What (de)motivates gen Z women and gen Z men at work? Comparative study of gender differences in the young generation's motivation

Lašáková, Anna; Vojteková, Monika; Procházková, Lenka Article What (de)motivates gen Z women and gen Z men at work? Comparative study of gender differences in the young generation's motivation Journal of Business Economics and Management (JBEM) Provided in Cooperation with: Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VILNIUS TECH) Suggested Citation: Lašáková, Anna; Vojteková, Monika; Procházková, Lenka (2023) : What (de)motivates gen Z women and gen Z men at work? Comparative study of gender differences in the young generation's motivation, Journal of Business Economics and Management (JBEM), ISSN 2029-4433, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Vol. 24, Iss. 4, pp. 771-796, https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2023.20439 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/317649 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/ Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University *Corresponding author. E-mail: anna.lasak[email protected]niba.sk This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Journal of Business Economics and Management ISSN 1611-1699 / eISSN 2029-4433 2023 Volume 24 Issue 4: 771–796 https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2023.20439 WHAT (DE)MOTIVATES GEN Z WOMEN AND GEN Z MEN AT WORK? COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE YOUNG GENERATION’S MOTIVATION Anna LAŠÁKOVÁ *, Monika VOJTEKOVÁ , Lenka PROCHÁZKOVÁ Faculty of Management, Comenius University Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia Received 08 January 2023; accepted 27 September 2023 Abstract. This study responds to the call for a more nuanced understanding of intragenerational variations and provides a detailed insight into how men and women in Generation Z perceive work motivation. Unlike most prior studies with a similar focus, this study is qualitative, employing a specific method of empathy-based stories (MEBS) to capture the (de)motivators in Gen Z directly through their native point of view. On a sample of 437 business students, the vast majority of whom reported having work experience, results reveal that Gen Z women pay significantly more attention to social aspects of interpersonal relationships at the workplace, intrinsic factors of having a dream job, low levels of routine, experiencing job success, and an extrinsic need to receive recognition for the work done, while Gen Z men are more attentive to the altruistic factor of making a meaningful difference at work, extrinsic factor of benefits, and leisure-related aspects of happy personal life and no stress at work. Findings inform evidence-based motivation policies, which may help target more precisely recruitment and motivation programs in companies. Keywords: generation Z, gen Z, gender, women, men, motivation, demotivation, work values, MEBS. JEL Classification: M12, M54 Introduction This study focuses on gender differences in workplace motivation of Generation Z(hereafter “Gen Z”), which is currently entering the labor market. As Lyons etal. (2005a) point out, the connection and interaction between variables of gender and generation is crucial. They state that value priorities are linked to both gender and generation and therefore suggest that when studying people’s preferences and value orientations, researchers should take into account both gender differences and generational cohorts, which should not be considered in isolation from each other. Besides, a recent study by Ng etal. (2022) also raises attention to heterogeneity within individual generations leading to within-generational units with dif- 772 A. Lašáková et al. What (de)motivates Gen Z women and Gen Z men at work? Comparative study... fering work values and expectations. While research on various work-related preferences of Gen Z, in general, has been well established over the last decade, considerably less attention is paid to differences within Gen Z. There is only a handful of studies investigating gender differences in Gen Z’s motivational preferences (e.g., Arora etal., 2020; Egerová etal., 2021). Thus, more research is needed to examine and understand potential differences in Gen Z men’s and Gen Z women’s workplace motivation. In addition to the gap in current research, there are several broader reasons why this study focuses on gender differences in Gen Z and applies the gender lens to investigate factors of (de)motivation at work. The significance of studying gender differences was highlighted in the work of Risman (2004), who claims that gender needs to be conceptualized as a distinct social structure so that research and theory could both transform and inform our communities (i.e., societies, organizations). The theory of gendered organization looks at gender inequalities as deeply embedded in the organization. According to the seminal work of Acker (1990), organizational structure and related managerial approaches are not gender neutral; quite the contrary, the dominant masculinity is reproduced in all organizational processes and work relations. This leaves little space for tailored mechanisms supporting equity, for instance, in human resource management practices that substantially shape the career and life of both men and women in an organization. Following Acker’s theory and examining organization of the 21st century, Williams etal. (2012) came to the conclusion that gender inequalities tend to reproduce themselves under the “new economy” and continue to create a kind of breeding ground for gender biases in the workplace. In line with this, our study aims at providing insights into motivational factors and potential differences between men and women in this respect, which could help companies that employ the youngest generation in the job market to understand better and promote programs respecting gender diversity in motivational preferences. The context in which this research was conducted is relatively underrepresented and, as such, could enrich the existing scholarly discourse. The research involved young people from Slovakia, a former communist, now post-transition country in the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) region. Interestingly, Gen Z is the first generational cohort born and raised in a free-market economy established after the communist regime collapse, as well as the first generation born into an independent sovereign state of Slovakia (after the peaceful separation of former Czechoslovakia in 1992). The turbulent path of transition from central planning to a free-market economy and the related drastic economic slump and profound changes in the social and institutional fabric of society imposed a challenge for the previous generations. However, Slovak Gen Z did not experience these in adulthood and takes the formerly absent freedom of speech, democracy, unrestricted travel, and access to foreign higher education for granted. In addition, older generations lived in a society with strictly defined male and female roles and insufficient opportunities for women to make full-fledged professional and high-social-status careers (Ferenčíková, 2023). From this perspective, Gen Z members experience a totally different world with access to international education, a global job market, and boundaryless careers. Connected with that, one of the most pressing issues Slovakia faces today is the brain drain of the young generation. It is estimated that 3% of the population leaves the country each year, half of whom are people below thirty (Chrancokova etal., Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2023, 24(4): 771–796 773 2020). Causes are manifold, for instance, Vanhuysse (2023) notes that the “young exit” and outmigration from the CEE countries are connected with low government quality, corruption, weak rule of law, and regulatory ineffectiveness. Other reasons may include a mostly negative image of homeland higher education frequently accentuated by local mass media, ineffective measures in this area taken by the state, negligible investments in universities and research at large, and higher salaries that graduates can earn abroad compared to the domestic labor market. The results of this study can help navigate otherwise complex matters of workplace motivation in domestic and foreign companies employing Slovak Gen Z members. Many large firms, including prominent multinational corporations from the West, operate in the Slovak business space, and many of them currently employ young people in entry-level positions. A deeper look at how to motivate and retain young Slovak talents could be an asset for these businesses. This study offers such insights in a detailed breakdown by the two gender groups, which may help target motivation programs in companies more precisely. Since Gen Z represents a new employee cohort in the workplace, research on their workplace preferences is on the rise. Still, as noted above, there is only a handful of studies examining the differences between young women and men on this issue. In addition, these few studies elaborating on the gender aspect in motivation are based on quantitative, standardized questionnaires (e.g., Egerová etal., 2021; Lalić etal., 2019). Although this approach may be useful, it may also lead to a reduction in themes and understanding of the research subjects’ unique perceptions and world of meanings attributed to workplace motivation. With respect to this, our study offers a more fine-grained understanding of the subject matter, which stems from the qualitative research design based on a specific research method of MEBS (Method of Empathy-Based Stories, see the Research methodology section). This is in line with Van Rossem (2021), who noted in a recent study that not the values assigned to various motivators but actually the way how different generations perceive the motivators explains why the same motivators have different influences on various generations. Based on MEBS, this study conveys a view of (de)motivation through the “eye of the beholder” and provides a native, emic view of the sources of workplace satisfaction and frustration produced directly by Gen Z members. In other words, results presented in this study convey insiders’ own perspectives on what can be (de)motivating at work. Thus, both the identified factors (qualitative lens), as well as the prevalence of individual factors in respondents’ stories (quantitative lens), considered here as a proxy for their relative importance, come directly from the subjects of this study. This comparative study seeks to contribute to the currently emerging interest of scholars in intragenerational variations in Gen Z. Its main aim is to identify differences between Gen Z men and Gen Z women regarding their perception of motivating and demotivating factors in the workplace. This aim translates into several research questions: –RQ1: What is the extent of differences in perceptions of (de)motivation in Gen Z men and Gen Z women? –RQ2: What is the composition of the most salient top ten (de)motivating factors in both genders? –RQ3: From a qualitative point of view, are there any unique (de)motivating factors specific only to Gen Z men and Gen Z women? 774 A. Lašáková et al. What (de)motivates Gen Z women and Gen Z men at work? Comparative study... –RQ4: From a quantitative point of view, are there any statistically significant differences between Gen Z men’s and Gen Z women’s volume of attention paid to the identified (de)motivating factors? The rest of this paper is structured as follows. First, a brief overview of prior research results to the topic is presented. The next chapter outlines the methodological approach utilized in this research, including a description of the MEBS method, its application in this study, sampling and sample characteristics, and data analysis methods. Afterwards, results are presented, both from a qualitative and quantitative point of view. Next, the paper provides an extensive discussion of the research findings sectioned by the highlighted main outcomes. Finally, the concluding section provides a succinct summary of findings related to research questions posed in the Introduction and outlines the limitations and future research avenues connected with this study. 1. Theoretical background to the study Generation Z (also known as Zoomers, post-millennials, iGen, or digital natives) is the youngest generation entering today’s workplace. According to the World Economic Forum (2021), by 2025 they will make up 27% of the workforce. Labor shortages and attracting employees have become challenging, especially in certain industries (Causa etal., 2022). Therefore, employers are interested in finding ways to attract the newest generation, most notably because traditional recruitment tools are failing with the new generation (Jenkins, 2019). On the other hand, after recruitment, there is another issue that poses a challenge, which is retention. According to Deloitte’s 2022 report (Deloitte, 2022), which takes into account responses from Gen Z respondents from 46 countries around the world, four out of 10 Gen Z members would like to change jobs within the next two years. The top reasons are pay, mental health issues at work and burnout. A low level of commitment to a company was also found in the study by Ngoc etal. (2022). When choosing their next job, the most important factors were work-life balance and opportunities for learning and development (Deloitte, 2022). In their study on the reactions of the Polish labor market to the entry of the new generation, Bieleń and Kubiczek (2020) list the following requirements that make the workplace more attractive to Gen Z: friendly atmosphere in the workplace, availability of the latest technologies in the company, ambassador programs, internships for students, benefits packages, support from the supervisor in the first days of work, and involvement of employees in CSR activities. Gen Z members are more aware of social and environmental issues than previous generations (e.g., Grow & Yang, 2018; Ngoc etal., 2020; Seemiller & Grace, 2019; Jenkins, 2019). Generation Z also expects fairness and respect from their manager and is more interested in personal fulfillment than monetary evaluation (Grow & Yang, 2018). Work environment and workplace atmosphere are also high on the list of important workplace expectations (Ngoc et al., 2022; Ozkan & Olmaz, 2015). The traditional way of working, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, seems to be unattractive for Gen Z. The autonomy to decide for themselves when and from where to work is highly valued, so a better work-life balance is sought (Ngoc etal., 2022; Chillakuri, 2020; Sánchez-Hernández etal., 2019). Some research Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2023, 24(4): 771–796 775 studies, as well as the experiences of HR managers, point to unrealistic expectations of today’s young generation regarding appreciation as an important asset (Ngoc etal., 2022) and the level of wages (Kupczyk etal., 2021). On the other hand, the research findings of some other authors suggest that salary is valued less by Gen Z than by other generations (Ngoc etal., 2022). As for the gender differences in motivation within Gen Z, the research evidence is quite scarce, especially compared to the volume of findings on the preceding generational cohort of Gen Y. For instance, prior research on Gen Y showed that job security was more important to Gen Y males, while college major-job match was more important to females (Samutachak etal., 2021). De Cooman and Dries (2012) found that gender was a significant predictor of values connected with status in men, while values linked with content, meaningful work, collegiality, and freedom were higher in women. Regarding entrepreneurial intentions in Gen Y males and females, research showed that self-direction values enhanced entrepreneurial intention for women, and social affiliation values improved entrepreneurial intention for men (Ettis, 2022). A study by Ng etal. (2010) pointed out that Gen Ys’ expectations and values varied by gender, but this demographic variable explained only asmall proportion of variance. More specifically, women were more likely than men to accept a job that was not perceived as ideal and had lower salary expectations than Gen Y men (Ng etal., 2010). In terms of gender differences specifically in Gen Z, both genders were found to expect a fun work environment, a positive team atmosphere and supportive relationships with both colleagues and superiors (Lassleben & Hofmann, 2023). A study by Graczyk-Kucharska and Erickson (2020) provided evidence that a good atmosphere at work is preferred, and this is especially true for Gen Z women. The same trend was also observed by Egerová etal. (2021), who found that the Gen Z women in their sample placed more value on the social atmosphere at the workplace than the men. This finding also has support from past research on systematic differences in how people of both genders perceive and participate in social relationships, with feminine personalities valuing emotional support and masculine persons seeking tangible support (e.g., Reevy & Maslach, 2001). Furthermore, Graczyk-Kucharska and Erickson (2020) noted that men had a greater preference for remote work than women, and they also felt that a high salary and task-based work schedules were important. Similarly, a study by Silva and Carvalho (2021) showed that Gen Z women had lower entry salary expectations and expressed higher work values in terms of social, intrinsic, and extrinsic aspects of work motivation. 2. Research methodology Unlike other studies on gender differences in Gen Z, this research is exploratory and qualitative in nature. It utilizes a specific method of MEBS (Method of Empathy-Based Stories), which is an actor-centered and passive role-playing method rooted in narrative research tradition (Lehtomäki etal., 2014). Respondents are asked to take on the role of the main character in the presented introductory script (passive roleplay) and express through writing a short story or reflection (narrative), what they would do in the given situation if they were in the protagonist’s shoes, 776 A. Lašáková et al. What (de)motivates Gen Z women and Gen Z men at work? Comparative study... or, alternatively, what the main protagonist, i.e., is feeling, thinking, is likely to do, what led to that situation, or what will the consequences of that situation be (e.g., Mesiäislehto etal., 2021; Wallin etal., 2020). Usually, two stories are offered where only one aspect is altered, which enables researchers to track in a systematic manner how the altered element affected the responses. We decided to use MEBS due to several advantages compared to more conventional quantitative and qualitative methods (e.g., surveys, interviews). First, the introductory scripts in MEBS solicit a creative, playful approach and spark respondents’ imagination. This may motivate them to think about the scenarios in divergent ways. As we dealt with young people in this research, we assumed the playful factor would ignite their attention and be an asset to the research. Second, proponents of MEBS (e.g., Lehtomäki etal., 2014; Wallin etal., 2019) point out that this method is particularly suitable for mapping out or extending research areas because respondents’ stories can produce new, unexpected insights. Compared to quantitative surveys with pre-defined content/items, MEBS facilitates access to tacit, personal views on the subject matter in question. Thus, MEBS allowed us to capture the sources of the workplace (de) motivation produced directly by the respondents. Our aim was to understand the meaning of (de)motivation through respondents’ eyes. Third, compared to more traditional qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, focus groups), MEBS provides the participants with a greater degree of freedom and lower stress levels as it lacks face-to-face interaction and thus induces less external pressure from, for instance, the interviewer. MEBS allows respondents to express themselves openly (Uusiautti etal., 2014). In other words, being put in “someone else’s shoes” via the script (a role) supports respondents’ ability to do that without fear of rejection, social pressure, or an urge to please the interviewer. Thus, this method limits the social desirability bias of respondents as it enables them to express their thoughts freely via empathizing with the main character depicted in the provided story they should reflect upon (Wallin etal., 2019). The research approach utilized in this study took inspiration from Kultalahti and Viitala (2014, 2015), who used MEBS methodology in their study of workplace motivation in Gen Y, motivational differences in working and non-working Millennials (Kultalahti, 2017), and motivation in Gen Z carried out by Kirchmayer and Fratričová (Fratričová & Kirchmayer, 2018; Kirchmayer & Fratričová, 2017), who kindly shared their introductory script to utilize it in our study. An online form was disseminated in December 2021, containing a positive and a negative introductory script. Participants were instructed to write a short story on why they think the main character in the stories is feeling (de)motivated. (1) Positive script: Imagine Samuel going home from work. He is excited, full of energy and really feels motivated. He is already looking forward to the next working day. Why do you think Samuel feels so motivated and full of enthusiasm? (2) Negative script: Imagine Samuel going home from work. He is tired, frustrated and lacks enthusiasm for his work. He doesn’t want to go there at all tomorrow and can’t wait for the weekend, because at least he doesn’t have to work then. Why do you think Samuel has such a negative attitude towards his job, is not motivated to work and lacks enthusiasm? Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2023, 24(4): 771–796 777 Convenience-based sampling was used to gather responses from n = 437 Slovak business students from two universities in Bratislava (the capital) and one located in the western part of the country. The given sampling technique was considered eligible within our exploratory research design. The number of stories generated by respondents and of the derived codes supported the assumption about saturation of research questions. In addition, the size of our sample was significantly larger compared to most previous studies based on the MEBS methodology (e.g., Hyrkäs etal., 2005; Kultalahti & Viitala, 2015; Särkelä & Suoranta, 2020). Based on the population size of a total of 11677 business students (incl. 60.5% of women; acc. to CVTI, 2021), 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error, a minimum sample size of 372 participants was determined. Our sample with 437 participants (incl. 67.5% of female students) exceeded the minimum requirement regarding the number of respondents, and the women-to-men ratio was also relatively close to the proportion of both genders in the baseline population. Regarding the inclusion of participants from different Slovak regions, due to the traditionally high concentration of students from different regions in the capital city, the majority of participants (78%) came from other regions of the country. The vast majority of all participants reported having work experience (94.1%). All were born between 1996 and 2004. As for their work aspirations, being an entrepreneur and having own business (33%), working in event management (13%), marketing (11%), finance/accounting (7%), human resource management (5%), and project management (5%) were amongst the most represented categories. The average time spent by completion was 8:25 minutes (18 minutes with outliers included). Respondents provided 874 stories, and this material was analyzed in Maxqda software for qualitative data analysis. Data were analyzed by the method of conventional qualitative content analysis. The initial coding structure was established after coding the first 50 positive and negative stories by two researchers independently. The two structures were compared, yielding 87% intercoder agreement.The differences in coding were resolved in subsequent series of discussions among the team members, and a final coding tree was established. The coded material contained 2276 coded segments in total (1599 in women’s and 677 in men’s stories). The coding tree involved 78 codes (42 motivating factors and 36 demotivating factors), which were grouped under 14 clusters and 15 categories according to common denominators in codes’ meaning (some clusters contained only individual factors, whereas some involved a more fine-grained structure of categories under which the factors were grouped, see Annex). The female subsample produced 38 motivators and 31 demotivators, while the male subsample generated 32 motivators and 27 demotivators. On average, female respondents described 2.7 motivating factors and, equally, 2.7 demotivating factors, and male respondents described 2.3 motivating factors and 2.5 demotivating factors. As for the quantitative analysis of the obtained data, the factors of (de)motivation identified from respondents’ stories and gender were analyzed using frequency tables. To test whether there is an association between each individual factor and gender, Pearson’s chisquared test of association with a significance level of 0.05 was applied when conditions were met. In the case of factors that were very infrequent and more than 20% of expected values were under 5, Fisher’s exact test was applied. Statistical analysis was carried out in the SAS Enterprise Guide software. 778 A. Lašáková et al. What (de)motivates Gen Z women and Gen Z men at work? Comparative study... Figure 1. Factors of motivation as expressed by male and female respondents Note: Factors common for both men and women are displayed in the center. Unique factors specific for men only and women only are shown on the very left and right. Factors in bold are those that were identified by men and women with significantly different frequencies. Factors with the icons of the same color belong to the same cluster– a complete overview of factors can be found in Table A1 in Appendix. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2023, 24(4): 771–796 785 The importance of having convenient hours especially for women was proved, for example, in Sharabi (2014). Similarly, Kim and Gong (2017) provided evidence that particularly female managers demand flexible arrangement to alleviate work-family conflict. Another study by Wayne and Casper (2016) showed employer attractiveness was rated higher if familysupportive culture and work flexibility were provided, and that this effect was stronger for women students in their sample. Nevertheless, prior research by Halpern (2005) showed that the advantages connected with flexible work arrangements apply equally for men and women employees. Importantly, research by Arora etal. (2020) on Gen Z showed that it is actually the Gen Z men who attribute significantly greater importance to working hours and work-life balance. These outcomes, in connection with the results of our qualitative investigation, could indicate a gradual change in the young generation’s mindset, where the need for a better work-life balance is no longer women’s domain but also applies to the male part of the young population. Altruistic motives in Gen Z men. Our results indicate that Gen Z men are more attentive to this kind of motives than Gen Z women. Two factors related to altruism were identified in our research, namely helping others that occurred in men more often (though insignificantly) and having meaningful work that was significantly more frequently mentioned by men than by women. This is surprising since numerous studies indicate that women in general have a higher affinity to altruistic work orientation i.e., stewardship, helping others, others’ wellbeing, or having a job meaningful to community (e.g., Brinck etal., 2020; Konrad etal., 2000; Weisgram etal., 2011). Considering specifically the altruistic gender differences in Gen Z, studies are almost non-existent; yet, one study by Arora etal. (2020) showed insignificant differences between men and women. In addition, they found a somewhat lower importance ascribed to the altruistic motives in Gen Z in general (Arora etal., 2020). Our results show the same tendency since the two altruistic factors are among the less frequently expressed aspects of work motivation. A similar level of importance of altruistic values in Gen Z was noted for instance by Maloni etal. (2019) where these values ranked somewhere in the middle compared to other work values. Absence of the job security factor. Job security is an instrumental, extrinsic type of work motivator, which refers to a person’s relative certainty about not losing a job, predictability for the future and stable employment. This factor (or a set of items relating to job stability and fear of job loss) is often part of standardized quantitative surveys examining employee motivation. Results are, though, mixed. For instance, some studies show that women attribute similar importance to job security as men do (Sharabi & Harpaz, 2013), while others note the salience of fear from job loss especially in women (Štefko etal., 2017), whilst some studies indicate that compared to men, women are less likely to value job security (Tolbert & Moen, 1998). In any case, our qualitative research did not show that job security/job loss would play a significant role in the thinking of Gen Z males and females, as none of the respondents mentioned this issue in any way in the stories they produced. This implies that the factor of job stability is not an innate, essential part of Gen Z’s mental construction of work (de)motivation, at least in our sample. There are probably several possible causes, for instance, a hypothesized shift from traditional, extrinsic work values, including, among others, job stability and economic security, towards intrinsic and 786 A. Lašáková et al. What (de)motivates Gen Z women and Gen Z men at work? Comparative study... autonomy-related values, emphasizing self-development, growth, authenticity, and congruence of personal inclinations and talents with the content of one’s work. Another reason may be the youth of respondents and a certain fearlessness in relation to the future as well as personal freedom resulting from the absence of responsibilities associated with care for one’s own family. More research is needed to ascertain the meaning of job security in Gen Z and how this may change with age. 5. Practical implications The findings presented in this study bear several implications for organizational practice. Companies try to beware of the negative impact of high turnover, which might be even higher among the younger generation, as they are more likely to change jobs when dissatisfied (e.g., Barhate & Dirani, 2022; Zahari & Puteh, 2023). Generally, it is advisable to avoid unfounded stereotypical conclusions when dealing with female and male employees. Our research shows rather modest differences and the majority of the (de)motivators are perceived similarly. Nevertheless, our findings also indicate some distinctions that practitioners should consider. For instance, a somewhat greater focus on workplace relationships and social interactions among Gen Z women needs to be considered, as this is supported by our findings as well as previous studies. Remote work mode might also enhance the risk of social isolation or misunderstandings, so monitoring the quality of relationships is recommended. Preparing managers to interact with young Gen Z employees and understanding their expectations of the job is crucial, as poor relationships with managers can be a major cause of dissatisfaction for both men and women. The fact that pay or rewards are generally similarly important for men and women implies that transparent pay policies should be implemented, and analyses of the gender pay gap (such as the same-job-level type of analysis) are highly advisable to avoid inequality or injustice. Although extrinsic rewards can work as useful tools when managing young employees, companies should not focus exclusively on them, as motivation through work itself gains importance, especially among young Gen Z people. Interesting work and gaining new experiences as opposed to routine jobs can still be achieved through traditional approaches such as job rotation or various forms of job enlargement or enrichment, but there is also an untapped potential in the increasingly popular job crafting, which enables employees to make small changes to their jobs according to their preferences. Upskilling, one of the challenges in today’s workplace, is crucial not only to prepare employees for the ever-changing work demands brought about by new technologies, for example, but self-development and gaining new skills also prove to be motivating for young people irrespective of gender. Leaders should not underestimate the need for recognition among women since it might be even more important for them than for men. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2023, 24(4): 771–796 787 Conclusions The answers to the research questions (RQs) posed in the Introduction section can briefly be summarized as follows: – In general, there were more similarities than differences between Gen Z men’s and Gen Z women’s views of (de)motivating factors. Gen Z women tended to perceive the areas of both motivation and demotivation somewhat more broadly, being attentive to more factors than Gen Z men (RQ1). – Composition of the top ten of the most salient factors of (de)motivation differed only to a minor extent between Gen Z men and Gen Z women. Regarding the motivators, the distinction lies in the opportunity to make a meaningful difference at work that ranked in the top ten for men and the possibility for self-development in women. Concerning the composition of demotivators in the top ten, the only difference regarded wrong choice of career specific for the men’s top ten and having an unsuccessful workday as a subjectively felt momentary setback in the top ten in the women’s subsample (RQ2). – Motivators expressed exclusively by Gen Z women included meeting interesting people, receiving support from others, having a dream job (in the meaning of aligning personal preferences with the job content), an opportunity for career growth, receiving positive feedback for the work performed, adequate demands on the work to be done, the possibility of having short and flexible working hours, and gaining new experience through the job. Demotivators expressed only by Gen Z women involved the lack of support from others at the workplace, a work climate where ethics has no place, having a negative mindset (as a person), disappointment due to unfulfilled prior expectations, poor time management skills, dissatisfaction with oneself, lack of knowledge important for the work to be done, inability to see results of one’s work and zero self-development on the job. Motivators specific only for Gen Z men concerned a stress-free work environment and the presence of challenging work. Demotivators unique for Gen Z men regarded getting no benefits, high levels of bureaucracy at work, and getting zero empowerment (RQ3). – The statistically significant differences between the genders point to a higher attentiveness of Gen Z women to good interpersonal relationships at workplace (colleagues, boss, atmosphere), harmony between personal inclination and job content (dream job), having work that is not drowned in stereotype (aversion to routine), and receiving recognition (appreciation) for the outstanding work done, while Gen Z men pay significantly more attention to the opportunity to make a meaningful difference within their work, benefits provided by the organization, having a happy personal life, and no stress at work (RQ4). The research has several limitations. The results of a qualitative research approach have limited generalizability in the traditional positivistic sense of this term in social sciences. Besides, non-probability convenience-based sampling was used, and thus, the results are prone to bias, although the proportion of men and women largely copies the ratio in the overall business student population in the country. Nevertheless, this study was conceived as a quali- 788 A. Lašáková et al. What (de)motivates Gen Z women and Gen Z men at work? Comparative study... tative exploratory investigation, and the number of respondents and produced stories provide support for the saturation of the research questions. We tried to balance the limitations resulting from the given qualitative method by involving an additional quantitative statistical analysis of the occurrence of investigated factors. Other limitations primarily concern the nature of the sample. This research involved young people from one post-transformation country in Central Europe. Since there is a reasonable assumption that culture influences people’s motivation and work values, the results of this study can be perceived as culturally specific. On the other hand, considering the idea of gradual convergence of values in the young generation across different cultures as a result of globalization and cultural exchange, the outcomes presented could bear at least some informative value beyond the culture which our young sample comes from. Furthermore, the sample included only business students, and this could have influenced our results to some extent as well. Still, most of the respondents have had work experience by the time of the research in diverse industries, which could somewhat mitigate the bias in results. Lastly, since the multiplication of demographic variables was beyond the scope of this study, the absence of a more layered analysis including, for instance, socioeconomic status within Gen Z women and Gen Z men subsamples, could also be considered a limitation. Further research could ascertain whether and to what extent the results hold for males and females with various background characteristics in the Gen Z cohort. In addition to this possibility of expanding the scope of the extant research, our study also opens up other future research avenues. For instance, thanks to a large variety of the identified factors, this study may represent a solid basis for constructing a new quantitative measurement tool for mapping the level of motivation specifically in Gen Z employees, thereby improving a non-discriminatory and holistic approach to studying motivation across different generations. Furthermore, the original classification of (de)motivating factors, which derived directly from the respondents’ stories obtained through MEBS, might inform a future theory of motivation that would take into account the current societal changes and connected shifts in the employer-employee relationship. Additionally, cross-cultural comparative research using the MEBS method to investigate potential differences in the motivation of Gen Z genders in various cultures may shed new light onto the potential impact of the cultural background on motivation specifically in young people from different socio-cultural environments. Acknowledgements This paper was developed at Comenius University Bratislava, Faculty of Management, within the project VEGA No. 1/0441/21 (1,0 share). References Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002 Arora, S., Dubey, V., & Vyas, S. (2020). Study of work values of Gen Z students. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 8(3–4), 240–265. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTG.2020.112179 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2023, 24(4): 771–796 789 Barhate, B., & Dirani, K. M. (2022). Career aspirations of generation Z: A systematic literature review.European Journal of Training and Development,46(1/2), 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-07-2020-0124 Bieleń, M., & Kubiczek, J. (2020). Response of the labor market to the needs and expectations of Generation Z. E-mentor, 4(86), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.15219/em86.1486 Bohanek, J. G., & Fivush, R. (2010). Personal narratives, well-being, and gender in adolescence. Cognitive Development, 25(4), 368–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2010.08.003 Brinck, K. L., Hauff, S., & Kirchner, S. (2020). Is there a new meaning of work? The how and why of a change in altruistic work values in Germany between 1989 and 2016. Management Revue, 31(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2020-2-167 Causa, O.,Abendschein, M.,Luu, N.,Soldani E&Soriolo, Ch. (2022). The post-COVID-19 rise in labour shortages (OECD Economics Department Working Papers, 1721). https://doi.org/10.1787/e60c2d1c-en Cheung, C., & Scherling, S. A. (1999). Job satisfaction, work values, and sex differences in Taiwan’s organizations. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 133(5), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223989909599763 Chillakuri, B. (2020). Understanding Generation Z expectations for effective onboarding. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(7), 1277–1296. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-02-2020-0058 Chrancokova, M., Weibl, G., & Dokupilova, D. (2020). The brain drain of people from Slovakia. In K. Hammes, M. Machrafi, V. Huzjan (eds.), Economic and social development: Book of proceedings (pp. 320–329). Csank, P. A. R., & Conway, M. (2004). Engaging in self-reflection changes self-concept clarity: On differences between women and men, and lowand high-clarity individuals. Sex Roles, 50(7–8), 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000023067.77649.29 CVTI. (2021). Prehľad vysokých škôl. Centrum vedecko-technických informácií SR. https://www.cvtisr. sk/cvti-sr-vedecka-kniznica/informacie-o-skolstve/publikacie-casopisy.../zistovanie-kvalifikovanosti/prehlad-vysokych-skol.html?page_id=9573 De Cooman, R., & Dries, N. (2012). Attracting Generation Y: How work values predict organizational attraction in graduating students in Belgium. In Managing the new workforce (pp. 42–63). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857933010.00008 Deloitte (2022). Deloitte’s Gen Z and Millennial Survey reveals two generations striving for balance and advocating for change. https://www2.deloitte.com/cn/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/deloittes-gen-zand-millennial-survey-reveals-two-generations-striving-for-balance-and-advocating-for-change.html Duffy, R. D., & Sedlacek, W. E. (2007). The work values of first‐year college students: Exploring group differences. The Career Development Quarterly, 55(4), 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2007.tb00090.x Egerová, D., Komárková, L., & Kutlák, J. (2021). Generation Y and generation Z employment expectations: A generational cohort comparative study from two countries. E a M: Ekonomie a Management, 24(3), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.15240/tul/001/2021-03-006 Ettis, S. A. (2022). How do personal values help to build generation Y’s entrepreneurial intentions? The role of gender differences. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 37(1), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-02-2021-0035 Fratričová, J., & Kirchmayer, Z. (2018). Barriers to work motivation of Generation Z.Journal of Human Resource Management,21(2), 28–39. Ferenčíková, S. (2023). A hundred years of solitude and fight: careers in Slovakia across three generations in Central and Eastern Europe. In Understanding careers around the globe (pp. 203–212). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035308415.00032 790 A. Lašáková et al. What (de)motivates Gen Z women and Gen Z men at work? Comparative study... Gilbert, G. R., Burnett, M. F., Phau, I., & Haar, J. (2010). Does gender matter? A review of work-related gender commonalities. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 25(8), 676–699. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411011092336 Graczyk-Kucharska, M. & Erickson, S. (2020) A person-organization fit model of Generation Z: Preliminary studies. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 16(4), 149–176. https://doi.org/10.7341/20201645 Grow, J. & Yang, S. (2018). Generation-Z enters the advertising workplace: Expectations through a gendered lens. Journal of Advertising Education, 22(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098048218768595 Halpern, D. F. (2005). How time-flexible work policies can reduce stress, improve health, and save money. Stress and Health, 21(3), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1049 Hyrkäs, K., Appelqvist-Schmidlechner, K., & Kivimäki, K. (2005). First‐line managers’ views of the long‐term effects of clinical supervision: How does clinical supervision support and develop leadership in health care? Journal of Nursing Management, 13(3), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2004.00522.x Janíčko, M., & Šímová, Z. (2021). The role of family background, education and life changes in the work values of men and women in the Czech Republic. Social Studies, 17(4), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5817/SOC2021-15699 Jenkins, S. R. (1987). Need for achievement and women’s careers over 14 years: Evidence for occupational structure effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(5), 922–932. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.53.5.922 Jenkins, R. (2019). The generation Z guide. Ryan Jenkins LLC. Johnson, M. K. (2001). Change in job values during the transition to adulthood. Work and Occupations, 28(3), 315–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888401028003004 Kim, H., & Gong, Y. (2017). Effects of work–family and family–work conflicts on flexible work arrangements demand: A gender role perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(20), 2936–2956. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1164217 Kirchmayer, Z., & Fratričova, J. (2017). On the verge of generation Z: Career expectations of current university students. In Education excellence and innovation management through vision 2020 (pp.1575–1583), IBIMA, Vienna, Austria. Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E., Jr., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 593–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.593 Kultalahti, S (2017). Stories of engagement within Finnish Generation Y. Journal of Finish Studies, 20(2), 172–195. https://doi.org/10.5406/28315081.20.2.10 Kultalahti, S., & Viitala, R. L. (2014). Sufficient challenges and a weekend ahead– Generation Y describing motivation at work. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(4), 569–582. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-05-2014-0101 Kultalahti, S., & Viitala, R. (2015). Generation Y– challenging clients for HRM? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-08-2014-0230 Kupczyk, T., Rupa, P., Gross-Golacka, E., Urbanska, K. & Parkitna, A. (2021). Expectations and requirements of Generation Z towards salary. European Research Studies Journal, 24(4), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/2564 Lalić, D., Stanković, J., Bošković, D., & Milić, B. (2019). Career expectations of generation Z. International joint conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management (pp. 52–59). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43616-2_6 Lassleben, H., & Hofmann, L. (2023). Attracting Gen Z talents: Do expectations towards employers vary by gender?Gender in Management: An International Journal, 38(4), 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-08-2021-0247 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2023, 24(4): 771–796 791 Lechner, C. M., Sortheix, F. M., Göllner, R., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2017). The development of work values during the transition to adulthood: A two-country study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 99, 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.12.004 Lehtomäki, E., Janhonen-Abruquah, H., Tuomi, M. T., Okkolin, M. A., Posti-Ahokas, H., & Palojoki, P. (2014). Research to engage voices on the ground in educational development. International Journal of Educational Development, 35, 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2013.01.003 Lyons, S., Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (2005a). Are gender differences in basic human values a generational phenomenon? Sex Roles, 53(9–10), 763–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-7740-4 Lyons, S., Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (2005b, May 28–31). An empirical assessment of generational differences in work-related values. In Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences Association Canada (ASAC) Symposium (pp. 62–71), Toronto, Canada. Maloni, M., Hiatt, M. S., & Campbell, S. (2019). Understanding the work values of Gen Z business students.The International Journal of Management Education,17(3), Article 100320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2019.100320 Mesiäislehto, V., Katsui, H., & Sambaiga, R. (2021). Disparities in accessing sexual and reproductive health services at the intersection of disability and female adolescence in Tanzania. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), Article 1657. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041657 Neil, C. C., & Snizek, W. E. (1987). Work values, job characteristics, and gender. Sociological Perspectives, 30(3), 245–265. https://doi.org/10.2307/1389112 Ng, E. S., Posch, A., Köllen, T., Kraiczy, N., & Thom, N. (2022). Do “one-size” employment policies fit all young workers? Heterogeneity in work attribute preferences among the Millennial generation. BRQ Business Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/23409444221085587 Ng, E. S., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, great expectations: A field study of the millennial generation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4 Ngoc, T. N., Dung, M. V., Rowley, C., & Bach, M. P. (2022) Generation Z job seekers’ expectations and their job pursuit intention: Evidence from transition and emerging economy. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 14, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/18479790221112548 Ozkan, M., & Solmaz, B. (2015). The changing face of the employees– Generation Z and their perceptions of work (A study applied to university students). Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 476–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00876-X Rani, N., & Samuel, A. A. (2018). Understanding work values of Gen YA study on differences based on country of origin, gender and industry. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 21(4), 558–582. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBG.2018.095785 Reevy, G. M., & Maslach, C. (2001). Use of social support: Gender and personality differences. Sex Roles, 44, 437–459. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011930128829 Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure– Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society, 18(4), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265349 Samutachak, B., Darawuttimaprakorn, N., & Manajit, S. (2021). Dream life dream job: lifestyles that determine job search criteria of Generation Y college students in Thailand. International Journal of Business, 26(1), 61–83. Sánchez-Hernández, M. I., González-López, Ó. R., Buenadicha-Mateos, M. & Tato-Jiménez, J. L. (2019). Work-life balance in great companies and pending issues for engaging new generations at work. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(24), Article 5122. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245122 Särkelä, E., & Suoranta, J. (2020). The method of empathy-based stories as a tool for research and teaching. The Qualitative Report, 25(2), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4124 792 A. Lašáková et al. What (de)motivates Gen Z women and Gen Z men at work? Comparative study... Seemiller, C. & Grace, M. (2019). Generation Z: A Century in the Making. Routledge. Sharabi, M. (2014). Gender preferences of work values and the effect of demographic factors. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Organizational Studies, 8(2), 13–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888493020001001 Sharabi, M., & Harpaz, I. (2013). Changes of work values in changing economy: Perspectives of men and women. International Journal of Social Economics, 40(8), 692–706. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-01-2012-0018 Silva, J., & Carvalho, A. (2021). The work values of Portuguese generation z in the higher educationto-work transition phase. Social Sciences, 10(8), Article 297. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10080297 Song, Z., Yang, F., Boezeman, E. J., & Li, X. (2020). Do new-generation construction professionals be provided what they desire at work? A study on work values and supplies–values fit. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(10), 2835–2858. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-11-2019-0619 Sortheix, F. M., Dietrich, J., Chow, A., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). The role of career values for work engagement during the transition to working life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 466–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.07.003 Štefko, R., Bačík, R., Fedorko, R., Gavurová, B., Horváth, J., & Propper, M. (2017). Gender differences in the case of work satisfaction and motivation. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 16(1), 2015–2225. https://doi.org/10.17512/pjms.2017.16.1.18 Tien, H. -. S. (2011). An exploration of adult career interests and work values in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(4), 559–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9157-x Tolbert, P. S., & Moen, P. (1998). Men’s and women’s definitions of “good” jobs: Similarities and differences by age and across time. Work and Occupations, 25(2), 168–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888498025002003 Trentham, S., & Larwood, L. (1998). Gender discrimination and the workplace: An examination of rational bias theory. Sex Roles, 38(1–2), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018782226876 Uusiautti, S., Harjula, S., Pennanen, T., & Määttä, K. (2014). Novice teachers’ well-being at work.Journal of Educational and Social Research,4(3), 177–186. Vallerand, R. J., & Blssonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60(3), 599–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00922.x Van Rossem, A. (2021). Introducing a cognitive approach in research about generational differences: The case of motivation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(14), 2911–2951. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1616592 Vanhuysse, P. (2023). A governance perspective on East Central Europe’s population predicament: Young exit, grey voice and lopsided loyalty. Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1553/p-5gkf-6kn3 Verniers, C., & Vala, J. (2018). Justifying gender discrimination in the workplace: The mediating role of motherhood myths. PLoS ONE, 13(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190657 Wallin, A., Koro-Ljungberg, M., & Eskola, J. (2019). The method of empathy-based stories. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(5), 525–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2018.1533937 Wallin, A., Pylväs, L., & Nokelainen, P. (2020). Government workers’ stories about professional development in a digitalized working life. Vocations and Learning, 13, 439–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-020-09248-y Wayne, J. H., & Casper, W. J. (2016). Why having a family-supportive culture, not just policies, matters to male and female job seekers: An examination of work-family conflict, values, and self-interest. Sex Roles, 75(9–10), 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0645-7 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2023, 24(4): 771–796 793 Weisgram, E. S., Dinella, L. M., & Fulcher, M. (2011). The role of masculinity/femininity, values, and occupational value affordances in shaping young men’s and women’s occupational choices. Sex Roles, 65(3), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9998-0 Williams, C. L., Muller, C., & Kilanski, K. (2012). Gendered organizations in the new economy. Gender & Society, 26(4), 549–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243212445466 World Economic Forum. (2021). Chart: How Gen Z employment levels compare in OECD. https://www. weforum.org/agenda/2021/03/gen-z-unemployment-chart-global-comparisons/ Zahari, S. N. S., & Puteh, F. (2023). Gen Z workforce and job-hopping intention: A study among university students in Malaysia.Sciences,13(1), 902–927. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i1/15540 APPENDIX Table A1. Factors of motivation– frequencies by gender (test of association, α = 0.05) Men Women p-value Total % Good relationships and workplace good colleagues 37.32% 50.17% 0.0116 46.00% good relationship with boss 5.63% 12.88% 0.0208 10.53% work environment 8.45% 7.80% 0.8135 8.01% positive atmosphere 0.70% 5.08% 0.0224 3.66% interesting people to work with 0.00% 0.34% *1.0000 0.23% support from others 0.00% 0.34% *1.0000 0.23% Positive approach to work and satisfaction likes job 61.27% 54.92% 0.2091 56.98% good workday 1.41% 3.39% *0.3521 2.75% dream job 0.00% 3.39% *0.0346 2.29% optimistic work-related mindset 4.23% 1.02% *0.0639 2.06% job satisfaction 0.70% 1.36% *1.0000 1.14% self-satisfaction 0.70% 1.36% *1.0000 1.14% Energizing and stimulating work Challenging job content fulfilling job 25.35% 27.12% 0.6953 26.54% interesting tasks 1.41% 2.71% 0.5104 2.29% creative work 0.70% 1.36% *1.0000 1.14% new experience 0.00% 0.68% *1.0000 0.46% likes challenge 0.70% 0.00% *0.3249 0.23% Utilizing own talents self-development 3.52% 6.78% 0.1695 5.72% using own potential 1.41% 1.69% *1.0000 1.60% taking own initiative 0.70% 0.34% 0.5448 0.46% 794 A. Lašáková et al. What (de)motivates Gen Z women and Gen Z men at work? Comparative study... Men Women p-value Total % Meaningful work making a difference 4.93% 1.36% *0.0443 2.52% helping others 1.41% 1.02% *0.6617 1.14% Success and recognition Goals attainment job success 17.61% 27.12% 0.0293 24.03% sees results 1.41% 0.34% *0.2476 0.69% having set goals 0.00% 0.34% *1.0000 0.23% Praise appreciation 7.04% 14.58% 0.0239 12.13% positive feedback 0.00% 1.36% *0.3091 0.92% Formal acknowledgment of performance and results Adequate remuneration compensation 21.13% 19.32% 0.6581 19.91% benefits 2.11% 2.37% *1.0000 2.29% Professional development promotion 5.63% 8.47% 0.2925 7.55% career growth 0.00% 1.36% *0.3091 0.92% Relaxed pace at work Personal wellbeing work-life balance 4.34% 2.71% *0.3974 3.20% no stress 2.11% 0.00% *0.0338 0.69% return to the workplace from home office 0.70% 0.00% *0.3249 0.23% Comfortable hours short working hours 0.00% 1.02% *0.5542 0.69% flexible hours 0.00% 0.68% *1.0000 0.46% Feeling at ease at work mentally undemanding job 1.41% 0.34% *0.2476 0.69% adequate demands 0.00% 0.68% *1.0000 0.46% Unrelated to work personal success 2.82% 0.68% *0.0906 1.37% happy personal life 2.82% 0.34% *0.0404 1.14% good health 0.70% 0.34% *0.5448 0.46% weekend approaching 0.70% 0.00% *0.3249 0.23% Note: * Fisher’s exact test was used. End of Table A1