Perspectives and realities of disengagement among younger Generation Y and Z workers in contemporary work dynamics

Saraiva, Margarida; Nogueiro, Teresa Article Perspectives and realities of disengagement among younger Generation Y and Z workers in contemporary work dynamics Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Saraiva, Margarida; Nogueiro, Teresa (2025) : Perspectives and realities of disengagement among younger Generation Y and Z workers in contemporary work dynamics, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 15, Iss. 4, pp. 1-39, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15040133 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321277 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Received: 2 February 2025 Revised: 25 March 2025 Accepted: 29 March 2025 Published: 3 April 2025 Citation: Saraiva, M., & Nogueiro, T. (2025). Perspectives and Realities of Disengagement Among Younger Generation Y and Z Workers in Contemporary Work Dynamics. Administrative Sciences,15(4), 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci15040133 Copyright: © 2025 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 (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Article Perspectives and Realities of Disengagement Among Younger Generation Y and Z Workers in Contemporary Work Dynamics Margarida Saraiva 1,2,* and Teresa Nogueiro 3,4 1 Management Department, Escola de Ciências Sociais, Universidade de Évora, Largo dos Colegiais 2, 7000-803 Évora, Portugal 2BRU-Business Research Unit, Iscte-Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Av. das Forças Armadas, 1649-026 Lisboa, Portugal 3Management Department, Polytechnic Institute of Portalegre, Praça do Município 11, 7300-110 Portalegre, Portugal; t.nogueir[email protected] 4General Secretariat of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Avenida João XXI 63, 1000-300 Lisboa, Portugal *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The disengagement of younger workers, particularly from Generations Y and Z, is a growing concern in contemporary organizational environments. This study analyzes the factors influencing disengagement and the organizational strategies that can reduce its impact. A literature review was conducted, covering studies published between 2014 and 2024, with the selection of publications based on relevance, indexing, and thematic alignment. The findings indicate that disengagement results from a combination of factors. Firstly, job demand factors were identified, such as the misalignment between well-being policies and employee needs, excessive workloads, the absence of remote work and flexible schedules, challenges associated with digitalization and new technologies, economic insecurity, job instability, and frequent organizational changes. Secondly, job resource factors were also highlighted, including inadequate leadership, ineffective communication, limited professional development opportunities, and poorly structured evaluation and reward systems. These findings align with the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model. In addition, psychological factors were observed, namely, a lack of autonomy, experiences of injustice and inequality in the workplace, misalignment between personal values and organizational culture, and the presence of hostile or toxic environments, which correspond to the theoretical assumptions of the Self-Determination Theory (SDT).To address disengagement, organizations should implement organizational strategies, such as physical and mental well-being programs, encourage regular breaks, promote healthy lifestyle campaigns, provide psychological support, and create ergonomic work environments. Additionally, they should foster professional growth through continuous training, mentoring, and transparent recognition and reward systems. Organizational communication must be open and effective, ensuring transparency and active employee participation. The adoption of remote work policies and flexible schedules, along with investments in technology and collaboration tools, also helps maintain engagement. These strategies promote employee satisfaction, motivation, and organizational commitment among workers, particularly those from Generations Y and Z, so organizations must adapt to the evolving expectations of the workforce to prevent long-term negative effects, such as decreased productivity and higher turnover, compromising their competitiveness and sustainability. Keywords: employee engagement; disengagement; Generation Y workers; Generation Z workers; workplace; contributing factors; mitigating organizational strategies Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15040133 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 2 of 39 1. Introduction Across the world, engagement or disengagement among workers, particularly within younger generations, namely Generation Y and Generation Z, constitutes essential dimensions of organizational behavior in the current context of workforce dynamics. Engagement is defined as a psychological and emotional state of involvement of employees with their work, characterized by enthusiasm, dedication, and immersion in work activities. Disengagement occurs when workers no longer demonstrate interest, motivation, or involvement in their roles. The transition between engagement and disengagement does not occur abruptly but rather as a continuous process, influenced by individual and organizational factors (Alessandri et al.,2018;Gumilang & Indrayanti,2022;Hudiono & Sari,2022). Organizations thus face significant challenges in keeping these workers motivated, committed, and aligned with institutional goals in a context marked by technological transformations, labor flexibility, and changing individual priorities regarding professional life. Despite advances in research on work engagement and motivation, there remains a gap in the literature concerning the systematic understanding of the factors contributing to the disengagement of these generations, as well as the most effective organizational strategies to mitigate this phenomenon. This study aims to address this gap by proposing a systematization and critical analysis of the personal and organizational factors that contribute to disengagement, along with the potential support mechanisms or suitable organizational strategies for its prevention and management within the organizational context. This is achieved by combining the theoretical foundations of the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model, by Bakker and Demerouti (2007), and the Self-Determination Theory (SDT), by Deci and Ryan (1985). These models provide a theoretical basis for understanding how working conditions, organizational resources, and workers’ psychological needs influence levels of engagement and disengagement. The concept of work involvement and job disengagement has been widely studied from different theoretical and empirical perspectives and is often associated with an imbalance between job demands and the resources available to workers, particularly through the JD-R model and SDT. Although the topic of disengagement has been explored through these theoretical frameworks, no study to date has comprehensively addressed the challenges faced by Generation Y and Generation Z, who have grown up in a context of rapid technological advancement, profound cultural shifts, and new expectations regarding work. The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, developed by Bakker and Demerouti (2007), explains how job demands and resources influence workers’ well-being and performance. Job demands are aspects of work that require continuous effort and may generate physical and psychological costs, such as a high workload, time pressure, interpersonal conflicts, and emotional demands. Job resources, on the other hand, are factors that help achieve objectives, reduce the impact of demands, and promote professional development, including autonomy, social support, growth opportunities, and constructive feedback. The balance between these demands and resources determines (or not) the level of motivation, engagement, and well-being of workers. Disengagement occurs when workers lose interest, motivation, and involvement in their work. In the Job Demands-Resources model, disengagement can result from an imbalance between high job demands and a lack of job resources. Excessive demands, such as a high workload, time pressure, and intense emotional demands, can lead to overload and demotivation, particularly when there are no adequate support mechanisms. Similarly, the absence of resources, such as autonomy, recognition, peer support, and growth opportunities, reduces workers’ ability to cope with challenges, resulting in emotional and professional withdrawal. Disengagement is often Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 3 of 39 associated with burnout, especially in its emotional exhaustion dimension, where workers feel drained of energy to dedicate themselves to their work. Another factor contributing to disengagement is a lack of alignment with the organization’s values. When workers do not identify with the organization’s culture, mission, or objectives, they tend to feel disconnected and less motivated to invest effort in their roles. The Self-Determination Theory (SDT), developed by Deci and Ryan (1985), explores how internal and external factors influence human motivation, based on the premise that individuals have innate psychological needs, the fulfillment of which can be facilitated or hindered by their environment. The theory proposes that motivation varies along a continuum, from extrinsic motivation, driven by external factors such as rewards and punishments, to intrinsic motivation, based on personal interest and enjoyment. Within this framework, the theory identifies three psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy refers to the need for control over one’s own actions and choices. Competence relates to the sense of effectiveness in handling challenges, reinforced by learning opportunities and positive feedback. Relatedness, in turn, involves the need to establish meaningful social connections, with interpersonal support being a key factor in motivation and well-being. Disengagement occurs when workers feel they lack control over their actions (low autonomy), do not feel capable of handling challenges (low competence), or do not perceive meaningful connections with others (low relatedness). Additionally, when motivation is predominantly extrinsic, engagement may be superficial and unsustainable, leading to disinterest over time. If there is no transition towards more autonomous forms of motivation, workers may ultimately disconnect from their activities. Beyond the theoretical dimension, recent movements have emerged as indicators of growing dissatisfaction among younger workers regarding traditional working conditions. These movements reflect a deeper questioning of the relationship between effort and reward, with many young workers choosing to engage only minimally in their roles, avoiding any effort beyond what is strictly necessary. Accordingly, this study also explores new labor market trends that have significantly influenced how younger workers relate to their professional activities. These movements reveal a shift in the perception of the value of work, reflecting a departure from traditional engagement models based on high commitment and continuous productivity. In the workplace, disengagement can manifest passively, through procrastination, decreased participation, and apathy, or actively, through resistance to change, reduced productivity, workplace absenteeism, or even the complete abandonment of an activity (Aldabbas et al.,2023;Hakanen et al.,2006;Jnaneswar & Ranjit,2022;Pattnaik & Sahoo,2020). One of the actual current trends in the world of work is when employees disengage from their jobs and limit themselves to the bare minimum required, without making any additional effort, a phenomenon known as Quiet Quitting. The term Quiet Quitting emerged in the digital sphere in March 2022, introduced by Bryan Creely, a career coach and labor market influencer from Generation X in the United States, who coined the term while discussing an article about workers who were ‘slowing down’ at work, particularly influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic (Öztürk et al.,2023). The hashtag #quietquitting quickly went viral on the social media platform TikTok, especially among younger workers. Although the term implies ‘quitting’, it does not necessarily mean leaving a job but rather a gradual and unannounced withdrawal from work responsibilities (Hamouche et al.,2023; Kachhap & Singh,2024;Liu-Lastres et al.,2024;Mahand & Caldwell,2023). Another movement, originating in China, emerged in 2021, known as ‘tang ping’, which literally translates as ‘lying flat’ and is characterized by resistance to social pressure to work long and exhausting hours at the expense of personal well-being (Hsu,2022; Jingyi,2022). Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 4 of 39 Another viral movement on social media is called ‘I no longer dream of labor’, in which many users, mostly young people, share that they simply do not have a dream job. However, the phenomena of ‘Quiet Quitting’, ‘Tang Ping’, and ‘I No Longer Dream of Labor’ are not the only shifts in the labor market. The ‘Great Dismissal’ and ‘Great Resignation’ have led to significant labor shortages, making it difficult to fill specific roles and having devastating effects in several countries during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, such as Germany, Italy, Brazil, and the USA (Cossa et al.,2021). The ‘Great Dismissal’ refers to a scenario in which many workers are laid off by their employers, usually due to economic crises or organizational restructuring, and it is often a consequence of external factors affecting companies, leading to widespread job losses and workforce restructuring (Marks,2023). The ‘Great Resignation’ refers to a scenario in which workers voluntarily leave their jobs en masse, motivated by factors such as the pursuit of better work-life balance, career progression, or increased job satisfaction (Marks, 2023;Sheather & Slattery,2021). In addition to these phenomena, other terms have emerged in the labor market, primarily associated with younger workers and widely debated on social media, particularly as viral trends on TikTok. One such case is ‘Bare Minimum Monday’. This expression describes a phenomenon where workers exert minimal effort on Mondays, viewing it as a day to ease into the workload at the start of the week. Thus, by reducing their expectations, workers may feel less anxious on Sunday evenings and less overloaded on Monday mornings, in line with the conclusions of the study by Butler et al. (2014). A different example is the ‘Lazy Girl Job’, which is characterized as a movement for women, especially young women, promoting female empowerment and advocating for more flexible jobs, allowing them to prioritize their well-being and work-life balance. It should not be confused with the ‘Lazy Girl’ stereotype but rather seen as a way to challenge traditional social norms regarding work and gender expectations, corroborating the study by Rani and Priya (2023). A further instance is ‘Rage Applying’, which refers to workers who are frustrated or dissatisfied with their current job (salaries, benefits, overload, ambiguity, lack of personal and professional prospects), who actively seek new opportunities and apply for other positions while still employed, in line with the study by Slaughter and Allen (2024). Yet another phenomenon is ‘Quiet Ambition’, where workers, especially younger ones, choose to forgo the prestige or status associated with positions or titles in order to prioritize their work-life balance and, in some cases, their academic life. This expression also applies to professionals who choose to remain in technical careers, prioritizing learning and professional development over managerial roles, according to the conclusions of the study by Fournier et al. (2020). Another illustration is ‘Loud Quitting’, where workers take ‘noisy’ actions and openly express their dissatisfaction with their work lives, with the intent of directly harming the organization. These workers, who tend to ‘noisily quit’, engage in behaviors that negatively impact organizations, such as resigning without warning, refusing to carry out tasks assigned to them, making inflammatory posts online, having unpleasant attitudes in public, and carrying out disruptive and potentially sabotaging actions, corroborating the study by Utkarsh et al. (2019). More recently, another movement, known as ‘micro-retirement’, has gained popularity among younger workers, reflecting a paradigm shift in career management and work-life balance. Although the term was first introduced in 2007 (Ferriss,2007), it has only recently become widespread, driven by viral content on TikTok and growing adoption among young professionals. This trend involves taking intentional breaks between jobs for rest, Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 5 of 39 self-discovery, and the pursuit of new experiences, in contrast to the traditional model of postponing leisure until formal retirement. These younger workers value mental wellbeing, personal growth, and meaningful experiences, favoring a more dynamic balance throughout their careers rather than pursuing a linear career trajectory (Ferriss,2011). This approach aligns with recent research on young workers’ expectations in the labor market, which highlights their preference for greater flexibility, work-life balance, and continuous development (Kniffin et al.,2021;Schroth,2019). Furthermore, these same authors suggest that enriching experiences and strategic breaks may increase professional motivation and reduce burnout, reinforcing the value of alternative approaches to career management. These trends therefore reflect a broader sociocultural transformation, in which the concept of professional success is redefined to include aspects such as quality of life, emotional well-being, and labor flexibility (Livingstone,2017;Nichols,2018; Twenge,2017). All of these phenomena share in common worker disengagement and, for this reason, deserve closer examination, as it is important to reflect on and redefine the value attributed to work, especially in today’s world, where the nature of work has undergone profound transformations. In this context, the analysis of disengagement among Generation Y and Generation Z cannot be conducted in isolation; it requires the articulation of both personal and organizational factors to achieve a broader understanding. Thus, by integrating these trends with the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model and the Self-Determination Theory (SDT), the present study seeks to provide a more comprehensive view of workplace disengagement, identifying not only its causes but also its impacts and potential organizational solutions. Unlike previous studies that examine disengagement from a limited perspective, focusing solely on selected organizational or individual psychological factors, this article systematizes the personal and organizational factors that influence the disengagement of Generation Y and Z workers in the workplace. It also incorporates appropriate support mechanisms or organizational strategies for its prevention and potential mitigation. According to Kruse and Tata-Mbeng (2023), the implications of disengagement extend beyond individual dissatisfaction, as it affects the psychological and physiological well-being of workers, particularly among the younger segments of the workforce, with potential repercussions for overall worker performance, organizational effectiveness, and economic outcomes. It is therefore incumbent upon the study to examine whether there is a significant relationship between disengagement and younger generations of workers, such as Generation Y and Generation Z. Generation Y individuals, also known as digital natives or ‘Millennials’, have grown up in a world shaped by rapidly evolving technology, where a significant portion of their activities takes place on digital screens. These individuals, born between 1981 and 1998, are currently aged between 27 and 44 and are more connected than previous generations, such as Generation X and Baby Boomers, with technology being an integral part of their daily lives (Azimi et al.,2021;Mahmoud et al.,2020;Thangavel et al.,2021). In the job market, Millennials are recognized as highly skilled, collaborative, and adaptable. They exhibit a strong collaborative mindset, thriving in team environments, exchanging ideas with colleagues, and continuously learning from their peers. Lifelong learning is a core aspect of their identity, and they demonstrate a remarkable ability to adapt to change. Generation Z individuals, also known as ‘Centennials’ or ‘Post-Millennials’ (as well as ‘iGen’ or ‘Zoomers’), were born between 1999 and 2010 and are currently under the age of 26. This generation is characterized by its proficiency in technology, which may appear to result in a reduced emphasis on interpersonal relationships. However, paradoxically, Generation Z individuals demonstrate a strong commitment to social issues Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 6 of 39 such as sustainability, gender equality, diversity, and inclusion, using digital platforms as a means of expression and mobilization (Mahmoud et al.,2020;Parry & Battista,2019; Thangavel et al.,2021 ; Tran et al.,2024 ). In the job market, this youngest generation prefers to work independently and autonomously. It embodies diversity at its best, as these individuals grew up surrounded by classmates, friends, and family from various communities and expect to see the same level of inclusivity when they enter the workforce (Fenton,2019). As Aydin and Azizo˘glu (2022) point out, Generation Z individuals are described as impatient, courageous, and unafraid to be pioneers, demonstrating the ability to challenge existing ideas and the confidence to express their desire for work-life balance without exceeding their professional responsibilities. Compared to Generation Y, Generation Z individuals are portrayed as more inclined to break away from traditional norms and expectations, making them more likely to engage in behaviors such as disengagement. Generation Z workers are expected to make up 75% of the global workforce by 2025, and they are projected to surpass Generation Y by 2050 (García et al.,2019;Zhong et al., 2023). According to Formica and Sfodera (2022), these younger generations (Y and Z) constitute a substantial segment of the workforce, in which disengagement traits are prevalent. This suggests that many younger Millennials and Generation Z workers are not fully engaged in their work and may restrict themselves to fulfilling only the basic requirements of their job description. However, this disengagement is not limited to younger generations, such as Generation Y and Z. Recent studies indicate that workers from previous generations can also exhibit disengagement behaviors, particularly when dissatisfied with ineffective management within organizations (Agina et al.,2023; Chiesa et al.,2019 ;Khan & Khan, 2023;Oliveira & Cardoso,2018). According to the Gallup Report (2023,2024), more than half of the global workforce (59% in 2023 and 62% in 2024) is disengaged. These disengaged workers, in practice, have no emotional commitment to their organization. On the other hand, the majority of workers are no longer ‘addicted’ to work (the workaholic concept), as they have realized that this practice is not beneficial—either for the worker themselves, who may experience burnout and develop other serious health issues, or for the organization, where productivity can decline due to exhaustion and worker fatigue. These reports reveal a worrying trend of disengagement in the workplace among workers across different regions of the world. Most regions have a significant proportion of ‘not engaged’ workers, with Europe leading this trend (72%), followed by Southeast Asia (68%). This data is crucial for understanding the phenomenon of disengagement, as a lack of worker engagement can negatively impact the work environment and, consequently, result in high costs due to lost productivity. Despite its potential impact on society, academic inquiries into this topic remain limited. Although some studies exist in the literature, no research has comprehensively examined or explored their relationship with employee engagement. The aim of this article is, therefore, to conduct a critical analysis of worker engagement, particularly in relation to younger generations (Y and Z), drawing on relevant literature to identify the factors contributing to engagement or disengagement, assess its implications for workers and organizations, and propose effective strategies for prevention and mitigation. These strategies may support the development of an action plan to sustain employee engagement. As a result, two key research questions emerged, guiding this study: RQ1 What factors influence worker disengagement? RQ2 What organizational strategies can be implemented to minimize disengagement? Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 7 of 39 Following this contextualization of the topic and the presentation of the research questions, the methodology employed is outlined. Next, the factors influencing engagement and disengagement among younger employees are examined, followed by an analysis of organizational strategies aimed at fostering a healthy and positive work environment while mitigating workplace disengagement. Finally, the concluding remarks highlight the study’s practical and theoretical implications, limitations, and recommendations for future research. 2. Method In the current work dynamics, marked by a fast pace and increasing pressure, workers’ commitment to their jobs appears to have shifted more noticeably. For this reason, we saw the need to write an article that would enable us to compile information addressing the various questions raised above. A literature review was thus conducted between April and December 2024, following these stages: identification of the topic; definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selected articles; evaluation of the selected articles and interpretation of their respective results; and presentation of final considerations. The included publications were selected based on previously defined inclusion criteria, with the aim of ensuring the quality, relevance, and reliability of the studies analyzed. Only studies indexed in the Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were considered, thereby ensuring academic rigor and peer-reviewed validation. The selection was based on the mandatory presence of the descriptors ‘Employee Engagement’, ‘Employee Disengagement’, ‘Generation Y’ (or Millennials), and ‘Generation Z’ in the titles, abstracts, or keywords, ensuring alignment with the research focus. Publications authored by widely recognized researchers in the field of employee disengagement and generational dynamics in the labor market were included, with preference given to seminal studies. Priority was given to studies presenting well-structured theoretical frameworks or solid empirical evidence in order to support a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under analysis. Only publications from the last 10 years (2014–2024) were considered to reflect the most recent labor market dynamics and the conceptual evolution of employee disengagement among Generations Y and Z. Exclusively scientific articles published in high impact and widely cited journals were included due to their credibility and influence in the field. However, innovative studies addressing emerging trends and contributing significantly to the advancement of knowledge were also considered. The selection was limited to articles within the scientific area of ‘Management and Social Sciences’, ensuring coherence with the scope of the present study. Only publications written in English were included, given their wide dissemination in the international scientific community, which facilitates comparison between studies and ensures linguistic consistency in the analysis. Additionally, in specific cases, studies that did not fully meet all the established criteria were included, provided they offered relevant theoretical or empirical contributions to the understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. All publications meeting one or more of the following exclusion criteria were excluded. First, documents not classified as ‘Article’ were not considered; therefore, conference papers, reviews, book chapters, editorials, and any other types of publications not subject to peer review were excluded. Second, studies that did not specifically and centrally address the disengagement of Generation Y and Z workers were eliminated. General publications on organizational Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 8 of 39 management that lacked a focused and in-depth discussion of the employee disengagement phenomenon were disregarded. Whenever the same study was identified in more than one database, only the most complete version and/or the one indexed in the highest-impact database was retained in order to avoid duplication. Finally, publications that focused exclusively on contexts unrelated to the workplace and did not establish an explicit connection with engagement and disengagement dynamics in organizational settings were also excluded. It is acknowledged that the selection of publications, based on the previously defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, may be subject to certain methodological biases, namely publication, language, and indexing bias. The greater likelihood of publishing studies with positive results may influence the perceived significance of certain factors and organizational strategies to mitigate disengagement, making it more difficult to identify contradictory or neutral evidence. The exclusion of studies not published in English may also limit the diversity of perspectives, particularly in cultural contexts where the topic is discussed within specific frameworks that are not reflected in the Anglophone literature. Finally, the restriction of the selection process to specific databases, such as Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, may have led to the exclusion of relevant studies available in other academic sources, including institutional repositories and journals not indexed in these platforms. To minimize the identified methodological biases, several strategies were adopted throughout the review process. The analysis of findings was based on cross-validation across sources, through the systematic comparison of different studies, which reinforced consistency in identifying the factors associated with disengagement and the corresponding organizational mitigation strategies. Methodological diversity was also ensured by including both qualitative and quantitative studies in the review, allowing for a broader and more multidimensional approach to the phenomenon under analysis. The process of identifying relevant publications was conducted by combining the following descriptors/keywords: Employee Engagement and Employee Disengagement, which were always searched together as mandatory terms, in the Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. Additionally, the descriptors Generation Y (or Millennials) and Generation Z were included as the target population (workers) of this study. This initial search in the databases resulted in 253 publications. It should be noted that, despite the existence of some publications on this subject in other databases (albeit limited), when considering only those indexed in Scopus or Web of Science and using the four mandatory descriptors for this study (‘Employee Engagement’ OR ‘Employee Disengagement’ AND ‘Generation Y’ OR ‘Millennials’ OR ‘Generation Z’), no relevant publications were found, reinforcing the significance of this research gap. Filters were applied based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This search yielded a total of 232 publications, namely 171 publications after applying the filters (Descriptors/Keywords, Publication period, Document type, Research area, and Language), along with 61 relevant publications to the topic outside the defined criteria. Table 1outlines the methodology used for selecting the publications. Following the initial selection of 232 articles, a systematic content analysis methodology was applied. An initial screening of titles and abstracts was conducted to assess the alignment of the articles with the research topic. This was followed by a review of abstracts and methodologies, which led to the removal of duplicate studies and the exclusion of those not directly addressing the subject. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 15 of 39 achieved through short physical exercise sessions conducted during working hours under the guidance of a physical education professional. Additionally, yoga and meditation sessions can help alleviate stress, improve concentration, and enhance overall well-being (Priya et al.,2024). Regular physical activity interventions, such as yoga, exercise, and walking, have been shown to improve psychological well-being in workplace settings. These interventions can be effective in reducing stress and enhancing overall mental health (Abdin et al.,2018). These sessions can be offered either in person or online, depending on employee needs. Other initiatives include exercise incentive programs such as gym membership subsidies, walking/running groups, fitness challenges among employees, and corporate sports events. The success of workplace exercise initiatives heavily depends on organizational factors, particularly leadership support for well-being. When employees, essentially the younger employees, perceive their employer’s intentions as genuine and caring, they are more likely to participate in exercise programs (Little et al.,2020). Implementing policies that support work-life balance, flexible work arrangements, and mental health can significantly improve employee well-being (Kusuma Dwi Wikka et al.,2024). The hybrid work model allows these generations to integrate physical activity into their daily routines more easily. This flexibility helps overcome one of the major barriers to regular exercise, which is finding the time to engage in physical activity (Gilson et al.,2022;Schönig & Geibel,2024). Virtual exercise programs offer the convenience of working out from home. According to Oginni et al. (2024), virtual exercise programs can be as effective as traditional in person programs in improving health metrics (e.g., blood pressure). Generation Y and Z workers highly value workplaces that prioritize their physical and mental well-being, considering such programs a reflection of the organization’s commitment to its employees. Furthermore, these generations actively seek a balance between professional and personal life. They also favor flexible exercise programs, whether in person or virtual, as many of them prefer hybrid work models. 4.1.2. Encouraging Regular Breaks and Rest Areas Another key aspect is the promotion of regular breaks during working hours. Regular breaks are essential for maintaining both physical and mental health. They help reduce stress, prevent fatigue, and improve overall well-being (Walker et al.,2023). Encouraging employees to stand up, stretch, and clear their minds can help maintain energy levels and improve concentration throughout the day. According to Nastasi et al. (2023), short, frequent breaks (5–20 min) can be highly effective. These breaks can involve simple activities such as stretching or walking. In a study conducted by Vieten et al. (2023) in Germany, logistic regression analyses were performed using five health complaints as the dependent variables: back pain and lower back pain, pain in the neck and shoulder region, general tiredness, faintness or fatigue, physical exhaustion, and emotional exhaustion. A significant portion of employees frequently skipped their work breaks (29%) and experienced interruptions during their breaks (16%). Regularly skipping work breaks was significantly and positively (i.e., harmfully) associated with all five health complaints. Similarly, frequent interruptions of work breaks were significantly linked to most health complaints, except for neck and shoulder pain. Additionally, longer meal break duration was significantly and negatively (i.e., beneficially) associated with physical exhaustion. Implementing structured break schedules can help ensure employees take necessary breaks. This can include scheduled short breaks and longer breaks during extended working hours (Yi et al.,2020). Yi et al. (2020, p. 1) empirically analyze the relationship between productivity and breaks. The results showed that productivity improved during the 30 min before the start of a break, which mainly resulted from employees’ expectations Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 16 of 39 of the upcoming break and the alleviation of any negative emotions due to their current work. It was also found that productivity declined during the 30 min after the end of a break due to the dominating effect of forgetting the recent rest and having a disordered work rhythm in the manufacturing environment. Additionally, it was noticed that a lighter workload mitigated the negative post-break impact on productivity while reinforcing the pre-break positive impact on productivity. The results imply that managers should schedule breaks for employees and appropriately reduce their workload to improve productivity. Additionally, organizations can create comfortable rest areas where employees can relax during breaks. Comfortable rest areas provide employees with a space to relax and recharge, which is essential for maintaining mental and physical health. These areas can help reduce stress and prevent burnout, leading to improved overall well-being ( Walker et al.,2023 ). Access to comfortable rest areas can enhance productivity by allowing employees to take effective breaks. When employees feel rested, they are more focused and engaged in their work, leading to better performance (Bishop et al.,2022;Nastasi et al., 2023;Dang et al.,2023). Generation Y and Z workers perceive breaks not just as moments of rest but also as opportunities to recharge their creativity and enhance productivity. They appreciate work models that encourage short, regular breaks, especially since these generations tend to value autonomy and efficiency in the workplace. Furthermore, they also favor welldesigned rest areas, as these reinforce the idea of a human-centered work environment that prioritizes employee well-being. 4.1.3. Health Campaigns and Healthy Lifestyle Habits Health campaigns can significantly improve employee well-being by promoting healthy lifestyle habits, such as regular exercise, balanced nutrition, and stress management. These initiatives can lead to better physical and mental health outcomes for employees (Walker et al.,2023). Healthier employees tend to be more productive. By encouraging healthy habits, organizations can reduce absenteeism and presenteeism, leading to improved overall performance and efficiency (Nastasi et al.,2023;Dang et al.,2023). For example, balanced eating campaigns aim to encourage healthy diets that boost employees’ energy levels and overall health. These initiatives can be implemented through nutrition workshops, the availability of healthy options in workplace canteens and vending machines, and the distribution of informational materials on balanced eating. Workshops, seminars, and informational materials can educate employees on topics such as nutrition, exercise, and mental health strategies. Employees value easy access to nutritious food options in the workplace and consider initiatives such as nutrition workshops a significant benefit. Initiatives that focus on educating employees about healthy eating habits, meal planning, and the importance of hydration can promote better dietary choices. This can include cooking demonstrations or nutrition workshops ( Vieten et al.,2023 ; Yi et al.,2020 ). Consumers, including Gen Y and Z, increasingly expect food production processes to limit negative environmental impacts and consider social concerns. Generally, consumers prefer domestic and local food products, associating them with better quality, safety, and environmental friendliness (Thøgersen,2023). A strong concern for healthy eating is a defining characteristic of Generation Y and Z workers, who actively seek balanced and sustainable food choices in their daily lives. Additionally, transparency regarding the origin of food products and an organization’s commitment to sustainable food practices can positively impact their level of engagement and workplace motivation. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 17 of 39 4.1.4. Adopting an Ergonomic and Comfortable Work Environment Another aspect is providing a work environment that is ergonomically designed to promote both the physical comfort and mental well-being of employees. This includes selecting appropriate furniture (e.g., adjustable chairs, height-adjustable desks, and footrests) and optimizing the layout of the physical workspace to ensure easy access to different work areas and adequate lighting—both natural and artificial (Ahmadi Charkhabi et al.,2019; Chim,2019;Walker et al.,2023). Ahmadi Charkhabi et al. (2019, pp. 1–2) research “was to study the effect of redesigned workstations on SIL [Speech Interference Level] among bank tellers. Twelve workstations were redesigned and installed after measuring the sound and calculating the Speech Interference Level and calculating the distance between customer and employee.” [ . . . ] “According to the results of this study, redesigning work stations and environmental interventions in open plan offices can influence SIL and improve the speech intelligibility, that it can prevent errors and increase concentration and reduce fatigue by peoples’ privacy and controlling annoying sound sources. Finally, it can be said that the workstation redesign and layout can improve the acoustic working environment”. Although creating an ergonomic work environment requires a significant initial investment, the long-term benefits for employee health and productivity outweigh the costs. Maintaining optimal working conditions requires an ongoing commitment, involving regular assessments and continuous updates to furniture and ergonomic practices. Identifying areas for improvement and deploying effective measures can enhance working conditions, which in turn supports business growth and employee comfort (Górny,2019; Salvadorinho et al.,2025). Generation Y and Z workers tend to value modern, adaptable, and flexible workspaces that allow for different configurations depending on the task at hand. They appreciate the ability to choose between various types of furniture and personalize their work environment according to individual preferences. Moreover, the suitability of remote workspaces has become an increasing concern, with many organizations being evaluated based on the support they provide to employees in hybrid or remote setups. 4.1.5. Psychological Support and the Normalization of Mental Well-Being Another aspect is access to psychological support services, which aim to provide emotional assistance and help employees navigate personal and professional challenges. Organizations can establish partnerships with psychologists and therapists, offering free or subsidized sessions, as well as creating dedicated employee support programs. However, the effectiveness of these psychological support initiatives depends on fostering an organizational culture that values and normalizes seeking emotional help. Providing education on mental health symptoms, accommodations, and coping strategies can improve knowledge and reduce self-stigma among employees. This approach has been shown to increase self-efficacy and reduce presenteeism (Faller et al.,2023). These authors tested an online psychoeducation course for 89 people with depression and anxiety to see if it helped with workplace accommodations. Participants who took the course improved in knowledge about accommodations, self-confidence, and work performance compared to those who did not. Both groups showed less self-stigma and were more likely to disclose their condition over time, especially when supported by their organization and supervisors. However, there was no difference between groups in using accommodations, improving symptoms, workplace relationships, or feeling comfortable with disclosure. Szeto et al. (2019) stated that campaigns such as “Opening Minds” in Canada have developed tools and measures to assess and reduce workplace stigma. These authors found that 44% of working adults have experienced or currently have a mental health problem, with 16.5% having been treated for a mental illness, a rate that rises to 27.7% for Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 18 of 39 those with extremely stressful jobs. These authors too found that only 26% of employees believe their supervisor can effectively support mental health issues, and 44% of managers have not received any mental health training. Workplace programs that reduce stigma and improve mental health knowledge could increase help-seeking and create a more supportive work environment. Employees may often feel reluctant to use mental health services due to the associated stigma. For this reason, organizations must not only provide these resources but also actively work to destigmatize mental health concerns and ensure that these programs are fully integrated into the organizational culture (Dewa et al.,2020). Generation Y and Z individuals place great importance on emotional well-being and the ability to seek support without fear of judgment. While they appreciate the availability of psychological counseling within companies, the most decisive factor is their perception of an open and inclusive organizational culture. They also highly value the normalization of mental health discussions and the implementation of proactive strategies to prevent and address burnout. 4.2. Professional Development and Recognition Programs 4.2.1. Promotion of Training and Skills Development To demonstrate their commitment to the continuous growth of their employees, organizations can facilitate access to training courses and skills development programs, covering both technical and behavioral competencies. This approach not only enhances employee qualifications but also fosters greater engagement and loyalty to the organization. To achieve this, companies should offer a diverse range of courses, including job-specific training as well as soft skills development (e.g., effective communication, leadership, time management, conflict resolution, and emotional intelligence), for professional performance and team dynamics. According to Kumah (2024), the organizations should leverage learning theories such as adult learning, behavioral, cognitive, social learning, and experiential learning to design training programs that cater to diverse learning needs. This approach helps in fostering employee engagement and promoting a positive organizational culture. Understanding and applying these theories allows organizations to create targeted training and development programs that meet diverse learning needs, enhance employee engagement, and strengthen organizational culture. Human resources and learning and development professionals must have a strong understanding of these theories to design effective programs that drive positive outcomes. By using theoretical frameworks, organizations can foster a culture of continuous learning and boost employee motivation and engagement. To improve accessibility, organizations can utilize e-learning platforms, allowing employees to access training at any time and from any location, making it easier to balance learning with daily responsibilities. Additionally, offering subsidies for external courses or professional certifications can encourage continuous development (Shirokov,2020). According to Da Silva et al. (2021), innovative teaching methodologies, such as the Educational Testbed 4.0, can be used to develop specific soft skills required for Industry 4.0. This includes teamwork, communication, and creativity, which are essential for the future workforce. These authors show that 90% to 95% of participants reported improvements in teamwork and communication after applying the Educational Testbed 4.0 method, which combines Flipped Classroom (FC) and Project-Based Learning (PBL). Additionally, 85% of participants highlighted gains in problem-solving skills, and 80% reported increased confidence in handling professional challenges. The findings confirm that this educational approach effectively enhances key competencies needed for Industry 4.0. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 19 of 39 Moreover, organizations can implement mentoring and coaching programs to support employees’ professional growth. Mentoring involves ongoing guidance from experienced professionals, who help employees develop their careers by providing practical advice and assisting in defining professional goals. Coaching, on the other hand, helps employees identify and overcome specific challenges, enhance their performance, and achieve targeted professional objectives through personalized one-on-one sessions with qualified coaches. According to Trawver et al. (2021), mentoring and coaching programs have been shown to significantly enhance employee satisfaction, productivity, and retention rates. These programs help employees grow, gain visibility, and access resources, which in turn support their career development and organizational commitment (Munde et al.,2020). These authors conducted a study where they examined the impact of employee mentoring and mentoring programs on talent development within organizations. It surveyed 50 human resources professionals from large industries to identify the types of mentoring systems in place, the objectives of these programs, and their influence on talent development. The findings confirm a significant relationship between mentoring and employee talent growth, highlighting the importance of structured mentoring programs in enhancing workforce capabilities. Baral et al. (2024) analyzed 251 professionals from the aquatic sector within the USDA Forest Service and found that approximately 70% of participants had mentors. Job satisfaction followed a U-shaped trajectory throughout the professional lifecycle, being highest at early (28%) and late (22%) career stages. Early-career professionals placed greater importance on formal mentoring programs (66%) compared to those at the end of their careers (41%). Similarly, 69% of employees in entry-level positions considered structured mentoring programs relevant, in contrast with 45% of senior professionals. The most valued competencies in the context of mentoring were technical skills (mean score of 3.99), followed by project management (3.94) and communication (3.93). Mentoring was associated with benefits such as increased confidence, professional recognition, and preparation for promotions, especially among professionals at junior and mid-level positions. However, access to mentoring was perceived as limited at these levels, with average satisfaction ratings falling below 3 on a satisfaction scale. Only 41% of late-career professionals felt encouraged to seek mentors, compared to 66% of those in the early stages of their careers. These findings suggest that mentoring contributes to professional development, career advancement, and job satisfaction, being especially valued by employees in the early phases of their professional trajectory. Nonetheless, access barriers remain, highlighting the need for mentoring programs tailored to different career stages and for greater supervisor involvement in promoting such practices. However, these initiatives require careful planning and a substantial investment of time and resources, which can be challenging for organizations with limited budgets. Thus, before implementing any training program, it is crucial to conduct a detailed analysis of both employee and organizational needs. This ensures that the courses provided align with the organization’s strategic goals and employees’ career aspirations. Furthermore, organizations should establish an annual training and professional development calendar, allowing employees to plan their participation in advance. These initiatives demand significant resources, including hiring qualified trainers; developing high quality content; acquiring suitable technological tools; and ensuring the necessary infrastructure, such as training rooms, technological equipment, and e-learning platforms. According to Saxena (2024) and Chillakuri and Mahanandia (2018), the Generation Y and Z workers highly value continuous learning and personal development. They appreciate access to dynamic, interactive, and adaptable courses, particularly through digital formats, which are often considered a major factor in their decision to join and Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 20 of 39 remain with an organization. Additionally, flexibility in accessing knowledge is a top priority for these generations, as they value the ability to learn at their own pace and balance training with other aspects of their lives. Mentoring and coaching programs are particularly appealing, as they offer tailored growth opportunities aligned with their career ambitions. The predictability and structure of training programs are also highly valued, as they enable better time management. Furthermore, these generations expect organizations to make a genuine and long-term investment in professional development, ensuring that it has a meaningful impact on their career trajectories. 4.2.2. Recognition and Reward Programs and Performance Management Establishing recognition and reward programs that encourage productivity can reinforce positive behaviors and increase employee engagement. These programs may include various forms of recognition, such as monetary rewards, certificates of merit, professional development opportunities, and additional days off, among others. However, these programs do not foster an overly competitive or stressful work environment. While healthy competition can be beneficial, it must be balanced with collaboration and teamwork to cultivate a positive and supportive organizational culture. Moreover, offering bonuses, salary increases, promotions, and other incentives based on individual performance and contributions can serve as effective strategies to keep employees motivated and engaged. However, these incentives must be equitable and transparent, with clearly communicated criteria for awarding them to all employees. Additionally, incentives should not be perceived solely as financial rewards but also as a meaningful acknowledgment of employees’ effort and dedication. Considering what has been said, in a study conducted by Dizon and Monsura (2021), the results indicate that factors such as performance-based incentives, real wages, the interaction effects of performance-based incentives, and implementation-related dummy variables can have a statistically significant impact on employee performance ratings. Therefore, it is recommended that policymakers responsible for reward and compensation systems reinforce performance-based incentives to enhance employee performance. Similarly, when evaluating performance, setting clear and achievable goals that align with organizational objectives can ensure that everyone is working toward the same vision. Performance management tools, such as Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), can be used to monitor and evaluate employee progress. These tools help employees recognize the impact of their work on the organization’s overall objectives, strengthening their sense of purpose and belonging. In addition, providing constructive and timely feedback can help keep employees motivated and committed. However, feedback must be specific, focused on observable behaviors, and accompanied by suggestions for improvement. Regular feedback sessions, rather than limiting evaluations to annual performance appraisals, allow for ongoing adjustments and support. Frequent discussions help resolve issues promptly and guide employees in the right direction. Constructive feedback positively impacts job satisfaction and Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) intentions. Employees who receive constructive feedback feel more respected and perceive greater opportunities for advancement, leading to better moods at work and stronger OCB intentions. According to the study done by Tagliabue et al. (2020), the results obtained suggest that feedback has a small but consistent positive effect on Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), indicating that providing feedback can enhance employees’ willingness to go beyond their formal job duties. However, the high heterogeneity among the studies (I 2 = 94.6%) suggests that the relationship between feedback and OCB may vary depending on contextual factors. The varying effect sizes based on feedback type (e.g., positive/negative, normative, pub- Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 21 of 39 lic/private) imply that the quality and delivery of feedback are important for influencing OCB. The presence of publication bias (confirmed by the Egger regression test) indicates that some positive results may be overrepresented, calling for cautious interpretation. Therefore, organizations should focus not only on increasing the frequency of feedback but also on improving its quality, perceived usefulness, and constructiveness to maximize its impact on employee behavior. To prevent performance management practices and recognition programs from creating an overly competitive environment, organizations can implement work-life balance policies, promote an inclusive work culture, and offer emotional and psychological support to employees. According to Tsvetkova et al. (2022) and Tatar et al. (2023), the platforms used for feedback and performance tracking should prioritize transparency and empower employees rather than act as surveillance tools. When young employees feel they are being trusted to manage their own performance without overbearing oversight, they tend to be more engaged and proactive in their work. Conversely, excessive digital oversight can lead employees to feel micromanaged, triggering negative emotional responses and a decline in productivity. Generation Y and Z workers appreciate recognition for their performance, but they place greater value on the significance of their work and its impact on the organization and society. However, these workers value meritocracy, provided that the criteria are clear and well-defined. As a result, transparent evaluation criteria reinforce the belief in meritocracy, which in turn boosts motivation by ensuring that employees feel recognized and fairly rewarded for their efforts. This approach not only enhances job satisfaction but also improves overall organizational performance. Meritocracy’s association with performance-based rewards and the employees’ perception of fairness is fundamental to fostering motivation in the workplace. A transparent evaluation process not only motivates employees but also reinforces a culture of performance and accountability within organizations. In line with this expectation, they prefer frequent and constructive feedback, favoring open and two-way communication. They also appreciate the use of digital performance monitoring tools, as long as these do not create a sense of micromanagement. This aspect is particularly significant, as Generation Y and Z workers recognize the benefits of digital tools for tracking performance but also highly value workplace autonomy. If these tools lead to excessive control or constant surveillance, they can foster a perception of distrust, reducing motivation and engagement. These generations prefer goal-oriented work rather than being monitored for every minor task, as constant scrutiny can create stress and hinder productivity. Therefore, organizations must balance effective performance tracking with fostering a sense of independence, ensuring that digital monitoring tools support productivity without undermining employee trust and autonomy. 4.3. Communication Programs and Organizational Flexibility 4.3.1. Culture of Open and Transparent Communication Clear and transparent communication contributes to an environment of openness, ensuring that everyone is aware of the organization’s goals, challenges, and progress. This approach can reduce feelings of disconnection and demotivation, which are factors that frequently lead to employee disengagement. When employees feel comfortable expressing their opinions without fear of retaliation, trust between different hierarchical levels is strengthened, promoting long-term commitment. The exchange of ideas and open dialogue encourage cross-departmental collaboration, resulting in more innovative and effective solutions. A workplace that recognizes and values everyone’s contributions is more likely to foster creativity, enhancing both job satisfaction and a sense of belonging (Cardon et al.,2019). Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 22 of 39 To establish a culture of open communication, organizations should hold regular meetings to track project progress, align expectations, and resolve outstanding issues. These meetings should provide equal opportunities for all team members to actively participate. Frequent one-on-one sessions between leadership and employees should be structured to address topics such as feedback, professional development, and specific concerns. Utilizing internal communication tools facilitates the instant exchange of information, while anonymous feedback systems provide a safe channel for employees to voice concerns or suggestions without fear of repercussions. However, collecting feedback alone is insufficient. Organizations must implement concrete measures based on employees’ insights and concerns. When leadership effectively communicates the decisions made in response to feedback and provides a rationale for these actions, it fosters a cycle of trust and continuous improvement (Hanson,2022). Resistance to change is a common challenge, but it can be mitigated through training and awareness initiatives that emphasize the benefits of open communication. Leaders should set a strong example by demonstrating a willingness to listen and share information. Additionally, communication strategies must be tailored to the specific needs of different age groups to prevent disengagement and promote a more cohesive work environment (Yilmaz,2023). The successful implementation of communication strategies requires a genuine commitment from organizational leadership. Without sufficient support and a culture that prioritizes transparency, any improvements to communication channels risk being superficial and ineffective. For organizations to fully capitalize on the advantages of structured communication, a comprehensive approach is necessary—one that includes training, the allocation of appropriate resources, and a cultural shift toward greater collaboration. Effective communication should not be regarded solely as a critical tool during crises but rather as an ongoing practice that is fully embedded in the organization’s culture (Cardon et al., 2019;Erickson,2021). Girrbach (2024) analyzed the communication behavior and leadership preferences of Generation Z in a professional setting. Results showed that 70% of Generation Z employees experience high levels of personal insecurity when communicating with superiors, primarily due to the constant flow of information, increased social media consumption, and unrealistic beauty standards, which cause self-doubt (77% strongly agree, 23% agree). This insecurity leads to inhibited communication, negatively affecting transparency, innovation, and team efficiency. The study found that appreciative and trust-promoting leadership, characterized by support from superiors (46% strongly agree, 38% agree), respect for performance (76% strongly agree, 23% agree), empathy, and open communication, can significantly improve communication behavior and trust. Transparent and consistent leadership builds trust and enhances employee loyalty (76% strongly agree, 23% agree) and productivity (70% strongly agree, 30% agree). The study concludes that Human Resource Management 4.0 (HRM 4.0), focusing on employee appreciation and well-being, attracting and retaining Generation Z talent, and sustaining long-term company performance. Shorey et al. (2024) analyzed communication preferences and behaviors among Generation Z in the digital era. Despite growing up with digital communication platforms such as in-app messaging, video calls, and social media, Generation Z still prefers face-to-face communication (77%), followed by text messaging (54%) and direct messaging (47%). Email (17%) was the least preferred method. Regionally, in person communication remained the top choice except in Confucian and African regions, where direct messaging was more popular. The social media platforms most frequently used were Instagram (31%), WhatsApp (23%), and YouTube (12%), with variations across regions. Miscommunication due to the use of slang and abbreviations, lack of nonverbal cues, and accidental misdirected Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 23 of 39 responses were identified as challenges. Additionally, social media use was linked to issues with self-worth, limited social skills, narrow worldviews, and vulnerability to scams. The study concludes that while digital communication dominates, face-to-face interactions remain essential for connection, and balanced communication strategies are needed to mitigate the risks of excessive online interaction. Generation Y and Z workers value transparency and authenticity in corporate communication. They expect organizations to maintain an open and reciprocal dialogue, where they can actively participate and have their ideas acknowledged. A lack of clear communication can lead to rapid disengagement. These employees also appreciate efficiency and interactivity in communication. They prefer brief and goal-oriented meetings, as well as digital tools that enable seamless and real-time interaction. Moreover, they seek continuous and constructive feedback, rather than occasional formal evaluations. They also tend to resist rigid hierarchies and top-down communication models. Instead, they prefer a collaborative work environment, where communication is horizontal and open, allowing them to feel like integral members of the organization. 4.3.2. Adoption of Remote Work Policies and Flexible Working Hours The introduction of remote work policies and flexible working hours has proven to be an effective response to the modern needs of workers. These policies facilitate a better balance between personal, family, and professional life, contributing to higher employee satisfaction and engagement. However, flexible working policies must be supported by a mindset that values employee autonomy and responsibility, fostering mutual trust between staff and leadership. Additionally, promoting virtual integration events, holding regular meetings, and providing continuous feedback can enhance team cohesion and strengthen professional relationships (Jung & Yoon,2021). The possibility of remote work offers employees greater flexibility to manage their schedules more effectively, reducing long commuting times and allowing for a more comfortable working environment tailored to their personal needs. However, the effectiveness of this approach largely depends on the organization’s ability to manage remote teams and maintain team cohesion from a distance. Managing remote teams requires new skills and adaptations, both in leadership and among employees. Both leaders and employees must be prepared to navigate a virtual work environment effectively, which includes the ability to communicate clearly, set measurable goals, and maintain team motivation (Campos García et al.,2024;Radoni´c et al.,2021). Dangaiso et al. (2024) examined the effects of employee remuneration, remote working, and flexible scheduling on job satisfaction and employee loyalty among frontline staff at three public universities in Zimbabwe, using data from 327 valid responses. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) confirmed that remote working ( β = 0.509, p< 0.001) and flexible scheduling ( β = 0.394, p< 0.001) had a stronger positive effect on job satisfaction than employee remuneration ( β = 0.126, p= 0.023). Employee job satisfaction significantly influenced employee loyalty ( β = 0.776, p< 0.001), explaining 60.3% of the variability in loyalty intentions. The study concluded that while remuneration positively impacts job satisfaction, work-life balance through remote work and flexible scheduling plays a more substantial role in enhancing employee satisfaction and retention in the post-COVID-19 period. Recommendations included adopting more flexible work models and reinforcing supportive policies to increase employee motivation and loyalty. Waldrep et al. (2024) analyzed the preferences for remote and hybrid work among American workers during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, based on 52 in-depth interviews with dual-earner households with children. Most participants reported increased job satisfaction and productivity from remote work due to greater schedule control, flexibility, Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 24 of 39 and elimination of commute time. While some preferred to remain fully remote, others favored a hybrid arrangement to balance flexibility with in person collaboration. However, respondents with jobs poorly suited to remote work (e.g., teaching) expressed dissatisfaction and preferred returning to in person work. Parents, particularly mothers, valued the ability to manage work and childcare simultaneously. Workers’ willingness to change jobs to maintain remote or hybrid arrangements highlights the growing importance of flexible work models in post-pandemic work culture. The study concludes that understanding workers’ preferences is key to developing sustainable and effective work policies. Baša et al. (2023) applied a questionnaire survey, and 160 valid responses were collected. The study explored the main workplace motivations of Generations Y and Z, including their preferred working hours, work type, form of work, and company size. The findings revealed many similarities in the work attitudes of both generations. Higher salaries, recognition, and a positive work environment were confirmed as strong motivational factors for both Generation Y and Z. Regarding company size, they showed a tendency to prefer working for a private enterprise or a medium-sized company. In terms of work type, most participants from both generations favored a combination of physical and intellectual work. Both generations also expressed a preference for flexible working hours. Based on these examples, it can be noted that the Generation Y and Z workers highly value flexibility and autonomy, considering them decisive factors when choosing an organization. Remote work and flexible schedules are seen as ways to enhance productivity and reduce stress, allowing for greater personalization of the professional experience. The absence of these policies can lead to disengagement and a higher turnover rate. 4.3.3. Investment in Technology and Collaboration Tools To overcome the challenges of remote working, organizations must invest in technology and collaboration tools. Video conferencing software, project management platforms, and real-time collaboration applications are essential for ensuring that teams can communicate and collaborate effectively, regardless of location. These technological resources facilitate information sharing, task management, and project coordination, promoting a cohesive and productive work environment (Chatterjee et al.,2022;Kumar & Kumar,2022). To implement these policies and transform the work experience, organizations must invest in technology and tools that facilitate employees’ work, significantly improving operational efficiency and employee satisfaction. Collaboration tools, project management software, and the automation of repetitive tasks can reduce manual workloads, allowing employees to focus on more strategic and creative tasks (Bulgurcu et al.,2024). This investment not only enhances employees’ daily work but also demonstrates the organization’s commitment to providing the best possible resources for their success. To this end, adequate training in the use of these technologies should be provided to ensure that all employees can fully utilize the available resources. Training sessions, online tutorials, and face-to-face workshops are some of the ways organizations can ensure that employees are well-prepared to use new tools (Bhushan,2023;Shirokov,2020). Banit et al. (2023) examined the dynamics of digital collaboration among virtual project teams in transdisciplinary educational settings. It highlighted the importance of establishing consistent communication channels, collaboration rules, and team spirit to improve efficiency and reduce misunderstandings. Key tools for virtual collaboration included team collaboration software (e.g., Miro, Microsoft SharePoint), project management tools (e.g., Asana, Trello), video conferencing platforms (e.g., Zoom, Microsoft Teams), and idea management systems (e.g., Brightidea, IdeaScale). Social engineering was identified as a crucial element for influencing team behavior, shaping values, and improving team Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 31 of 39 Controlled experiments testing the organizational mitigation strategies identified in this study could assess their effectiveness in reducing disengagement, increasing engagement and motivation, and improving productivity. Finally, for a more comprehensive understanding of workplace disengagement, future research should integrate interdisciplinary approaches that combine, for example, organizational psychology, sociology, and economics. Such an approach may offer deeper insight into the relationship between organizational culture, working conditions, and work-related motivation and satisfaction. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.S.; methodology, M.S. and T.N.; validation, M.S. and T.N.; formal analysis, M.S.; investigation, M.S.; resources, M.S.; data curation, M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.; writing—review and editing, M.S. and T.N.; visualization, M.S. and T.N.; supervision, M.S.; project administration, M.S.; funding acquisition, M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia and supported by ISCTE (Instituto Universitário de Lisboa) grant number UIDB/00315/2020. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: All documents, data, and information used in this work are available to the public. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. References Abdin, S., Welch, R. K., Byron-Daniel, J., & Meyrick, J. (2018). The effectiveness of physical activity interventions in improving well-being across office-based workplace settings: A systematic review. Public Health,160, 70–76. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Adamovic, M. (2023). The cultural influence on employees’ preferences for reward allocation rules: A two-wave survey study in 28 countries. Human Resource Management Journal,33(4), 889–921. [CrossRef] Agina, M., Khairy, H., Abdel Fatah, M., Manaa, Y., Abdallah, R., Aliane, N., Afaneh, J., & Al-Romeedy, B. (2023). Distributive injustice and work disengagement in the tourism and hospitality industry: Mediating roles of the workplace negative gossip and organizational cynicism. Sustainability,15(20), 15011. [CrossRef] Ahmadi Charkhabi, S., Motamedzade, M., Mortazavi, S. M., & Faradmal, J. (2019). The effect of redesigned workstation on Speech Interference Level (SIL) among bank tellers. Iran Occupational Health,16(3), 36–46. Akinsola, T., Saidu, H. A., Akande, J. O., & Adekunle, A. O. (2024). Effect of motivational strategies on employee performance in nigerian deposit money banks. International Journal of Professional Business Review,9(2), e04365. [CrossRef] Aldabbas, H., Pinnington, A., Lahrech, A., & Blaique, L. (2023). Extrinsic rewards for employee creativity? the role of perceived organisational support, work engagement and intrinsic motivation. International Journal of Innovation Science,17(2), 237–260. [CrossRef] Alessandri, G., Consiglio, C., Luthans, F., & Borgogni, L. (2018). Testing a dynamic model of the impact of psychological capital on work engagement and job performance. Career Development International,23(1), 33–47. [CrossRef] Alfina, S. R., & Mardhiyah, A. (2023). The influence of communication patterns, organizational culture and rewards on improving employee performance at pt bakrie sumatra plantation kisaran. Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Business,2(3), 515–523. [CrossRef] Al-Hamdan, Z., Manojlovich, M., & Banerjee, T. (2016). Jordanian nursing work environments, intent to stay, and job satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Scholarship,49(1), 103–110. [CrossRef] Al Zaydan, S. M. S., Hajaji, M. A. S., Mujammami, R. M. A., Almalki, N. A. M., Qattan, S. Y. M., & Almutairi, Y. M. H. (2021). Impact of nurses’ work environment on job satisfaction and job resignation. International Journal of Health Sciences,5(S2), 1377–1389. [CrossRef] Anika, D. N., & Nurhayati, M. (2021). The effect of job resources on employee engagament with workplace spirituality and professional identity as mediation for millennial generation employees of pt. bank muamalat wes jakarta region. European Journal of Business and Management Research,6(5), 1–8. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 32 of 39 Aydin, E., & Azizo˘glu, Ö. (2022, October 7–9). A new term for an existing concept: Quiet quitting—A self-determination perspective. International Congress on Critical Debates in Social Sciences (pp. 285–295), Balikesir, Turkey. Aysola, J., Barg, F. K., Martinez, A. B., Kearney, M., Agesa, K., Carmona, C., & Higginbotham, E. (2018). Perceptions of factors associated with inclusive work and learning environments in health care organizations. JAMA Network Open,1(4), e181003. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Azimi, G., Rahimi, A., & Jin, X. (2021). Exploring the attitudes of Millennials and Generation Xers toward ridesourcing services. Transportation,49(6), 1765–1799. [CrossRef] Ågotnes, K., Einarsen, S., Hetland, J., & Skogstad, A. (2018). The moderating effect of laissez-faire leadership on the relationship between co-worker conflicts and new cases of workplace bullying: A true prospective design. Human Resource Management Journal,28(4), 555–568. [CrossRef] Baker, A. W., Salman, R. Y., Zaur, E. S., & Fahmi, A. M. (2024). The impact of remote work on team dynamics and management strategies. Journal of Ecohumanism,3(5), 963–983. [CrossRef] Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology,22(3), 309–328. [CrossRef] Banit, O., Rostoka, M., Raievska, Y., Kravchuk, O., & Cherevychnyi, G. (2023). Digital collaboration of virtual project teams in the transdisciplinary educational space. In AIP conference proceedings (Vol. 2889). AIP Publishing. [CrossRef] Baral, N., Cerveny, L. K., Penaluna, B. E., Roper, B. B., Shively, D., & Witt, S. (2024). Variations in mentorship across grade levels and career stages among public management professionals. Public Personnel Management,53(2), 226–255. [CrossRef] Baša, K., Machová, R., Baša, P., & Doležaiová, V. (2023). Comparative analysis of the workplace expectations of Generations Y and Z. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica,20(3), 211–230. [CrossRef] Benítez-Márquez, M. D., Sánchez-Teba, E. M., Bermúdez-González, G., & Núñez-Rydman, E. S. (2022). Generation z within the workforce and in the workplace: A bibliometric analysis. Frontiers in Psychology,12, 736820. [CrossRef] Bentzen, M., Kenttä, G., Richter, A., & Lemyre, P. (2020). Impact of job insecurity on psychological welland ill-being among high performance coaches. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,17(19), 6939. [CrossRef] Bhushan, B. (2023). Developing generation Z employees: A two-stage mediation model. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal,37(1), 5–7. [CrossRef] Bishop, R., Yarbrough, A., & Harris, G. (2022). Understanding the factors influencing Gen Z and millennial career choices: What it means for manufacturing. In IIE Annual Conference. Proceedings (pp. 1–10). Institute of Industrial and Systems Engineers (IISE). Boadi, D. A., Kwakyewaa, D. J., Olivier, A. J., & Antoinette, A. A. (2020). The impact of research and development and professional new hiring on organizational innovation. Human Resource Research,4(1), 46–66. [CrossRef] Bocean, C. G., Popescu, L., Varzaru, A. A., Avram, C. D., & Iancu, A. (2023). Work-life balance and employee satisfaction during COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability,15(15), 11631. [CrossRef] Bosma, A. R., Boot, C. R. L., Snippen, N., Schaafsma, F., & Anema, J. R. (2021). Supporting employees with chronic conditions to stay at work: Perspectives of occupational health professionals and organizational representatives. BMC Public Health,21, 592. [CrossRef] Breevaart, K., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Derks, D. (2014). Who takes the lead? A multi-source diary study on leadership, work engagement, and job performance. The Journal of Organizational Behavior,35(3), 309–328. [CrossRef] Bulgurcu, B., van Osch, W., & Kane, G. C. (2024). Are enterprise social platforms all talk? (ebook First edition). MIT Sloan Management Review. Butler, R. J., Kleinman, N., & Gardner, H. H. (2014). I Don’t like Mondays: Explaining Monday Work Injury Claims. ILR Review, 67(3_suppl), 762–783. [CrossRef] Campos García, Á. X., Cabrera-García, V. E., Docal-Millán, M. D. C., Acuña Arango, L. M., & Riveros Munevar, F. (2024). Implications of remote work in post-pandemic times: A gender risk profile in Colombian workers. Gender in Management: An International Journal,39(6), 729–744. [CrossRef] Cardon, P. W., Huang, Y., & Power, G. (2019). Leadership communication on internal digital platforms, emotional capital, and corporate performance: The case for leader-centric listening. International Journal of Business Communication. [CrossRef] Chakrabarti, S., Chakraborty, A., Bhattacharjee, A., Dwyer, R., Roychowdhury, A., Gondhadekar, S., & Das, P. (2024). Does workplace micro-inequalities in an organisation have any positive impact in the employee productivity? American Journal of Business and Management Research,5(1), 1–13. [CrossRef] Charkhabi, M. (2019). Quantitative job insecurity and well-being: Testing the mediating role of hindrance and challenge appraisals. Frontiers in Psychology,9, 2776. [CrossRef] Chatterjee, S., Chaudhuri, R., & Vrontis, D. (2022). Does remote work flexibility enhance organization performance? Moderating role of organization policy and top management support. Journal of Business Research,139, 1501–1512. [CrossRef] Chaudhry, S. (2024). Sustaining talent: A social exchange perspective on the generation z workforce. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal,38(5), 19–22. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 33 of 39 Chiesa, R., Zaniboni, S., Guglielmi, D., & Vignoli, M. (2019). Coping with negative stereotypes toward older workers: Organizational and work-related outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology,10, 649. [CrossRef] Chillakuri, B., & Mahanandia, R. (2018). Generation Z entering the workforce: The need for sustainable strategies in maximizing their talent. Human Resource Management International Digest,26(4), 34–38. [CrossRef] Chim, J. M. (2019, August 26–30). 6Ws in ergonomics workplace design. 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) Volume VII: Ergonomics in Design, Design for All, Activity Theories for Work Analysis and Design, Affective Design 20 (pp. 1282–1286), Florence, Italy. [CrossRef] Cossa, G., Razente, Y., Kaku, M., Lopes, M., & Cimardi, A. (2021). Measures to fight the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of health systems: A comparative analysis between Brazil, Italy, and the USA. O Mundo da Saúde,45, 379–389. [CrossRef] Dang, Y., Chen, C., & Tanabe, S. (2023). Effects of short breaks on workplace productivity under sedentary conditions. Journal of Environmental Engineering,88(809), 619–627. [CrossRef] Dangaiso, P., Jaravaza, D. C., Mukucha, P., Bowora, A., Hlabiso, G., & Jonasi, K. (2024). More pay and benefits or better worklife balance? Post pandemic perspectives on employee centricity among university frontline staff. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science,17(2), 151–163. [CrossRef] Da Silva, L. B. P., Barreto, B. P., Pontes, J., Treinta, F. T., de Resende, L. M. M., & Yoshino, R. T. (2021, July 19–21). Evaluation of soft skills through educational testbed 4.0. International Conference on Optimization, Learning Algorithms and Applications (pp. 678–690), Bragança, Portugal. [CrossRef] Davis, G., Moloney, E., da Palma, M., Mengersen, K. L., & Harden, F. (2020). Workplace health and workplace wellness: Synergistic or disconnected? In Case studies in applied bayesian data science: CIRM jean-morlet chair, fall 2018 (pp. 303–326). Springer. [CrossRef] Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer. Deomedes, S. D., & Adam, M. (2021). The effect of motivation, discipline, and the working environment on employee’s job satisfaction. Jurnal GeoEkonomi,12(1), 101–114. [CrossRef] Dewa, C. S., Van Weeghel, J., Joosen, M. C., & Brouwers, E. P. (2020). What could influence workers’ decisions to disclose a mental illness at work? The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,11(3), 119. [CrossRef] Dizon, R. L., & Monsura, M. P. (2021). Do productivity incentives really equate to the increased work performance of employees? International Journal of Business and Globalisation,28(1–2), 64–76. [CrossRef] Doghan, M. A. (2019). Examining the effects of perceived organizational support, a fair rewards system, training and development and information sharing on employees engagement in saudi arabia telecom sector. Humanities and Social Sciences Letters,7(3), 181–190. [CrossRef] Duggan, J., Sherman, U., Carbery, R., & McDonnell, A. (2019). Algorithmic management and app-work in the gig economy: A research agenda for employment relations and hrm. Human Resource Management Journal,30(1), 114–132. [CrossRef] Edwards, M. J. A., & Clinton, M. (2022). Profiling employee psychological responses during restructuring and downsizing in the public sector: “flourishers”, “recoverers” and “ambivalents”. Personnel Review,52(7), 1916–1935. [CrossRef] Elamin, A. M., Aldabbas, H., & Ahmed, A. Z. E. (2024). The impact of diversity management on innovative work behavior: The mediating role of employee engagement in an emerging economy. Frontiers in Sociology,9, 1441109. [CrossRef] Erickson, S. (2021). Communication in a crisis and the importance of authenticity and transparency. Journal of Library Administration, 61(4), 476–483. [CrossRef] Faller, Y. N., Peynenburg, V., Tessier, E., Thiessen, D., & Hadjistavropoulos, H. D. (2023). Efficacy of an Online Workplace Mental Health Accommodations Psychoeducational Course: A Randomized Controlled Trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,20(7), 5317. [CrossRef] Farivar, F., Anthony, M., Richardson, J., & Amarnani, R. (2023). More to life than promotion: Self-initiated and self-resigned career plateaus. Human Resource Management Journal,34(4), 1022–1041. [CrossRef] Fenton, J. (2019). Talkin’Bout iGeneration: A new era of individualistic social work practice? The British Journal of Social Work,50(4), 1238–1257. [CrossRef] Ferriss, T. (2007). The 4-h workweek. Fortune Small Business,17(4), 84. Ferriss, T. (2011). The 4-h workweek: Escape 9-5, live anywhere, and join the new rich. Random House. Formica, S., & Sfodera, F. (2022). The great resignation and quiet quitting paradigm shifts: An overview of current situation and future research directions. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management,31(8), 899–907. [CrossRef] Fournier, C., Lambert, M., & Marion-Vernoux, I. (2020). What do young employees dream of? Quality of work, career aspirations and desire for mobility among the under 30s. Economie & Statistique,514–516, 113. [CrossRef] Gallup Report. (2023). State of the global workplace: 2023 report—The voice of the world’s employees. Available online: https://www.gallup .com/workplace/506879/state-global-workplace-2023-report.aspx (accessed on 8 April 2024). Gallup Report. (2024). State of the global workplace: 2024 report—The voice of the world’s employees. Available online: https://www.gallup .com/workplace/645608/state-of-the-global-workplace-2024-report.aspx (accessed on 14 June 2024). Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 34 of 39 García, G., Gonzales-Miranda, D., Gallo, Ó., & Román-Calderón, J. (2019). Employee involvement and job satisfaction: A tale of the millennial generation. Employee Relations,41(3), 374–388. [CrossRef] Gignac, M. A. M., Bowring, J., Jetha, A., Beaton, D., Breslin, F. C., Franche, R. L., Irvin, E., Macdermid, J. C., Shaw, W. S., Smith, P. M. , Thompson, A., Tompa, E., Van Eerd, D., & Saunders, R. (2020). Disclosure, privacy and workplace accommodation of episodic disabilities: Organizational perspectives on disability communication-support processes to sustain employment. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation,31(1), 153–165. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Gilbert, C., Johnson, M., Karki, B., Lyons, K., Tibbits, M., Toure, D., Rookwood, A. C., & Abresch, C. (2023). Preventing job burnout: Could workplace support protect maternal and child health professionals who are doing public health equity work? Maternal and Child Health Journal,28(1), 24–30. [CrossRef] Gilson, N., Coenen, P., Hallman, D., Holtermann, A., Mathiassen, S. E., & Straker, L. (2022). Postpandemic hybrid work: Opportunities and challenges for physical activity and public health. British Journal of Sports Medicine,56(21), 1203–1204. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Giorgi, G., León-Pérez, J. M., Montani, F., Fernández-Salinero, S., Ortiz-Gómez, M., Ariza-Montes, A., Arcangeli, G., & Mucci, N. (2020). Fear of non-employability and of economic crisis increase workplace harassment through lower organizational welfare orientation. Sustainability,12(9), 3876. [CrossRef] Girrbach, P. (2024). Human resource management 4.0-empowerment from a holistic perspective. Tehniˇcki Glasnik,18(4), 653–659. [CrossRef] Górny, A. (2019). Application of the CSR guidelines to improve the working environment. In MATEC web of conferences (Vol. 290, p. 12013). EDP Sciences. [CrossRef] Grunt, E., Lissitsa, S., & Lebedkina, E. (2021). Russian freshmen future profession choice in the conditions of digitalization: New challenges of labour markets. KnE Social Sciences,5(2), 813–822. [CrossRef] Gumilang, N. A., & Indrayanti, I. (2022). Work engagement among millennial employees: The role of psychological capital and perceived organizational support. Humanitas: Indonesian Psychological Journal,19, 87–100. [CrossRef] Guo, Y., Jin, J., & Yim, S. (2022). Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The mediating role of job crafting. Administrative Sciences,13(1), 4. [CrossRef] Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495–513. [CrossRef] Hakim, M. M. (2023). Work-life balance, take home pay and workplace environment: Which one has the most influence toward employee performance on Gen Z? JSHP: Jurnal Sosial Humaniora Dan Pendidikan,8(1), 86–102. [CrossRef] Hammerback, K., Kava, C. M., Passey, D. G., Hahn, J., Huff, A., Kohn, M. J., Harris, J. R., & Hannon, P. A. (2021). Development and pilot test of an online training to engage managers to support workplace wellness. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,63(9), 794–799. [CrossRef] Hamouche, S., Koritos, C., & Papastathopoulos, A. (2023). Quiet quitting: Relationship with other concepts and implications for tourism and hospitality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,35(12), 4297–4312. [CrossRef] Hanson, K. (2022). Tying it all together. Manufacturing Engineering,169(3), 86–91. Hardiyanto, W., Triatmanto, B., & Manan, A. (2019). The effects of working motivation, individual characteristics and working environment on employees job satisfaction. The International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention,6(1), 5256–5260. [CrossRef] Hareendrakumar, V. R., Subramoniam, S., & Hussain, M. (2020). Redesigning rewards for improved fairness perception and loyalty. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective,24(4), 481–495. [CrossRef] Hashiguchi, N., Sengoku, S., Kubota, Y., Kitahara, S., Lim, Y., & Kodama, K. (2020). Age-dependent influence of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations on construction worker performance. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,18(1), 111. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Hassan, Z. (2022). Employee retention through effective human resource management practices in maldives: Mediation effects of compensation and rewards system. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation,18(2), 137–173. [CrossRef] Hom, P. W., Lee, T. W., Shaw, J. D., & Hausknecht, J. P. (2017). One hundred years of employee turnover theory and research. Journal of Applied Psychology,102(3), 530–545. [CrossRef] Hsu, H. (2022). How do chinese people evaluate “tang-ping” (lying flat) and effort-making: The moderation effect of return expectation. Frontiers in Psychology,13, 871439. [CrossRef] Hudiono, E., & Sari, R. L. (2022). Retaining millennial employees in the workplace: A literature review. Journal of Business Studies and Mangement Review,6(1), 32–37. [CrossRef] Ibtisam, K., Ullah, S., Hasnain, R., & Ali, N. (2024). The role of e-leadership on sustainable employee performance with the mediating effect of perceived team dynamics and moderating effect of organizational support. The Critical Review of Social Sciences Studies, 2(2), 37–50. [CrossRef] Italiani, N., Musmuliadi, M., & Diju, A. (2022). The influence of leadership, organizational climate, and work motivation on employee’s performance. Interdisciplinary Social Studies,1(12). [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 35 of 39 Ivanovi´c, T., & Ivanˇcevi´c, S. (2018). Turnover intentions and job hopping among millennials in serbia. Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management Solutions in Emerging Economies,24(1), 53. [CrossRef] Jamal, M. T., Anwar, I., Khan, N. M., & Singh, M. (2023). An empirical analysis of telecommuters: Their level of satisfaction, commitment and loyalty. Management and Labour Studies,48(3), 359–380. [CrossRef] Janovac, T., Karabaševi´c, D., Maksimovi´c, M., & Radanov, P. (2018). Selection of the motivation strategy for employees in the mining industry using the gra method. Mining and Metallurgy Engineering Bor,1–2, 157–164. [CrossRef] Järlström, M., Brandt, T., & Rajala, A. (2020). The relationship between career capital and career success among finnish knowledge workers. Baltic Journal of Management,15(5), 687–706. [CrossRef] Jennen, J. G., Jansen, N., Amelsvoort, L. V., Slangen, J. J. M., & Kant, I. (2020). Associations between depressive complaints and indicators of labour participation among older dutch employees: A prospective cohort study. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health,94(3), 391–407. [CrossRef] Jingyi, Z. (2022). “Tang ping” of chinese youth: Origin tracing and social identity survey. Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences,5(4), 5–12. [CrossRef] Jnaneswar, K., & Ranjit, G. (2022). Unravelling the role of organizational commitment and work engagement in the relationship between self-leadership and employee creativity. Evidence-Based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship,11(2), 158–176. [CrossRef] Joaquim, A. F. V. L., Figueiredo, P. C. N., Silva, V. R. C., & da Fonseca, C. N. (2023). Positive Leadership and the Quiet Quitting Movement in Organizations. In A. Samad, E. Ahmed, & N. Arora (Eds.), Global leadership perspectives on industry, society, and government in an era of uncertainty (pp. 19–34). IGI Global. [CrossRef] Jung, H. S., Jung, Y. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2021). COVID-19: The effects of job insecurity on the job engagement and turnover intent of deluxe hotel employees and the moderating role of generational characteristics. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 92, 102703. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Jung, H. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2021). Generational effects of workplace flexibility on work engagement, satisfaction, and commitment in south korean deluxe hotels. Sustainability,13(16), 9143. [CrossRef] Kachhap, V., & Singh, T. (2024). Quiet quitting: A comprehensive exploration of hidden problems. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal,38(5), 23–26. [CrossRef] Keller, A. O., Berman, R., Scotty, B., & Pinto, D. (2022). Exploring corporate stakeholders’ perspectives on building capacity for employee engagement in workplace wellness initiatives. Journal of Patient Experience,9. [CrossRef] Khan, Z., & Khan, A. Y. (2023). The relationship between the dark triad and aggression in income tax employees: Moral disengagement as a mediator. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research,38(4), 603–618. [CrossRef] Kılıç, M., & Günsel, A. (2019). The dark side of the leadership: The effects of toxic leaders on employees. European Journal of Social Sciences,2(2), 51–56. [CrossRef] 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., Creary, S. J., & Vugt, M. V. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American Psychologist,76(1), 63–77. [CrossRef] Kruse, G. C., & Tata-Mbeng, B. S. (2023). A movement to redefine our relationship with work. American Journal of Health Promotion, 37(4), 579–582. [CrossRef] Kumah, P. (2024). Towards understanding and application of learning and development theories for employee motivation. In Enhancing employee motivation through training and development (pp. 79–116). IGI Global. [CrossRef] Kumar, P., & Kumar, S. (2022). ICT and employment in India: An analysis of organized sector. The Indian Journal of Labour Economics, 65(2), 373–395. [CrossRef] Kusuma Dwi Wikka, W., Nurtantio, P., & Astuti, S. D. (2024, September 21–22). Exploring the impact of technostress on millennial work-life balance in digital work: The mediating role of work well-being. 2024 International Seminar on Application for Technology of Information and Communication (iSemantic) (pp. 83–88), Semarang, Indonesia. [CrossRef] Kutlák, J. (2019). Generations y and z in the workplace: Perception of teamwork. ACC Journal,25(2), 65–77. [CrossRef] Lee, A., Lyubovnikova, J., Tian, A., & Knight, C. (2019). Servant leadership: A meta-analytic examination of incremental contribution, moderation, and mediation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,93(1), 1–44. [CrossRef] Lee, C. C., Lim, H. S., Seo, D. J., & Kwak, D. H. A. (2022). Examining employee retention and motivation: The moderating effect of employee generation. In Evidence-based HRM: A Global forum for empirical scholarship (Vol. 10, pp. 385–402). Emerald Publishing Limited. [CrossRef] Lee, J. J., & Meng, J. (2021). Digital competencies in communication management: A conceptual framework of readiness for industry 4.0 for communication professionals in the workplace. Journal of Communication Management,25(4), 417–436. [CrossRef] Lee, S. (2017). Employee turnover and organizational performance in u.s. federal agencies. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(6), 522–534. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 36 of 39 Leitão, J., Pereira, D., & Gonçalves, Â. (2019). Quality of work life and organizational performance: Workers’ feelings of contributing, or not, to the organization’s productivity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,16(20), 3803. [CrossRef] Lesmana, K. Y., Martadiani, A. A. M., & Darma, I. K. (2023). The role of organizational commitment in mediating the influence of work motivation and organizational culture on bappeda provinsi bali employee performance. Journal Ekonomi dan Bisnis Jagaditha, 10(2), 219–227. [CrossRef] Little, A., Wordsworth, R., & Malinen, S. (2020). Workplace exercise programmes—How organizational factors influence employee participation. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal,34(6), 37–39. [CrossRef] Liu-Lastres, B., Karatepe, O. M., & Okumus, F. (2024). Combating quiet quitting: Implications for future research and practices for talent management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,36(1), 13–24. [CrossRef] Livingstone, S. (2017). iGen: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy—And completely unprepared for adulthood. Journal of Children and Media,12(1), 118–123. [CrossRef] Luu, T. T., Rowley, C., & Vo, T. T. (2019). Addressing employee diversity to foster their work engagement. Journal of Business Research, 95, 303–315. [CrossRef] Mahand, T., & Caldwell, C. (2023). Quiet quitting—Causes and opportunities. Business and Management Research,12(1), 9–19. [CrossRef] Mahmoud, A., Fuxman, L., Mohr, I., Reisel, W., & Grigoriou, N. (2020). “We aren’t your reincarnation!” workplace motivation across X, Y and Z generations. International Journal of Manpower,42(1), 193–209. [CrossRef] Marks, A. (2023). The Great Resignation in the UK–reality, fake news or something in between? Personnel Review,52(2), 408–414. [CrossRef] Mason, R., & Brougham, D. (2020). Learning at work: A model of learning and development for younger workers. Journal of Management & Organization,30(4), 862–881. [CrossRef] Mellacher, P., & Scheuer, T. (2020). Wage inequality, labor market polarization and skill-biased technological change: An evolutionary (agent-based) approach. Computational Economics,58(2), 233–278. [CrossRef] Mihardjo, L. W., Sasmoko, S., Alamsyah, F., & Elidjen, E. (2019). The influence of digital leadership on innovation management based on dynamic capability: Market orientation as a moderator. Management Science Letters,9, 1059–1070. [CrossRef] Mileva, I., & Hristova, S. (2022). Organizational culture in smes: An investigation of managers’ vs employees’ perceptions. The European Journal of Applied Economics,19(2), 54–70. [CrossRef] Miragaia, D. A. M., & Aleixo, J. M. S. (2021). Organisational productivity: Perceptions about the influence of workplace physical activity programs on performance, wellness and worker satisfaction. European Journal of International Management,15(2–3), 391–414. [CrossRef] Momin, M. M., & Ali, O. (2023). Comprehensive review of the impact of advanced technology adoption on work and continuous improvement. HighTech and Innovation Journal,4(3), 667–680. [CrossRef] Moore, C., Mayer, D. M., Chiang, F. F. T., Crossley, C. D., Karlesky, M. J., & Birtch, T. A. (2019). Leaders matter morally: The role of ethical leadership in shaping employee moral cognition and misconduct. Journal of Applied Psychology,104(1), 123–145. [CrossRef] Munde, J., Ingles, R., Phad, C., & Vasundekar, V. (2020). Role of corporate mentoring in talent development. In Computing in engineering and technology: Proceedings of ICCET 2019 (pp. 763–770). Springer. [CrossRef] Murdoch, J. (2021). Measuring the relationship between workplace opportunities and motivation among women in the technology industry. Fields: Journal of Huddersfield Student Research,7(1), 1–18. [CrossRef] Nabahani, P. R., & Riyanto, S. (2020). Job satisfaction and work motivation in enhancing generation Z’s organizational commitment. Journal of Sosial Science,1(5), 234–240. [CrossRef] Nastasi, J. A., Tassistro, I. B., & Gravina, N. E. (2023). Breaks and productivity: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,56(3), 539–548. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Nath, A., Rai, S., Bhatnagar, J., & Cooper, C. L. (2023). Coping strategies mediating the effects of job insecurity on subjective well-being, leading to presenteeism: An empirical study. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,32(2), 209–235. [CrossRef] Nichols, G. (2018). iGen: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy—And completely unprepared for adulthood—And what that means for the rest of us. Leisure Studies,37(2), 238–239. [CrossRef] Ningrum, V., Respati, H., & Harsono, H. (2023). Employee performance in terms of organizational commitment and work motivation: The mediating role of organization citizenship behaviors. Cross Current International Journal of Economics, Management and Media Studies,5(04), 54–64. [CrossRef] Nipper, N. G., & Wingerden, J. V. (2018). The motivational potential of human resource development: Relationships between perceived opportunities for professional development, job crafting and work engagement. International Journal of Learning and Development, 8(2), 27. [CrossRef] Oginni, J., Otinwa, G., & Gao, Z. (2024). Physical impact of traditional and virtual physical exercise programs on health outcomes among corporate employees. Journal of Clinical Medicine,13(3), 694. [CrossRef] Oliveira, E. A. d. S., & Cardoso, C. (2018). Stereotype threat and older worker’s attitudes: A mediation model. Personnel Review,47(1), 187–205. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 37 of 39 Orujaliyev, R. (2024). The effect of non-financial incentives on employee engagement and employee retention. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 3–10. [CrossRef] Öztürk, E., Arikan, Ö. U., & Metin, O. C. A. K. (2023). Understanding quiet quitting: Triggers, antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Behavior, Sustainability and Management,10(18), 57–79. [CrossRef] Pandey, T., & Chauhan, A. S. (2021). Effect of job fulfillment over employee performance execution at the workplace: A study based on identifying the significance of demographical characteristics. International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management (IJABIM),12(2), 37–56. [CrossRef] Parry, E., & Battista, V. (2019). Generation Z in the UK: More of the Same—High Standards and Demands. In C. Scholz, & A. Rennig (Eds.), Generations Z in Europe (The changing context of managing people) (pp. 89–107). Emerald Publishing Limited. [CrossRef] Patel, J., Tinker, A., & Corna, L. (2018). Younger workers’ attitudes and perceptions towards older colleagues. Working with Older People, 22(3), 129–138. [CrossRef] Pattnaik, S. C., & Sahoo, R. (2020). Employee engagement, creativity and task performance: Role of perceived workplace autonomy. South Asian Journal of Business Studies,10(2), 227–241. [CrossRef] Peterson, R. A., & Crittenden, V. (2024). Microentrepreneurs in the gig economy: Who they are, what they do, and why they do it. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship,26(4), 565–587. [CrossRef] Pietrantoni, L., Mazzetti, G., San Román Niaves, M., Kubik, R., Giusino, D., & De Angelis, M. (2024). Enhancing team dynamics through digital coaching: The role of managerial and peer support. European Journal of Training and Development,48(10), 16–36. [CrossRef] Praningrum, P., Suryosukmono, G., Nurhasanah, N., & Ardik, A. (2023). The effect of organizational climate and person-organization fit on organizational commitment: Mediating role of job satisfaction. Frontiers in Business and Economics,2(3), 164–175. [CrossRef] Priya, N., Satpathy, I., Patnaik, B. C. M., & Thaichon, P. (2024). Transforming workplace wellness in the next-generation hospitality industry by leveraging transformational digital technologies and tools. In Technology and luxury hospitality (pp. 295–313). Routledge. [CrossRef] Purwatiningsih, E., & Sawitri, H. S. R. (2021). Analysis on the effect of work-life balance and career development on turnover intention for millennial generations. Management and Entrepreneurship: Trends of Development,1(15), 80–88. [CrossRef] Radoni´c, M., Vukmirovi´c, V., & Milosavljevi´c, M. (2021). The impact of hybrid workplace models on intangible assets: The case of an emerging country. Amfiteatru Economic,23(58), 770–786. [CrossRef] Rahmayani, F., Ramli, A., Dipoatmodjo, T. S. P., Hasbiah, S., & Kurniawan, A. W. (2023). The influence of organizational culture and organizational climate on employee’s organizational commitment in the regional personnel and human resources development agency (bkpsdmd) makassar city. Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Business,2(3), 546–555. [CrossRef] Raiu, S. L. (2020). Generation Y and their involvement in work. Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty: Social Sciences, 9(1), 65–83 . [CrossRef] Rajashekar, S., & Jain, A. (2024). A thematic analysis on “employee engagement in IT companies from the perspective of holistic well-being initiatives”. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,36(2), 165–187. [CrossRef] Rani, T. J., & Priya, V. K. (2023). Exploring the concept of managing women employees’ work-life balance in information technology company. In A. Khang, S. Rani, R. Gujrati, H. Uygun, & S. Gupta (Eds.), Designing workforce management systems for Industry 4.0 (pp. 265–284). CRC Press. [CrossRef] Rehman, S. A., Sehar, S., & Afzal, M. (2019). Performance appraisal; application of victor vroom expectancy theory. Saudi Journal of Nursing and Health Care,2(12), 431–434. [CrossRef] Rusdi, & Rahadi, D. R. (2024). The influence of compensation and work environment on employee performance through job satisfaction as an intervening variable (study at pt. shankara). International Journal of Scientific and Management Research,7(1), 93–101. [CrossRef] Russo, C., & Terraneo, M. (2020). Mental well-being among workers: A cross-national analysis of job insecurity impact on the workforce. Social Indicators Research,152(2), 421–442. [CrossRef] Salvadorinho, J., Ferreira, C., & Teixeira, L. (2025). Engagement strategies in a digital multigenerational world: Insights from multinational companies on unlocking the potential of Human Capital 4.0. Journal of Intellectual Capital,26(1), 174–204. [CrossRef] Sanmas, M., Qadir, A., Nahria, N., & Laili, I. (2024). The role of interpersonal communication in enhancing teamwork effectiveness in the digital era. Literatus,5(2). [CrossRef] Saxena, A. (2024). Mentoring at work: A talent development tool for Gen Y and Gen Z. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal,38(1), 23–26. [CrossRef] Scharp, Y. S., Breevaart, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2021). Using playful work design to deal with hindrance job demands: A quantitative diary study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,26(3), 175–188. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Schönig, L. M., & Geibel, R. C. (2024, November 9–10). Transitioning into hybrid work models: An analysis of performance success factors. International Scientific-Practical Conference (pp. 233–245), Nizhnevartovsk, Russia. [CrossRef] Schroth, H. (2019). Are you ready for Gen Z in the workplace? California Management Review,61(3), 5–18. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 38 of 39 Setyaningsih, E. D., & Indonesia, R. (2018). The effect of transformational leadership, work environment, job satisfaction to employees performance. Iarjset,5(8), 8–15. [CrossRef] Sharma, R. R., & Sharma, N. (2015). Opening the gender diversity black box: Causality of perceived gender equity and locus of control and mediation of work engagement in employee well-being. Frontiers in Psychology,6, 1371. [CrossRef] Sheather, J., & Slattery, D. (2021). The great resignation—How do we support and retain staff already stretched to their limit? BMJ, 375, n2533. [CrossRef] Shirokov, Y. A. (2020). On improving the effectiveness of training in the field of occupational safety and health. Bezop. Tr. v Promyshlennosti,2020(11), 89–94. [CrossRef] Shorey, S., Vyugina, D., Waechter, N., & Dolev, N. (2024). Communication preferences and behaviors. In Gen Z around the world: Understanding the global cohort culture of Generation Z (pp. 31–42). Emerald Publishing Limited. [CrossRef] Sikira, R., Madaba, R., & Filbert, R. (2024). Impact of recognition on employeesperformance in the Manufacturing Industries in Tanzania: A Case of Tanga Cement Company. Valley International Journal Digital Library,12(03), 6059–6073. [CrossRef] Simanjuntak, P. (2023). Digital technology usage influence on the effectiveness of the construction implementation team. International Journal of Social Service and Research,3(2), 460–472. [CrossRef] Sirojudin, M., & Wijoyo, T. A. (2024). Employee perspectives on professional growth: A qualitative study of human resource development initiatives. Journal of International Multidisciplinary Research,2(8), 119–126. [CrossRef] Slaughter, J. E., & Allen, D. G. (Eds.). (2024). Essentials of employee recruitment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 1–10). Routledge. [CrossRef] Smaliukien ˙ e, R., & Bekešien ˙ e, S. (2020). Towards sustainable human resources: How generational differences impact subjective wellbeing in the military? Sustainability,12(23), 10016. [CrossRef] Sriekaningsih, A., Darto, M., & Subekti, A. T. (2018). The determinant factors affecting the employee performance improvement of educational institution, state institution and state-owned enterprise. International Journal of Multi Discipline Science,1(2), 116. [CrossRef] Sujit, A., & Harani, B. (2024). Navigating work from home: A study on its implications for family life and work-life balance. In R. Khamis, & A. Buallay (Eds.), AI in business: Opportunities and limitations (Vol. 515, pp. 369–378). Studies in Systems, Decision and Control. Springer Nature. [CrossRef] Szeto, A., Dobson, K. S., Luong, D., Krupa, T., & Kirsh, B. (2019). Workplace antistigma programs at the Mental Health Commission of Canada: Part 1. Processes and projects. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,64(1_suppl), 5S–12S. [CrossRef] Tagliabue, M., Sigurjonsdottir, S. S., & Sandaker, I. (2020). The effects of performance feedback on organizational citizenship behaviour: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,29(6), 841–861. [CrossRef] Tan, S. J., Wider, W., Jiang, L., Udang, L. N., Sam, T. H., & Tanucan, J. C. M. (2024). Factors influencing millennial employees’ turnover intention in multinational corporations in Penang, Malaysia. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development,8(7), 3922. [CrossRef] Tarigan, J., Cahya, J., Valentine, A., Hatane, S., & Jie, F. (2022). Total reward system, job satisfaction and employee productivity on company financial performance: Evidence from Indonesian Generation Z workers. Journal of Asia Business Studies,16(6), 1041–1065. [CrossRef] Tatar, B., Müceldili, B., & Erdil, O. (2023). How do employees maintain their well-being during loneliness? the power of organizational nostalgia. Management Research Review,47(4), 622–642. [CrossRef] Thangavel, P., Pathak, P., & Chandra, B. (2021). Millennials and Generation Z: A generational cohort analysis of Indian consumers. Benchmarking: An International Journal,28(7), 2157–2177. [CrossRef] Thøgersen, J. (2023). How does origin labelling on food packaging influence consumer product evaluation and choices? A systematic literature review. Food Policy,119, 102503. [CrossRef] Tokunova, A., Zvonar, V., Polozhentsev, D., Pavlova, V., & Fedoruk, O. (2024). Economic consequences of artificial intelligence and labor automation: Employment recovery, transformation of labor markets, and dynamics of social structure in the context of digital transformation. Financial Engineering,2, 1–12. [CrossRef] Tran, H. M. N., Le, D. V., Hai, Y. V., Kim, H. D., & Yen, N. N. T. (2024). Exploring Job Satisfaction among Generation Z Employees: A Study in the SMEs of the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Journal of Chinese Human Resources Management,15(01), 110–120. [CrossRef] Trawver, K., Brocious, H., Silva-Johnson, T., Donahue, T., & Milliron, D. (2021). Learning from the field: Development of a statewide public child welfare workforce mentoring program. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance,45(4), 365–374. [CrossRef] Trisandri, M. I. R., & Iskandar, Y. (2024). The impact of motivation and commitment on gen z work performance in the jabodetabek area. Buletin Poltanesa,25(1), 68–76. [CrossRef] Tsvetkova, M., Vuculescu, O., Dinev, P., Sherson, J., & Wagner, C. (2022). Inequality and fairness with heterogeneous endowments. PLoS ONE,17(10), e0276864. [CrossRef] Twenge, J. M. (2017). iGen: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy—And completely unprepared for adulthood—And what that means for the rest of us. Simon and Schuster. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 133 39 of 39 Ullah, P. S., Jamal, W., & Naeem, M. (2018). The relationship of employee engagement, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Jinnah Business Review,6(1), 35–41. Umer, A., Khalili, A., & Shirwani, A. (2016). Impact of hr policies on employee motivation in private schools of Karachi, Pakistan. Journal of Education & Social Sciences,4(1), 49–67. [CrossRef] Usniarti, J., & Nuvriasari, A. (2024). The influence of work environment and workload on job satisfaction and its impact on employee loyalty. East Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research,3(2), 857–870. [CrossRef] Utkarsh, V., Ravindra, T., & Ananta, N. (2019). Workplace deviance: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering,8(4), 12355–12364. [CrossRef] Vieten, L., Wöhrmann, A. M., Wendsche, J., & Michel, A. (2023). Employees’ work breaks and their physical and mental health: Results from a representative German survey. Applied Ergonomics,110, 103998. [CrossRef] Waldrep, C. E., Fritz, M., & Glass, J. (2024). Preferences for remote and hybrid work: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Sciences,13(6), 303. [CrossRef] Walker, L., Braithwaite, E. C., Jones, M. V., Suckling, S., & Burns, D. (2023). “Make it the done thing”: An exploration of attitudes towards rest breaks, productivity and wellbeing while working from home. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health,96(7), 1015–1027. [CrossRef] Waworuntu, E. C., Kainde, S. J. R., & Mandagi, D. W. (2022). Work-life balance, job satisfaction and performance among millennial and gen Z employees: A systematic review. Society,10(2), 384–398. [CrossRef] Wei, L. (2018). High-involvement human resource practices, employee learning and employability. Career Development International, 23(3), 312–326. [CrossRef] Wiroko, E. P., & Evanytha, E. (2019). Mindfulness and work engagement among generation Y. Psycho Idea,17(2), 154. [CrossRef] Witmer, H., & Mellinger, M. S. (2016). Organizational resilience: Nonprofit organizations’ response to change. Work,54(2), 255–265. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Yahya, K. K., Tee, C., & Johari, J. (2018). Employee engagement: A study on gen y in the manufacturing industry. Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies,4(1), 37–44. [CrossRef] Yaseen, A. O. (2020). The influence of emotional intelligence and organizational politics on employee turnover and performance. Frontiers in Management and Business,1(2), 51–62. [CrossRef] Yi, S., Gong, Q., Feng, D., & Wang, H. (2020). The effect of planned breaks on worker productivity and the moderate role of workload in a manufacturing environment. Asian Economic and Financial Review,10(12), 1366–1383. [CrossRef] Yilmaz, A. A. (2023). Intercultural communication in multinational organizations: Exploring open innovation perspectives. In Global citizenship and its impact on multiculturalism in the workplace (pp. 208–225). IGI Global. [CrossRef] Zeidan, S., & Itani, N. (2020). Cultivating employee engagement in organizations: Development of a conceptual framework. Central European Management Journal,28(1), 99–118. [CrossRef] Zhang, H., Sun, L., & Zhang, Q. (2022). How workplace social capital affects turnover intention: The mediating role of job satisfaction and burnout. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,19(15), 9587. [CrossRef] Zhong, X., Al Mamun, A., Masukujjaman, M., Rahman, M. K., Gao, J., & Yang, Q. (2023). Modelling the significance of organizational conditions on quiet quitting intention among Gen Z workforce in an emerging economy. Scientific Reports,13(1), 15438. [CrossRef] 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.