is here to stay: Call for flexibility in post-pandemic work policies. arXiv; 2022; arXiv: 2203.11136[PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36320721]
16. Münz, C.; Mascena, K.M.C. Work values and attitudes toward technology of Generation Z in Brazil and Germany. Internext Rev. Eletrôn. Negócios Int.; 2024; 19, pp. 63-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18568/internext.v19i1.773]
17. Lysova, E.I.; Allan, B.A.; Dik, B.J.; Duffy, R.D.; Steger, M.F. Fostering meaningful work in organizations: A multilevel review and integration. J. Vocat. Behav.; 2019; 110, pp. 374-389. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.07.004]
18. Omidi, A.; Dal Zotto, C. Socially responsible human resource management: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Sustainability; 2022; 14, 2116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14042116]
19. Jiang, K.; Messersmith, J.G. On the shoulders of giants: A meta-review of strategic human resource management. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2018; 29, pp. 6-33. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1384930]
20. Bhoir, M.; Sinha, V. Employee well-being human resource practices: A systematic literature review and directions for future research. Future Bus. J.; 2024; 10, 95. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00382-w]
21. Merchant, K.A.; Van der Stede, W.A. Management Control Systems: Performance Measurement, Evaluation and Incentives; 4th ed. Pearson: Harlow, UK, 2017.
22. Guest, D.E. Human resource management and employee well-being: Towards a new analytic framework. Hum. Resour. Manag. J.; 2017; 27, pp. 22-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12139]
23. Albrecht, S.L.; Bakker, A.B.; Gruman, J.A.; Macey, W.H.; Saks, A.M. Employee engagement, human resource management practices and competitive advantage. J. Organ. Eff. People Perform.; 2015; 2, pp. 7-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-08-2014-0042]
24. Bakker, A.B.; Demerouti, E. Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. J. Occup. Health Psychol.; 2017; 22, pp. 273-285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27732008]
25. Eccles, G.R.; Klimenko, S. The investor revolution. Harv. Bus. Rev.; 2019; 97, pp. 106-116.
26. Sanders, K.; Nguyen, P.T.; Bouckenooghe, D.; Rafferty, A.E.; Schwarz, G. Human resource management system strength in times of crisis. J. Bus. Res.; 2024; 171, 113373. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114365]
27. Devi, S.; Narayanan, M.A.N.A.; Sagadavan, R.; Iddagoda, A.; Lavanya, L. Beyond the paycheck: Exploring the impact of compensation and benefits on employee retention. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Stud.; 2025; 8, pp. 212-219. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.53894/ijirss.v8i8.10582]
28. Veld, M.; Alfes, K. HRM, climate and employee well-being: Comparing an optimistic and critical perspective. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2017; 28, pp. 2299-2318. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1314313]
29. Kooij, D.T.A.M.; Guest, D.E.; Clinton, M.; Knight, T.; Jansen, P.G.W.; Dikkers, J.S.E. How the impact of HR practices on employee well-being and performance changes with age. Hum. Resour. Manag. J.; 2013; 23, pp. 18-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12000]
30. Newman, A.; Ferrer, J.; Andresen, M.; Zhang, Y. Human resource management in times of crisis: What have we learnt from the recent pandemic?. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2023; 34, pp. 2857-2875. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2023.2229100]
31. Lu, Y.; Zhang, M.M.; Yang, M.M.; Wang, Y. Sustainable human resource management practices, employee resilience, and employee outcomes: Toward common good values. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2023; 62, pp. 331-353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22153]
32. Chali, B.D.; Lakatos, V. The impact of human resource management on financial performance: A systematic review in cooperative enterprises. J. Risk Financ. Manag.; 2024; 17, 439. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jrfm17100439]
33. De Neve, J.-E.; Kaats, M.; Ward, G. Workplace Wellbeing and Firm Performance; Working Paper Wellbeing Research Centre, University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2024; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5287/ora-bpkbjayvk]
34. Bai, B. Exploring sustainable HRM through the lens of employee wellbeing. Sustainability; 2025; 17, 5646. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su17125646]
35. Christina, J.L.; Alamelu, R.; Nigama, K. Synthesizing the impact of sustainable human resource management on corporate sustainability through multi-method evidence. Discov. Sustain.; 2025; 6, 666. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01557-3]
36. Rosso, B.D.; Dekas, K.H.; Wrzesniewski, A. On the meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Res. Organ. Behav.; 2010; 30, pp. 91-127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001]
37. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annu. Rev. Psychol.; 2001; 52, pp. 141-166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141]
38. Hackman, J.R.; Oldham, G.R. Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform.; 1976; 16, pp. 250-279. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90016-7]
39. Milkovich, G.T.; Newman, J.M.; Gerhart, B. Compensation; 11th ed. McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
40. Stahl, G.K.; Brewster, C.J.; Collings, D.G.; Hajro, A. Enhancing the role of human resource management in corporate sustainability and social responsibility: A multi-stakeholder, multidimensional approach to HRM. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev.; 2020; 30, 100708. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100708]
41. Kramar, R. Sustainable human resource management: Six defining characteristics. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour.; 2022; 60, pp. 146-170. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12321]
42. Kowske, B.J.; Rasch, R.; Wiley, J. Millennials’ (Lack of) Attitude Problem: An Empirical Examination of Generational Effects on Work Attitudes. J. Bus. Psychol.; 2010; 25, pp. 265-279. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9171-8]
43. Bencsik, A.; Horváth-Csikós, G.; Juhász, T. Y and Z generations at workplaces. J. Compet.; 2016; 8, pp. 90-106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7441/joc.2016.03.06]
44. İlhan, Ü.D.; Duran, C. Simultaneous convergence and divergence: A global generation paradigm perspective on gen Z work values. Int. J. Contemp. Econ. Adm. Sci.; 2025; 15, pp. 1237-1268. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18188738]
45. Cunliffe, A.L. A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book About Management; SAGE Publications: London, UK, 2009; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446280317]
46. Sandberg, J.; Tsoukas, H. Sensemaking reconsidered: Towards a broader understanding through phenomenology. Organ. Theory; 2020; 1, 2631787719879937. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2631787719879937]
47. Gehman, J.; Glaser, V.L.; Eisenhardt, K.M.; Gioia, D.; Langley, A.; Corley, K.G. Finding theory–method fit: A comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building. J. Manag. Inq.; 2017; 27, pp. 284-300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1056492617706029]
48. Creswell, J.W.; Poth, C.N. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches; 4th ed. SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018.
49. Gioia, D.A.; Corley, K.G.; Hamilton, A.L. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organ. Res. Methods; 2013; 16, pp. 15-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151]
50. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol.; 2006; 3, pp. 77-101. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa]
51. Kallio, H.; Pietilä, A.M.; Johnson, M.; Kangasniemi, M. Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. J. Adv. Nurs.; 2016; 72, pp. 2954-2965. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031]
52. Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods; 4th ed. SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2015.
53. OECD. OECD Economic Surveys: Türkiye 2025; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2025; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/d01c660f-en]
54. International Monetary Fund. Turkey: 2024 Article IV Consultation—Staff Report; IMF Country Report No. 24/312 International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2024.
55. Ramgolam, G.; Ramphul, N.; Chittoo, H.B. Sustainable human resource management—A systematic literature review and directions for future research. J. Knowl. Econ.; 2024; 16, pp. 11407-11444. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-02273-5]
56. Hennink, M.; Hutter, I.; Bailey, A. Qualitative Research Methods; SAGE Publications Limited: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2020.
57. Guest, G.; Bunce, A.; Johnson, L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods; 2006; 18, pp. 59-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903]
58. Lincoln, Y.S.; Guba, E.G. Naturalistic Inquiry; SAGE Publications: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1985.
59. Bailey, C.; Madden, A. Contemporary challenges in meaningful work. The Future of Work and Employment; Wilkinson, A.; Barry, M. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2020; pp. 65-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781786438256.00012]
60. Laaser, K.; Bolton, S. Absolute autonomy, respectful recognition and derived dignity: Towards a typology of meaningful work. Int. J. Manag. Rev.; 2022; 24, pp. 373-393. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12282]
61. Ho, H.; Kuvaas, B. Human resource management systems, employee well-being, and firm performance from the mutual gains and critical perspectives: The well-being paradox. Hum. Resour. Manag.; 2020; 59, pp. 235-253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21990]
62. Wrzesniewski, A.; Dutton, J.E. Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad. Manag. Rev.; 2001; 26, pp. 179-201. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/259118]
63. Grant, A.M. Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. J. Appl. Psychol.; 2008; 93, pp. 48-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48]
64. Lips-Wiersma, M.; Haar, J.; Wright, S. The effect of fairness, responsible leadership and worthy work on multiple dimensions of meaningful work. J. Bus. Ethics; 2020; 161, pp. 35-52. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/45278191 (accessed on 12 January 2026). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3967-2]
65. Bowen, D.E.; Ostroff, C. Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Acad. Manag. Rev.; 2004; 29, pp. 203-221. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.12736076]
66. Aust, I.; Matthews, B.; Müller-Camen, M. Common good HRM: A paradigm shift in sustainable HRM?. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev.; 2020; 30, 100705. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100705]
67. Brown, A.D. Identities in and around organizations: Towards an identity work perspective. Hum. Relat.; 2022; 75, pp. 1205-1237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018726721993910]
68. Caza, B.B.; Vough, H.C.; Puranik, H. Identity work in organizations and occupations: Definitions, theories, and pathways forward. J. Organ. Behav.; 2018; 39, pp. 889-910. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2318]
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Özkılınç, Damla Nurcan 2 1 Department of Business Administration, Beykoz University, Istanbul 34805, Türkiye
2 Banking and Insurance Programme, Yaşar University, İzmir 35100, Türkiye; [email protected]