By Catarina Do Rosario Sa Coimbra (MSc 20-21)

If we were to define a generation as an “identifiable group that shares birth years, age location, and significant life events at critical developmental stages” (Kupperschmidt, 2000), then Gen Z would undoubtedly be defined by their coming of age during a global pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic saw the first widespread use of national lockdowns, forcing much of Gen Z to adapt to online schooling and begin their careers via remote working. In order to understand what this means for the Gen Z workforce, new research (Coimbra, 2021) has emerged, aiming to answer 3 questions:  

1. What are Gen Z work values?
2. What was the Gen Z experience of working during the COVID-19 pandemic?
3. What does this mean for Gen Z work values moving forward?

What are Gen Z Work Values?

Born between 1995 and 2010, Gen Z actually share many work values with the wider workforce, such as their desire for career progression (Gabrielova & Buchko, 2021) and desire to make meaningful impact (Maloni et al., 2021). However, a few values do set them apart:

1. Technology: As the first generation of “Digital Natives” (Prensky, 2001), Gen Z have grown up around technology and anticipate the use of high-specification technology use in the workplace (Aggarwal et al., 2020).
2. Social Responsibility: As a highly socially conscious generation (Tulgan, 2015), they expect to see diversity – in the form of racial, cultural and gender diversity – in the workplace. Similarly, they want to contribute to work that they believe is meaningful to society (Kirchmayer & Fratričová, 2020).
3. Security: Having witnessed the effects of recession in the 2008/09 financial crisis, they’re not interested in risk-taking, preferring instead to work for a large, established company (Christensen et al., 2018). By extension, they want to be paid well (Grow & Yang, 2018).

What Was the Gen Z Experience of Working During the COVID-19 Pandemic?

A lot of the older Gen Z population were forced to work remotely in the early stages of their career. To better understand how this affected those who began working before the onset of the pandemic, a study (Coimbra, 2021) was conducted on 12 members of the Gen Z working population.

When they were asked to describe their experience of working remotely during the pandemic, they unanimously mentioned:

Losing boundaries between work and life: Since everybody was working from home, they no longer had their commute and the office environment to create boundaries between their work and life. While they felt that being at home every day was a bit claustrophobic, they really appreciated the freedom they were given. They were able to take healthy breaks in between work, and maximise on their new-found convenience.

Missing out on social opportunities: Unsurprisingly, working remotely meant that they no longer had the chance to chit-chat with their colleagues over coffee or grab lunch together. Small talk over video conferencing felt awkward, which also made it much harder to do collaborative work together. Interestingly, however, many also said that working from home made people share many more intimate details of their lives, which they appreciated. 

What Does This Mean for Gen Z Workers in the Post-COVID-19 World?

After having experienced the two different worlds – in-office work and remote work, Gen Z have now tasted the best (and worst) of both worlds. What this means for their expectations moving forward is that they want both. They want the flexibility of quickly popping to the post office in between meetings, while also experiencing the warm feelings of socialising with their colleagues in the office. In practical terms, this means they want hybrid work. More specifically, they’d like to be in the office two to three days per week.  

Hybrid work is what helps Gen Z feel the most autonomy, which is something that is important to them (Acheampong, 2019). At home, they are in charge of when, where and how they work, without feeling concerned that someone is looking over their shoulder. They’re able to work in ways that suits them best, which not only leads to higher levels of satisfaction, but also increased productivity (Spivack and Milosevic, 2018).

Moreover, after having spent a year with reduced social interaction, they now anticipate it more than ever. They want office parties, coffee chats – everything they’ve been missing. However, they now also want the intimacy they experienced during COVID-19, where everyone felt more comfortable talking about their personal challenges. In that sense, it will be a balancing act.

What Can Organisations Do to Better Attract and Engage Gen Z?

Be flexible: Gen Z care about flexibility, and even more-so after the pandemic. Organisations can do this by introducing hybrid working options, first and foremost, whereby employees are in the office three days a week and at home twice a week. This provides sufficient time for collaboration, while also offering the flexibility to be at home a few days of the week. Beyond hybrid work, managers can also provide flexibility on a more personal level. Gen Z appreciate when organisations are accommodating of their personal circumstances, so even the simplest gestures, such as letting someone leave the office half an hour early on Tuesdays to go to dance class, can go a long way.

Manage the whole person: Gen Z care a lot about their careers, but they also care about being cared for. After spending over a year working from their bedrooms and being vulnerable with their coworkers, they want to continue this personalistic style of management. In practice, this means setting up weekly one-on-ones and using it as an opportunity to not only catch up on work tasks, but also on the wider individual. Ask them what their career goals are and how you can help them get there; ask them about their personal circumstances and how you can tailor their work life to better suit their needs.

After having adapted to a prolonged change in the way we understand work, Gen Z has learned to conceptualise the very meaning of work, life and managerial relationships in a very different way. Now that they understand the value of flexibility, autonomy and being cared for as an individual, they want to continue this way moving forward, and it is now up to the organisations to adapt. 

References

Acheampong, N. A. (2020). Reward Preferences of the Youngest Generation: Attracting, Recruiting, and Retaining Generation Z into Public Sector Organizations. Compensation & Benefits Review, 53(2).

Aggarwal, A., Sadhna, P., Gupta, S., Mittal, A., & Rastogi, S. (2020). Gen Z entering the workforce: Restructuring HR policies and practices for fostering the task performance and organizational commitment. Journal of Public Affairs.

Coimbra, Catarina D. R. S. (2021). What Do Gen Z Look for in a Job? A Qualitative Study Exploring Gen Z’s Work Values and Expectations for Work in the Post-Pandemic World. (Unpublished master’s thesis). City, University of London, London.

Christensen, S., Wilson, B., & Edelman, L. (2018). Can I relate? A review and guide for nurse managers in leading generations. Journal of Nursing Management, 26(6), 689-695.

Gabrielova, K., & Buchko, A. (2021). Here comes Generation Z: Millennials as Managers. Business Horizons, 64(4), 489-499.

Grow, J., & Yang, S. (2018). Generation-Z Enters the Advertising Workplace: Expectations Through a Gendered Lens. Journal of Advertising Education, 22(1), 7-22.

Kirchmayer, Z., & Fratricová, J. (2020). What Motivates Generation Z at Work? Insights into Motivation Drivers of Business Students in Slovakia. Innovation Management and Education Excellence through Vision 2020, (pp. 6019-6030). Milan, Italy.

Kupperschmidt, B.R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective management. The Health Care Manager, 19(1), 65-76.

Maloni, M., Hiatt, M. S., & Campbell, S. (2019). Understanding the work values of Gen Z business students. The International Journal of Management Education, 17.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5).

Spivack, A., & Milosevic, I. (2018). Perceived Location Autonomy and Work Environment Choice: The Mediating Influence of Intrinsic Motivation. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(3).

Tulgan, B. (2015). The Soft Skills Gap. In B. Tulgan, Bridging the Soft Skills Gap: How to Teach the Missing Basics to Todays Young Talent (pp. 7-31). Jossey-Bass.

By Carol Genevieve Pui Lin Chin (MSc 20-21)

Work Recovery? Singapore? Tell Me More!

In today’s society, a typical workday of an employee would see the individual getting up early, grabbing a cup of coffee, before racing to their workplace and working long, stressful hours. Even after their workday, their work follows them home typically via their mobile devices. Personal, leisure and family time would usually occur during the weekends; however, even then, these employees might still be on their mobile devices – answering to work-related calls or emails (Pereira & Elfering, 2014). If left unattended, the build-up of such chronic or excessive job stress can be detrimental to the individual’s wellbeing, increasing their risk of health related problems like burnout (Montero-Marin & Garcia-Campayo, 2010). Thus, it is vital that employees take time away from their stressful work schedules to live a balanced and healthy life. Numerous studies in the field have examined how an unbalanced work and personal life might lead to issues such as increased stress levels, stress-related illnesses, and decreased life satisfaction (Agosti et al., 2019; Van Den Berg et al., 2020). However, few studies have conducted country specific analyses, specifically, a study that focuses on employees in Singapore.

According KISI (2019), Singapore came in 32 out of the 40 cities they have studied for work-life balance. Their study also noted that amongst all the cities in their study, Singapore was ranked the second most overworked city with 23% of the employees working more than 48 hours per week. Another study by the Manpower Group p-(2020) reported similar findings and highlighted that millennials in Singapore are working harder than any other generations with these individuals working approximately 48 hours per week. In particular, this is noticed in sectors such as administrative support and financial services (Ministry of Manpower, 2020).

Therefore, this study aimed to contribute to the area of research by gaining more insight into the experiences of recovery from job demands and stressors during off-work hours for employees working in Singapore.

How Was This Studied?

This qualitative study consisted of 12 participants and they were identified through the researcher’s pre-existing networks and personal contacts. They had to meet the following inclusion criteria before being selected for the study. Participants had to be between 25 to 35 years old; a Singaporean or Singaporean Permanent Resident; has been working in Singapore for at least one year and is still currently working in Singapore, and is currently working in the finance industry. 

Semi-structured interviews were used as it enabled the researcher to follow the lead of the participants and interject with additional exploratory questions to cover the research aim. However, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, interviews were conducted via video conferencing means to ensure the health and safety of both the participants and the researcher.

The method of analysis used was thematic analysis. As it can address a range of types of knowledge, it is a suitable method for addressing the research question because it does not bind the researcher to a particular epistemological viewpoint (Braun & Clarke, 2006). For the identification and analysis of themes, an inductive approach was used. Thus, themes were identified through the data during the analysis, and they did not reflect any of the researcher’s theoretical commitments (Boyatzis, 1998). Also, to avoid any biases or subjectivity, the researcher kept a reflexive journal to maintain awareness and frequently noted down her experiences, thoughts, opinions and feelings as she conducted and wrote the research (Willig, 2013).

Valuable Findings 

The analysis of the interview data identified three main themes in relation to the research question; rewarding oneself for work done, searching for work-life balance, and the culture within. The findings show that employees in Singapore generally place work at a high priority and typically work long hours. It also noted that employees in Singapore do take part in leisure activities to destress – and these findings can be related to theories such as Hobfoll’s (1989) Conservation of Resources theory and Meijman and Mulder’s (1998) Effort Recovery Model. However, it was also noted that employees could only participate in leisure activities during the limited remaining time after doing supplemental work. Supplementary working is essentially employee spending time working, for instance during the weekends, to complete any unfinished work at the end of the workweek so as to bear the tension of not completing the unfinished task while not at work, providing the employee with a basis for detachment and relaxation after that (Weigelt & Syrek, 2017). Thus, these results suggest that employees in Singapore may not be reaping the full benefits of supplemental working, nor are employees receiving the necessary recovery time that they require. 

What Does This Mean?

The present research indicates that while employees in Singapore do take part in leisure activities to destress, they can only do so with the limited amount of time they have remaining after doing supplemental work. As such, companies can consider implementing certain measures to assist employees with their work-life balance. Firstly, they can consider having flexible hours for employees to suit their needs. Companies can include and encourage the use of measures such as flexible work arrangements, special paid leave and opportunities to work from home to manage the ‘always on’ mentality. Secondly, they can consider implementing a corporate wellness plan so that employees can have the opportunity to take part in activities that are different from their jobs to manage their work-related stress and aid in the work recovery process. Lastly, companies can consider establishing clear expectations for responding to work-related communication after official working hours. For instance, employees could be given 24 hours to acknowledge emails so that it takes the pressure off them from having to reply immediately.

Conclusion

This study was one of the few to have aimed to understand the experiences of recovery from job demands and stressors during non-work time for employees in Singapore. By using qualitative research methods and having the primary and supplementary research question overarching the study, the analysis of the interview data has identified three main themes concerning the research question. Broadly, the results show that employees in Singapore do take part in leisure activities to destress, and they do enjoy them. However, they can only do so during the limited amount of remaining time after doing supplemental work, suggesting that they are neither reaping the full benefits of supplemental working nor receiving the necessary recovery time required. Ultimately, such research will hope to be useful for companies and organizations in Singapore to help them better understand how they can assist their employees with having a work-life balance so that employees are not subjected to burnout.

References

Agosti, M., Andersson, I., Bringsén, Å., & Janlöv, A. (2019). “The importance of awareness, support and inner strength to balance everyday life” – a qualitative study about women’s experiences of a workplace health promotion program in human service organizations in Sweden. BMC Women’s Health, 19(1). doi: 10.1186/s12905-018-0704-z

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, Calif;London;: Sage Publications

Hobfoll, S. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513-524. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.44.3.513

Kisi. (2019). Best Cities for Work-Life Balance 2019 | Kisi. Retrieved 15 February 2021, from https://www.getkisi.com/work-life-balance

ManpowerGroup Global. (2020). Millennials in the workforce. ManpowerGroup. Retrieved July 30, 2021, from https://www.manpowergroup.com/millennials.

Meijman, T. F., & Mulder, G. (1998). Psychological aspects of workload. In P. J. D. Drenth, H. Thierry, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), Handbook of work and organizational: Work psychology (pp. 5–33). Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis.

Ministry of Manpower. (2020). Average weekly paid hours worked per employee by industry and type of employment, Retrieved July 21, 2021, from https://data.gov.sg/dataset/average-weekly-paid-hours-worked-per-employee-by-industry-and-type-of-employment-annual?resource_id=82ed9565-3bca-4459-a887-c2aee05a877b.

Montero-Marín, J., & García-Campayo, J. (2010). A newer and broader definition of burnout: Validation of the “Burnout Clinical Subtype Questionnaire (BCSQ-36)”. BMC Public Health, 10(1). doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-302

Pereira, D., & Elfering, A. (2014). Social stressors at work and sleep during weekends: The mediating role of Psychological detachment. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034928

Van Den Berg, M., Signal, T., & Gander, P. (2020). Fatigue risk management for cabin crew: the importance of company support and sufficient rest for work-life balance—a qualitative study. Industrial Health, 58(1), 2-14. doi: 10.2486/indhealth.2018-0233

Willig, C., 1964. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (3rd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.

By Hanisha Raikhy (MSc 20-21)

Behaviour-based assessments are a novel type of assessment used in recruitment as a method to screen prospective candidates. They involve candidates completing various tasks which gives organisations information about a candidate’s personality, aptitude and cognitive ability (What Is the Behaviour-Based Assessment?, n.d.). This type of assessment has been developed to be fun and engaging for candidates (Montefiori, 2016), however, do they think it’s fair?

Before we look at whether people think behaviour-based assessments are fair, it is essential to first understand why it is important to consider perceptions of fairness. Fairness perceptions have been found to be related to various organisational outcomes like recommendation intentions and job acceptance intentions (Chapman et al., 2005). Even with an outcome as serious as litigation intentions, candidates are less likely to litigate if they believe the selection methods were fair (Ababneh et al., 2014). Additionally, candidates who reported high levels of fairness have been found to report higher organisational attractiveness, regardless of whether they were successful in their application or were rejected (Schinkel et al., 2013).

Given this, it is important for organisations to consider what candidates think of selection methods and how fair they believe it is as it can have significant effects for organisations. It is also important to consider other factors that could influence their perceptions, such as personality and self-efficacy. Studies have found candidates with high levels of neuroticism tended to perceive assessments as less fair (Törnroos et al., 2019). Conversely, candidates with high levels of self-efficacy were more likely to perceive a selection process as fair (Zibarras & Patterson, 2015).

Unfortunately, there is not much research studying fairness perceptions towards behaviour-based assessments. As a result, the following study was developed aiming to answer two main questions:

1. How procedurally fair do participants think behaviour-based assessments are?
2. Do fairness perceptions vary based on participants’ test-taking self-efficacy and neuroticism?

In this study, 175 people were asked questions that would help identify their level of neuroticism and their test-taking self-efficacy. They then completed a short behaviour-based assessment so they could trial the assessment. After this, the participants were asked questions about how much they believed they had the opportunity to perform on the assessment, how consistently they thought the assessment was administered and whether they believed they received adequate information about how the assessment works. They were also asked how fair they believed the behaviour-based assessment to be overall.

Findings

There were five key findings of this study:

1. The more participants felt they had the chance to showcase their skills, the more they thought the assessment was fair overall.
2. How consistently the assessment was administered did not seem to have an effect on how fair participants thought the assessment was.
3. The more participants perceived they had enough information about the assessment, the more they thought the assessment was fair overall.
4. Participants’ level of neuroticism did not seem to influence the relationships between the above-mentioned perceptions and overall fairness.
5. Participants’ test-taking self-efficacy did not explain the relationships between the above-mentioned perceptions and overall fairness.

So, how procedurally fair do participants think behaviour-based assessments are?

From the findings, it seems that generally participants do perceive behaviour-based assessments to be fair. Having the chance to display their skills and understanding how the assessment works impacted how they felt about the assessment, leaving them with a more positive view. However, it is important to remember that only a few aspects of fairness were studied. Other factors such as how relevant the job is, whether candidates believe they are given adequate feedback and whether they feel they have the chance to be reconsidered are all things that could also influence perceptions of fairness (Gilliland, 1994).

And do fairness perceptions vary based on participants’ test-taking self-efficacy and neuroticism?

It looks as if neuroticism and test-taking self-efficacy do not influence fairness perceptions which is interesting as other research has found that individual factors like these are related to perceptions of fairness (e.g., Butucescu & Iliescu, 2020; Törnroos et al., 2019; Zibarras & Patterson, 2015). However, this could be due to the number of people who participated and how these factors were measured.

What does this mean for organisations?

Previous research in this area has already made it clear the importance of considering candidate perceptions when choosing, developing, and administering assessments in a recruitment process. However, it was unknown whether organisations should scrutinise behaviour-based assessments in the same way. This study makes it clear that behaviour-based assessments should be evaluated by organisations in the same way as other traditional assessments as they also influence perceptions.

Organisations choosing to use behaviour-based assessments as part of their recruitment process should consider how it will be received by candidates as fairness perceptions can have significant effects on whether a candidate accepts a job offer and whether they recommend the organisation to others (Chapman et al., 2005).

In addition to this, giving candidates the chance to show off their skills and providing them with enough information about the assessment are simple things organisations can do to boost perceptions of fairness. For example, organisations can provide candidates with a briefing document outlining how the assessment will work or they can direct candidates to where they can find more information about how to complete the assessment. By doing this, candidates can go into the assessment feeling more confident about what they have to do and so feel more positive about the process overall.

Conclusion

This study provides valuable insight into how fair people perceive behaviour-based assessments to be. Whilst this research is not comprehensive, it is an important starting point for future research and for organisations who are looking to improve their recruitment processes to be more focused on the candidate experience.

References

Ababneh, K. I., Hackett, R. D., & Schat, A. C. H. (2014). The Role of Attributions and Fairness in Understanding Job Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures and Decisions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9304-y

Butucescu, A., & Iliescu, D. (2020). It was unfair! Should I appeal? The moderating role of Agreeableness and Neuroticism between Fairness Perceptions in Assessment and Intention to Appeal. Ethics & Behavior, 30(5), 342–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2019.1620609

Chapman, D., Uggerslev, K., Carroll, S., Piasentin, K., & Jones, D. (2005). Applicant Attraction to Organizations and Job Choice: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Correlates of Recruiting Outcomes. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 928–944. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.928

Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Reactions to a Selection System. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 691–701. http://10.0.4.13/0021-9010.79.5.691

Montefiori, L. (2016). Game-based assessment: Face validity, fairness perception, and impact on employer’s brand image. Assessment & Development Matters, 8(2), 19–22.

Schinkel, S., van Vianen, A., & van Dierendonck, D. (2013). Selection Fairness and Outcomes: A field study of interactive effects on applicant reactions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12014

Törnroos, M., Elovainio, M., Hintsa, T., Hintsanen, M., Pulkki‐Råback, L., Jokela, M., Lehtimäki, T., Raitakari, O. T., & Keltikangas‐Järvinen, L. (2019). Personality traits and perceptions of organisational justice. International Journal of Psychology, 54(3), 414–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12472

What is the Behaviour-Based Assessment? (n.d.). Retrieved September 4, 2021, from https://knowledgebase.arcticshores.com/knowledge/what-is-the-behaviour-based-assessment

Zibarras, L. D., & Patterson, F. (2015). The Role of Job Relatedness and Self-efficacy in Applicant Perceptions of Fairness in a High-stakes Selection Setting. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23(4), 332–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12118