UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies Business School
GENERATION Y AND THEIR WORK MOTIVATION How do they perceive their own motivation towards work?
Master’s thesis International Business and Sales Management
Isa Väätäinen 291461 10 April 2019
FOREWORD
This master’s was created during the academic year of 2018-2019, at the University of Eastern Finland. Personally, I want to thank all of the individuals whom took a part in this process in one way or another. Special thanks goes to all the interesting Generation Y individuals whom shared their thoughts and views with me on the subject of work motivation. Another thank you goes to Professor Dr. Andreas Fürst whom supervised the project and offered his help and advice whenever needed. The biggest thank you though, goes to my loved ones, especially to my mom, who supported me throughout my studies.
Isa Väätäinen
Department of Business University of Eastern Finland
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Faculty
Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies
Department
Business School
Author
Isa Väätäinen
Supervisor
Dr. Andreas Fürst
Title
Generation Y and Their Work Motivation - How do they perceive their own motivation towards work?
Main subject
International Business and Sales Management
Level
Master’s thesis
Date
04/2019
Number of pages
87+5
Abstract
Purpose: This thesis aims to gain deeper understanding into the motivation of Generation Y individuals and the whether their perception of motivation aligns with previous literature and if Generation Y worker’s motivation significantly differs from previous generations to the extent, where organizational leaders and management need to make future adjustments to attend to their needs. The four-drive theory by Nohria, Groysberg and Lee was the main theory, which is used to examine Generation Y’s motivation in this thesis.
Methodology: The study is qualitative as the purpose of the study is not to generate a new theoretical framework, but rather gain further and detailed knowledge on workplace motivation within Generation Y. Twenty-two individuals within generation Y were interview for this study in the spring and summer of 2018 and the interviews were semi-structured. The aim of the interviews was to gather in-depth information on how the participating individuals perceived their own motivation towards work and to find underlying tones in their behavior, voices, facial expressions and other shown emotions to discover how and what motivates them in a workplace.
The participants were challenged into thinking about the subject as deeply as they could, which meant that already discussed topics were brought back up at different points of the interviews to see if participants views had broadened during the interview.
Findings:
The results of this study support the findings of previous studies and literature regarding Generation Y’s characteristics, which makes ensuring their full-potential motivation difficult for managers and organizations. The results also support the four-drive theory of motivation and show that all four drives are an essential part of motivating Generation Y individuals at work.
Key words
Motivation, HR, Generation Y, Work motivation, Generational differences
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO Tiedekunta
Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta
Yksikkö
Kauppatieteiden laitos
Tekijä
Isa Väätäinen
Ohjaaja
Dr. Andreas Fürst
Työn nimi
Y-sukupolvi ja työmotivaatio - Kuinka he kokevat oman motivaationsa työtä kohtaan?
Generation Y and Their Work Motivation - How do they perceive their own motivation towards work?
Pääaine
Kansainvälinen liiketoiminta ja myynnin johtaminen
Description
Pro gradu -tutkielma
Aika
04/2019
Sivuja
87+5
Tiivistelmä
Tämä Produ gradu -tutkielma pyrkii saamaan syvempää tietoa ja ymmärrystä Y-sukupolven työmotivaatiosta, ja siitä vastaako Y-sukupolven yksilöiden näkemys motivaatiosta aiempaa kirjallisuutta. Tarkastelussa on myös se, eroaako Y-sukupolven työmotivaatio niin selkeästi aiemmista sukupolvista, että organisaatioiden ja johdon tulisi reagoida asiaan muovaten organisaatioiden toiminta tapoja siihen sopivaksi. Four-drive motivaatio teoriaa käytetään tutkielman keskeisenä teoriana Y-sukupolven motivaatiota tarkastellessa.
Tutkimusmuotona käytetään kvalitatiivista, eli laadullista tutkimusmenetelmää, sillä tutkielman tarkoituksena ei ole luoda uutta teoreettista viitekehystä tai tietoa, vaan saada syvempää ja yksityiskohtaisempaa tietoa Y-sukupolven motivaatiosta ja erityisesti ymmärtää yksilöiden
näkemystä motivaatiostaan. Kaksikymmentäkaksi yksilö haastateltiin tutkielmaa varten keväällä ja kesällä 2018 käyttäen puolistrukturoituja haastatteluita. Haastatteluiden tarkoituksena oli kerätä syvällistä tietoa siitä, kuinka hakijat kokivat oman motivaationsa työtä kohtaan ja löytää jopa piilossa olevia vivahteita yksilöiden motivaatiosta tarkkailemalla heidän käytöksestään, ilmeistään, äänensävyistä ja muista näkyvistä tunnereaktioista, joita aihe työmotivaatio aiheutti. Osallistujia haastettiin miettimään aihetta mahdollisimman syvästi, jonka vuoksi jo keskusteltuihin aihealueisiin palattiin haastatteluiden aikana, jotta nähtiin, oliko yksilön ajatukset tietystä osa-alueesta
muuttuneet tai laajentuneet keskustelun syventyessä.
Tutkimuksen tulokset tukevat aiempia tutkimustuloksia, sekä Y-sukupolvelle ominaisten piirteiden sekä Four-drive motivaatio teorian osalta, sillä kaikki teorian osa-alueet osoittautuivat tärkeiksi osiksi Y-sukupolven yksilöiden työmotivaatiota.
Avainsanat
Motivaatio, HR, Y-sukupolvi, työmotivaation, sukupolvien eroavaisuudet
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ... 8
1.1 Academic Rationale ... 8
1.2 Personal Rationale ... 8
1.3 Overview of work motivation and Generation Y ... 9
1.4 Research questions ... 11
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 12
2.1 Motivation ... 12
2.2 Classic motivation theories ... 13
2.3 Work motivation ... 14
2.4 Four-drive theory (Nohria et al. 2008) ... 15
2.4.1 Overview ... 15
2.4.2 The drive to acquire ... 16
2.4.3 The drive to bond ... 17
2.4.4 The drive to learn ... 17
2.4.5 The drive to bond ... 18
2.5 Four-drive theory (Shafi, Khemka and Choudhury 2015). ... 18
2.6 Generations, motivation and workplace ... 20
2.6.1 Generations ... 20
2.6.2 Generation Y ... 20
2.6.3 Generation Y workforce ... 21
2.6.4 Other generations: Generation X, Baby Boomers, Traditionalists and Generation Z ... 22
2.6.5 Multigenerational Workplace: The four generations and workplace motivation ... 23
2.7 Conclusion of the literature ... 25
3. METHODOLOGY, DATA AND ANALYSIS METHOD ... 27
3.1 Research set-up ... 27
3.2 Researcher’s Role ... 27
3.3 Research philosophy: Interpretivism ... 28
3.4 Research approach: Deductive ... 28
3.5 Research methodology: Qualitative interpretation ... 29
3.6 Research strategy: Phenomenological ... 29
3.7 Research design: Cross-sectional ... 29
3.8 Primary data collection: Semi-structured interviews ... 30
3.9 Data collection and pilot study ... 30
3.10 Sample: Convenience sampling ... 31
3.11 Recoding and transcribing interviews ... 32
3.12 Data analysis technique: Qualitative content analysis ... 32
3.13 Categorization and coding scheme ... 33
3.14 Interpretation ... 36
3.15 Ethical considerations ... 36
3.16 Reliability, validity and generalizability ... 37
4. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ... 38
4.1 Perception of motivation ... 38
4.1.1 Overall perception of motivation ... 38
4.1.2 Job satisfaction and motivation ... 38
4.1.3 Perception of motivators ... 38
4.2 Different life situations and motivation ... 40
4.2.1 Gender ... 40
4.2.3 Marital status and children ... 41
4.2.4 Educational background ... 42
4.2.5 Current work situation and position ... 43
4.2.6 Current income ... 44
4.2.7 Job satisfaction ... 44
4.2.8 Other life situations ... 45
4.3 Four drives and motivation ... 46
4.3.1 Drive to acquire ... 46
4.3.1.1 Monetary pay ... 46
4.3.1.2 Other extrinsic benefits ... 48
4.3.1.3 Advancing at work ... 49
4.3.2 Drive to bond ... 50
4.3.2.1 Work atmosphere and encouragement ... 51
4.3.2.2 Colleagues, being a member of a team and friendships ... 52
4.3.3 Drive to learn ... 56
4.3.3.1 Direct learning and challenges ... 56
4.3.3.2 Intrinsic rewards ... 60
4.3.4 Drive to defend ... 64
4.3.4.1 Job security ... 65
4.3.4.2 Values and ethics ... 68
4.3.5 Missing drives of motivation ... 71
4.3.6 Greatest differences and putting drives in order ... 73
4.4 Summary of the results ... 74
4.4.1 Life situations and motivation. ... 74
4.4.2 The drive to acquire ... 74
4.4.3 The drive to bond ... 75
4.4.4 Drive to learn ... 75
4.4.5 Drive to defend ... 76
4.4.6 Results compared to previous literature ... 77
4.4.7 The four-drive theories and the results ... 78
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 80
5.1 Managerial implication ... 80
5.2 Limitations ... 80
5.3 Recommendations for future research ... 80
6. LIST OF REFERENCES ... 81
7. APPENDICES ... 1
Appendix A: Interview structure ... 1
Appendix B: Participants ... 3
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Academic Rationale
Human resource professionals, researchers and managers are now more interested than ever about how to manage a multigenerational workforce. A long struggle with finding the perfect management strategies for employees is still ongoing. This task of finding the right management styles comes increasingly difficult as the current and future workforce consists of members from different generations; Baby Boomers, Generation X, Generation Y and even Generation Z. A lot of interest in the area is based on the assumption that generations significantly differ in their goals, expectations and work values, meaning that what motivates them and how they are motivated also differs from one another (Sutton Bell and Narz 2007;
Smola and Sutton 2002). Although this assumption is very much noted and written about, there is relatively little empirical evidence to support it (Cennamo and Gardner 2008). Generation Y, also known as the Millenials and Net Generation (Alch 2000), are currently the largest living and working generation, which makes research into them highly important in hopes of finding the best ways to motivate them in the workplace (Barford and Hester 2011). The aim of this research project is to examine what are the key motivational aspects that need to be focused on in order to motivate Generation Y individuals at a workplace, and whether the four-drive theory (Nohria et al. 2008) and the four-drive model (Shafi et al. 2015) are applicable when it comes to work motivation of Generation Y.
1.2 Personal Rationale
I first came across questions about work motivation during my university placement year, when I worked for an organization that had very little interest in the well-being and motivation of their employees. This organization, in my eyes, failed to motivate their employees to a point where they would have felt a sense of belonging or any kind of obligation towards the organization to improve their work. I personally, was not satisfied with my job, even though I felt like the organization would have had the perfect setting to make this happen. As I discovered that I was not alone with my feelings of demotivation, it inspired me to conduct a small research during my placement, which could possibly improve the experience of future students working there. Following this non-academic research, which I did with the help of my placement year coordinator, I was still highly interested to discover what motivated me personally. During the work placement year I learned that I did not care as much about extrinsic rewards as I had previously thought, and intrinsic aspects such as being able to challenge
myself, feel a sense of belonging and to feel appreciated, felt highly important. I started to wonder whether I was alone feeling like this, or if my feelings towards motivation would be common amongst my generation and if our motivational drivers differ from the previous generations. I did my bachelor thesis on the same subject, and conducted a quantitative research exploring what motivates Generation Y within a workplace. The results of the quantitative research showed that in order to motivate Generation Y individuals, several different aspects of motivation needed to be satisfied in order for them to feel motivated and the importance of intrinsic rewards were highlighted. The results also showed that there was a difference between Generation Y workers and Generation X workers when it came to their work motivation. The subject still fascinates me, and I wanted to gain deeper knowledge and understanding regarding the motivation of Generation Y. This lead me into this master thesis project; a qualitative research into motivation of Generation Y. Overall the goal is not to gain statistics or generalization, or even to compare Generation Y individuals to previous generations. The main goal of this master thesis to try to understand the behavior of individuals within Generation Y and gain deeper understanding into how they are motivated within a workplace and whether their views and understanding regarding their own motivation are unified.
1.3 Overview of work motivation and Generation Y
Work motivation is a set of forces, which originate both within as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related behavior and to determine its direction, duration, form and intensity (Pinder 1998). So why is work motivation so important to understand? According to Simon (1997), the most basic challenge for any organization is getting their employees to work towards mutual goals. This gets even more difficult by the simple fact that motives are not permanent, and many things such as social context and culture (Korzynski 2013; Matei 2013) affect them. Organizational, technological and generational changes also add their own difficulties to the subject (Korzynski 2013). Psychological factors, such as job satisfaction, commitment and work engagement have been recognized as extremely important to establish the full effectiveness of employees (Meyer et al. 1993; Sonnentag 2003). All of these concepts are closely related to motivation and overlap to great extent in literature.
A generation can be defined as an identifiable group, or cohort, which shares birth years, age, location, and significant life events at critical development stages (Kupperschmidt 2008).
Palase, et al. (2006) categorize generations as those born within the same historical timeframe and culture, and Crumpacker and Crumpacker (2007) add that the birth rate, and the historical
events surrounding them, defines each generation. Differences between generations are most often explained with changes due to experience, ageing as well as life and career stages.
Nevertheless, since there has been many changes to work and each generation was introduced to working life at a different period, it can be assumed that work value difference can exist between generations (Cennamo and Gardner 2008). These differences between different generations are manifested in beliefs and values about work, work ethics, work related goals as well as what is expected from work (Smola and Sutton 2002).
Generation Y, most often defined as individuals born between 1980 and 2000, is no longer the newest generation to have entered the workforce, as some Generation Z members have already made their way to professional life, but Generation Y is the largest generation since the baby boomers (Cennamo and Gardner 2008) and are now dominating the workforce. As the members of Generation Y have not been part of the workforce for too long, there has been limited opportunity to truly study and understand their work values. Circumstantial information characterizes individuals of Generation Y as ones to value work-life balance, career development, learning and social aspects of work more than any previous generation (Smola and Sutton 2002; Wong et al. 2008). Since Generation Y will be dominating the workforce for at least the next decade or two, it is important for managers and human resource management professionals to understand how to assist the individuals within Generation Y in order to flourish as professionals, in order to secure good organizational performance.
In the workforce, Generation Y individuals are result-oriented and often enjoy pressure, as well as show significant interests for working in teams and being collaborative (Shih and Allen 2007). Similarly, to their preceding generation, Generation Y members have partitioned themselves away from the organization (Dries et al. 2008) as they acknowledge that lifetime employment at any organization is highly unlikely, and this might have an effect on their organizational commitment level and motivation. Generation Y individuals can be viewed as much more difficult to motivate and manage compared to the previous generations as they expect multiple changes of workplace during their lifetime (Morton 2002); Kim et al.2009).
Generation Y individuals also have a lot of demands and expectations such as their talents to be utilized and appreciated (Kim et al. 2009; Weingarten 2009), continuous professional development and proactive career planning (Westerman and Yamamura 2007; Kim et al. 2009) as well as lifelong learning (Alch 2000).
1.4 Research questions
RQ1. How do individuals within Generation Y view and perceive their work motivation?
RQ2. How are individuals within Generations Y motivated?
RQ3. Is the four-drive theory applicable to Generation Y and their work motivation?
Do Generation Y individuals view all drives important when it comes to their work motivation?
RQ4. Which drives motivate Generation Y individuals at work the most, and what the least?
RQ5. Does individual’s life situation have an effect on their perception of work motivation?
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Firstly, this chapter defines motivation and explore classic motivation theories such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943), Herzberg’s two-factor theory (1973) and Vroom’s expectancy theory (1964). In addition, it will introduce a more recent theory of motivation: the four-drive theory by Nohria et al. (2008) and the research by Shafi et al. (2015) which continued on the work of Nohria et al. The introduction of the four-drive theory will be followed by a more detailed look into the concept of work motivation, which will lead into a deeper investigation of the four-drive theory. Following a detailed overview of the four-drive theory, the chapter will take a more detailed look into work motivation, before moving on to exploring generational differences in work motivation. Generation Y will be defined followed by an examination of their attitudes towards work along with their work motivation. The preceding generations Traditionalist, Baby Boomer and Generation X, as well as the newest addition to the workforce Generation Z, are all defined and examined, in order to make some comparison between the generations.
2.1 Motivation
The word motivation is derived from the Latin word “movere”, which means “the drive to do something” (Steer et al. 2004). Matei (2013) defined motivation as the force that acts in each individual making it choose and action or another. Psychology is not the only field that is interested in the extensive topic of motivation, as it has been widely studied in the field of business as well in attempts to determine what drives employees within a working environment.
Padmaja (2013) describes motivation to be something that drives an individual forward, moving them towards a goal and Luthans 1998) explains motions to be the process that energizes, directs, arouses and sustains behavior and performance. The age-old question of “why do workers work” has been asked for decades as well as “why managers need to motivate employees” (Herzberg 1959). According to Smith (1994), these questions are vital for the survival of any company or organization. If a company would know why its employees come to work on time, are productive and stay with the company, it would be possible to ensure all employees behaving the same way (Kovach 1987). Lindner (1998) emphasizes that motivated employees help organizations to survive rapidly changing workplaces, and that the most complex function of managers is to motivate employees, because what motivates employees changes constantly. In the past few decades, work motivation as a subject has been getting increased interest, due to the fading productivity and immense demographic changes within
many organizations. The demographic changes especially highlight the increasing need for more innovative approaches when it comes to developing, motivating, and retaining valuable human resource practices (Katzell and Thompson 1990).
2.2 Classic motivation theories
Researchers have tried to find the answers to questions regarding work motivation by using motivation theories, which most derive from of the classic motivation theories such as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Herzberg’s two factor theory. Before understanding motivation in a work environment, these theories of basic human motivation must be looked at.
The earliest theories of both motivation and work motivation can be characterized as being simplistic, such as Taylor’s scientific management (1911) simplifying it all to “pay people for being good workers or fire them for being otherwise”.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943) with its five levels, claims that individuals are not motivated by satisfying their needs, but rather motivated by their unsatisfied needs. The theory also suggests that the lower-level needs, such as physiological need much first be satisfied, before higher level needs are addressed. In 1972, Alderfer condensed Maslow’s five levels of needs into three levels, in this ERG theory, in which he also suggested that there is not a specific order in which the motivational needs need to be satisfied. On the contrary to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Herzberg’s claims in his Two-Factor Theory (1959) that individuals are not content with the satisfaction of lower-level needs at work. According to Herzberg, individuals rather look for gratification of higher-level psychological needs, having to do with recognition, advancement, achievement, responsibility and the nature of work itself. In 1973, Herzberg added more to his theory, by proposing that the presence of one set of job characteristics or incentives leads to employee satisfaction, while another and separate set of job characteristics leads to dissatisfaction at work.
In 1964, Vroom’s Expectancy Theory took the social context out of work motivation all together claiming that rewards were the greatest motivator and in 1968 Locke stated that hedonism, the principle of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain was the main driving force of human behavior and motivation. McClelland (1965) focused on the need for achievement, power and affiliation as the main drivers for motivation. In 1965, Adam’s Equity Theory argued that individuals expect a balance between their contribution and the outcome they obtain at work, and if there is inequity, they adjust their behavior to reduce inequity. Additional work in the field also takes the justice of the decision process into account and suggests that individuals
react against their organization if they perceive an injustice, which is both distributive and procedural (Greenberg and Folger 1985).
Several of the motivation theories and concepts emerging from the 1960’s and 1970’ have been developed further in the more recent year. The previously mentioned motivational theories are an important stepping-stone and guide towards recent theories in the field of motivation.
Harvard scholars Nohria, Groysberg and Lee (2008) described a new model for motivation, and especially for work motivation. They defined overall motivation as a set of four components:
engagement, commitment, satisfaction and the intention to stay within the company or quit. In addition, the researchers outlined these components into four essential drives that underlie motivation: the drive to acquire, the drive to bond, the drive to learn and the drive to defend.
Their argument is that in order to increase and to maintain employee’s motivation, all of the four drives need to be satisfied. The researchers also highlighted that the role of direct management with all the drives can create a highly motivating local environment through praise, recognition and encouragement to teamwork.
2.3 Work motivation
Herzberg (1973) defined motivation in the workplace as simply as “performing a work related action because you want to”. The research into motives is viewed to be the most important problem in the historical evolution of personality’s psychology (Donelson 2009), and the true problem in finding the right answers to the questions regarding motivation is the fact that motives are not permanent. Motives change; they can be changed by other motives, and the same behavior can be determined by several different motives. Motives are also highly affected by social context (Korzynski 2013) and culture (Mateo). Then major changes over the recent decades and years such as generational, technological and organizational change have to be considered as affecters of the working environment when gazing into employee motivation (Korzynski 2013). The main reason behind work motivation theories is to provide procedures and guidelines, which can assist organizations in influencing their employees better and to increase their enthusiasm and motivation (Furnham et al. 2009). Motivation is often divided into having two forms: intrinsic motivation (i.e. doing an activity because on finds it interesting and satisfying) and extrinsic motivation (i.e. doing an activity for purely an instrumental reason) (Lawrence and Jordan 2009). Research shows strong evidence that work motivation increases job well-being (Fernet et al. 2010) and positively influences job performance (Springer 2011), and that both of them are influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic motivators such as social
recognition and performance feedback (Van-Dijk and Kluger 2004), work content (Houkes et al. 2001) and basic monetary rewarding (Stajkovic and Luthans 2001).
Work motivation has been a topic of researchers for decades, and it is still being pursued, mainly due to its link to employee work performance, well-being (Ryan and Deci 2000) and the recent and major generational changes within the workforce have played a part. It is fairly obvious, that having highly motivated as well as healthy employees is highly important from a company perspective, both in the short and in the long run (Björklund and Lohela-Karlsson 2013).
Research has shown, that highly motivated employees can significantly increase and organizations productivity and success, whereas low levels of motivation within employees is associated with increased costs for the organization due to low levels of performance and health within employees (Harter et al. 2002; Brief and Weiss 2002). A study by Björklund and Lohela- Karlsson (2013) found that even quite small changes in work motivation affect exhaustion and well-being of workers either positively or negatively. Crumpton (2013) emphasizes the importance of managers and supervisors actively coaching employees in order to keep them motivated. With active coaching, Crumpton means giving positive feedback and rewarding food behaviors, publicly recognizing ones efforts, providing incentives (monetary and non- monetary), leading by example and demonstrating willingness to be a part of the team, actively listening to what is being said and responding accordingly as well as asking questions and showing interest among with empathy. These basic, but vital motivation techniques are something that managers and supervisors may actively use during normal work environments, but keeping employees motivated during difficult times and abnormal situations makes executing all of the mentioned techniques challenging. In addition to this, finding the right balance between the techniques alongside dealing with a diverse workforce can be difficult.
2.4 Four-drive theory (Nohria et al. 2008)
2.4.1 Overview
Scholars Nohria, Groysberg and Lee (2008) explore motivation through the four-drive model of employee motivation, which is based on the previous work by Lawrence and Nohria (2002).
“Driven: How Human Nature Shapes Our Choices”, a book by Lawrence and Nohria introduces four drivers to human motivation; the drives to acquire, to bond, to learn and to defend. The scholars argue that these four drives are central to the nature of all humans, and that the drives play a vital role in all human choices. What started the theory was questioning what essentially drives people as human beings? It was felt by the scholars, that the age-old question has even
greater significance today, as the world is continuously moving from an old industrial economy to a new information centered economy, which has transformed practically everything. The change towards an information-centered economy started the dismantling of old hierarchical forms of work organizations, transforming them into more long-term employment relationships and flexible organization forms that favor networking. Lawrence and Nohria believe that in order seize the opportunities of the changing society; a concrete understanding of human nature must be established. In terms of any organization or business, this means that the management must find out what motivates their employees in order to transform their policies accordingly.
In 1987, Rousseau stated that the only way for organizations and institutions to flourish, is if they are founded on a “social contract” which allows people to pursue their individual and collective interest to the fullest degree possible. This view aligns with Lawrence and Nohria, as they believe that these social contracts are a vital building block of any social institution, starting from the family, to the business organization, all the way to state.
Whereas Adam Smith (1759) viewed human beings as selfish, whose only goal is to maximize their own self-interest, Lawrence and Nohria’s (2002) four-drive model argues that fulfilling the drive to acquire is not enough for humans to be satisfied and motivated. In context of a workplace, this means that an employee would not be satisfied nor well motivated after acquiring a promotion if for example the social aspects of the job would not be met. In an organization, the four-drive theory suggests that each and every person, from the very top of the organization such as the CEO, to the most junior employee, will bring a predictable set of mental equipment to work each and every day, and that their primary goal is to fulfill all the four drives. Lawrence and Nohria claim that all of the four drives are universal as well as innate, and they are present in some physical form in the brains of all human beings. The four drives are independent, in the sense that the goals, which the drives seek, are not interchangeable with one another, but they do interact with one another. In the most perfect setting and scenario in an organization would be that every single job role would provide the employees the opportunity to fulfill these drives to reasonable degree.
2.4.2 The drive to acquire
The drive to acquire might be seen as the simplest one of the drives to understand as well as to fulfill, but the drive is about not only satisfying the physical needs such as money, food and clothing, but also allowing an individual to enjoy experiences like travel and entertainment. In an organizational context, fulfilling the drive would include improving social status such as
being promoted or getting new benefits. The drive to acquire most often relative, as people have the habit of concretely comparing what they have with what others possess, and limitless since humans have the tendency of always wanting more. This is why employees are very often also curious about their colleague’s compensation and other benefits, not just their own (Nohria et al.2008).
2.4.3 The drive to bond
The drive to bond is an intrinsic drive, which presents itself within humans in their desire to form social relationships and develop mutual commitments with other humans. The only way that the drive can actually be fulfilled, is if the attachment between two or more individuals is mutual. Experiencing strong negative emotions is common, when social bonds are broken, especially in situations when it has been unexpected. For example, employees have reported experiencing deeps sense betrayal, shock and even anger when being laid off from IMB, which was once very well known for its loyalty towards its employees. Studies have shown, that when these bonds are broken, it has an effect on all parties involved. Studies of companies, which have downsized found that the “survivors” of employee reduction often suffer from severe feelings of quilt and have a lot of sympathy of those who were laid off (Lawrence and Nohria 2002). Simon (1991) suggested that the only reasonable way to explain why employees exert any more than the minimum effort to their work which can be enforced and monitored, is that humans are either fundamentally obedient in nature or they drive value from sociability and being a member of an organization. The claims by Simon support the views of Lawrence and Nohria regarding the drive to bond, as drive to bond is an crucial addition to the more self- interested drive to acquire.
2.4.4 The drive to learn
In addition to the drives to acquire and to bond, humans have an innate drive, which seeks to satisfy their endless curiosity to know, to comprehend, to appreciate, to believe, to develop understanding or representations of their environment and of themselves through a reflective process (Lawrence and Nohria 2002) and this all manifests itself in the drive to learn. The drive to learn can quite clearly be seen as the basis of intrinsic rewards, such as studied by Herzberg.
For a long time, the importance of satisfying the drive to learn has been recognized in attempt to developing the right job designs (Lawrence and Nohria 2002). When the drive to learn is not satisfied, workers feel frustration, where are jobs which provide the opportunity to fulfill the drive to learn are more satisfying. The drive is all about full-filling the individuals need for
learning and challenging oneself, which displays in various ways. In an organization, it is also greatly linked with feeling valued, appreciated and needed, as well as being able to express oneself.
2.4.5 The drive to bond
The fourth and the last drive is the drive to defend, which manifests itself in humans as their desire to defend themselves as well as their valued accomplishments whenever they feel them to be threatened (Lawrence and Nohria 2002). The emotions provoked from the drive as experienced is variety of ways such as fear escalading to terror, anxiety turned into panic, loneliness turned to depression or loss followed by despair. The drive also demonstrates itself in an organizational context as a construct to create institutions, which promote justice, that have clear goals, ideologies and intentions, and which allow their members to express and voice their ideas and opinions (Nohria et al. 2008). In the case that threats are experienced over long periods at a workplace, individuals may slip into a chronic defensive mode, which is expressed, by passive behavior, helplessness and ever-severe health and performance consequences (Lawrence and Nohria 2002).
2.5 Four-drive theory (Shafi, Khemka and Choudhury 2015).
Following Nohria et al. with their four-drive theory to motivation (2008), Shafi, Khemka and Choudhury continued on the subject with a quantitative study in 2015. Shafi et al. believe that previous motivation theories leave unanswered questions. They view motivation as something that cannot be induced. The scholars even think that over the last few decades’ there seems to have been loss of interest in the subject by researchers, as very little serious study has been introduced in the area. The scholars state that the four-drive theory they present is far more comprehensive than other motivation theories and it offers an explanation to human behavior with fair justification. Their study established human conduct to be driven by all the four drives, which may work in conjunction with one another. The main finding of the scholars was that all four drives are present in individuals, and only thing that varies is how much impact each of the drives has, which they believe may be due to variation in sociocultural background, education as well as economic and employment status.
Differing from the work of Lawrence and Nohria (2002) and Nohria et al.’s (2008), Shafi et al.
2015 introduce the four drives as sensual, material, emotional and spiritual. The sensual drive is essentially focuses on satisfying desires of consumption or attainment. Any satisfaction through the five senses would be in the sensual drive. The sensual drive is comparable with the
drive to acquire by Nohria et al. Material drive manifests most economic activities. These included activities in which people engage in purely for material gain and benefit. The material drive is comparable with the drive to learn and to comprehend. Emotional drive is about one’s engagement in various activities to ensure their emotional well-being or take care of their social and affiliation needs. The emotional drive is comparable with the drive to bond. Spiritual drive goes deeper into human behavior and it can be found within all three previous drives. Differing from the other drives, the spiritual drive may defy logic as it is about accepting the fact that certain acts do not lead to an individual’s “personal” benefit. The spiritual drive is comparable with the drive to defend. Shafi et al. 2015 emphasize how all the drives are linked to one another. Although the scholars do not link their theory in with Nohria et al.’s (2008) four-drive theory, the two theories are very much alike.
In their discussion and comparison of their model with previous theories, Shafi et al. believe that “Hierarchy of Needs” by Abraham Maslow comes closest to their model, and the drives align with Maslow’s theory. In contrary to Maslow’s theory, the scholars do not believe in the hierarchy of the drivers, but see them all as equals. They emphasize how age, culture, gender, and level of achievement have a major effect on motivation, and they believe that this is something that previous theories have not focused on. They also believe that despite age, culture etc. affecting motivation, all four drives presented work simultaneously regardless of these factors. The scholars also state that the drives can be strengthened and developed. They emphasize that the theory does not seek to categorize people or behavior, nor predict human behavior. It seeks to understand how individuals and societies can change their responses according to situations and behavior through a better understanding of their key drives.
In their study, the scholars found that age was a significant parameter with all four drives and income and marital status were not significant for any of the four drives. Education and occupation played a smaller role, as both were significant parameters for two drives. The results also show that different drives may work together, for example in a situation where an individual is striving to earn more money, material and emotional drives may join forces as the objective is not just to earn cold hard cash, but also to ensure comfort and happiness through a better income. In conclusion, the scholars believe that their new model is far more comprehensive than previous motivation theories, and it explains a large part of human behavior with reasonable justifications. They acknowledge that further studies are needed in order to fully test the model, and especially the sample size needs to be much bigger.
Socioeconomic parameters would also have to be considered more thoroughly and broken up
into various subcategories, and the sample should cover individuals from multiple cultures and socioeconomic backgrounds.
2.6 Generations, motivation and workplace
2.6.1 Generations
Before diving into specific generations, generation as a basic concept needs a definition.
Generation can defined as an identifiable group, or a cohort, which shares, age, location, birth year and most significant life events at critical development stages of their lives (Kupperschmidt 2000). Palese et al. (2006) simplify this definition, but stating generation being those born within the same historical timeframe and culture. Crumpacker and Crumpacker (2007) continue that each generation shares the same experiences or at least is aware of them, as they mature and advance through different stages of life. Crumpacker and Crumpacker though explain that not every person in a generation experiences these events personally, and Weingarten (2009) continues by stating that caution needs to be taken when stereotyping individuals based on generational values and characteristics. Even though there is no perfect agreement on the years and the events that unify different generations, there is a strong consensus and satisfactory evidence among researchers and published sources to define different generations (Berk 2013).
2.6.2 Generation Y
Generation Y most commonly seen as the individuals born between 1980 and 2000 (Cennamo and Gardner 2008; Sayers 2007; Weingarten 2009) but views on this differ, and it has yet been decided when Generation Y either begins or ends (Crumpacker and Crumpacker 2007;
Broadbridge et al. 2007; Hess and Jepsen 2009; Smola and Sutton 2002). Although, to this date, the literature on the topic of Generation Y, or the Millenials as they are also called, has been particularly normative in nature, but there are rather recent empirical evidence on Generation Y having special attributes which separate them from previous generations (Solnet et al. 2012;
Furnham et al.2009 and Wong et al. 2008). Generation Y are no longer the most recent, but definitely the largest generation to enter the workforce. They possess high levels of confidence and optimism, paired with expectations for instant feedback and constant recognition (Crumpacker and Crumpacker 2007). Smith (2010) argues that the most significant characteristic of Generation Y employees, which separates them from previous generations, is their extremely technologically oriented approach to life as they have grown up surrounded by technology and many of them no longer could even survive without it. Smola and Sutton (2002)
describe Generation Y to be socially very active and talented, which may have been influenced by the technology they have been surrounded by. Generation Y is also characterized to be very comfortable with change (Hart and Brossard 2002) and eager to develop their skill as well as to take on new challenges at work (Wong et al. 2008).
2.6.3 Generation Y workforce
As workers, Generation Y exhibits the tendency and preference for working in teams while being collaborative as well as result-oriented (Shih and Allen 2007). Generation Y individuals are well aware of the fact that lifetime employment is very unlikely which makes them even less committed to the organizations they work for than previous generations (Dries et al. 2008), and they expect their workplace and job to change often during their professional lives (Kim, Knight and Crutsinger 2009; Morton 2002). At a workplace these individuals also expect the ability an possibility to learning and development (Alch 2000) on top of extensive on-the-job training (Morton 2002) as they recognize that in order to remain marketable they need to continuously and proactively plan their own careers and professional development (Kim et al.
2009; Westerman and Yamamura 2007). As Generation Y workers are often highly educated, they are also very achievement-oriented (Berk 2013). Work-life balance is highly important for Generation Y individuals (Crumpacker and Crumpacker 2007) and the goal is to both achieve professional satisfaction and success as well as personal freedom (Sayers 2007). Generation Y workers are great at multitasking, especially when it comes to utilizing technology to their advantage (Freifield 2007) and they may change a job task significantly to create a more appealing outcome for themselves as well as for the organization (Wrzesniewski and Dutton 2001). These individuals expect freedom when it comes to their work, as trust that they will get the job done, but they also need clear directions as well as managerial support and assistance (Martin 2005; Morton 2002). Generation Y workers are fast and efficient, and they despise micromanagement and get highly irritated with slowness and laziness (Weingarten 2009).
Crumpacker and Crumpacker (2007) highlight Generation Y’s need to constant approval and appraisal, as they expect continuous feedback for their work in order to remain motivated.
According to a study by Bartford and Hester (2011) into motivation of Generation Y, Generation Y individuals required advancement possibilities and potential much more than Generation X and Baby Boom individuals. In the same study, it was also noted that the importance of compensation was significantly lower, whereas their need for free time was much higher.
2.6.4 Other generations: Generation X, Baby Boomers, Traditionalists and Generation Z
Generation X, generally seen to be born between 1960 and 1980, are most typically characterized as individualistic, cynical and pessimistic (Kupperschmidt 2000; Smola and Sutton). As member of an organization and as employees, Generation X individuals are said not to display loyalty, and they are likely to leave one job to see out a higher salary, improved benefits or more challenging and rewarding options (Hays 1999; Lyons and Kuron 2014).
Generation X employees work to live and they view personal values and goals to be more important than work-related goals (Zopiatis et al. 2012). Individualistic Generation X members do not often find enjoyment in teamwork, collaborations or meetings, as they are self-sufficient, self-reliant and usually prefer to work alone (Schullery 2013). Keeping personal lives separate from work is important for Generation X members, and they do not see networking as having much significance for them (McGinley et al. 2011).
Baby Boom generation immediately precede Generation X as the generation begins approximately in 1943 and ends in 1960 (Kim 2016; Kolarova et al. 2016; Seipert et al. 2014).
This generation grew up with relative prosperity and safety from terrorism, pollution, and other general pessimism that seem to be very present in society today (Crampton and Hodge 2009).
Baby Boomers are seen to be idealistic, individualistic as having strong core values (Berk 2013). In terms of work, they are said to be ‘workaholics’ who are competitive (Berk 2013;
Kolarova 2016). Berk (2013) claims the Baby Boomers to reject authority, which is in contrast with Crampton and Hodge (2009), who say that the generation respects authority, but prefer to be seen as equals. Crampton and Hodge continue describing Baby Boomers as a cohort that embraces growth, change and expansion, and that they have high commitment to work that includes loyalty to the employer.
Preceding Baby Boomers are the Traditionalists, born between 1922-1945 (Berk 2013). As this generation is no longer considered to be a significant part of today’s workforce no further investigation into the generation was seen necessary.
Generation Z is the newest addition to todays workforce as these individuals born after 2000 (Bennett et al. 2012; Ozkan and Solmaz 2015) and are now starting to enter the working life.
Some scholars see the start of Generation Z to be 1995 (Williams 2010) or even as early as 1992 (Glass 2007). Generation Z, also referred to as “Generation me” (Glass 2007) or as
“internet generation” (Ozkan and Solmaz 2015), has many similarities with Generation Y, as
both have grown up with the internet and the major advances in technology. Just like Generation Y, Generation Z individuals are seen to have the ability to adapt to the global world (Williams 2010). As a workforce, they are believed to be multi-taskers who have the ability to process a great amount of information and to be highly productive (Glass 2007). Research also shows, that members of Generation Z are very self-confident, have an optimistic view on their future professional life and have entrepreneurial initiatives (Iorgulescu 2016).
2.6.5 Multigenerational Workplace:
The four generations and workplace motivationHaving many different generations working in the same organization or under one roof is nothing new, but most often these different generations have been separated from each other by either the system hierarchy or simply by their job descriptions and rankings (Gursoy et al.
2008). Today at least four different generations are working side by side; Generation Y, Generation X, Baby boomers, Generation Z and even Traditionalists. Combining the different generations at a workplace issues must arise due to generational differences in communication, values and the way of working (Sessa et al. 2007).
Individuals from the same generation are likely to share the same work values, and these values vary between generations (Gursoy et al. 2008), such as views towards authority (Smola and Sutton 2008), leadership styles and preferences (Sessa et al. 2007) and goals related to work (Crawford and Hubbard 2008). Existing literature suggests that while previous research has examined the differences in work values between different generations (e.g. Smola and Sutton 2002; Yu and Miller 2003), empirical evidence on generational differences on motivational drivers in the workplace have been limited (Wong et al 2008) and the results of studies conducted contain inconsistencies. While an individual’s motivational drivers are likely to be related to and influences by his/her work values, it is important to maintain a distinction between these concepts (Wong et al 2008).
According to Eisner (2005), different generations exhibit characteristics, which affect work attitudes and relationships, which lead to differentiation between their motivation, and Kaplan and Taoka (2005) concur with this by saying that keeping generational cohorts happy in the workplace is a task, which is unique to each cohort. A study by Solnet et al. (2012) found that individuals within Generation Y rated their engagement, job satisfaction and organizational commitment to be significantly lower than other generations, which conflicts with previously mentioned work by Hays (1999) as well as with Lyons and Kuron (2014). Moynihan and
Pandey (2007) also found that older employees are more likely to be more satisfied and committed to their work. On the other hand, Furnham et al. (2009) did not find any significant connection between motivation and age, and Catania and Randall (2013) did not discover any differences between younger and older respondents regarding their intrinsic motivators, but found that younger respondents in the study were more concerned with extrinsic motivators, especially financial factors. Catania and Randall’s findings are very much different from the findings of Kultalahti and Viitala (2014) discovered that the sample of Generation Y was clearly more concerned about intrinsic rewards rather than extrinsic rewards. In the study, they found that interesting work content, flexibility with timetables and working hours, a possibility to learn and develop at work, a good work atmosphere and work-life balance were much greater motivators than promotion, formal roles and status symbols. A study by McGinley et al. (2011) found that both Generation Y and Generation X were more motivated by intrinsic aspects of their work such as learning and challenging themselves. Even when it came to reward and recognition preferences, both generations found verbal recognition to be the most important reward (McGinley et al. 2011). The four generations of workers co-existing in one organizations with their differences can be a huge blessing and asset, but it also has high potential for conflict, with the most common sources of conflict being: work ethic, technology, expectations for advancement, respect, professionalism and communication (Berk 2013).
Bell and Jones (2013), along with other scholars, discuss the age-period-cohort identification problem (APC) and the fact whether the issues with managing a multigenerational workforce have anything to do with generational differences, or is a workers age or the period of time, which has the biggest effect on ones motivation. Nevertheless, generational differences are worth being taken into consideration, with of course acknowledging that one’s changing life situation and aging might have an effect too. In their study, Deal et al. (2013) investigated whether generations differ in level of their work motivation and whether these differences in work motivation could be better explained by managerial level rather than by generation. In their results indicate that managerial level better explains work motivation than being from a different generation does. They did find that different generations did differ in their work motivation, but they found that there was much more variance in work motivation explained by managerial level as individuals at lower managerial levels had much higher levels of external motivation than the ones in higher managerial levels displayed intrinsic motivation much more.
The study focused specially on the differences between Baby Boomers and Generation X at
work, meaning that the results might be different if Generation Y was compared to the previous generations.
2.7 Conclusion of the literature
As it is seen from the literature previously discussed, today’s multigenerational workforce brings significant challenges to organizations and to managers. In addition to this, the wide spread of different motivation theories must make organizations and managers to wonder which way they should go about their strategy in managing these individuals. On top of this, the fact that motivation changes throughout one’s lifetime and according to their current life situation, this area truly becomes even trickier. Previous literature and studies have not seemed to come to one specific conclusion on generational differences, even though there are quite a few clear differences that most account for. Same thing with all the different motivation theories, especially with some of them significantly dated, and not tested with today’s multigenerational workforce.
Any organization facing this difficult challenge of managing multigenerational should acknowledge and become aware of the fact that this is a challenge, but also a major asset and a resource for them. Without being aware of the changing workforce and dynamics in the organizations, there will be major issues ahead. Generation Y is the largest generation in the workforce and this needs to be noted, and strategies and ways of doing things adapted accordingly. This does not though mean, that the previous generations and their needs can be forgotten, as they are still major players in todays organizations, and without addressing their needs as well, huge problems may arise and one of the most important factors regarding work motivation; work atmosphere, relationships and social aspects of work, could be in danger.
One significant difference with Generation Y and the previous generations, is the fact that Generation Y individuals do not expect to remain in one position or with one company for long periods of time, which means that their organizational commitment may be significantly lower than with previous generations, unless this taken into account. The question to be asked here is what would a Generation Y individual expect and need in order to be fully committed and motivated, and perhaps willing and wanting to stay with the organization for a long period? As shown in the literature, Generation Y individuals expect constant learning and wish to feel appreciated. With achieving this, organizations could also acquire life-long employees, and this is something that is worth investing as this generation is filled with enthusiasm, new ideas and their technological skills are a huge asset for an organization. According to the literature
Generation Y individuals should be made feel like they are appreciated, but also that they have the possibility to advance, when performing well, as they are highly achievement oriented.
Generation Y individuals also wish to work in teams while being collaborative, and full filling their wish, is not only beneficial for them, but for any organization.
All these acknowledgements could be adopted to the previously presented four drive theories that emphasize the importance of addressing all the different needs that individuals may have in order to be motivated. As the theories state, in order to fully motivate employees, all four drives need to be full filled. This may sound like a lot, but if full filling the needs of these drives makes employees fully, or at least more motivated, it surely has to mean that the organization will work better, and be more successful in their endeavors. Paying closer attention to employees well-being and being accommodative to their needs most likely never hurt any organization in the long-run, and though the costs of making changes in ensuring better motivation might seem big at first, it will very likely pay itself back in the long-run. Individuals, and in this case especially Generation Y individuals, should feel that they are appreciated, valued and that they have the possibility to learn and to advance in their careers, as this would fulfill the drive to learn (material drive). These individuals also should be compensated accordingly, depending on their skills, responsibilities and their achievements, as this would make sure that the drive to acquire (sensual drive) is met. Their expectations of social interaction, teamwork and healthy work environment also need to be met in order to motivate them fully, and this would fill the drive to bond (emotional drive). Last, but not least, the drive to defend (spiritual drive) needs to be addressed by ensuring that these individuals feel part of the organization, and especially feel proud to be a part of it. The task is not easy, but the existing literature on generational differences, along with the new four-drive models and theories of motivation, give organizations and managers the proper tools to begin the long, and most likely never-ending journey on adapting to the continuous change that comes with generational changes and all that it brings with it.
Existing literature provides valuable insight into motivation and work motivation, and emphasizes the importance of the topic in today’s society for organizations and managers especially with the variety of generations in today’s workforce. Existing literature and previous research also provides sound evidence of generational differences and the challenges faced because of this. Despite the four-drive motivation theory being fairly untested and there being a lack of empirical evidence on generational differences in work motivation, the literature has provided good insight as well as guidance for this research project.
3. METHODOLOGY, DATA AND ANALYSIS METHOD
This chapter will define, introduce, evaluate and justify the different methodological aspects of this research project. The chapter will cover research set-up, researcher’s role, research philosophy, research approach, research methodology, research strategy and research design.
In addition, the chapter discusses the data collection, pilot study, sample, and well as data analysis techniques used for the study. Ethical consideration, reliability and validity will also be looked at. The Honeycomb of Research Methodology (Wilson 2013), Research Methods in Business Studies: A Practical Guide (Ghauri and Grønhaug 2005), Qualitative Methods in Business Research (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2018), Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry (McMillan and Schumacher 2014) and Doing Interview-based Qualitative Research: A Learner’s Guide (Magnusson and Marecek 2015) were used as guidelines when constructing the methodology.
3.1 Research set-up
The study was conducted by using qualitative approach to explore, understand and explain the work motivation of Generation Y individuals. The nature of the research was descriptive as the goal was to understand and describe the phenomenon of Generation Y work motivation and characteristics motivational characteristics of individuals within Generation Y.
Phenomenological approach was used to design the study and the data was collected by using semi-structured interviews.
3.2 Researcher’s Role
According to McMillan and Schumacher (2014) I, the researcher was considered a complete insider since being a member of Generation Y along with the participants in the study. However, my personal role in this particular research was an interviewer and collector of information.
Care was taken to ensure that I maintained reflexivity with the study. McMillan and Schumacher use the term “reflexivity” as they explain that “through examination of one’s personal and theoretical commitments to see how they serve as resources for selecting a qualitative approach, framing the research problem, generating particular data, relating to participants and developing specific interpretations” (p.356). A truly effective researcher assumes that they cannot be completely objective, neutral or detached.
3.3 Research philosophy: Interpretivism
Research philosophy has to do with the belief about the way in which data about a phenomenon should be gathered, analyzed and used. Exploration of philosophical concepts assists the researcher in specifying the overall research design and strategy, which will in turn set the direction of the research and how to proceed (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2008). The exploration of philosophical concepts also helps in making decision about the issues that may have an effect in regards of the research design. The research philosophy of this research project in interpretivism, which is concerned with subjective and shared meanings. The interest is in how people, as individuals or as a group, understand and interpret social events and settings (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2008). Research done from interpretivism position does not predefine variables, but focuses on the full complexity of human behavior and sense making as situations emerge (Erikkson and Kovalainen 2008). This philosophical approach also assumes that there are several possible interpretations of the same exact data, which can all be meaningful.
3.4 Research approach: Deductive
There are two general approaches to reasoning, which may result in gaining new knowledge;
these are inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is a way of reasoning to establish generalizations about the phenomenon under observation, whereas deductive reasoning is a reasoning testing process, which starts with an established theory or generalization, and then seeks to see if the theory applies to specific instances (Hyde 2000). In other words, by using inductive approach in a study, the researcher is seeking to make observations about the research and then possibly contribute to a new theory (Wilson, 2014).
Contrariwise, deductive approach does not attempt to generate a new theory, but tries to apply already a well-known theory. Deductive approach is concerned with developing a hypothesis based on existing theory, followed by designing a research strategy to test the hypothesis (Ghauri and Grønhaug 2005). Unlike deductive approach, an inductive approach would develop a theory based on the results found from the data collection and analysis, and it is most often associated with qualitative research (Wilson 2014). Deductive approach was chosen for this study as the study focuses on the four-drive theory, building a hypothesis from previous research and tries to test its validity (Beiske 2007).
3.5 Research methodology: Qualitative interpretation
Two terms often used to describe the main research strategies are qualitative and quantitative, which were both considered for this study. The word ‘qualitative’ implies to the emphasis on quality, as qualitative research stresses the intimate relationship between the research and what is studied whereas in contrast quantitative studies emphasize the measurement and analysis of causal relationships between variables (Wilson 2014). In short, the main difference between the two strategies is that quantitative research is usually associated with numerical analysis, while qualitative is not. Quantitative strategy is viewed as objective and involved data collection methods such as questionnaires, while qualitative approach is viewed as subjective and uses data collection methods such as interviews (Wilson 2014). As the purpose of the study is not to generate a new theoretical framework, but rather gain further and detailed knowledge on workplace motivation within Generation Y by using the four-drive theory, deductive approach and qualitative strategy are seen as the most appropriate choices. However, it has been noted that there are disadvantages to using qualitative approach, such as the quality of data being highly subjective, and despite qualitative findings being valuable they are difficult to present.
Despite the disadvantages and difficulties of qualitative research, there are many advantages such as being able to evaluate the material with greater detail.
3.6 Research strategy: Phenomenological
Phenomenological research is a design of inquiry derived from philosophy and psychology in which the researcher describes the lived experiences of individuals about a phenomenon as described by the participants. The design has strong philosophical underlining’s and it typically involves conducting interviews (Moustakas 1994). Phenomenological study describes the meaning for several individuals of their lived experiences of a concept or a phenomenon (Cresswell 2007). According to Cresswell, the phenomenological questions ask, “What contexts or situations have typically affected or influenced your experience of the phenomenon?
And “What have you experienced in terms of the phenomenon?” By using phenomenological approach, it was hoped that the study could capture the essence of the experience of motivation as perceived by the participants.
3.7 Research design: Cross-sectional
Cross-sectional research design was chosen for the study after research of different research designs. Cross-sectional design, involves the collection of data from number of cases that are
