University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Generation Y employee retention in a diverse generational mix

(USC Thesis Other)

Generation Y employee retention in a diverse generational mix

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Generation Y Employee Retention in a Diverse Generational Mix
by
Shwu-Yuan Lee

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2021

© Copyright by Shwu-Yuan Lee 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Shwu-Yuan Lee certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Cathy Krop
Helena Seli
Briana Hinga, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
Today’s workplaces are increasingly multigenerational, with new and complex
implications for employee retention. The generational differences influence the workplace
environment and create challenges in management that impede the retention of younger
generations. Taiwan became an aging society in 1993 and is expected to become a hyper-aged
society by 2026, and the ratio of the younger workforce to the total population is declining. Since
Generation Y is the major cohort in the Taiwanese workforce, this population aging in the
Taiwanese labor market is expected to negatively affect economic growth. The purpose of this
study is to conduct an organizational gap analysis of low retention rates of Generation Y
employees in Taiwan. Its goal is to find out what factors influence Generation Y employees to
choose to stay at their organization for at least 3 years, and what solutions will lead to retaining
70% of Generation Y employees in a diverse generational mix workplace. The methodological
approach for this study combines qualitative and quantitative data collection instruments; they
were applied to test the reliability and validity of four propositions: leadership style,
collaborative environment, professional development, and supportive culture. The convergent
parallel mixed method was applied to analyze both quantitative and qualitative elements
independently, while interpreting together the results and findings from the same phases of the
research process. The key findings are based on the support of the mixed methods, and the
organizational and emergent motivational factors found are leadership style, collaborative
environment, professional development, supportive culture, and personal perspectives. Finally,
eight recommended solutions to answer the second research question of what solutions will lead
to retain 70% of Generation Y employees in a diverse generational mix workplace, are to
increase sense of inclusion, build up collaboration culture, encourage healthy competition, set up
v
a long-term training program, set up a professional development program, provide supervisor
support, create transparent remuneration plan, and arrange anonymous surveys and interviews.

vi
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to the people who gave me strength and support to complete
this learning journey in the 25 months. First, my husband Dr. Jun-Hong Shen, who supported me
with all his heart. You always put me and my needs first in your life. When I struggled with both
academic study and work, you always found a way to relieve my burden, to encourage me to
move on, and to remind me that I am capable of conquering any challenge.
Second, my dearest mother Hsiu-Lan, who is in Heaven. You always believed in me and
saw the best of me. You were a role model of my life: brave, enterprising, kindhearted, selfless,
and insightful. You taught me never to give up. I can follow my life purpose to love and
contribute to the greater good as your heritage. You made me who I am.
Finally, all my subordinates, especially the supervisors, Eva, Jun, Patricia, Chris, Jeffery,
and Joan, who took on all the complex and heavy load of work so I could concentrate on my
studies. Your support and trust in me were far beyond a normal boss and subordinate
relationship, you are my family, my siblings.
Thank you, all of you. Because of you I could accomplish this achievement.

vii
Acknowledgments
My highest gratitude to my committee, Dr. Briana Hinga, Dr. Cathy Krop, and Dr.
Helena Seli. Your guidance through the classes and the dissertation process with your patience
and enthusiasm for me as a bilingual student helped me to complete this dissertation. Thank you
to the faculty, whose creative teaching skills and kind and friendly attitude supported my success
on this learning journey.
Thank you, Dr. Kuo-Lun Hsiao, you helped me on finding data analysis experts in
Taiwan and teaching me the data analysis techniques. These precious resources were the core
support for completing this dissertation.
Many thanks to my dearest friend Alison Fisher, the professional editor. You have
dedicated your time and effort to editing all my work. When I encountered bottlenecks during
these two years, your prompt support helped me to conquer the language barriers. I would say I
could not have succeeded without you.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction ...............................................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................2
Importance of Addressing the Problem ...............................................................................6
Context and Mission of the Study ........................................................................................7
The Field Status ...................................................................................................................7
The Field Goal .....................................................................................................................8
Description of Stakeholder Groups ......................................................................................8
Stakeholder Group for the Study .........................................................................................9
Purpose of the Study and Questions ....................................................................................9
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .....................................................................10
Definitions ..........................................................................................................................10
Organization of the Project ................................................................................................12
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................13
Growing Generational Diversity in the Workplace ...........................................................13
Characteristics of Different Generations and Implications for Employee Retention ........15
Factors to Enhance Employee Retention in Generation Y ................................................23
Generation Y Employees’ Organizational Influences .......................................................30
Chapter Three: Methods ................................................................................................................39
Participating Stakeholders .................................................................................................39
Data Collection and Instrumentation .................................................................................44
ix
Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................46
Credibility and Trustworthiness .........................................................................................47
Reliability and Validity ......................................................................................................48
Ethics ..................................................................................................................................49
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................50
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...............................................................................................52
Participating Stakeholder ...................................................................................................53
Organizational Results and Findings .................................................................................56
Summary of Organizational and Emergent Findings .........................................................76
Chapter Five: Recommendations ...................................................................................................78
Key Findings ......................................................................................................................78
Recommendations ..............................................................................................................80
Proposed Recommendations With Implementation and Evaluation Plans ........................83
Limitations and Future Research .......................................................................................99
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................99
References ....................................................................................................................................101
Appendix A: Recruitment Letter .................................................................................................119
Appendix B: Survey Instrument ..................................................................................................120
Appendix C: Interview Protocol –Generation Y employees in Taiwan ......................................125

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Performance Goal and Stakeholders’ Goals 9
Table 2: Generational Descriptors (Gibson et al., 2009) 16
Table 3: The Related Literature of Factors That Influence Employee Retention 28
Table 4: Organizational Influence Category 38
Table 5: Research Methods Outline 40
Table 6: Survey Respondents’ Demographics 54
Table 7: Interview Respondents’ Demographics 55
Table 8: Four Subscales of GYRF 57
Table 9: Frequency and Percentage of Leadership Style Survey Results 61
Table 10: Frequency and Percentage of Collaborative Environment Survey Results 62
Table 11: Frequency and Percentage of Professional Development Survey Results 63
Table 12: Frequency and Percentage of Supportive Culture Survey Results 65
Table 13: Reliability Test 66
Table 14: Connection of Quantitative and Qualitative Study 67
Table 15: Validated Organizational and Motivational Influences with Recommendations 80
Table 16: Recommendations and Gap Analysis 82
Table 17: Recommendation 1: Increase Sense of Inclusion 84
Table 18: Evaluation of Recommendation 1: Increase sense of inclusion 85
Table 19: Recommendation 2: Build up Collaboration Culture 87
Table 20: Evaluation of Recommendation 2: Build up collaboration culture 87
Table 21: Recommendation 3: Encourage Healthy Competition 89
Table 22: Evaluation of Recommendation 3: Encourage healthy competition 89
Table 23: Recommendation 4: Set up Long-Term Training Program 90
Table 24: Evaluation of Recommendation 4: Set up Long-Term training program 91
Table 25: Recommendation 5: Create Transparent Remuneration Plan 92
xi
Table 26: Evaluation of Recommendation 5: Create transparent remuneration plan 93
Table 27: Recommendation 6: Set up Professional Development Program 94
Table 28: Evaluation of Recommendation 6: Set up professional development program 95
Table 29: Recommendation 7: Provide Supervisor Support 96
Table 30: Evaluation of Recommendation 7: Provide supervisor support 97
Table 31: Recommendation 8: Arrange Anonymous Surveys and Interviews 98
Table 32: Evaluation of Recommendation 8: Arrange Anonymous Surveys and Interviews 98

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Thematic Diagram 68
Figure 2: Leadership Attributes Diagram 71

1

Chapter One: Introduction
Delayed retirement and increased life expectancy have resulted in four generations
working together side by side. A generation is defined by the timeframe during which
individuals were born: Traditionalists (1925–1945), Baby Boomers (1946–1964), Generation X
(1965–1980), and Generation Y (1981–2000s; Lancaster & Stillman, 2003; Tapscott, 2008;
Underwood, 2007; Wiedmer, 2015). The generational differences influence the workplace
dynamics and create challenges for management that impede the retention of younger
generations (Burk et al., 2011; Mermin et al., 2007). Generation Y will be the largest cohort in
the global workforce in 2022 (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). As the Generation Y employees
become the main workforce and potential leaders, it is important to understand their nature,
attitude, values, and characteristics in order to retain them to keep the performance of the
organization optimal (Anitha, 2015; Gurumani, 2010). For any organization, maintaining a range
of behavior and social diversity is essential; otherwise, the organization will lose talent (Anitha,
2015; Gurumani, 2010). This dissertation focuses on Generation Y employee retention at
multigenerational companies in Taiwan.
Data from the Taiwan Ministry of Labor shows that Generation Y is the major cohort in
the workforce: Generation Y makes up 50%, Generation X 38%, and Baby Boomer and
Traditionalist 11% (Taiwan Ministry of Labor, 2020). According to the National Development
Council, Taiwan became an aging society in 1993 and is expected to become a hyper-aged
society by 2026 (Keoni Everington, 2018). When a country reaches more than 7% of its
population over the age of 65, it is considered an “aging society;” a percentage over 14%
indicates an “aged society;” and when the population of 65-year-olds tops 20%, it is labeled a
“hyper-aged” society (Keoni Everington, 2018). According to the data from the Taiwan Ministry
of Labor, the employment rate of Generation Y decreased 5%, Baby Boomer (and older)
2

increased 6%, and Generation X was constant from 2009 to 2019 (Taiwan Ministry of Labor,
2020). As a result, the ratio of the younger workforce to the total population is declining, and that
of employees aged above 55 years is increasing (W.-H. Huang et al., 2019). This population
aging in the labor market is expected to negatively affect economic growth in Asia and the
United States (Bloom et al., 2010; Maestas et al., 2016).
Boomers delaying retirement and staying in the workforce beyond the traditional
retirement age may also be seen as taking away Generation X and Y’s professional development
opportunities (Deal et al., 2010; Mermin et al., 2007). This multigenerational mix forms a
challenge for management that influences the retention of younger generations (Burk et al.,
2011; Mermin et al., 2007). Taiwan 104 Human Resources Bank retention survey data in 2018
indicated that the retention rate of newly recruited younger generation employees in the
Taiwanese service industry was 68.7% after 3 months of employment; but only 32.8% remained
for at least 6 months. The turnover rate reached 67.2% (Pan, 2019). According to the survey of
two thousand Taiwanese companies conducted by the Common Wealth Magazine, the 1-year
retention rate of Generation Y employees is 54.3%, which is lower than the overall employee-
retention rate of 64.2% (Chiang, 2017).
Background of the Problem
D’Amato and Herzfeldt (2008) stated that the younger generation is less committed to
staying in the same organization than older generations (D’Amato & Herzfeldt, 2008). Lyons et
al. (2012) found that Generation Y had the highest job change rate and organization change rate
of all four generations (Generation Y, Generation X, Baby Boomers, and Traditionalists) (Lyons
et al., 2012). In order to keep any organization operating successfully in the long term, the
retention of key employees is crucial. The ability to retain skilled and knowledgeable employees
secures the organization’s economic competitiveness because they are the driving force behind
3

achieving the organization’s goals of development and accomplishment (Budhwar & Bhatnagar,
2007; Das & Baruah, 2013). The cost of not retaining key employees is high from the
perspective of turnover, as it includes the cost of finding a replacement, hidden organization
costs like loss of company memory, and the employee’s psychological cost (Huang et al., 2006).
In management’s view, one of the most important demands in any organization today is
keeping the most vital and dynamic human resources motivated and dedicated; those retained in
the firm are more important than those newly hired (Cutler, 2001). The ability to manage and
retain promising employees is a fundamental means of achieving a competitive advantage among
organizations (Walker, 2001). Whether in the public or private sector, securing and managing
competent human resources allow for effective and efficient delivery of goods and services by
organizations (Olowu & Adamolekun, 2005).
Today’s workplaces are increasingly multigenerational, with new and complex
implications for employee retention. There are challenges associated with managing a
multigenerational workforce. The generational differences influence the workplace environment
and create challenges in management that impede the retention of younger generations, such as
handling the differences in work ethics, ambitions, views, mindsets, and work styles (Burk et al.,
2011; Mermin et al., 2007; Rajput et al., 2013).
The Traditionalist generation is generally characterized as loyal and disciplined (Kane,
2015). They respect authority and enjoy family values but keep their work and family lives
separate. They are motivated by money and position, like their Baby Boomer children. They are
proud of being self-sacrificing and thrifty (Wiedmer, 2015). They prefer to work in a
conservative, hierarchical environment with a clear top-down chain of command (Clause, 2017).
The Baby Boomer generation is characterized as loyal and dedicated to their job and able
to work independently with a professional attitude (Karp et al., 2002). They are also labelled as
4

‘workaholics’ since their life focus is mainly on their career (Twenge, 2006). Even though they
are reaching retirement age, they tend to remain in the workplace to keep themselves busy and
feel valued and satisfied (Webb, 2010).
Generation X is known as the latchkey generation because they grew up in families with
two working parents or single-parent homes (Zemke et al., 1999). They are more resourceful
compared to the previous generation. They seek a balance between work and personal life;
families and friends take priority over work (Karp et al., 2002). This is the first generation that
grew up with computers, automated teller machines, and cell phones. They put fun before work
(Raines, 2003).
Generation Y is the generation most able to accept variety (Hill & Stephens, 2003). They
are savvy in a wide diversity of social media networks and communication methods instead of
face-to-face interactions, and are familiar with technology (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Zemke
et al., 1999). Generation Y is similar to Generation X in terms of seeking a life-work balance.
Unlike the Baby Boomers’ definition of hard work with a 9 to 5 routine, Generation Y can access
multi-tasking mobile devices to accomplish the same amount of work, such as laptops, iPads,
and smart phones (Pasieka, 2009). This generation has a strong work ethic but less tolerance for
less challenging work. They want to feel they can make a difference in their job (Council, 2005;
Espinoza & Ukleja, 2016).
According to Young et al. (2013), there are three attitudinal differences between
generations relating to job satisfaction: working conditions, work and environment, and
resources and employee benefits. In addition, some research suggests that the Baby Boomer
generation is more satisfied in their job compared to the younger generations (X and Y) (Young
et al., 2013). Wilson et al. (2008) addressed the same conclusion in their study: Baby Boomer job
satisfaction is related more to five specific aspects than both Generations X and Y, including pay
5

and benefits, scheduling, professional opportunities, praise and recognition, and control and
responsibility.
Even though these three generations are very different in their attitudes, values, and
characteristics in the workplace, there are some similarities between them such as the expectation
to have opportunities for professional development (Dols et al., 2010). Boomers delaying
retirement and staying in the workforce beyond the traditional retirement age may be seen as
taking away Generation X and Y’s professional development opportunities and negatively
impacting the latter’s job satisfaction (Deal et al., 2010; Mermin et al., 2007).
To build a successful multigenerational workplace today, it is necessary to understand
Generation Y’s attitude, values, and characteristics to best meet their needs and retain them. It
could become the greatest generation, the heroes of the modern workplace, if we understand
what they want and how to help them relate to other generations, how to attract and retain them,
and how to manage them so organizations can continue to survive and succeed in the future
(DelCampo et al., 2017). Studies have indicated several major aspects to retain Generation Y
employees that include mentoring, job satisfaction, work environment, social consciousness,
technology savviness, and team work (Munde, 2010; Raman et al., 2011). Kilber et al. (2014)
summarized seven tips to manage Generation Y to retain them based on their traits: (a) create a
desirable work environment, (b) enhance award and recognition programs, (c) adjust training
techniques to generation y employee’s learning styles, (d) stop, collaborate and listen, (e) do not
micromanage, (f) give generation y employees work that has a greater purpose, and (g) utilize
sophisticated communication. Beside these specific factors, this generation shares many common
retention factors with other earlier generations (Aruna & Anitha, 2015). Factors such as rewards,
leadership style, career opportunities, the training and development of skills, physical working
6

conditions, and the balance between professional and personal life also have an indirect influence
on their retention (Hytter, 2007).
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Addressing the issue of Generation Y retention is important for a number of reasons.
First, it is highly correlated to employee engagement, which is key to retaining talent in
organizations (Joo & Mclean, 2006). It is also related to the larger goal for many firms: creating
a comfortable environment and organizational culture for a diverse generational employee mix.
The management system for mixed generations can merge the gaps, differences, talents, and
needs across different generations into one cohesive unit. This cohesiveness encourages
employees to continue contributing knowledge and dedication to their work and ensuring a
highly productive workforce (Budhwar & Bhatnagar, 2007; Chester, 2005).
The consequences of not retaining Generation Y employees have a significant economic
impact. Research has shown that the average company loses approximately $1 million for every
10 managerial and professional employees who leave the organization. The cost of replacing an
open position ranges from half to 200% of the former employee’s salary (Hebenstreit, 2008).
Other studies of the cost of losing an employee suggest it is 1.5 to 2.5 times the annual salary
paid, depending on the level of the job (Bussin & Brigman, 2019; Cascio, 2006). The cost of not
retaining key employees is high from the perspective of turnover, as it includes the cost of
finding a replacement, hidden organization costs, and the employee’s psychological cost (Huang
et al., 2006). Allen and Shanock (2013) found that the costs associated with recruiting, selecting,
and training new employees typically exceed 100% of the annual salary of the position. Direct
costs, job interruptions, loss of organizational memory, and lack of experienced instructors
associated with turnover are major employee-retention issues (Allen & Shanock, 2013). In
addition, there is the cost of recruiting and training their replacement. For these reasons,
7

successful employee retention is important for the stability, growth, and revenue of an
organization (Cloutier et al., 2015).
Context and Mission of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the multigenerational differences in terms of
their attitudes, characteristics, and values in order to find out the organizational enablers to
enhance Generation Y employees’ retention rate. According to the Population Statistics of the
Taiwanese National Development Council in 2015, the labor force population of Taiwan has
been decreasing every year (Su, 2017). Given the generational population structure in Taiwan
and different work values between different generations, organizations face the challenge of
retaining the younger generation; they encounter a gap because the technology and skills cannot
be passed on to the younger employees, and this impedes their development and survival (P.
Hsu, 2016). As organizations face the diverse generation mix workplace, with Baby Boomers
retiring, Generation X coming up to take over senior (leadership) positions, and Generation Y
becoming the key players, they need to provide effective policies and strategies to retain
Generation Y employees in order to optimize their economic competitiveness, revenues, and
sustainability (Hsiao, 2019).
The Field Status
Taiwan’s economy is mainly built upon small and medium-sized organizations (SMEs).
Nowadays, SMEs are facing rapid social and environmental changes like an aging population
and climate change. If they are unable to adapt to the shifts, they can lose their skillful and
talented workforce, which negatively impacts their competitiveness and growth (Cheng, 2011;
Ke, 2014). Generation Y employees form the major cohort of the Taiwanese work force.
According to the Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan
Taiwan, the unemployment rate of Generation Y is much higher than the average unemployment
8

rate (P. Hsu, 2016). A survey of two thousand Taiwanese companies showed the 1-year retention
rate of Generation Y employee to be 54.3%, which is lower than the overall employee-retention
rate of 64.2% (Chiang, 2017). It is crucially important to solve the problem of the scarcity of the
younger workforce immediately.
The Field Goal
Given the low retention rate of Generation Y employees in Taiwan, it is important for
organizations to focus on the goal of shifting the turnover rate. The general goal of Taiwanese
organizations with Generation Y employees is to increase their retention rate to 70%. It is
necessary to outline key areas that need improvement in order to realize this retention rate.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Three key stakeholder groups are needed to help achieve this organizational performance
goal. The first one is the HR Department, which is in charge of evaluating each employee’s work
performance. This evaluation results in better strategies for recruitment, training, and retention.
The second stakeholder group consists of the mid-level supervisors, who implement all of the
company’s strategies and manage the team. This group acts as an important bridge to deliver the
company’s vision, mission, and goal to every individual employee by coaching, guiding, and
supervising them to achieve their goals. The third stakeholder group is formed of the Generation
Y employees. This group is the focus of this dissertation study and directly related to the
organizational performance goal. Its contribution influences the achievement of the
organization’s goal. Table 1 summarizes the organizational performance goal and the
stakeholders’ goals.

9

Table 1
Organizational Performance Goal and Stakeholders’ Goals
The Field Goal
Organizations with Generation Y employees will increase the retention rate of Generation Y
employees to 70%.
Stakeholder Group 1:
HR Department

The HR department to
complete and launch the
retention strategy for the
talented and skilled
Generation Y workforce.
Stakeholder Group 2:
Mid-level Supervisors

Mid-level supervisors to lead
the entire team to complete
departmental and individual
goal-setting according to
each employee’s capabilities
and competency.
Stakeholder Group 3:
Generation Y employees

Generation Y employees to
choose to stay at their
organization for at least 3
years.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
The stakeholder group of Generation Y employees in Taiwan was the focus of this study.
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders contribute to achieving the organizational goal of
retaining 70% of Generation Y employees, it is important to understand what factors support
their retention and what factors drive them away. Based on this understanding, an appropriate
policy, strategy, culture, and resources for retaining talented workers must be built up within the
organization. Therefore, the stakeholder group of Generation Y employees in Taiwan was the
focus of this study. The goal to be supported by the mid-level supervisors was complete
compliance with the retention strategy, training program, goal achievement, and supervision in
their daily activities.
Purpose of the Study and Questions
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences of the organizational problem described above,
the low retention rate of Generation Y employees in Taiwan. To ensure a complete gap analysis
10

and for practical purposes, Generation Y employees in Taiwan were examined in this study. The
analysis focused on possible causes due to gaps in the areas of organizational resources. It started
by generating a list of possible or assumed influences that were examined systematically to find
actual or validated causes.
The questions that guided this study were the following:
1. What are the gaps in the organizational resources related to achieving the goal of
Generation Y employees choosing to stay at their organization for at least 3 years?
2. What are the recommended solutions to retain Generation Y employees in a diverse
generational mix workplace?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis was implemented as the conceptual framework. It is
a systemic analytical method that helps to clarify organizational goals and identify the gap
between the actual performance level and the preferred performance level. The methodological
framework was a mixed-methods quantitative and qualitative study. Organizational influences
that are assumed to interfere with organizational goal achievement were generated based on
personal knowledge and the relevant literature. These influences were assessed by using surveys,
interviews, literature review, and content analysis. Research-based solutions were recommended
and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
Definitions
• Baby Boomer: This is the group of people born in 1946–1964 (Lancaster & Stillman,
2003; Tapscott, 2008; Underwood, 2007; Wiedmer, 2015). They are also called the
Sandwich generation (Gibson et al., 2009).
• Cultural model: The cultural model is an existing community with historical evolution
and shared traditions (the way things should be), including relevant beliefs, values, and
11

practices that influence the effects of an intervention designed for individuals (Gallimore
& Goldenberg, 2001. p.47).
• Cultural setting: The cultural setting is created where people come together to carry out a
joint activity that accomplishes something they value; some action takes place in this
environment that can only be defined for that particular action taking place at a particular
time (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001. p.48).
• Generation: A group of people who are born in the same time interval and share common
historical and social life events, knowledge, or experience at certain critical development
stages (M. Johnson & Johnson, 2010; Kupperschmidt, 2000; Mermin et al., 2007;
Westerman & Yamamura, 2007).
• Generation X: This is the group of people born in 1965–1980 (Lancaster & Stillman,
2003; Tapscott, 2008; Underwood, 2007; Wiedmer, 2015). They are also called gen Xers,
Busters, and the Lost Generation (Eastland & Clark, 2015; Smither, 2015; Wiedmer,
2015).
• Generation Y: This is the group of people born in 1981–2000s (Lancaster & Stillman,
2003; Tapscott, 2008; Underwood, 2007; Wiedmer, 2015). They are also called gen Yers,
Millennials, and Nexters (Gibson et al., 2009; Smither, 2015; Wiedmer, 2015).
• Hyper-aged society: When the population of a country over the age of 65 grows to more
than 7%, it is considered an “aging society;” over 14% indicates an “aged society;” over
20%, it is labeled a “hyper-aged” society (Keoni Everington, 2018).
• Traditionalist: This is the group of people born in 1925–1945 (Lancaster & Stillman,
2003; Tapscott, 2008; Underwood, 2007; Wiedmer, 2015). They are also called Radio
Babies, Builders, Industrialists, The Silent Generation, World War II Generation, and
Veterans (Buahene & Kovary, 2003; K. R. Clark, 2017; Kane, 2015; Wiedmer, 2015).
12

Organization of the Project
This study is organized into five chapters. This first chapter provides the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about employee retention,
specifically focusing on Generation Y employees in Taiwan. The field goals, stakeholders, as
well as the initial concepts of gap analysis are introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of the
current literature covering the scope of the study. Topics of importance for retaining Generation
Y employees, characteristics of different generations creating management challenges, and
methods to enhance Generation Y employee retention are addressed. Chapter Three details the
assumed interfering elements as well as methodology regarding the choice of participants, data
collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and analyzed. Chapter
Five provides solutions, based on the data and literature, for closing the perceived gaps as well as
recommendations for implementation and an evaluation plan for the solutions.

13

Chapter Two: Literature Review
Generational diversity is commonly seen in the workplace due to delayed retirement and
increased life expectancy (Lancaster & Stillman, 2003; Tapscott, 2008; Underwood, 2007;
Wiedmer, 2015). A large number of scholarly studies relate to the influence of generational
diversity in the workplace. This chapter summarizes relevant studies in three sections: growing
generational diversity in the workplace, characteristics of different generations and implications
for employee retention, and factors to enhance Generation Y employee retention.
Growing Generational Diversity in the Workplace
Employee Retention in the 21st Century
Generation Y will be the largest cohort in the global workforce in 2022 (Hershatter &
Epstein, 2010). It is important for organizations to secure and retain vital employees with
advanced technical and professional skills to optimize organizational economic competitiveness
because technology is applied extensively in business operations (Kompaso & Sridevi, 2010).
The retention of key employees leads to better customer satisfaction and organizational
performance as well as higher sales and effective succession planning (Das & Baruah, 2013). In
order to keep any organization operating successfully in the long term, the retention of key
employees is crucial. The ability to retain skilled and knowledgeable employees will secure the
organization’s economic competitiveness because they are the driving force behind achieving the
organizational goals of development and accomplishment (Budhwar & Bhatnagar, 2007; Das &
Baruah, 2013).
In management’s view, one of the most important demands in any organization today is
keeping the most vital and dynamic human resources motivated and dedicated. Those retained
are more important than those newly hired (Cutler, 2001). The ability to manage and retain
promising employees is an important fundamental means of achieving a competitive advantage
14

among organizations (Walker, 2001). Whether in the public or private sector, securing and
managing competent human resources are the most valuable means for effective and efficient
delivery of goods and services by organizations (Olowu & Adamolekun, 2005). The common
challenge organizations encounter is the difficulty of retaining younger generation employees
due to the many reasons discussed below.
Trend of Generational Diversity
Delayed retirement and increased life expectancy have resulted in four generations
working together side by side (Lancaster & Stillman, 2003; Tapscott, 2008; Underwood, 2007;
Wiedmer, 2015). The generational differences influence the workplace dynamics and create
challenges for management that impede the retention of younger generations (Burk et al., 2011;
Mermin et al., 2007). The generational differences in ethics, ambitions, views, mindsets,
workstyles, attitudes, values, and characteristics influence the workplace environment (Burk et
al., 2011; Dols et al., 2010; Mermin et al., 2007; Rajput et al., 2013). Organizations and
supervisors who understand these generational differences will be able to find better ways to
accommodate them and utilize productive ways to work with each other in the workplace;
otherwise, there will be mistrust and a lack of communication among employees that destroy
collaboration and teamwork (Macky, Gardner, Forsyth, et al., 2008; Srinivasan, 2012).
As the Generation Y employees are becoming the main workforce and potential leaders
and make up the majority of employees in the workplace, it is important to understand their
nature, attitude, values, and characteristics, in order to retain them and keep the performance of
the organization optimal (Anitha, 2015; Gurumani, 2010). For any organization, maintaining a
range of behavior and social diversity is essential; otherwise, the organization will lose talent
(Anitha, 2015; Gurumani, 2010). Boomers delaying retirement and staying in the workforce
beyond the traditional retirement age may also be seen as taking away Generation X and Y’s
15

professional development opportunities (Deal et al., 2010; Mermin et al., 2007). This
multigenerational mix forms a challenge for management that influences the retention of younger
generations (Burk et al., 2011; Mermin et al., 2007).
Characteristics of Different Generations and Implications for Employee Retention
The definition of a generation is a group of people who are born in the same time interval
and share common historical and social life events, knowledge, or experience at certain critical
development stages (M. Johnson & Johnson, 2010; Kupperschmidt, 2000; Mermin et al., 2007;
Westerman & Yamamura, 2007). Even though there is no consensus as to when one generation
begins and ends precisely, many experts agree that those people who grew up experiencing the
same historical and social events share similar characteristics and core values (Eastland & Clark,
2015; Hahn, 2011; M. Johnson & Johnson, 2010; Lipscomb, 2010; McCready, 2014; Smither,
2015).
Characteristic Difference
There are studies defining generational cohorts in years: Traditionalists (1925–1945),
Baby Boomers (1946–1964), Generation X (1965–1980) and Generation Y (1981–2000s;
Lancaster & Stillman, 2003; Tapscott, 2008; Underwood, 2007; Wiedmer, 2015). All of the
differences in life, knowledge, and social experience influence a person’s thoughts, beliefs,
behaviors, work attitude, work value, desires, and satisfaction with authority, their organization,
and career path (Angeline, 2011; M. Johnson & Johnson, 2010; Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998;
Kupperschmidt, 2000). These differences result in a different work lifestyle and cause the
generational gap in the workplace (Lancaster & Stillman, 2003). Table 2 shows a list of
descriptions of each generation as summarized from academic and popular articles (Gibson et al.,
2009).
16

Table 2
Generational Descriptors
Baby Boomer Generation X Generation Y
Company loyalty Lack of loyalty Contract mentality
Idealistic Reactive Civic-minded
Self-absorbed Self-reliant Self-centered
Workaholic Work/life balance Multi-taskers
Tech conservatives Computer savvy Tech experts
Entitled Cynical/skeptical Easily bored
Traditional family Divorced family Many family forms
Way of authority Independent Crave feedback
Competitive Entrepreneurial Social entrepreneurs
Materialistic Fun-loving Volunteers
Training Life-long learning Distance learning
Comfortable with change Creative Crave challenge
Optimistic Want fulfilling work High maintenance
Security oriented Career options Collaborative

Note. Reprinted from “Generational Differences in the Workplace: Personal values, behaviors,
and popular beliefs” by J. W. Gibson, R. A Greenwood & E. F. Murphy Jr., 2009, Journal of
Diversity Management, 4(3), 1–8.

Traditionalist
“Traditionalists” are also called Radio Babies, Builders, Industrialists, The Silent
Generation, World War II Generation, and Veterans (Buahene & Kovary, 2003; K. R. Clark,
2017; Kane, 2015; Wiedmer, 2015). This generation was born before or during World War II
with the experience of economic hardships that influenced its values and opinions regarding
family, religion, work, and government. This forged them into patriotic and civic-minded
citizens because they witnessed business and government working together to conquer the Great
Depression (K. R. Clark, 2017; Smither, 2015; Wiedmer, 2015). The Traditionalist generation is
generally characterized as loyal and disciplined (Kane, 2015). They tend to work hard and
17

developed a sense of pride and determination with consistency and uniformity (Wiedmer, 2015).
They respect authority and enjoy family values, but their work comes first and is unconnected to
their family life. Like their Baby Boomer children, they feel motivated by money and position.
They are proud of being self-sacrificing and thrifty (Hendricks & Cope, 2013; Wiedmer, 2015).
They prefer to work in conservative, hierarchical environments with a clear top-down chain of
command (Clause, 2017). Punctuality and productivity are considered a work ethic (Hendricks &
Cope, 2013; Wiedmer, 2015). This generation is also unfamiliar with and even resists using new
technology (Eastland & Clark, 2015; Sedrak & Cahill, 2011).
Baby Boomer Generation
This generation was freed from the influence of World War II but grew up through the
Cold War and Vietnam War. This brought them opportunities that their parents did not have,
such as an education that enhanced upward mobility. They were the first generation earning
college degrees (Hendricks & Cope, 2013; Wiedmer, 2015). The educational experience helped
Boomers to learn to collaborate and cooperate with peers and trained them to work in teams and
build relationships (Smither, 2015). The Baby Boomer generation is characterized as loyal and
dedicated to their job and able to work independently with a professional attitude (Karp et al.,
2002). They work extremely hard for positions and authority and are committed to their
professional goals (Wiedmer, 2015). They are also credited and labelled as ‘workaholics’ since
their life focus is mainly on their career (M. Johnson & Johnson, 2010; Twenge, 2006). Boomers
are recognized as optimistic, friendly, and proud of being ethical in work (Smither, 2015). They
work long hours like Traditionalists and are motived by incentives, reputation, and position, and
expect to be recognized for their contribution (Eastland & Clark, 2015; Hendricks & Cope, 2013;
Krishnaraj et al., 2012). They are seen as living to work because even though they are reaching
18

retirement age, they tend to remain in the workplace – work is the driving force to keep
themselves busy and feel valued and satisfied (Hendricks & Cope, 2013; Webb, 2010).
Generation X
Generation X is also called gen Xers, Busters, and the Lost Generation (Eastland &
Clark, 2015; Smither, 2015; Wiedmer, 2015). They are known as the latchkey generation
because they grew up in families with two working parents or single-parent homes (Zemke et al.,
1999). This lack of family bonding experience encouraged this generation to bond with friends
and colleagues (Buahene & Kovary, 2003). They are more resourceful compared to the previous
generation. They seek a balance between work and personal life; families and friends take
priority above work (Karp et al., 2002). Generally, they are less loyal to employers and demand
more flexibility and freedom in work arrangements, and expect acknowledgement of their
contribution (Wiedmer, 2015). Generation X can multitask easily and excels in working
independently (Wiedmer, 2015). They do not affiliate themselves with teamwork but are able to
partner with coworkers to achieve a common goal (Hendricks & Cope, 2013). This is the first
generation that grew up with computers, automated teller machines, and cell phones. They put
fun before work (Raines, 2003).
Generation Y
Generation Y is also called gen Yers, Millennials, and Nexters (Smither, 2015; Wiedmer,
2015). This generation has grown up using computers, mobile phones, tablets, and other
electronic devices and being heavily connected to the internet (Buahene & Kovary, 2003;
Eastland & Clark, 2015; Smither, 2015; Wiedmer, 2015). They are savvy in a wide diversity of
social media networks and communication methods instead of face-to-face interactions, and are
familiar with technology (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Zemke et al., 1999). It is the generation
most able to accept variety (Hill & Stephens, 2003). Generation Y is similar to Generation X in
19

terms of seeking a life-work balance. Unlike the Baby Boomers’ definition of hard work with a 9
to 5 routine, Generation Y can access multi-tasking mobile devices to accomplish the same
amount of work faster, such as laptops, iPads, and smart phones (Pasieka, 2009). Generation Y
gets impatient and bored easily, but they can be driven by a sense of purpose and belonging to
meaningful communities, and enjoy experimenting and discovering new approaches and
solutions to problems (K. R. Clark, 2017; Wiedmer, 2015). This generation has a strong work
ethic but a lower tolerance for less challenging work. They want to feel they can make a
difference in their job (Council, 2005; Espinoza & Ukleja, 2016). Generation Y looks for
happiness in their work and personal life, and as a result they do not constrain themselves to one
job or one career (Hendricks & Cope, 2013). They can be attracted by companies and businesses
that provide technological access, and this technical trend is changing the way of doing business
globally (Wiedmer, 2015).
Tolbize (2008) summarized the generational differences in work-related characteristics
and expectations in the categories: work ethic, attitudes towards authorities (rules), expectations
regarding respect, preferred way to learn soft skills, preferred way to learn hard skills, feedback
and supervision, attitudes regarding loyalty to their employer, work-life balance, perceived
elements of success in the workplace, top developmental areas, and preferred leadership
attributes. Traditionalists and Baby Boomers tend to work harder than younger Generation X and
Y. In terms of attitudes towards authority (rules), Traditionalists value conformity, authority and
rules; Baby Boomers are uncomfortable interacting with authority figures; Generation X are
comfortable with authority figures and not impressed with titles; Generation Y believe that
respect must be earned. Both Traditionalist and Baby Boomers expect special treatment and
weight given to their opinions, both Generations X and Y prefer to be held in esteem and be
listened to. Generation Y prefers to learn soft skills through peer interaction and feedback
20

compared to previous generations. Both Generations X and Y prefer to learn hard skills through
on-the-job training compared to the Traditionalists and Baby Boomers, who prefer classroom
instruction more. Traditionalists and Baby Boomers may be insulted by continuous feedback, but
Generations X and Y prefer immediate and continuous feedback. Traditionalists are considered
among the most loyal workers; Baby Boomers value company commitment and loyalty;
Generation X is less loyal to companies than previous generations but loyal to people;
Generation Y can be committed and loyal when dedicated to an idea, cause, or product. In terms
of their work-life balance, Baby Boomers sacrificed their personal life for work, Generations X
and Y value the work-life balance more. In terms of perceived elements of success in the
workplace, older generations are more able to meet deadlines, willing to learn new things, and
get along with people than Generation Y. Generation X and Y’s top developmental areas are
leadership and skills training in certain areas of expertise; Generation X is specifically suggested
to be good at team building, Generation Y prefers problem-solving and decision-making.
Traditionalists and Baby Boomers are thought to develop computer training and skills
training in certain areas of expertise as their priority. In terms of preferred leadership attributes,
Traditionalists are credible, listen well, and can be trusted; Baby Boomers are credible,
trustworthy, and farsighted; Generation X is credible, trustworthy, and farsighted; Generation Y
listens well, is dependable and dedicated. The generational differences exist in many aspects.
They can cause work value gaps and lead to conflicts in the workplace (Gibson et al., 2009). The
next section will discuss how different generational preferences cause conflicts and lead to
management challenges (Hillman, 2014).
Management Challenges Related to Generation Y Employee Retention
The generational difference results in a different work lifestyle and causes the
generational gap (Lancaster & Stillman, 2003). If the different generations do not understand and
21

accept each other’s different characteristics, and embrace their similarities, there will inevitably
be conflict and stress in the workplace (Angeline, 2011). In this multigenerational workplace,
many things are accomplished by older generations, and it becomes the accepted way. To change
the way they have always been is inherently a difficult task. Generation Y challenges the
established patterns of business practice because they are different in terms of attitudes,
behaviors, ideals, memories, and life experience. They dare to change and rethink the old way
business is done. They are not afraid to confront older generations when they think something is
wrong (DelCampo et al., 2017). If management fails to resolve the conflicts in the
multigenerational workplace, the consequences of low organizational morale, high turnover, and
decreased profits will be inevitable (Hillman, 2014).
According to Tolbize’s study (2008), there are many best practices for promoting
retention that can be applied in the intergenerational workforce since they share some
similarities. However, the loyalty to employers differs significantly between the generations:
70% of Traditionalists tend to stay with one organization for their whole working life, but just
65% of Baby Boomers, 40% of Generation X, and 20% of Generation Y. It seems each
generation is less loyal than the preceding one (Deal, 2007; Tolbize, 2008). Another study also
found that the younger generation has less commitment to stay in the same organization than
older generations (D’Amato & Herzfeldt, 2008). Lyons et al. (2012) stated that Generation Y’s
job and organization change rates are higher than those of Generation X, Baby Boomers and
Traditionalists (Lyons et al., 2012).
Criticism of Generations
According to Parry and Urwin (2011), even though the concept of generational difference
is commonly adopted in management practices, there are many studies that show a lack of
evidence to support the generational difference in work values and the definition of generations.
22

This is due to the limitations of the methodological design with a lack of consideration of the
differences due to gender, ethnicity, and national context (Parry & Urwin, 2011). Other scholarly
studies argue that the characteristic Western generational differences may not be the same in
Asian countries. According to Yu and Miller (2003, 2005), Taiwanese culture differs from
Western culture in terms of generational characteristics. The result of their studies indicated that
the Taiwanese Baby Boomers and Generation X have similar characteristics to the Western ones,
and there are no generational differences in the education field (Yu & Miller, 2003, 2005).
In terms of job satisfaction and attitude, within-generation differences have been found to
be greater than between-generation differences, as correlated to age, job status, tenure, work,
pay, promotion opportunities, coworkers, supervision, and the honeymoon effect (Bedeian et al.,
1992; Boswell et al., 2005; Cucina et al., 2018; Hulin & Smith, 1965; Kacmar & Ferris, 1989; A.
T. White & Spector, 1987). Based on Cucina et al.'s (2018) study, there are very small
generational differences in workplace attitudes. Why do managers tend not to report differences
that are greater than the generational differences? It is possible that managers have noticed and
reported the small-scale effect of generation differences, but exaggerated or paid selective
attention to the behavior and attitude stereotypes of different generations (Cucina et al., 2018).
According to Costanza and Finkelstein (2015), there is a lack of solid empirical evidence and
theory to support the existence of generational differences. However, this concept of generational
difference is commonly adopted to modify business strategies for dealing with management
problems. The possibility of leaving out the needs, desires and particularities of the Generation Y
employees in business decisions could lead to more problems than solutions (Costanza &
Finkelstein, 2015).
23

Factors to Enhance Employee Retention in Generation Y
Employee retention is not influenced by a single factor; there are a multitude of factors
such as compensation and rewards, job security, training and development, supervisor support
culture, work environment, and organization justice (Fitz-enz, 1990). Kyndt, Dochy et al. (2009)
found in their study investigating employee retention that personal factors such as level of
education, seniority, self-perceived leadership skills, and learning attitude, and organizational
factors such as appreciation and stimulation and pressure of work are of great relevance in
employee retention (Kyndt et al., 2009). An organization’s ability to retain employees depends
upon its ability to manage them. There are four interlinked processes that can be utilized by an
effective human resource management system: the motivational process, the interaction process,
the visioning process, and the learning process (Kaliprasad, 2006). The particular factors
affecting the retention of Generation Y include coaching, job satisfaction, work environment,
social awareness, technical proficiency, and teamwork (Anitha, 2015).
Human resource departments play an important role in creating a variety of policies and
practices to promote a work environment in which the employee feels comfortable. Kilber et al.
(2014) summarized seven tips to manage Generation Y and retain them based on their traits: (a)
create a desirable work environment; (b) enhance award and recognition programs; (c) adjust
training techniques to generation y employee’s learning styles; (d) stop, collaborate, and listen;
(e) do not micromanage; (f) give generation y employees work that has a greater purpose; (g)
Utilize sophisticated communication. Other studies confirmed these major aspects of
management important to Generation Y employees: mentoring, job satisfaction, work
environment, social consciousness, technology savviness, and teamwork (Munde, 2010; Raman
et al., 2011). Factors such as rewards, leadership style, career opportunities, the training and
24

development of skills, physical working conditions, and the balance between professional and
personal life also have an indirect influence on their retention (Hytter, 2007).
Management
Today’s workplaces are multigenerational, with new and complex implications for
employee retention associated with the management of a diverse generational workforce. The
generational differences in ethics, ambitions, views, mindsets, workstyles, attitudes, values, and
characteristics influence the workplace environment and create challenges in management and
affect the retention of younger generations (Burk et al., 2011; Dols et al., 2010; Mermin et al.,
2007; Rajput et al., 2013). Generation Y prefers to understand why things are done in certain
ways rather than being forced into molds that have been passed on from previous generations.
Likewise, a supervisor needs to stay open-minded to realize Generation Y’s desire for better
understanding is not challenging their authority (Eckleberry-Hunt & Tucciarone, 2011; Kehrli &
Sopp, 2006). The best strategy supervisors can apply to guide Generation Y to fit with the
organization involves breaking through the hierarchy structure and mentoring them without
judgement (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010).
Generation Y has greater levels of commitment to organizations, along with a higher
expectation of mentor and supervisor support than previous generations (K. R. Clark, 2017). A
mentorship program in a diverse generational workplace can attract Generation Y employees
because it builds their confidence in doing certain tasks when they receive knowledge and skills
passed on from senior colleagues (Curtis Bush, 2017). Strong mentorship programs are a great
tool to motivate and train Generation Y employees to develop better competences that usually
result in better performance in their job and career (Curtis Bush, 2017; Kong et al., 2016). When
a supervisor is able to offer mentorship and fosters a more personal relationship instead of seeing
them negatively, they will become willing to commit and work hard (Kehrli & Sopp, 2006).
25

Generational diversity in organizations often causes challenges and conflicts in the
workplace, especially nowadays (Macky, Gardner, Forsyth, et al., 2008; Srinivasan, 2012). It is a
difficult task to achieve intergenerational interaction while avoiding conflict at the same time
(McGuire et al., 2007). For example, Generation Y employees prefer to work in a collaborative
environment because they value friendship and the similar sense of bonding with their colleagues
at the workplace. Analogously, they like to collaborate with their supervisors and coworkers and
make decisions or work on projects collaboratively (Aruna & Anitha, 2015). When organizations
and supervisors are able to value and accept the generational differences and engage with them
more proactively, this will most likely close the work value gaps and improve communication
processes, problem-solving processes, knowledge-sharing processes, interpersonal relationships,
leadership behaviors, and management styles and result in a collaborative environment
(Kompaso & Sridevi, 2010).
Engagement
Studies suggest a positive relationship between employee engagement and retention
(Aguenza et al., 2012; Al-Emadi et al., 2015; Gagné & Deci, 2005; Vui-Yee & Paggy, 2018).
Employee engagement was found to be higher in double-digit growth companies. Companies
with engaged employees have higher employee retention as a result of reduced turnover and
reduced intention to leave the company (Coffman, 2000). High levels of engagement in domestic
and global firms promote the retention of talent, foster customer loyalty, and improve
organizational performance and stakeholder value as a key business driver for organizational
success; and productivity, profitability, customer loyalty, and safety were found to be indicators
of organizational performance outcomes. Employees with the highest level of commitment
perform 20% better and are 87% less likely to leave the organization, which indicates that
engagement is linked to employee retention as well as to organizational performance
26

(Lockwood, 2007). According to the 2010 Gallup employee engagement survey, the cost of lost
productivity from disengaged employees is $370 billion annually in the U.S. economy (ADP
Research Institute, 2012).
Since Generation Y has different characteristics compared to previous generations,
organizations need to understand them and create a work environment to enhance their
engagement (Liyanage & Gamage, 2017). According to Martin (2005), challenging work is a
highlighted factor influencing Generation Y employee engagement. They prefer a coaching style
from supervisors who can stay open to their ideas instead of an authoritative, unapproachable, or
arrogant manager style. They also prefer constructive and immediate feedback. They enjoy
praise and recognition when they have done a great job.
Generation Y likes to learn and develop with supervisors’ feedback and support, and a
challenging and variable work content is an important factor influencing their engagement
(Kultalahti & Liisa Viitala, 2014). Their ideas need to be heard, and they like to get involved in
the decision-making process (Luscombe et al., 2013). The way supervisors treat them is a key
factor affecting their engagement, such as respecting them as individual human beings rather
than just as employees, giving positive feedback as well instead of only negative feedback
(Kultalahti & Liisa Viitala, 2014). Ferri-Reed (2010) suggested that the best strategy to engage
Generation Y is by providing them with opportunities for multiple learning and development
experiences, challenges, recognition for achievement, a clear promotion path, and reframing the
coaching to train them. Generation Y is keen to apply their skills and knowledge in their work in
an environment with a less hierarchical structure, narrower power gap between senior and junior
colleagues, more sense of belonging, and teamwork (Petroulas et al., 2010). Career growth,
supervisor behavior, work content, and work-life balance have a positive relationship with the
27

employee engagement of Generation Y, and career growth and supervisor behavior are the most
important factors of all (Liyanage & Gamage, 2017).
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is an effective enabler to retain Generation Y in an organization, and can
involve comparing work, recognition, meaningful work, attractive remuneration, instant rewards,
and instant gratification (Hom & Kinicki, 2001). Generation Y is seeking to balance their
personal life and work more than previous generations did, but recognition will encourage them
to work harder (Armour, 2005; Weyland, 2011). Instant rewards, immediate returns, and
attractive remuneration are effective elements to meet the “fast success” syndrome and desire of
a luxury lifestyle (Beck & Wade, n.d.). According to Sarah et al. (2013), there are three major
aspects to attitude differences between generations related to job satisfaction: working
conditions, work and environment, and resources and employee benefits. In addition, some
research suggests that the Baby Boomer generation is more satisfied in their job compared to the
younger generations (X and Y) (Young et al., 2013). Wilson et al. (2008) addresses the same
conclusion in their study: Baby Boomer generation job satisfaction is greater than for both
Generations X and Y in terms of the five aspects of pay and benefits, scheduling, professional
opportunities, praise and recognition, and control and responsibility.
Beside specific factors necessary to retain Generation Y, this generation shares many
common retention factors with other earlier generations (Aruna & Anitha, 2015). Table 3 lists
common factors that influence employee retention to all generations with some research support.
In the last column of Table 3, Y indicates the factors particularly affecting Generation Y.

28

Table 3
The Related Literature of Factors That Influence Employee Retention
Factors Reference Main point Y
Implementation
of human
resource
management
(Haar &
White, 2013;
Kim, 2012;
Osman et al.,
2011; Watty-
Benjamin &
Udechukwu,
2014)
The effective implementation of HRM strategies will
empower the organization’s competitiveness for
hiring and retaining the right persons with skills and
knowledge.
Y
(Yamamoto,
2011)
Good HRM policies will retain employees by
continuing to develop their work ability and
practice their current skills or newly learned skills.
Y
(Parry &
Wilson, 2009)
An effective recruitment policy to hire the right
person can retain key talents in the organization.

Salary and
compensation
(Tracey, 2014)
Salary determines employee’s commitment level to
the organization.
Y
(Taylor et al.,
2001)
Salary and benefits policies should not be used to
improve morale, reduce turnover within an
organization, and achieve targets.

(Yamamoto,
2011)
Effective employee benefit plan such as dental
insurance, medical care, housing, childcare, etc.
enhances employee retention
Y
Remuneration
and
recognition
(Walker, 2001)
Recognition from bosses, team members, coworkers,
and customers can enhance employee loyalty for
better retention

(Silbert, 2005)
Reward gives employees the impression of being
valued

(Chew &
Chan, 2008)
If the organization can offer remuneration packages
above the market rate, it will encourage an
employee’s commitment to the job or staying with
the employer.
Y
(Chew &
Chan, 2008)
Retaining employees is more than just money,
because other requirements are also important, such
as personal outreach for leaders and managers,
equity grants, promotions, and horizontal shifts to a
new position.
Y
Job satisfaction
(Rehman,
2012)
Employees will be reluctant to contribute themselves
if they don’t see good opportunities for achieving
job satisfaction.
Y
(Haji Hasin &
Haji Omar,
2007)
Job satisfaction significantly relates to employee
retention. Y

29

Factors Reference Main point Y
Promotion and
opportunity
for growth
(Meyer et al.,
n.d.)
Internal career development of employees is one of
the best factors to enhance their commitment to the
organization.

(Prince, 2005)
Competitive advantages for talented employees are
required because employees want career growth
opportunities to rise up their career ladder, which
include internal promotion, advancement plans, and
accurate career previews at the time of hiring.

Participation in
decision-
making
(Noah, 2008)
Increasing the sense of belonging will help in creating
a congenial working environment, such as
employee involvement in decision-making. This
encourages employees to contribute more towards
building a good employer-employee relationship.

Work-life
balance
(Australian
Telework
Advisory
Committee to
the Australian
Government,
2006)
The search found that 70% of businesses that
incorporated telework options resulted in several
positive benefits, such as improved employee
flexibility and work-life balance, increased
workforce participation, increased business
productivity, and reduced costs.

(Hausknecht et
al., 2009)
A clear policy offers alternative work hours or
scheduling that can reduce tensions arising from
competing work and personal demands.
Y
Work culture
and
environment
(Ananthan &
Sudheendra
Rao, 2011;
Govaerts et al.,
2011)
Good work environment provides learning
opportunities that will reinforce an employee’s
commitment to the organization and increase
stability.
Y
(Miller et al.,
2001)
Work environment can benefit employees because it
increases a sense of belonging.

(Chapman,
2009)
New employee orientation and socialization can help
new employees fit in and integrate with the
organization culture, which will reduce job stress
Y

30

Factors Reference Main point Y
Training and
development
(Tomlinson,
2002)
Training employees in advanced technologies will
help organizations keep ahead in this competitive
world

(Lin & Chang,
2005)
Resigned employees see themselves as upwardly
mobile in their careers, and employees who enjoy
international promotion show greater positive
learning goals than colleagues who maintain long-
term stability in the same company.
Y
(Messmer,
2000)
Organizations invest in those employees from whom
they expect a return and output to productivity, with
training and career development being an important
factor to keep up employee retention.
Y
(Glen, 2006)
Retaining key employees is not limited to providing
formal education and development opportunities;
promising high-potential employees must be
provided with the prospect of achieving experience-
based career leverage opportunities, not only to
develop their careers rapidly, but also to improve
their career marketability.
Y
Leadership
(Eisenberger et
al., 1990)
Employees’ relationship with supervisor will crucially
influence their perception about an organization

(Fang et al.,
2009)
Leadership style can affect organizational
commitment and work satisfaction in a positive
way, and work satisfaction can affect organizational
commitment and work performance positively
Y
Work
positioning
and job
security
(Larsson et al.,
2007)
Employees who are recruited according to specific job
requirements show better commitment and
motivation
Y
(Ashford et al.,
1989)
Job dissatisfaction is the outcome of insecurity among
employees

Generation Y Employees’ Organizational Influences
Developing employees’ knowledge, skills, and motivation and implementing those
strengths to realize organizational goals are the keys to success in any economy (Clark & Estes,
2014). In order to keep any organization operating successfully in the long term, the retention of
key employees is crucial. The ability to retain knowledgeable and skilled employees ensures the
organization’s economic competitiveness because employees are the driving force behind
achieving the organization’s goals of development and accomplishment (Budhwar & Bhatnagar,
31

2007; Das & Baruah, 2013). It is important to invest more resources in knowledge workers to
enhance their ability to solve new problems and adapt to constantly shifting conditions in the
changing economic marketplace (Clark et al., 2004). The cost of not retaining key employees is
high from the perspective of turnover, as it includes the cost of finding a replacement, hidden
organization costs, and the employee’s psychological cost (Huang et al., 2006). Based on the
above reasons, organizations need to consider employees as capital and to invest in improving
their current employees’ performance rather than finding a replacement at a high cost (Clark et
al., 2004).
The aspirational organizational performance goal in this study is to increase the retention
rate of Generation Y employees in Taiwan to 70%. The focus of this study is an exploration of
how Taiwanese organizations have impacted Generation Y employees in terms of cultural
models and cultural settings. Though a complete implementation of Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap
analysis would include Generation Y employees’ knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational influence related to them choosing to stay at their organization for at least 3 years,
I have chosen to focus here only on how the organization-related influences impact an
organization’s Generation Y employment decisions.
The following sections examine the organization-related influences that may either
support or deter Generation Y employees from staying with an organization for a period of time.
These influences include the organizational culture, work process, material resources, value
chains, and value streams; they determine the employees’ motivation, knowledge, and skills that
are relevant to their competence, value, and self-efficacy (R. E. Clark & Estes, 2008). The ones
that impact the Generation Y employees’ performance in terms of organizational commitment
will be discussed in both cultural model and cultural setting frameworks.
32

Organizational culture is an inevitable and invisible influence affecting all attempts to
enhance an individual’s work performance (Clark et al., 2004; Rueda, 2011). Clark et al. (2004)
defined culture as the core values, goals, beliefs, emotions, and processes individuals experience
in work environments over time. For example, these experiences could include the ways in
which a particular organization is different and unique, what aspects of the organization and its
goals people value the most, the differences in how people get jobs done, how and when
individuals get performance feedback, who causes the change, what normally happens when
major changes are made, and who makes the important decisions in the organization. In order to
enhance individuals’ work performance, it is important to use the cultural profiles to align the
organizational culture with the important policies, procedures, and communication within the
organization.
Today’s workplaces are multigenerational, with new and complex implications for
employee retention associated with the management of a diverse generational workforce. The
generational differences in ethics, ambitions, views, mindsets, work styles, attitudes, values, and
characteristics influence the workplace environment and create challenges in management and
affect the retention of younger generations (Burk et al., 2011; Dols et al., 2010; Mermin et al.,
2007; Rajput et al., 2013). Generation Y employees are in great demand in the current job market
as the older generation is approaching retirement, so it is crucial for organizations and managers
to retain them to sustain the organization’s performance. Modern organizations need a stable
organizational culture and work culture to maintain a constant balance with the necessary
flexibility to accommodate complex and rapid market shifts (R. E. Clark & Estes, 2008). In order
to retain Generation Y employees, organizations need to create a new and desirable type of work
environment which incorporates career development opportunities, access to knowledge and
33

skills, flexible work schedules and policies, a work-life balance, and trust (Cahill & Sedrak,
2012; Kilber et al., 2014).
According to Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), the organizational features can be
classified into the cultural model and cultural setting frameworks. The cultural model is an
existing community with historical evolution and shared traditions (the way things should be),
including relevant beliefs, values, and practices that influence the effects of an intervention
designed for individuals (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The cultural setting is created ‘where
people come together to carry out joint activity that accomplishes something they value;’ some
action takes place in this environment that can only be defined for that particular action taking
place at a particular time (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001. p.48).
Cultural Model 1: Mentorship Style Versus Traditional Hierarchy Style
Generation Y’s unique characteristics influence their learning in positive and negative
ways; they cannot be forced into molds that have been passed on from previous generations
(Eckleberry-Hunt & Tucciarone, 2011). They like to ask “why” in order to understand why
things are done in certain ways instead of challenging the manager’s authority or distrusting the
manager’s experience. Likewise, a supervisor needs to understand Generation Y’s curiosity and
desire to better understand the background and history of a situation in order to not be defensive
and keep an open mind to their ideas (Kehrli & Sopp, 2006). Kehrli and Sopp (2006) stated that
managers should be aware that Generation Y employees will take what seems to be a reasonable
request as a reminder of who is in control. The best strategy to optimize their learning outcome
and fit to the organization is to mentor them without judgement, share wisdom with them, or help
them learn from their own mistakes or missteps (Kehrli & Sopp, 2006). Supervisors can also
take a proactive approach to break through the hierarchy structure that may limit the interactions
34

within the intergenerational workplace, emphasizing the command procedures and appropriate
protocol and the process for presenting ideas (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010).
Generation Y has greater levels of commitment to organizations, along with a higher
expectation of mentor and supervisor support than previous generations (K. R. Clark, 2017). A
mentorship program in a diverse generational workplace can attract Generation Y employees
because it builds their confidence in doing certain tasks when they receive knowledge and skills
passed on from senior colleagues (Curtis Bush, 2017). Strong mentorship programs are an
effective tool to motivate and support competency development that usually result in better
performance in their job and career (Curtis Bush, 2017; Kong et al., 2016). When a supervisor is
able to offer mentorship and forms a more personal relationship instead of seeing them
negatively, they will become willing to commit and work hard (Kehrli & Sopp, 2006).
Cultural Model 2: Collaborative Environment Versus Collisional Environment
Intergenerational cooperation and collaboration form a crucial element of success for
organizations (Srinivasan, 2012). Unfortunately, generational diversity in organizations often
causes challenges and conflicts in the workplace (Macky, Gardner, Forsyth, et al., 2008;
Srinivasan, 2012). It is a difficult task to achieve intergenerational interaction while avoiding
conflict at the same time (McGuire et al., 2007). Generational psychological differences and
their different approaches and attitudes may result in conflicts and undermine the organization’s
performance (Macky, Gardner, Forsyth, et al., 2008; McGuire et al., 2007). Generation Y
employees will perform more effectively when there is less conflict in the environment (Hillman,
2014). Organizations and supervisors who understand these generational differences will be able
to find better ways to accommodate them and utilize productive ways to work with each other in
the workplace; otherwise, there will be mistrust and a lack of communication among employees
35

that can significantly impact collaboration and teamwork in a negative way (Macky, Gardner,
Forsyth et al., 2008; Srinivasan, 2012).
Generation Y employees prefer to work in a collaborative environment because they
value friendship and the similar sense of bonding with their colleagues at the workplace.
Analogously, they like to collaborate with their supervisors and coworkers and make decisions or
work on projects collaboratively (Aruna & Anitha, 2015). When organizations and supervisors
are able to value and accept the generational differences and engage with them more proactively,
this will most likely close the work value gaps and improve communication processes, problem-
solving processes, knowledge-sharing processes, interpersonal relationships, leadership
behaviors, and management styles and result in a collaborative environment (Kompaso &
Sridevi, 2010).
Cultural Setting 1: Provision of Training and Professional Development Opportunities
Generation Y can be motivated by and interested in professional development
opportunities (Curtis Bush, 2017). Generation Y employees have higher expectations for
coaching, mentoring, and supervisor support than older generations, and they expect their
supervisors to offer guidance in the workplace. As a result, coaching has become a fundamental
requirement for Generation Y employees to stay in an organization (Anitha, 2015; K. R. Clark,
2017; Munde, 2010). Based on Generation Y employees’ expectations of their guidance,
supervisors can develop meaningful and effective training strategies to enhance their employees’
knowledge and skills.
Training acquires “how to” knowledge and skills, and needs practice and corrective
feedback to help people achieve specific work goals; it is information and sometimes job aids
plus guided practice and corrective feedback that will result in a high-impact learning outcome
and performance result (R. E. Clark et al., 2004. p.58). Meaningful and effective training
36

strategies are based on the three cognitive processes: selecting, organizing, and integrating. This
breaks through the capacity limitation of the working memory and encodes information to the
long-term memory, and thus all required abilities can be enhanced to the preferred level (Mayer,
2011). When effective learning strategies are applied through the supervisors’ guidance based on
an understanding of how human brains process information in the context of the human cognitive
system, individuals will have a better performance result (Ambrose et al., 2010; Kirschner et al.,
2010; Mayer, 2011; Seli & Dembo, 2019). It is important to activate individuals’ prior
knowledge and help them to connect with the new knowledge, which must be well organized
into meaningful features and abstract principles to enhance retention (Ambrose et al., 2010).
Learning is a process rather than a product. In the process, supervisors can apply effective
methods to enhance the learning outcomes, such as tests and effective feedback (Ambrose et al.,
2010; Carpenter, 2012; Daly, 2010). Training models based on the science of Applied Behavior
Analysis and effective feedback from supervisors can increase the employees’ learning results
and performance. According to Vui-Yee and Paggy (2018), when Generation Y employees can
perform better with newly learned knowledge and skills, the result leads to job fulfillment; and if
this fulfillment aligns with their personal values, it will positively affect employee retention.
Cultural Setting 2: Provision of a Supportive Culture With Short-Term Goal-Setting and
Frequent Feedback
Employee motivation has a significant impact on their likelihood to stay in their positions
(Clark et al., 2004; Kaliprasad, 2006). The individual and collective motivation level will
influence the entire organization’s performance (Tan & Wan Yusoff, 2012). Since Generation Y
has different values than previous generations; it is important for organizations to implement the
proper motivational strategies to retain them (Sawicki, 2016).
37

Generation Y employees tend to seek opportunities to learn and demand supportive
leadership from supervisors who can provide clear goals, instructions, feedback, and positive
reinforcement and assign tasks to meet their potential (Liyanage & Gamage, 2017). They prefer
their supervisors to provide immediate feedback honestly and maintain a good relationship with
them; this allows them to know when they are performing well and when their performance is
inadequate (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Macky, Gardner, & Forsyth, 2008). The reason they prefer
immediate, clear, specific, and effective feedback on their performance is because they are
interested in gaining career opportunities, learning, development, and managing performance;
this results in better employee engagement (Gilbert, 2011).
Effective feedback can increase individuals’ learning results and performance; the content
and timing of effective feedback will direct them to relate to the training goal and to correct
mistakes when they apply the knowledge and skills in further practice based on the feedback
(Ambrose et al., 2010). How well individuals organize knowledge and learn from mistakes
influences how well they learn and apply what they know in their work; this helps them to
develop greater fluency and automaticity when they understand the conditions and context in
which they can apply what they have learned in their work (Ambrose et al., 2010). Table 4 lists
the assumed organizational influences for Generation Y employees to stay in their job for at least
3 years.

38

Table 4
Organizational Influence Category
Influence category Organizational influence
Cultural model influence 1 Mentorship style vs. traditional hierarchy style

Cultural model influence 2 Collaborative environment vs. collisional environment
Cultural setting influence 1

Cultural setting influence 2

Supervisor provides meaningful training strategies to enhance
Generation Y employee’s job performance and professional
development opportunities.

Supervisor provides a supportive culture with short-term goal-
setting and frequent feedback to increase Generation Y
employee’s motivation to remain in the same job.

Generation Y is the major cohort in Taiwanese workplaces. Organizations need to
understand what organizational factors will influence Generation Y retention. There are some
Taiwanese studies of organizational influences, but few of them refer to the organizational
culture. The purpose of this study is to uncover more of the cultural influences related to the
retention of Generation Y employees. By adapting the organization’s cultural model or cultural
setting, mentorship style, collaborative environment, meaningful training strategies, and frequent
feedback, those employees will be motivated to remain in the same job for a longer time. The
next chapter will introduce the methods to examine the organizational influences on Generation
Y employee retention in a diverse generational mix.

39

Chapter Three: Methods
The purpose of this study was to examine the influences affecting the low retention rate
of Generation Y employees in Taiwan with a gap analysis based on the KMO framework (R. E.
Clark & Estes, 2008). To ensure a complete gap analysis and for practical purposes, Generation
Y employees’ perceptions of organizational influences from the Taiwanese labor market were
examined in this study. The analysis focused on potential causes of gaps in the areas of
organizational resources. It started with a list of potential or assumed influences that were
examined analytically to find actual or validated influences. The study was conducted with the
following questions:
1. What are the gaps in the organizational resources related to achieving the goal of
Generation Y employees choosing to stay at their organization for at least 3 years?
2. What are the recommended solutions to retain Generation Y employees in a diverse
generational mix workplace?
Participating Stakeholders
It is important to understand what factors support the retention of employees and what
factors drive them away. Based on this understanding, an appropriate policy, strategy, culture,
and resources for retaining talented workers must be built up within organizations. Therefore, the
purpose of this study was to explore the organizational influences related to Generation Y
employee retention in Taiwan. The stakeholder population of this study were Generation Y
employees who were born between 1981 to 2000 in Taiwan; this population amounted to
5,193,000 people in 2019 (most recent data from Taiwan Ministry of Labor, 2019). There was no
limitation on gender, educational background, or career position of this population.
The methodological approach for this study mixes qualitative and quantitative data
collection instruments. The convergent parallel mixed method was applied in this study to
40

analyze both qualitative and quantitative elements independently, and interpret the results
together from the same phase of the research process (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The research
was conducted with a quantitative survey method and a qualitative interview method. Table 5
outlines the research methods.

Table 5
Research Methods Outline
Research methods
Qualitative Quantitative
Sampling strategy Stratified random sampling Random sampling
Number of participants 12 persons. 1,049 persons
Timing and composition This interview began after
IRB approval.
This survey began after IRB
approval.

41

Survey Sampling Strategy
The quantitative survey aimed to collect self-reported data related to organizational
factors that hinder Generation Y employees from remaining in their job for at least 3 years. The
survey invitation was sent out through the PTT Bulletin Board System to reach currently
employed Generation Y individuals in Taiwan by a survey company: SIEN professional network
company. PTT Bulletin Board was started up in 1995. It has become the biggest electronic
bulletin board in Taiwan (BBS) with more than 1.5 million younger generation members. The
survey invitation was published on the PPT Bulletin Board for 14 days and was expected to
reach 3,000 to 3,500 active members. According to R. B. Johnson and Christensen. (2019), 384
respondents is a sufficient sample size from a population of over 5 million. If the response rate is
70% (ideal), it should be sufficient to send 549 individuals a survey. Since the response rate
cannot be controlled by the researcher, it is helpful to enlarge the target group as much as
possible to make sure there are enough respondents (R. B. Johnson & Christensen, 2019). The
demographic questions were included in the beginning of the survey questionnaire to stratify
participants who do or do not meet the survey sampling criteria. All unqualified participants
were excluded from the data analysis process. This survey took place after receipt of institutional
review board approval.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1
Must be Generation Y (born between 1981 to 2000) living in Taiwan. The rationale for
this criterion is that the focus stakeholder is a Generation Y employee.

42

Criterion 2
Must be employed full-time in Taiwan. The rationale for this criterion is that the study is
about employee retention. The participants of this survey had to be currently employed and have
worked for at least 12 months in order to provide valid data to meet the purpose of this study.
The questions in this survey questionnaire were designed with fixed response items. It
was published through the PTT Bulletin Board by the survey company to ensure the response
was anonymous in order to meet the institutional review board ethics code. It was distributed
through the PTT Bulletin Board System with a clear explanation of the purpose of the study, a
description of how the findings would be used, the eligibility criteria, the link to the survey, and
the invitation to an interview. The survey company was in charge of keeping all email address
data of the respondents. In order to achieve a high response rate, an AirPod3.0 (a wireless
earphone with a wireless charger, very popular among the younger generation according to the
survey company’s recommendation, it arrived on the market in April 2020 and costs USD$270)
was offered as a lottery incentive for participants. The respondent kept the screenshot of the
survey completion page as proof when sending it to the survey company to participate in the
incentive lottery. The survey company conducted the lottery draw and issued the incentive gift to
the winner. As a result, I had no contact with the respondents and did not keep the personal
information of any participant.
Interview Sampling Strategy
The qualitative survey involved a stratified random sampling method. There were 12
people randomly chosen from the survey participant volunteers along particular criteria: four
people who change jobs within 1 year on average, four people who change jobs within 3 years on
average, and four people who change jobs after more than 5 years on average. This interview
took place after receipt of IRB approval.
43

Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1
Must be Generation Y (born between 1981 to 2000) living in Taiwan. The rationale for
this criterion is that the focus stakeholder is a Generation Y employee.
Criterion 2
Must be employed full-time in Taiwan. The rationale for this criterion is that the study is
about employee retention. The participants of this interview had to be currently employed in
order to provide valid data to meet the purpose of this study.
Criterion 3
The job change frequency is classified according to three durations: within 1 year, within
3 years, and more than 5 years. The rationale for this criterion is that the people who have
different job change frequencies would be able to contribute the full range of retention influences
to meet the purpose of this study.
The interviewees were recruited through the survey process. The invitation was enclosed
at the end of the survey questionnaire, with a clear explanation of the interview’s purpose and
timeframe, a description of how the findings would be used, the eligibility criteria, and the
incentive plan. The incentive of NTD1,000 (approximately USD33) was offered to the
interviewees. Anyone interested in participating in this interview could fill out the personal
contact information in the last survey section. According to Creswell and Creswell (2017), the
adequate sample size is suggested to range between 20 and 30 interviews. Since this study
included quantitative research, 12 interviews provided sufficient data. There were more than 12
volunteers from the quantitative research, so stratified randomization was applied to select 12
people.
44

Data Collection and Instrumentation
A mixed method (quantitative and qualitative) was applied in this study. Quantitative
data collection was conducted for two purposes: (a) to examine the cause and effect relationships
between an independent and dependent variable in a population in order to test the hypotheses,
and (b) to investigate a phenomenon through analysis of systematic and numerical data (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018). The qualitative data collection was applied in this study to obtain further in-
depth analysis than possible with the first phase and gain more insights from the interviewees’
sharing of their perceptions, views, feelings, and motivation (Johnson & Christensen, 2019).
Qualitative data collection was conducted with online interviews that lasted between 30 and 60
minutes, using open-ended questions so interviewees could openly share their perceptions,
feelings, opinions, and experiences related to the organizational factors that influence retention
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The content of the interview questions framed specific
organizational factors and the specific performance goal to minimize sampling issues (Maxwell,
2012).
Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to explore the organizational
influences on Generation Y employees in terms of the organizational culture model and cultural
setting. By exploring organizational influences, I aimed to find out how an organization’s
resources and policies influence Generation Y’s retention rate; would their utility value and self-
efficacy motivate them to stay with their organization for a longer time?
Surveys
The target sample population of this survey was expected to be more than 384 employed
Generation Y individuals in Taiwan. The survey was created in Qualtrics and sent to the survey
company. This survey company distributed the survey link to the focus population via email with
a 14-day response time. A reminder was sent out 2 days before the deadline. This survey was
45

anonymous in order to protect the respondents’ confidentiality (Pazzaglia et al., 2016). Qualtrics
provides the flexibility to allow the respondents to save their survey answers and come back to
complete it later if they do not finish it the first time. This survey was designed in English and
forward translated into traditional Chinese. There was a sufficient number of multiple-choice
survey questions, including two major aspects of organizational influence: organizational culture
and setting, and how the culture affects Generation Y employees’ motivation and learning
outcome. It has been found that survey methods with multiple-choice questions are more
effective and reliable than open-ended survey questions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The
survey responses were analyzed by frequency or percentage to obtain nominal and ordinal data
(Salkind & Frey, 2019). When the survey company distributed the survey link to the survey
population via the PTT Bulletin Board System, the survey company’s email and a message was
enclosed in the survey invitation that explained the opportunity to enter the lottery to win an
AirPod 3.0 if the participants responded and completed the survey in time. This incentive was
intended to stimulate the response rate. Since this was an anonymous survey, the participants
needed to reply to the survey company’s email with a screenshot of the completed survey web
page to enter the lottery without exposing their personal identity to me. The final section of the
survey included an invitation message to enroll in the interview activity after having completed
the survey. The respondents filled out the contact information on the final page of the survey. In
order to maintain anonymity, this information was kept and saved separately from the survey
responses.
Interviews
The interview data collection method involved 12 interviewees who were randomly
chosen from the survey participant volunteers; each interviewee was interviewed once. All
interviews were scheduled and conducted online on the Cisco platform. The interview was
46

conducted in Taiwan in Mandarin. The protocol of the interview was translated into traditional
Chinese. A semi-structured interview format was used to ask interviewees the same questions,
and when it was necessary, follow-up probing was used to ask more in-depth questions to clarify
the unclear responses (Patton, 2002). The benefit of the semi-structured interview is that it
encourages a conversational style to help interviewees share their perspectives with an organized
and focused flow (Patton, 2002). All interviews were recorded in two ways: using the Cisco
built-in recording function and the iPad voice recording app. While the interview was taking
place, the interviewer took notes. The interview questions started with demographic data, such as
the length of time they have worked in the organization and how frequently they have changed
their job. The remaining interview questions were designed to encourage the interviewees to
share their thoughts, experiences, views, and feelings about the organizational support related to
the organizational culture, management style, training resources, and motivation factors (Patton,
2002).
Data Analysis
Flick (2014) described the process of data analysis as “the classification and
interpretation of linguistic (or visual) material to make statements about the implicit and explicit
dimensions and structures of meaning-making in the material and what is represented in it” (p.
5). Data analysis is a process of cleaning, transforming, and modeling the purposively collected
data into useful and meaningful information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). This study included
both quantitative and qualitative data analysis.
The survey was designed with a Likert four-point scale and administered through the
Qualtrics system. Content validation was applied to test the validity of the instrument.
Cronbach’s alpha was another important measurement to test reliability; the ideal result was
47

above 0.60; according to Salkind & Frey, the ideal result is 0.70, and Bagozzi & Yi stated that
the ideal result is above 0.60 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Salkind & Frey, 2019).
According to Harding (2018), there are four steps to analyze qualitative data: (a)
identifying initial categories based on reading the transcripts, (b) writing codes alongside the
transcripts, (c) reviewing the list of codes, revising the list of categories and deciding which
codes should appear in which category, (d) looking for themes and findings in each category (p.
81). After all the qualitative interviews were completed, the researcher transcribed them all.
Once the transcription was completed, an a priori coding process was applied in alignment with
the conceptual framework, literature review, and research questions. The NVivo system was
used to conduct the subsequent steps and develop the emergent codes by grouping and analyzing
the existing data and identifying patterns and themes to exploit gaps in the research study based
on the conceptual framework with the focus on the organizational cultural model and cultural
setting categories.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2015), credibility deals with the question of how well
the research findings match reality; how congruent are the findings with reality; do the findings
capture what is really there; is the investigator observing or measuring what she thinks she is
measuring? Trustworthiness for qualitative research means the results are consistent with the
data collected. In this study, the following strategies were applied to maintain credibility and
trustworthiness: (a) member checks/ respondent validation: at the start of the interview, I
conducted respondent validation with the online interviewees; (b) rich, thick descriptions: during
and after the interview, I took detailed notes, and each interview was transcribed fully after the
interview; (c) my position or reflexivity: a note of self-reflection regarding assumptions, world
view, biases, theoretical orientation, and relationship to the study was kept; (d) maximum
48

variation: randomly selected samples from volunteers who come from different industries and
background, as this variation and diversity allows a greater range of application of the findings
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
The survey and interview invitation with a clear explanation of the research purpose was
sent via PTT Bulletin Board System to invite volunteers to participate in this study. The mixed
method of interview and survey was applied to reduce analysis biases as much as possible. In
addition, during the interview process, I established a conversational partnership with the
interviewees in order to encourage them to participate in the research and build up trust,
understanding, and mutual respect (Glesne, 2016; Rubin & Rubin, 2004).
Reliability and Validity
Reliability and validity are important for evaluating the quality of the research. Reliability
concerns the consistency of a measure, and validity concerns the accuracy of a measure (Salkind
& Frey, 2019). There are commonly four types of reliability used: test-retest reliability, parallel
forms reliability, internal consistency reliability, and interrater reliability (Salkind & Frey, 2019).
Interrater reliability was applied in this study to examine the percentage of agreement between
phenomena in order to discover whether there is consistency in the rating of the survey outcome
(Salkind & Frey, 2019). All data collection instruments need to be consistent with the
interviewees to maintain reliability (Salkind & Frey, 2019). Cronbach’s alpha was used to
measure the internal consistency.
There are three types of validity: content validity, criterion validity, and construct validity
(Salkind & Frey, 2019). Content validity was applied in this study to find out whether a sample
of items truly reflects an entire universe of items in the research topic (Salkind & Frey, 2019).
There were inevitable biases in this research study from the respondents’ self-reporting
and my reflections. According to Bowen (2009), by examining information collected with
49

different methods, the researcher can corroborate findings across data sets and thus reduce the
impact of potential biases that can exist in a single study (p. 2). A mixed data collection method
of interview and survey was applied here to offset potential biases. Other methods to reduce the
bias problem include assurances of confidentiality and anonymity (Bowling, 2005). The survey
was conducted anonymously online to produce reliable results from the confidential data
collection process.
Ethics
The validity and reliability of a study depend on the researcher’s ethics (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2015). As Rubin and Rubin (2004) stated, a researcher needs to have interviewees agree
to participate in this study and must talk openly about the purpose of the study. I have an
absolute responsibility to behave ethically, which means no deceit or pressure can be applied by
following the principles: (a) show respect, (b) honor promises, (c) do not pressure, (d) do no
harm, (e) informed consent, (f) no intrusive or risk questions, (g) protect at-risk populations. My
dissertation study took place in Taiwan. The sample population was 1,049 Generation Y
employees found through a survey company; in this case, none of them was involved in power
dynamics with me or had any formal relationship with me (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
The purpose of this study was communicated straightforwardly to the interviewees
without any deception by stating it on the invitation sent via PTT Bulletin Board System. They
were reminded that they are being studied. They were promised that digital recording data would
be labelled with a code number on a USB stick instead of with their name and notes from the
interview would be stored separately from the digital data to ensure confidentiality of the data.
Potential interviewees were reminded at the start of the interview, or any time when they seemed
hesitant or reluctant to answer any question, that they could refuse to participate in this study. I
did not exploit the interviewees, such as publishing material that would cause them to be arrested
50

or lose a job, promotion, or part of their income, or embarrass them (Rubin & Rubin, 2004).
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are an unavoidable condition in any study; they derive from the study
method, design, or approach, sampling restrictions, uncontrollable variables, faulty
measurements, and other compromises to internal validity (Isaac & Michael, 1995; Nenty, 2009).
The sample in this study was 1,049 employed Generation Y individuals in Taiwan. They were
from various industries with different levels of career experience. The potential limitations may
come from the respondents’ self-reporting, inconsistency of their views, feelings, and
expectations that influence the reliability of the study.
Another possible limitation concerns the number of survey questions and the interview
time limitation that could restrict the number of questions asked of the interviewees. More
questions would cover more aspects of this study but depress the response rate. In the interview
process, more questions would consume more time and discourage people from volunteering. As
a data collection instrument and the data analyzer, I am aware that biases inevitably exist that can
influence the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). I reflected on my opinions, perceptions, and
judgment about Generation Y from my Generation X position. It is important to stay aware of
my assumptions and biases when evaluating the results; employing other researchers’ reports and
referring to other researchers’ instruments increased the credibility of the study.
Delimitations are defined as the self-imposed limitations in the study, narrowing the
scope of the study to selected aspects of the problem, certain areas of interest, a limited range of
the subject, etc. that will jeopardize the study’s external validity (Isaac & Michael, 1995; Nenty,
2009). The conceptual framework of this study is based on knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational framework only, but the influences could be personal factors, such as family
51

issues or educational background. There must be delimitations under the scope of the KMO
framework.

52

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
This research study is a gap analysis focusing on the organizational influences on the low
retention rate of Generation Y employees in Taiwan described in the preceding chapter. It
examined the possible causes of gaps in the organizational cultural models and settings with four
propositions: Generation Y employees prefer mentorship style to traditional hierarchy style,
collaborative environment to collisional environment, provision of training and professional
development, and provision of a supportive culture with short-term goal-setting and frequent
feedback. This chapter provides the results and findings from the surveys and interviews to
answer the following two research questions:
1. What are the gaps in the organizational resources related to achieving the goal of
Generation Y employees choosing to stay at their organization for at least 3 years?
2. What are the recommended solutions to retain Generation Y employees in a diverse
generational mix workplace?
The methodological approach for this study combined qualitative and quantitative data
collection instruments. The convergent parallel mixed method was applied to analyze both
quantitative and qualitative elements independently and interpret together the results and findings
from the same phases of the research process. This section covers the data analysis process,
demographic information of the survey participants, demographic information of the interview
participants, results of the reliability and validity of the instrument developed by the author,
quantitative analysis findings, qualitative analysis findings, and a summary of the organizational
findings. The findings are organized by themes based on the organizational conceptual
framework.
Generation Y Retention Factor (GYRF) was developed for this study to examine the
participants’ views of organizational practices that influence their decision to remain at an
53

organization. The GYRF questionnaire contained five sections: the demographic profile plus four
groups of open-ended questions. There were 27 questions classified into four subscales of
organizational influence: leadership style (mentorship style verse traditional hierarchy style),
collaborative environment (collaborative environment verse collisional environment),
professional development (provision of training and professional development opportunities), and
supportive culture (provision of a supportive culture with short-term goal-setting and frequent
feedback). The items used to develop this instrument included the literature review and the
author’s independent observations. Content validity was applied to test the validation of GYRF.
This questionnaire was presented to five professors in Taiwan who are data analysis experts. All
of them confirmed the validity of this instrument after the necessary amendments based on their
comments.
Participating Stakeholder
The participant population of this study was Generation Y employees who were born
between 1981 and 2000 in Taiwan; this population amounted to 5,193,000 people (Taiwan
Ministry of Labor, 2020). The participant sample of the survey study was 1,049 people. The
participant sample of the interview study was 12 people, and all of them were chosen from the
survey sample population who met the study criteria.
Survey Respondents’ Demographics
The survey invitation was sent via the PTT Bulletin Board System. A total of 1,049
respondents participated in the survey, but 435 respondents did not meet the research criteria or
did not complete the survey. There were 614 valid respondents meeting the research criteria:
must be a Taiwanese citizen, have worked in Taiwan at least 1 year, and their birth year must be
between 1981 and 2000. A total of 220 valid surveys remained after deletion of controversial and
missing value data. Table 6 shows the Generation Y employees’ job change frequency on
54

average, gender, birth year, and educational background for these 220 respondents. It highlights
that 46.3% of Generation Y employees change their job within 3 years; 37.3% of respondents in
this study was male and 62.3% female. The four cohorts of birth years of all respondents were
1981–1985 (19.5%), 1986–1990 (29.1%), 1991–1995 (32.3%), 1996–2000 (19.1%). Also, 90.9%
of the participants had a university degree, and only 9.1% of them had less than secondary
education.

Table 6
Survey Respondents’ Demographics
Demographics n %
Job change frequency on average
Less than a year 59 26.8
1–3 years 43 19.5
3–4 years 79 35.9
More than 5 years 39 17.7
Gender
Gender neutral 0 0
Male 83 37.7
Female 137 62.3
Years of birth
1981–1985 43 19.5
1986–1990 64 29.1
1991–1995 71 32.3
1996–2000 42 19.1
Educational background
Less than high school degree 0 0
High school degree 20 9.1
2-year university degree 18 8.2
4-year university degree 132 60.0
Master degree 50 22.7
Doctorate degree 0 0

55

Interview Participant Information
Twelve Taiwanese employees were interviewed for this study. All 12 interviewees
belonged to Generation Y as indicated in Table 7; 50% was female; the majority of the
participants were entry-level employees. There were no high-level or senior-level employees
amongst the participants. The quantitative data addressed this gap by including high-level and
senior-level employees. The majority of interviewees had formal education up to a college
degree.

Table 7
Interview Respondents’ Demographics
Variables n %
Year of Birth
1981–1985 2 16.7%
1986–1990 5 41.7%
1991–1995 2 16.7%
1996–2000 3 25.0%
Gender
Female 6 50.0%
Male 6 50.0%
Current Position
Entry level 8 66.7%
Mid-level supervisor 4 33.3%
Educational Background
High school degree 1 8.3%
4-year university degree 8 66.7%
Master degree 2 16.7%
Doctorate degree 1 8.3%

56

Organizational Results and Findings
This following section is subdivided into two sets of data: quantitative and qualitative.
Quantitative data were analyzed in the first step, followed by the qualitative data analysis. Two
categories of organizational influences in each subscale were identified: cultural model and
cultural setting. The final summary interprets the two sets of analysis together.
Quantitative Analysis Findings
The quantitative analysis section is organized into four subscales that reflect influences
on the retention of Generation Y employees: leadership style (mentorship style verses traditional
hierarchy style); collaborative environment (collaborative environment verses collisional
environment); professional development (provision of training and professional development
opportunities); and supportive culture (provision of a supportive culture with short-term goal-
setting and frequent feedback) as shown in Table 8. Participants were invited to examine for the
hypothetical situations presented whether each factor would affect their decision to stay in that
organization for at least 3 years.

57

Table 8
Four Subscales of GYRF
Subscales Abbreviation Survey questions/Variables
Mentorship style
vs. traditional
hierarchy
style
Leadership
style
1. I am constantly reminded who is the boss (for
example, I feel I should obey the orders) – Do you
agree or disagree that this will impact your decision
to stay at your job for at least 3 years.
2. I am involved in the decision-making process– Do
you agree or disagree that this will impact your
decision to stay at your job for at least 3 years.
3. My supervisors trust my approach and allow me to
go ahead without checking with them– Do you
agree or disagree that this will impact your decision
to stay at your job for at least 3 years.
4. My supervisors listen to my ideas– Do you agree or
disagree that this will impact your decision to stay
at your job for at least 3 years.
5. I am allowed to express my ideas when I don’t
agree with certain decisions– Do you agree or
disagree that this will impact your decision to stay
at your job for at least 3 years.
6. I must do whatever has been assigned to me
without any opportunity to discuss the assignment–
Do you agree or disagree that this will impact your
decision to stay at your job for at least 3 years.
7. My idea can be forwarded to a higher level of
management– Do you agree or disagree that this
will impact your decision to stay at your job for at
least 3 years.
8. My supervisor mentors me while I am learning the
necessary knowledge and skills to become
competent in my job– Do you agree or disagree
that this will impact your decision to stay at your
job for at least 3 years.
9. My supervisor can support me as a friend when I
encounter problems in my personal life– Do you
agree or disagree that this will impact your decision
to stay at your job for at least 3 years.
10. My supervisors maintain good relationships with
their subordinates– Do you agree or disagree that
this will impact your decision to stay at your job
for at least 3 years.

58

Subscales Abbreviation Survey questions/Variables
Collaborative
environment
vs collisional
environment
Collaborative
environment
1. Teamwork is encouraged in my organization– Do
you agree or disagree that this will impact your
decision to stay at your job for at least 3 years.
2. Competition is more valuable than collaboration in
my organization– Do you agree or disagree that
this will impact your decision to stay at your job
for at least 3 years.
3. Competing against colleagues is valued more than
teamwork– Do you agree or disagree that this will
impact your decision to stay at your job for at least
3 years.
4. Teamwork minimizes my opportunity to express
my talents and will negatively affect my intention
to stay in the organization– Do you agree or
disagree that this will impact your decision to stay
at your job for at least 3 years.
5. A collisional environment reduces my intention to
stay in the organization– Do you agree or disagree
that this will impact your decision to stay at your
job for at least 3 years.
6. My organization has a friendly atmosphere– Do
you agree or disagree that this will impact your
decision to stay at your job for at least 3 years.
Provision of
training and
professional
development
opportunities
Professional
development
1. My organization provides training to enhance my
job performance– Do you agree or disagree that
this will impact your decision to stay at your job
for at least 3 years.
2. I am expected to build up all professional skills by
self-learning– Do you agree or disagree that this
will impact your decision to stay at your job for at
least 3 years.
3. My organization provides professional
development opportunities– Do you agree or
disagree that this will impact your decision to stay
at your job for at least 3 years.
4. My supervisors provide training to enhance my
problem-solving skills (ability to deal with
problems) – Do you agree or disagree that this will
impact your decision to stay at your job for at least
3 years.

59

Subscales Abbreviation Survey questions/Variables
Provision of a
supportive
culture with
short-term
goal-setting
and frequent
feedback
Supportive
culture
1. I can always get help from my supervisor when I
encounter problems– Do you agree or disagree that
this will impact your decision to stay at your job
for at least 3 years.
2. My supervisors helped me to fit in the organization
when I first started working here– Do you agree or
disagree that this will impact your decision to stay
at your job for at least 3 years.
3. My supervisors set clear, short-term goals for me
with sufficient support to help me achieve those
goals– Do you agree or disagree that this will
impact your decision to stay at your job for at least
3 years.
4. Supervisors give me frequent feedback and critical
information to correct my actions or mistakes– Do
you agree or disagree that this will impact your
decision to stay at your job for at least 3 years.
5. My supervisor’s effective feedback increases my
motivation to stay in the organization– Do you
agree or disagree that this will impact your decision
to stay at your job for at least 3 years.
6. I get rewarded when I perform excellently– Do you
agree or disagree that this will impact your decision
to stay at your job for at least 3 years.
7. I am encouraged to be innovative when solving
problems– Do you agree or disagree that this will
impact your decision to stay at your job for at least
3 years.

The results of the survey showed in Tables 9, 10, 11, and 12 that most of the respondents
agreed with the retention factors except for a few items: I am constantly reminded who is the
boss, I must do whatever has been assigned to me without any opportunity to discuss the
assignment, teamwork is encouraged in my organization, competition is more valuable than
collaboration in my organization, competing against colleagues is valued more than teamwork,
teamwork minimizes my opportunity to express my talents and will negatively affect my
intention to stay in the organization, my organization has a friendly atmosphere, and I am
expected to acquire all professional skills by self-learning.
60

The data in Table 9 shows that 84% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that if they
are involved in the decision-making process, this would influence their decision to stay at their
organization for 3 years; 85% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that if their supervisor
trusts their approach and allows them to go ahead without checking with them, this would
influence their decision to stay at their organization for 3 years; 91% of respondents agreed or
strongly agreed that if their supervisor listens to their ideas, this would influence their decision to
stay at their organization for 3 years; 91% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that if they
are allowed to express their ideas when they do not agree with certain decisions, this would
influence their decision to stay at their organization for 3 years. All this evidence confirmed that
Generation Y employees prefer a sense of inclusion.
The data shows that the mentorship style is preferred over the traditional hierarchy style:
91% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that if their supervisors listen to their ideas, this
would influence their decision to stay at their organization for 3 years; 89% of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed that if their idea can be forwarded to a higher level of management,
this would influence their decision to stay at their organization for 3 years; 85% of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed that if their supervisor mentors them while they are learning the
necessary knowledge and skills to become competent in their job, this would influence their
decision to stay at their organization for 3 years; 80% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed
that if their supervisors can support them as a friend when they encounter problems in their
personal life, this would influence their decision to stay at their organization for 3 years; 92% of
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that if supervisors maintain good relationships with
subordinates, this would influence their decision to stay at their organization for 3 years. In
contrast, 79% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they would stay in the job if
they were constantly reminded who is the boss; 88% of respondents also disagreed or strongly
61

disagreed that they would stay in the job if they had to do whatever has been assigned to them
without any opportunity to discuss the assignment. All this evidence confirmed that Generation
Y employees prefer a mentorship style.

Table 9
Frequency and Percentage of Leadership Style Survey Results
Survey question/Variables
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
1. I am constantly reminded who is the boss (for
example, I feel I should obey the orders).
80
(36%)
94
(43%)
30
(14%)
16
(7%)
2. I am involved in the decision-making process. 4
(2%)
31
(14%)
142
(64%)
43
(20%)
3. My supervisors trust my approach and allow
me to go ahead without checking with them.
4
(2%)
28
(13%)
135
(61%)
53
(24%)
4. My supervisors listen to my ideas. 3
(1%)
18
(8%)
102
(47%)
97
(44%)
5. I am allowed to express my ideas when I don’t
agree with certain decisions.
5
(2%)
15
(7%)
121
(55%)
79
(36%)
6. I must do whatever has been assigned to me
without any opportunity to discuss the
assignment.
59
(27%)
136
(61%)
19
(9%)
6
(3%)
7. My idea can be forwarded to a higher level of
management.
7
(3%)
40
(18%)
136
(62%)
37
(17%)
8. My supervisor mentors me while I am
learning the necessary knowledge and skills to
become competent in my job.
6
(3%)
26
(12%)
128
(58%)
60
(27%)
9. My supervisor can support me as a friend
when I encounter problems in my personal
life.
0
(0%)
51
(23%)
115
(52%)
54
(25%)
10. My supervisors maintain good relationships
with their subordinates.
0
(0%)
17
(8%)
118
(53%)
85
(39%)

62

The data of Table 10 shows that 85% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that
they would stay in the job if competition is more valuable than collaboration in their
organization; 89% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they would stay in the job
if competing against colleagues is valued more than teamwork. This result suggests that
Generation Y employees value teamwork more than a collisional environment. 82% of
respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they would stay in the job if ‘teamwork
minimizes my opportunity to express my talents,’ which highlights that Generation Y employees
prefer teamwork that will encourage them to express their talents in a better way.

Table 10
Frequency and Percentage of Collaborative Environment Survey Results
Survey question/Variables
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
1. Teamwork is encouraged in my organization. 77
(35%)
120
(55%)
18
(8%)
5
(2%)
2. Competition is more valuable than
collaboration in my organization.
48
(22%)
139
(63%)
23
(10%)
10
(5%)
3. Competing against colleagues is valued more
than teamwork.
81
(37%)
115
(52%)
17
(8%)
7
(3%)
4. Teamwork minimizes my opportunity to
express my talents and will negatively affect
my intention to stay in the organization.
53
(24%)
129
(58%)
30
(14%)
8
(4%)
5. A collisional environment reduces my
intention to stay in the organization.
54
(25%)
57
(26%)
78
(35%)
31
(14%)
6. My organization has a friendly atmosphere. 115
(53%)
86
(39%)
16
(7%)
3
(1%)

63

The data of Table 11 shows that 81% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed
that if their organization provides training to enhance their job performance, this would influence
their decision to stay at their organization for 3 years; 83% of respondents agreed or strongly
agreed that if their organizations provide professional development opportunities, this would
influence their decision to stay at their organization for 3 years; 81% of respondents agreed or
strongly agreed that if their supervisor provides training to enhance their problem-solving skills
(ability to deal with problems) , this would influence their decision to stay at their organization
for 3 years. All this evidence confirmed that Generation Y employees prefer professional
development and training opportunities.

Table 11
Frequency and Percentage of Professional Development Survey Results
Survey question/Variables
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
1. My organization provides training to enhance
my job performance.
14
(6%)
28
(13%)
115
(52%)
63
(29%)
2. I am expected to acquire all professional skills
by self-learning.
22
(10%)
83
(38%)
99
(45%)
16
(7%)
3. My organization provides professional
development opportunities.
8
(4%)
29
(13%)
106
(48%)
77
(35%)
4. My supervisors provide training to enhance
my problem-solving skills (ability to deal with
problems).
8
(4%)
34
(15%)
109
(50%)
69
(31%)

64

The data in Table 12 shows that 89% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that if they
could get help from their supervisor when they encountered problems, this would influence their
decision to stay at their organization for 3 years; 89% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed
that if their supervisors helped them to fit in the organization when they first started working in
the organization, this would influence their decision to stay at their organization for 3 years; 87%
of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that if their supervisor set clear, short-term goals with
sufficient support to help them achieve those goals, this would influence their decision to stay at
their organization for 3 years; 88% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that if their
supervisors give frequent feedback and critical information to correct their actions or mistakes,
this would influence their decision to stay at their organization for 3 years; 85% of respondents
agreed or strongly agreed that their supervisor’s effective feedback increased their motivation to
stay in the organization; 81% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that if they get rewarded
when they perform excellently, this would influence their decision to stay at their organization
for 3 years; and 84% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that if they are encouraged to be
innovative when solving problems, this would influence their decision to stay at their
organization for 3 years.

65

Table 12
Frequency and Percentage of Supportive Culture Survey Results
Survey Question/variables
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
1. I can always get help from my supervisor
when I encounter problems.
7
(3%)
18
(8%)
121
(55%)
74
(34%)
2. My supervisors helped me to fit in the
organization when I first started working
here.
6
(3%)
17
(8%)
129
(58%)
68
(31%)
3. My supervisors set clear, short-term goals
for me with sufficient support to help me
achieve those goals.
0
(0%)
29
(13%)
117
(53%)
74
(34%)
4. Supervisors give me frequent feedback and
critical information to correct my actions or
mistakes.
6
(3%)
20
(9%)
132
(60%)
62
(28%)
5. My supervisor’s effective feedback
increases my motivation to stay in the
organization.
9
(4%)
25
(11%)
115
(53%)
71
(32%)
6. I get rewarded when I perform excellently. 9
(4%)
34
(15%)
78
(35%)
99
(46%)
7. I am encouraged to be innovative when
solving problems.
5
(2%)
31
(14%)
118
(54%)
66
(30%)

Reliability and Validity Tests
The data was imported into SmartPLS 2 software and coded according to type. The
demographic questions were coded as nominal and ordinal variables and labelled accordingly.
The main survey questions were answered with a 4-point Likert-type scale and were coded as
ordinal data and labelled accordingly; values assigned to “Strongly Disagree,” “Disagree,”
“Agree,” and “Strongly Agree” are 1, 2, 3, and 4 (reverse question was coded in the opposite
way) for calculation of means, standard deviations, and Cronbach’s alpha.
Cronbach’s alpha was applied to test the reliability as shown in Table 13; the ideal result
is above 0.60 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). According to Salkind and Frey (2019), the ideal result is
above 0.70. It is worth noting that the leadership style, collaborative environment, and
66

professional development scales were initially below the 0.5 acceptable value, so some items
were deleted from these scales using “scale if deleted” feature on PLS-SEM to make it fall
within the acceptable range. The three deleted items from the leadership style scale were: I am
constantly reminded who is the boss (for example, I feel I should obey the orders), my supervisor
can support me as a friend when I encounter problems in my personal life, and my supervisors
maintain good relationships with their subordinates. Three items were deleted from the
collaborative environment scale: teamwork is encouraged in my organization, collisional
environment reduces my intention to stay in the organization, and my organization has a friendly
atmosphere. One item was deleted from the professional development scale: I am expected to
build up all professional skills by self-learning. In summary, a high degree of internal
consistency with Cronbach’s alpha values was achieved, with values that were greater than 0.60,
as shown in Table 13.
To test the validity, I presented the items of the GYRF to five evaluators who are experts
in data analysis. The validation of GYRF was approved by them. As a result, leadership style,
collaborative environment, professional development, and supportive culture are confirmed to be
significant influences for Generation Y employee retention.

Table 13
Reliability Test
Organizational influences Number of items Cronbach’s α
Leadership style 7 0.86
Collaborative environment 3 0.61
Professional development 3 0.88
Supportive culture 7 0.89
67

Qualitative Analysis Findings
The qualitative research was designed to enrich the understanding of the survey data. Six
of the eight interview questions related to the four subscales of quantitative research instrument
GYRF. The other 2 questions were designed to uncover whether other possible factors been left
out from the survey study.

Table 14
Connection of Quantitative and Qualitative Study
Subscales of
quantitative study
Qualitative study/Interview questions
Leadership style Ø Tell me about your role in the organization’s decision-making
process. How does that role influence your decision to stay or
leave your current job?
Collaborative
environment
Ø Tell me which word fits your work environment better:
teamwork or collisional? How does this influence your
decision to stay or leave your current job?
Professional
development
Ø Does your supervisor provide training to enhance your job
performance? How does this influence your decision to stay
or leave your current job?
Ø Does your organization provide professional development
opportunities? How does this influence your decision to stay
or leave your current job?
Supportive culture Ø How well do you feel you currently fit in at this organization?
How does this influence your decision to stay or leave your
current job?
Ø Does your supervisor provide a supportive culture, such as
short-term goal-setting or frequent feedback to help you
enhance self-efficacy? How does this influence your decision
to stay or leave your current job?
Others Ø Do you want to stay in this current job for at least 1 or two
more years? Why?2
Ø In your opinion, how many years of staying with one
organization is considered long enough before your feel the
need to change to another organization?

68

The analysis of the qualitative data found a total of three themes, which revealed the
factors that contribute to Taiwanese Generation Y employee retention and matched the factors
found to be valid by quantitative data analysis, except the personal perspectives.

Figure 1
Thematic Diagram

Generation Y Employee
Retention
Work Environment
Leadership and Management
Personal Perspectives
69

Theme 1: Work Environment
In agreement with the findings of the quantitative analysis, the participants revealed that
their work environment is cooperative and friendly, with the healthy competition that promotes
growth and productivity, and this factor increases their desire to stay on the job. One of
interviewees stated, “There’s a strong sense of teamwork, and this makes me more likely to stay.”
Another interviewee described a similar sentiment, “The work environment is fairly cooperative,
and this is something I like about this job. There isn’t much conflict or infighting, and this makes
me more likely to stay.”
However, this was not the case for all of the participants; a few mentioned that the level
of competition in their workplace was sometimes unhealthy, and this led them to make desperate
and consequential decisions. The presence of this unhealthy competition inhibited their
willingness to remain with the organization. One interviewee stated,
So, there’s a certain amount of competition for the more popular types of cases,
especially if they are easier or pay better. It can be a bit unfair, and if you never get the
cases you want, it reduces your likelihood of staying with the company for a long time.
The sense of inclusion, ability to contribute to the decision-making process, and ability to
pitch new ideas to the management were the most important factors contributing to Generation Y
employee retention. The participants expressed that they will never stay in a firm where their
opinions are not respected, and they will likely remain with a firm that respects their ideas and
opinion. As one interviewee stated, “You are more likely to stay at the same job if you feel that
your voice is being heard and that you have some say in the decision-making process.” Another
interviewee described a similar sentiment: “But if I had some role to play in the decision-making
process, that would make me more likely to stay.”
70

Furthermore, to make a meaningful contribution to the activities of the firm, the
employees must possess a certain level of experience and skill, and they must be in an
environment where they fit into the strategy and workplace. The participants expressed that they
sometimes struggle to establish interpersonal relationships with their colleagues and to adapt to
the workplace environment. This is particularly true for introverted employees. Consequently,
the supervisors must assist newly employed individuals with onboarding and becoming familiar
with the work environment, to the point where they would feel comfortable enough to express
their ideas and opinions. This should increase the retention rate. As one interviewee stated,
“Perhaps I haven’t been with the company long enough to fit in; I suppose it takes a year or two
before you can fit in.” Another interviewee described a similar sentiment: “It has an influence.
Each company has its own culture, characteristics, and way of doing things. Work is a major part
of life.”
Among all of the above interviewees’ responses under the theme of work environment,
two interviewees stated that their intention to remain in the job would not be influenced by the
work environment. Their reasons were (a) it’s a work-study part-time job just for earning money;
(b) the intention to stay in the job in the real estate sector is influenced by the commission plan
more than the work environment. Ten of the 12 interviewees agreed that the work environment
would influence their intention to retain their job.
Theme 2: Leadership and Management
The actions and inactions of the leadership play vital roles in the rate of retention of
Generation Y employees; this theme is subdivided into two as shown in Figure 2.

71

Figure 2
Leadership Attributes Diagram

Attributes That Encourage Retention
The core attributes that encourage retention revolve around the supervisors and the
support that they provide for the employees. The respondents revealed that they are encouraged
to remain with their respective firms because their supervisors inform them whenever they make
mistakes on the job and provide them with an adequate level of support whenever they encounter
job-related challenges. Consequently, a highly supportive supervisor increases the rate of
retention. One interviewee stated. “But the one good thing about my current supervisor is that
he’ll tell you if you’re doing something wrong. This is something that increases my likelihood to
stay with the company.”

Leadership and
management plays
the most vital role
in employee
retention

Attributes that
encourage retention

Attributes that
discourage
retention
72

Participants revealed that they experience on-the-job training and the provision of
professional development opportunities by their firm as two attributes that increase their
willingness to stay on the job. A clear promotion path in the firm was also a reason to remain
with the firm. Generally, training, professional development, and promotion increased the rate of
retention. One interviewee stated, “There are lots of opportunities for promotions and
professional development, and this has an impact on my likelihood to stay with the company.”
Another interviewee described a similar sentiment: “Of course, some on-the-job training is
provided; otherwise, you probably wouldn’t stay for very long.”
Attributes That Discourage Retention
The leadership of organizations exhibits numerous attributes that generally motivate
Generation Y employees to make a job change. For example, in agreement with the first
subtheme, the participants revealed that they are looking to leave their respective firms because
of inadequate/ineffective training, lack of professional development opportunities, and lack of
promotion or undefined promotion criteria. All three attributes discouraged the willingness of the
participant to remain in the organization. One interviewee stated, “This kind of training isn’t
directly relevant to my position, so it’s not that important to me.” Another interviewee described
a similar sentiment: “I remained at my previous job for 5 years, and I left when it became clear
that there was little scope for promotion.”
The supervisor has a significant role to play in employee retention as the participants
revealed that leadership sometimes assigns a task that is impossible to handle over a short period
of time, and this discourages retention. Excessive workload makes it impossible for participants
to have time for other things; consequently, it decreased their willingness to remain in the
organization. One interviewee stated,
73

I might be leaving within the next 6 months. When I started this job, I thought it would
allow me enough spare time to write my thesis, but it hasn’t worked out like that. So, I
recently told my boss that I’d like to spend my final year writing my thesis.
Having an unapproachable supervisor, ineffective communication with the supervisor,
and supervisors who embrace an autocratic form of leadership reduced the willingness of
participants to remain with their organizations. One interviewee stated, “This makes you feel less
inclined to ask for help because nobody likes getting scolded or put down by the boss.” Another
interviewee described a similar sentiment: “It sometimes happens that I give him a suggestion,
but he doesn’t accept it, and afterward the same problem happens again. This sort of ineffective
communication makes me more likely to leave, especially if it happens a lot.”
Remuneration also affects the desire of the participants to remain or leave their respective
organizations; participants revealed that the lack of a system for salary increment, being
underpaid, and lack of job security are factors encouraging them to leave their current job. A
significant proportion of the participants was willing to leave their current employer when
presented with better opportunities elsewhere. One interviewee stated, “It depends on the
availability of other opportunities; relevant factors include a job offer from another company and
the latest situation with the pandemic.”
Among all of the interviewees’ responses under the theme of leadership and management
playing a vital role in employee retention, eight interviewees specified the attributes that
encourage and discourage their intention to stay in the job. Four interviewees stated that their
intention to stay would not be influenced by the leadership or management. The first one
believed himself young enough to have lots of freedom to find an interesting or enjoyable job.
The second interviewee was a work-study part-time employee who only cared about income and
whether the work hours can be fitted into his school timetable. The third interviewee described
74

the wish to remain in a commission-based job as not being related to the leadership and
management factors because it is a totally independent job. The fourth interviewee expressed his
interest in learning more in order to move on to higher paid work no matter what the leadership
and management style was.
Theme 3: Personal Perspectives
The qualitative analysis revealed that young college graduates of Generation Y have a
perpetual habit of not staying with a firm for longer periods; they often seize the opportunity of
their young age to move from one firm to the other. They rarely indulge in being loyal to a firm.
A significant proportion of the participants believed that employees should start seeking jobs in
other firms after spending 3 years with any given firm. Other specified durations were 3 months,
5 years, and 12 months. One interviewee described,
Nowadays, recent college graduates under the age of 25 have a lot of freedom to seek out
a job they find interesting or enjoyable. When contemplating a job change, they don’t
give much consideration to how long they’ve been with the company.
In addition to the aforementioned, the participants believed employees should change
their job as soon as they see better opportunities, an indication of a total lack of disregard for
their current employer. They also highlighted that jobs that offer no prospects are generally a
means to an end. One interviewee stated, “I also feel that it’s okay to leave as soon as a good
opportunity comes up, no matter how long you’ve been with the company.”
Unfortunately, the frequent rate of job change is undesirable for potential employers
because the cost of replacing an open position ranges from half to 200% of the former
employee’s salary (Hebenstreit, 2008). The interviewee stated,
75

For me, time is not all that important. However, it’s also necessary to keep in mind that
frequent job changes don’t look very good on your resume. So, apart from a really big
problem, I’d want to stay for at least a year.
There are personal reasons that discourage retention. The reasons are partially outside the
employer’s control. The participants highlighted two personal factors that discourage retention:
conflicts and general lack of interest in the job role. Some employees found it difficult to create
an interpersonal relationship with their colleagues, which made it impossible for them to fit into
the organization. The competitive nature of the corporation could also lead to unhealthy
competition. All these factors discourage the retention of Generation Y employees. One
interviewee stated, “It’s inevitable that you gradually adapt and fit in, at least to some extent. If I
don’t fit in, this has an impact on how long I’ll stay.”
Lack of interest in the job also reduces the rate of retention. A boring job will have a low
retention rate. Employers must ensure that the job roles assigned to Generation Y employees are
engaging and mildly demanding. Another interviewee described,
It’s not such a good situation for me. First of all, I find it boring; I don’t have much to
contribute, so it’s become rather tedious and irritating. As for the influence on-the-job
training has on how long I’d stay with a company, if I find the work interesting, then it
would make me more likely to stay; otherwise, it wouldn’t make much difference.
An emergent motivational finding was that, among the responses under the theme of
personal perspectives, all 12 interviewees agreed that the factor of personal perspectives would
influence their intention to remain in the job (such as young age of the participants, who often
seize the opportunity to move from one firm to another because of a lack of loyalty to a firm,
interpersonal difficulties and conflicts, and general lack of interest in the job role). The
76

difference between them was the degree of influence of each factor, and the types of factors.
Feeling aggrieved made them especially likely to leave their job.
Summary of Organizational and Emergent Findings
The quantitative and qualitative studies revealed the answers to the first research
question: the gaps in the organizational resources related to achieving the goal of Generation Y
employees choosing to stay at their organization for at least 3 years. The gaps are lack of
mentorship, collisional work environment, lack of supervisor support, lack of professional
development and training, unhealthy competition, lack of sense of inclusion, and lack of
remuneration plan.
Support from a supervisor in the form of mentorship, feedback, and goal setting increases
the rate of retention. Generation Y employees are more likely to remain in a collaborative work
environment than a collisional one. The participants expressed that they are more likely to
remain with the firm if their supervisors continue to provide them with the support needed to
function adequately in the organization, give them feedback on their performance, and assign
them short-term goals. Generation Y employees are more likely to remain with a firm that offers
them adequate training and professional development. Consequently, companies that invest in
the professional development and training of their employees will have a higher retention rate.
Although competition is an attribute that promotes the interest and productivity of the
employees, the management should make a conscious effort to ensure that the competition
remains healthy; only healthy competition increases the rate of retention. The sense of inclusion
is the factor that contributed the most to the retention rate; the participants made it explicitly
known that they would not remain in an organization where their opinions and ideas are not
respected. The ability to make tangible contributions during the decision-making process is a
factor that increases employee retention.
77

The participants highlighted that they would most likely remain with a firm if the
remuneration is adequate and the path of acquiring promotion is clear.
There is an emergent motivational finding from the qualitative study that influences
Generation Y employee retention: personal perspectives. Personal perspectives included the
young age of the participants, who often seize the opportunity to move from one firm to another
because they rarely indulge in being loyal to a firm; interpersonal difficulties and conflicts; and
general lack of interest in the job role. These factors cannot be controlled by employers or
organizations.
Among all the organizational and motivational influences mentioned above, we can
conclude with the support of both the quantitative and qualitative data analysis that leadership
style, collaborative environment, professional development, supportive culture, and personal
perspectives influence Generation Y retention.

78

Chapter Five: Recommendations
The purpose of this research study was to conduct a gap analysis focusing on the
organizational influences on the low retention rate of Generation Y employees in Taiwan. The
goal is to find out what factors influence Generation Y employees to choose to stay at their
organization for at least 3 years, and what solutions will lead to retaining 70% of Generation Y
employees in a diverse generational mix workplace. The methodological approach for this study
combines qualitative and quantitative data collection instruments. The convergent parallel mixed
method was applied to analyze both quantitative and qualitative elements independently while
interpreting together the results and findings from the same phases of the research process. This
chapter summarizes the key findings, validates factors, recommends solutions, proposes
implementation plans for the recommended solutions, and evaluates the recommended solutions
outline. The limitations of the study and suggestions for future research are covered in the final
section of this chapter.
Key Findings
Based on the support of both quantitative and qualitative data analysis, the organizational
influences on Generation Y employee retention in Taiwan are leadership style, collaborative
environment, professional development, supportive culture, and personal perspectives. Table 3 in
Chapter Two indicates all the factors influencing employee retention, and some of the factors
particularly affect Generation Y: implementation of human resource management, salary and
compensation, remuneration and recognition, job satisfaction, work-life balance, work culture
and environment, training and development, leadership, and work position and job security. The
results of this study showed the Taiwanese Generation Y employees are influenced by the
common factors as well. In particular, a collaborative environment and personal perspectives
influence Taiwanese Generation Y employee retention.
79

From these five influences, this study discovered the following attributes that encourage
Generation Y employee retention in an organization: (a) opinions being heard; (b) the sense of
inclusion; (c) collaborative work environment; (d) healthy competition; (e) adequate on-the-job
training and professional development; (f) support, feedback, and goal setting from supervisors;
and (g) adequate remuneration and the clear path of acquiring promotion. Therefore, eight
recommended solutions to answer the second research question are (a) increase sense of
inclusion, (b) build up collaboration culture, (c) encourage healthy competition, (d) set up long-
term training program, (e) set up professional development program, (f) provide supervisor
support, (g) create transparent remuneration plan, and (h) arrange anonymous surveys and
interviews.

80

Table 15
Validated Organizational and Motivational Influences with Recommendations
Influence
Category
Organizational Influence Recommendation
Cultural
Model
Mentorship style vs. traditional
hierarchy style
1. Increase sense of inclusion
Cultural
Model
Collaborative environment vs.
collisional environment
2. Build up collaboration
culture
3. Encourage healthy
competition
Cultural
Setting
Supervisor provides meaningful training
strategies to enhance Generation Y
employee’s job performance and
professional development
opportunities.
4. Set up long-term training
program
5. Create transparent
remuneration plan
Cultural
Setting
Supervisor provides a supportive culture
with short-term goal-setting and
frequent feedback to increase
Generation Y employee’s motivation
to remain in the same job.
6. Set up professional
development program
7. Provide supervisor support
Motivational Influence
Motivation Personal perspectives, attributes, and
needs influence Generation Y
employees’ decision to remain in the
same job.
8. Arrange anonymous surveys
and interviews

Recommendations
In order to keep any organization operating successfully in the long term, the retention of
key employees is crucial. The ability to retain skilled and knowledgeable employees will secure
the organization’s economic competitiveness because they are the driving force behind achieving
the organization’s goals of development and accomplishment (Budhwar & Bhatnagar, 2007). As
a result, it is important to increase the retention rate of Generation Y employees in the Taiwanese
workplace because this generation is the major cohort in the workforce (Taiwan Ministry of
Labor, 2020). Based on the result of the survey and interview findings, eight recommendations
81

are proposed to enhance the retention of Generation Y employees: (a) build up collaboration
culture; (b) encourage healthy competition; (c) provide supervisor support; (d) set up professional
development program; (e) set up long-term training program; (f) increase sense of inclusion; (g)
create transparent remuneration plan; (h) arrange anonymous surveys and interviews.

82

Table 16
Recommendations and Gap Analysis
Proposed solutions
Gap analysis
factor
Gaps to be addressed
Recommendation 1:
Increase sense of
inclusion
Culture model

The sense of inclusion/the ability to make
tangible contributions during the decision-
making process increases employee retention.
Recommendation 2:
Build up
collaboration
culture
Culture model Generation Y employees are more likely to
remain in a collaborative work environment
than a collisional one.
Recommendation 3:
Encourage healthy
competition
Culture model Although competition is an attribute that
promotes the engagement and productivity of
employees, the management should ensure that
the competition remains healthy. Healthy
competition increases the rate of retention;
unhealthy competition decreases it.
Recommendation 4:
Set up long-term
training program
Culture setting Companies that invest in the adequate training of
their employees will have a higher retention
rate.
Recommendation 5:
Create transparent
remuneration plan
Culture setting Adequate remuneration and a clear path of
acquiring promotion encourage them to remain
in their job.
Recommendation 6:
Set up professional
development
program
Culture setting An adequate professional development program
will encourage them to remain in their job.
Recommendation 7:
Provide supervisor
support
Culture setting Support from a supervisor in the form of
mentorship, feedback, and goal-setting
increases the rate of retention.
Recommendation 8:
Arrange anonymous
surveys and
interviews
Motivation To enhance employees’ job satisfaction and
engagement by uncovering their unspoken
needs.

83

Proposed Recommendations With Implementation and Evaluation Plans
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model was applied to determine the
effectiveness of the proposed solutions to improve Generational Y employee retention: reaction,
learning, behavior, and results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Evaluation is needed to justify
the existence and budget of the plan that contributes to the organizational goals to decide
whether to continue with the plan or gain information to improve future plans. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick’s four levels form a sequence to evaluate each proposed solution. Reaction
evaluation measures customer satisfaction, in this study, the supervisor and Generation Y
employees. Learning evaluation measures the extent to which participants change their attitudes,
improve their knowledge, and increase their skills as a result of the training. Behavior evaluation
measures the extent to which behavior has changed as a result of the training. Results evaluation
gauges how well the program objectives have been achieved. The following tables present the
evaluation results following the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model.
Recommendation 1: Increase Sense of Inclusion
The results of the survey and interview research show that Generational Y employees
prefer a sense of inclusion. The items listed below confirm this influence: 84% of respondents
agreed that being involved in the decision-making process would increase their willingness stay
in their job; 85% of respondents agreed that if their supervisor trusted their approach and allowed
them to go ahead without checking with him/her, this would increase their willingness to stay in
their job; 91% of respondents agreed that if their supervisor listened to their ideas, this would
increase their willingness to stay in their job; 91% of respondents agreed that being allowed to
express their ideas when they do not agree with a certain decision would increase their
willingness to stay in their job.
84

It is beneficial to the organization’s retention goal to increase the sense of inclusion. The
proposed solution contains 10 methods to achieve this goal: (a) rethink the current work policies,
ranging from recruitment to performance management; (b) communicate inclusion goals with
supervisors and measure the progress to ensure employees feel safe to express themselves; (c)
celebrate differences to make everyone feel included; (d) provide diverse opportunities for
employee engagement for a better employee experience; (e) advocate and promote the inclusion
concept and policy as soon as they are decided; (f) recognize each employee’s name and face and
pronounce their name correctly as a sign of respect; (g) provide a diversity and inclusion
communication channel to encourage open conversation; (h) form a diversity and inclusion
committee to promote, support, and drive the necessity of inclusion in the workplace; (i) set up
round-robin meetings to allow opinions to be exchanged and heard; (j) tie diversity and inclusion
efforts to everyday conversations to make sure that workplace inclusion becomes a part of the
daily work-life culture (Medhi, 2021).

Table 17
Recommendation 1: Increase Sense of Inclusion
Action steps Capacity & resource requirements
1. Rethinking workforce policies
2. Communicate inclusion goals and measure
progress
3. Celebrate differences to make everyone feel
included
4. Diverse opportunities for employee engagement
5. Early introduction to inclusion at onboarding
6. Make pronouns matter
7. Diversity and inclusion communication channel
8. Form a diversity and inclusion committee
9. Round-robin meetings
10. Tie D&I efforts to everyday conversations
Ø Budget to outsource the supervisor
training for requisite skills
Ø HR to examine workforce policies
Ø Training all employees to build
trust and bonding

85

Table 18
Evaluation of Recommendation 1: Increase Sense of Inclusion
Reaction
evaluation
Learning evaluation Transfer evaluation
Results
evaluation
Ø Request
supervisors to fill
in the Feedback
Sheet to
investigate their
understanding of,
reaction to, and
satisfaction with
this new policy
Ø Survey employees
to investigate their
willingness and
preference to
cooperate with this
new policy in the
Consensus Camp
Ø Test if the
supervisors meet
the goal of
training for
requisite skills
Ø HR uses survey
tool to assess if
everyone has
learned about the
workforce policies
Ø Observe and
survey if
employees are
exhibiting better
trust and bonding
Ø Use survey tool or
interviews to
assess employees’
experience of the
incidents captured
by the Categories
of Inclusion.

Recommendation 2: Build up Collaboration Culture
The survey found that 85% of respondents disagreed that competition being more
valuable than collaboration in their organization would increase their willingness to stay in their
job, and 89% of respondents disagreed that competing against colleagues being valued more than
teamwork would increase their willingness to stay in their job. This result suggests that
Generation Y employees value teamwork more than a collisional environment. 82% of
respondents disagreed that if ‘teamwork minimizes my opportunity to express my talents and
will negatively affect my intention to stay in the organization,’ would increase their willingness
to stay in their job, which highlights that Generation Y employees prefer teamwork that will
encourage them to express their talents in a better way. All of the results indicated that a
collaborative environment is preferred by Generation Y employees. Therefore, organizations
86

should choose to build up a collaboration culture and make collaboration a regular and deliberate
occurrence in the workplace.
The proposed solution to build up a collaboration culture needs to start with the following
steps (Wroten, 2019). The first step is to invest in adequate technology to help employees
communicate and work faster and easier, at lower cost and with more transparency, in order to
bring the team together. The second step is to introduce the technical tools and collaboration
concept along with the goal to win an entire team’s consensus, to ensure that supervisors and
employees recognize that collaboration is the priority. The third step is to build bonding through
an open and honest communication work environment because as Mann (2021) stated that when
employees possess a deep sense of affiliation with their team members, they are driven to take
positive actions that benefit the business. The fourth step is to make room for remote team
members to maintain good communication and synchronize information, especially during the
pandemic lockdown when face-to-face teamwork is not allowed. The fifth step involves
supervisors giving positive feedback often to encourage trust between team members and to
enhance teamwork relationships.
Organizations will need to set aside a budget to invest in technology. Human resource
departments will need to redesign their KPI scales to emphasize teamwork. Supervisors will need
to learn the requisite teamwork skills. Organizations can also outsource the training of
collaborative behavior for all employees. It takes time to foster supervisors who are both task-
and relationship-oriented. Organizations are recommended to make short-, mid-, and long-term
plans to train the requisite collaborative skills among all employees.

87

Table 19
Recommendation 2: Build Up Collaboration Culture
Action steps Capacity & resource requirements
Ø Invest in tech that brings teams
together
Ø Make collaboration a priority
Ø Help team members bond
Ø Make room for remote team members
Ø Give positive feedback often
Ø Budget to invest in tech
Ø HR to redesign KPI scales to emphasize
teamwork
Ø Supervisors to learn requisite teamwork skills
Ø Outsource training to build collaborative
behavior for all employees

Table 20
Evaluation of Recommendation 2: Build Up Collaboration Culture
Reaction
evaluation
Learning evaluation Transfer evaluation
Results
evaluation
Ø Request
supervisors to fill
in the Feedback
Sheet to investigate
their understanding
of, reaction to, and
satisfaction with
this new policy
Ø Use survey tools to
investigate
employees’
willingness and
preference to
cooperate with this
new policy in the
Consensus Camp
Ø Test everyone’s
tech skill
Ø Survey and
interview if
supervisors have
learned the
requisite
teamwork skills
Ø Survey employees
to assess if
supervisors are
encouraging
collaborative
behavior for all
employees
Ø Apply KPI
assessment to
evaluate
individuals’
teamwork
performance

Ø Survey to measure
collaboration in six
areas: working
together, networks,
participation,
relationship,
communication, and
trust.
Ø Checking the
growth of
productivity and
profits quarterly and
annually

88

Recommendation 3: Encourage Healthy Competition
The definition of healthy competition is someone who has the teamwork spirit, wants to
be successful, and is willing to see others succeed as well. Supervisors can foster this healthy
competition by implementing the following steps (D. White & White, 2017). First, encourage
healthy debate that focuses on the problem and issue instead of a person. This can help the team
to stay on track while everyone is sharing their opinion without emotional conflicts and results in
positive outcomes. Second, encourage everyone to share their opinion to ensure their voices are
heard and they feel equally important. This will enhance their confidence and understanding of
each other and strengthen the bonding of the team. Third, encourage open communication to
build stronger trust and eliminate the separation, allowing more ideas to be shared. Fourth, give
honest performance feedback to avoid miscommunication and quickly correct someone’s work
to reduce error without the regret of potential failures. The survey results indicate that 85% of
respondents agreed that their supervisor’s effective feedback increased their motivation to stay in
the organization. Fifth, set stretch goals for the team and individuals to raise the bar to help them
give their best. Sixth, offer opportunities to play games; games provide fun in competition and
train the players to win gracefully and lose with honor. Seventh, rewarding the best performers
will reinforce the recipients’ skills and leadership and make them willing to continually improve
themselves. The survey results showed that 81% of respondents agreed that rewarding excellent
performance would increase their intention to stay on the job.

89

Table 21
Recommendation 3: Encourage Healthy Competition
Action steps Capacity & resource requirements
1. Open communication
2. Share opinions
3. Encourage healthy debate
4. Give honest performance feedback
5. Set stretch goals
6. Find opportunities to play
7. Reward the best performers
Ø Budget to outsource the supervisor training
for requisite skills
Ø Budget to start up the reward policy
Ø HR to set up performance feedback scales
and measurement tool

Table 22
Evaluation of Recommendation 3: Encourage Healthy competition
Reaction
evaluation
Learning
evaluation
Transfer evaluation
Results
evaluation
Ø Request
supervisors to fill
in the Feedback
Sheet to
investigate their
understanding of,
reaction to, and
satisfaction with
this new policy

Ø Test if supervisors
meet the goal of
training for the
requisite skills
Ø HR pre/post-test
on the
performance
feedback scales
and measurement
tool
Ø Observe if
communication
has improved
within the team
Ø Observe if
supervisors give
honest
performance
feedback
Ø Count number of
people rewarded
Ø Use metrics to
evaluate team
performance
Ø Survey to measure
the improvement of
sharing opinions and
open communication
and job satisfaction
Ø Apply KPI to assess
the goal achievement
rate

90

Recommendation 4: Set up Long-Term Training Program
Furthermore, a long-term training program is preferred by Generation Y employees
according to the results of the survey and interview research stated in the previous section. The
five steps of the implementation plan are as follows: (a) identify and assess the training needs for
the organization and incorporate individual development plans, (b) set clear organizational
training objectives to bridge the gap between current and expected performance, (c) create a
training action plan to guide the learning step by step, (d) implement training initiatives and
monitor the learners’ progress to ensure the effectiveness of the program, and (e) evaluate and
alter the training to improve the effectiveness of the program (Explorance, 2021).

Table 23
Recommendation 4: Set up Long-Term Training Program
Action steps Capacity & resource requirements
1. Assess training needs
2. Set organizational training
objectives
3. Create training action plan
4. Implement training initiatives
5. Evaluate and revise training
Ø Budget to build the program
Ø HR and supervisor to apply survey and interview
tool to assess training needs
Ø HR and supervisor to create evaluation plan
Ø Build internal team training or outsource training

91

Table 24
Evaluation of Recommendation 4: Set Up Long-Term training program
Reaction
evaluation
Learning
evaluation
Transfer
evaluation
Results
evaluation
Ø Request
supervisors to fill
in the Feedback
Sheet to
investigate their
understanding of,
reaction to, and
satisfaction with
this new policy
Ø Survey to
investigate
employees’
willingness and
preference to
receive more
training
Ø Monitor the number
of people referred
by the supervisors
to receive training
Ø Survey and
interview tool to
assess the
difference in
employees’
willingness to
attend the training
before and after the
training
Ø Survey to assess
how much they
learned from the
training
Ø HR to assess the
growth rate of
training needs
Ø Monitor if trainees
meet the training
goal
Ø Apply self-
assessment
questionnaires
Ø Monitor informal
feedback from
peers and
managers
Ø Observation of on-
the-job training
needs
Ø Monitor actual job
performance KPIs
Ø Overview of
customer surveys,
comments, or
complaints

Recommendation 5: Create Transparent Remuneration Plan
The results of the interview research show that remuneration also affects the desire of
employees to remain or leave their respective organizations. The proposed solution to increase
retention is to design a transparent remuneration plan, with the following 12 steps leading to a
successful plan: (a) determine target pay based on the market difference and business types; (b)
set pay mix including salary and incentive with target performance; (c) establish upside potential
to allow the top performer to receive incentive pay; (d) establish performance thresholds to retain
business at a growing pace; (e) develop measures and priorities to determine performance
management; (f) set levels and timing to stimulate better performance; (g) design mechanics to
connect performance and pay; (h) align the team with range of sales, sales support, and
92

management roles to ensure all team members work together; (i) set objectives and quotas to
compensate the good performers; (j) institute the governance process to advance the
remuneration plan to an effective and impactful program and result in organizational growth; (k)
operate the program starting with communication with all stakeholders to ensure everyone is
well informed; and (l) evaluate the program when the plan is ongoing throughout the year
(MYCUSTOMER, 2017).

Table 25
Recommendation 5: Create Transparent Remuneration Plan
Action steps Capacity & resource requirements
1. Determine target pay
2. Set pay mix
3. Establish upside potential
4. Establish performance thresholds
5. Develop measures and priorities
6. Set levels and timing
7. Design mechanics
8. Align the team
9. Set objectives and quotas
10. Institute the governance process
11. Operate the program
12. Evaluate the program
Ø Budget for entire remuneration plan
Ø HR to redesign the current remuneration
plan or invite a consultant to do this
redesign project
Ø Supervisors to learn to apply this new plan
to manage their team

93

Table 26
Evaluation of Recommendation 5: Create Transparent Remuneration Plan
Reaction evaluation
Learning
evaluation
Transfer
evaluation
Results
evaluation
Ø Survey to assess
the level of
satisfaction with
the plan among
supervisors and
employees
Ø Survey and
interview to
assess if
supervisor and
every employee
understands the
remuneration
plan
Ø Observe if
supervisors use
this plan to
manage and
motivate their
team
Overview of the
following scales:
Ø Revenue or expense
per employee
Ø Compensation as a
percentage of revenue
or of total expenses
Ø Average full-time
equivalent
compensation
Ø Overtime rates
Ø Variable
compensation as
percentage of revenue
or profit

Recommendation 6: Set Up Professional Development Program
The results of the survey and interview research show that professional development and
training opportunities are preferred by Generation Y employees. The supportive evidence is as
follows: 81% of survey respondents agreed that their organization providing training to enhance
their job performance would increase their willingness to stay in their job, 83% of respondents
agreed that their organizations providing professional development opportunities would increase
their willingness to stay in their job, 81% of respondents agreed that their supervisor providing
training to enhance their problem-solving skills (ability to deal with problems) would increase
their willingness to stay in their job. This section recommends setting up a professional
development program. The following section proposes setting up a long-term training program.
94

The steps to implement this proposed solution are: (a) survey employees to find out what
they want in order to provide an adequate professional development program, (b) create a career
development plan based on the organizational goals and employees’ feedback, (c) mix and match
career development strategies in variable forms that fit the organizational goal, (d) ensure
transparency of the entire program to increase employee satisfaction, (e) offer tools and
resources through training to assist learners accomplish their work in an easier way, and (f)
measure and track learners’ success to evaluate the effectiveness of the program (Insala, 2019).

Table 27
Recommendation 6: Set Up Professional Development Program
Action steps Capacity & resource requirements
Ø Survey employees to find out what they
want
Ø Create a career development plan
Ø Mix and match career development
strategies
Ø Be transparent
Ø Offer tools and resources
Ø Measure employees’ progress
Ø Budget to build the program
Ø Outsource to consultant to set up the
program, necessary training,
measurement tools

95

Table 28
Evaluation of Recommendation 6: Set Up Professional Development Program
Reaction
evaluation
Learning
evaluation
Transfer
evaluation
Results
evaluation
Ø Survey to find
out if supervisor
and employees
understand the
details and their
level of
satisfaction with
the program

Ø Test supervisors
through training
to assess if they
are capable of
using the
measurement
tools
Ø Survey to find
out if they are
aware of the
qualifications for
the development
program
Ø Monitor if
supervisors help
their employees
with their career
development plan
Ø Monitor if
employees have
better work
attitudes
Ø Use tools with
performance indexes
including improved
employee
performance ratings,
improved employee
morale, reduced
turnover rates,
reduced employee
absenteeism,
increased internal
promotions and
reduced time to fill
job openings, etc. to
measure the
efficiency of this new
program

Recommendation 7: Provide Supervisor Support
A supportive culture is preferred by Generation Y employees based on the results of the
survey and interview research. The supportive evidence for this view: 89% of respondents agreed
that if they can get help from their supervisor when they encounter problems, this would increase
their willingness to stay in their job; 89% of respondents agreed that if their supervisors helped
them to fit into the organization when they first started working there, this would increase their
willingness to stay in their job; 87% of respondents agreed that if their supervisor sets clear,
short-term goals with sufficient support for them to achieve those goals, this would increase their
willingness to stay in their job; 88% of respondents agreed that if their supervisors give frequent
feedback and critical information to correct their actions or mistakes, this would increase their
96

willingness to stay in their job; 85% of respondents agreed that their supervisor’s effective
feedback increases their motivation to stay in the organization; 81% of respondents agreed that if
they get rewarded when they perform excellently, this would increase their willingness to stay in
their job; and 84% of respondents agreed that if they are encouraged to be innovative when
solving problems, would increase their willingness to stay in their job. These research results
emphasize the importance of providing supervisor support in organizations. The proposed
solutions to provide supervisor support involve the following steps: (a) supervisors schedule
frequent 1:1 meetings with team members for better understanding and bonding, (b) supervisors
act as a role model for improving well-being as a way to guide team members towards self-
improvement, (c) supervisors send frequent messages of support and encouragement to show
they care, and (d) supervisors get to know their teams on a personal level in order to understand
them and find the best way to support them (Lavin, 2018).

Table 29
Recommendation 7: Provide Supervisor Support
Action steps Capacity & resource requirements
1. Supervisor to schedule frequent 1:1 meetings
with team members
2. Supervisor acts as a role model for improving
well-being
3. Supervisors send frequent messages of
support and encouragement
4. Supervisors get to know their team on a
personal level
Ø Budget to outsource the supervisor
training for requisite skills
Ø HR to examine KPI scales to check if
supervisors follow this policy

97

Table 30
Evaluation of Recommendation 7: Provide Supervisor Support
Reaction
evaluation
Learning
evaluation
Transfer
evaluation
Results
evaluation
Ø Request
supervisors to fill
in the Feedback
Sheet to
investigate their
understanding of,
reaction to, and
satisfaction with
this new policy
Ø Test if the
supervisors meet
the goal of
training for
requisite skills
Ø Verify the 1:1
meeting record
Ø Survey and
interview
employees to
assess how well
the supervisors
support them
Ø Use KPI and survey
tool to measure
supervisor
performance
Ø Overview of their
team’s overall
performance,
turnover rate,
whether their
employees advance

Recommendation 8: Set Up Irregular Anonymous Surveys and Interviews
The results of interviews highlighted that personal perspectives form a factor influencing
Generation Y employee retention. Personal perspectives include the young age of the
participants (not loyal to a firm); interpersonal difficulties and conflicts with supervisors or
coworkers; and general lack of interest in the job role. These factors cannot be controlled by
employers or organizations. Organizations can choose to discover the hidden perspectives and
needs and provide the necessary communication and resources to enhance retention. The
following steps are proposed to solve this problem by exploring their employee’s needs and
being supportive to enhance their intention to stay at their job. First, arrange anonymous surveys
to find out their unspoken personal perspectives, attributes and needs. Second, hire external
experts to interview employees outside the office to uncover any other hidden factors. Third,
evaluate the findings and create any new policy or plan needed to enhance retention.

98

Table 31
Recommendation 8: Arrange Anonymous Surveys and Interviews
Action steps Capacity & resource requirements
1. HR to send out anonymous surveys
2. HR to arrange interviews
3. Create new policy or plan
Ø Budget to outsource the external experts
Ø HR to examine survey and interview data
Ø Outsource to set up necessary program or
training

Table 32
Evaluation of Recommendation 8: Arrange Anonymous Surveys and Interviews
Reaction evaluation
Learning
evaluation
Transfer
evaluation
Results
evaluation
Ø Request
employees to fill
in the Feedback
Sheet to
investigate their
satisfaction with
this new policy or
plan
Ø Test if the
employees meet
the goal of
program or
training
Ø Survey and
interview
employees to
assess how well
they like this
current job
Ø Use KPI and survey
tool to measure
employee’s
performance
Ø Overview of their
overall performance,
turnover rate

99

Limitations and Future Research
There are a number of potential limitations in this study. First, this is a field study with
set criteria, so it is not possible to know if all respondents gave honest answers, such as being
employed full-time in Taiwan. One of the interviewees who claimed he fulfilled this criterion in
the survey is a part-time work-study student, which was discovered in the interview. Future
research could focus on certain organizations and ask their management to collect data to
improve the authenticity of the answers.
Second, this study covers organizational influences only, but one motivational influence
emerged in the interview study. This result shows that the range of the proposition limits the
outcome of this study. I recommend extending the range and category of the study in future
research.
Third, Generation Y employees cover two decades of age ranges in this study. There may
be some potential differences between early and later cohorts of Generation Y employees that
have an influence on organizational factors, such as work ethics, ambitions, views, mindsets, and
work style. I suggest adding more questions related to personal attributes in the questionnaire for
cross-analysis in future studies.
Fourth, educational background, gender, length of work experience, and position at work
can potentially influence the results. Applying newer analysis tools to test the validity of the
factors with demographic data can produce interesting findings in future studies.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to explore the multigenerational differences in terms of their
attitudes, characteristics, and values to find out the organizational enablers to enhance
Generation Y employees’ retention rate. The findings from the mixed quantitative and qualitative
data analysis revealed that leadership style, collaborative environment, supportive culture,
100

professional development, and personal perspectives are factors influencing Generation Y
retention. This study also includes proposed solutions with an implementation outline and
evaluation measures and processes.
There are some exceptions found in the interview study. First, 10 of the 12 interviewees
agreed that the work environment will influence their intention to retain their job, but the other 2
interviewees disagreed. One of their reasons is that getting a job is just for earning money; the
other reason is that income depends on commissions. The amount earned is the major factor
influencing their intention to stay at the job; it has a greater effect than the environment. Second,
4 of 12 interviewees stated that the leadership or management style will not influence their
decision to stay. The reasons are younger age (has the freedom to seek interesting or enjoyable
job), part-time employee (who only cares about income and whether the work hours can fit to
other timetable), commission-based job (totally independent task), and interest in learning more
in order to move on to higher paid work. Overall, the results of this study do not offer
comprehensive arguments and solutions. Personal perspectives, attributes, and needs lead to
unpredictable behaviors and choice-making by individuals. To retain Generation Y employees,
organizations should continue to explore their employees’ needs and be supportive to enhance
their satisfaction and engagement in their job (Munde, 2010; Raman et al., 2011).

101

References
ADP research institute 2012. (2012). Engagement vs employee satisfaction White Paper.
https://www.adp.com/~/media/RI/whitepapers/Employee.ashx
Aguenza, B. B., Puad, A., & Som, M. (2012). Motivational factors of employee retention and
engagement in organizations factors influencing. International Journal of Advances in
Management and Economics.
Al-Emadi, A. A. Q., Schwabenland, C., & Wei, Q. (2015). The vital role of employee retention
in human resource management: A literature review. IUP Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 14(3), 7.
Allen, D. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2013). Perceived organizational support and embeddedness as
key mechanisms connecting socialization tactics to commitment and turnover among new
employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(3), 350–369.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
Ananthan, B. R., & Sudheendra Rao, L. N. (2011). Dynamics of retention: Practices and
strategies. SCMS Journal of Indian Management, 8(4).
Angeline, T. (2011). Managing generational diversity at the workplace: expectations and
perceptions of different generations of employees. African Journal of Business
Management, 5(2), 249.
Anitha, J. (2015). Enablers that aid in retention of millennial workforce. Ushus-Journal of
Business Management, 14(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.12725/ujbm.30.3 59
Armour, S. (2005). Generation Y: They’ve arrived at work with a new attitude. USA Today, 6.
Aruna, M., & Anitha, J. (2015). Employee retention enablers: Generation Y employees. SCMS
Journal of Indian Management, 12(3), 94.
102

Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, cause, and consequences of job insecurity:
A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 803–
829.
Australian Telework Advisory Committee to the Australian Government. (2006). Telework for
Australian employees and businesses: maximising the economic and social benefits of
flexible working practices. Department of Communications, Information Technology and
the Arts~Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Beck, J. C., & Wade, M. (n.d.). Got game: How the gamer generation is reshaping business
forever. Harvard Business School Press.
Bedeian, A. G., Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Age, tenure, and job satisfaction: A tale
of two perspectives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40(1), 33–48.
Bloom, D. E., Canning, D., & Finlay, J. E. (2010). Population aging and economic growth in
Asia. In The Economic Consequences of Demographic Change in East Asia, NBER-EASE
Volume 19 (pp. 61–89). University of Chicago Press.
Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Tichy, J. (2005). The relationship between employee job
change and job satisfaction: the honeymoon-hangover effect. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90(5), 882.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27.
Bowling, A. (2005). Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data
quality. Journal of Public Health, 27(3), 281–291.
Buahene, A. K., & Kovary, G. (2003). The road to performance success: Understanding and
managing the generational divide. N-Gen People Performance Inc.
103

Budhwar, P. S., & Bhatnagar, J. (2007). Talent management strategy of employee engagement in
Indian ITES employees: Key to retention. Employee Relations, 29(6), 640–663.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450710826122
Burk, B., Olsen, H., & Messerli, E. (2011). Navigating the generation gap in the workplace from
the perspective of generation Y. Parks & Recreation, 46(5), 35–36.
Bussin, M. H. R., & Brigman, N. (2019). Evaluation of remuneration preferences of knowledge
workers. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(1), 1–10.
Cahill, T. F., & Sedrak, M. (2012). Leading a multigenerational workforce: Strategies for
attracting and retaining millennials. Frontiers of Health Services Management, 29(1), 3–15.
Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 21(5), 279–283.
Cascio, W. F. (2006). The economic impact of employee behaviors on organizational
performance. In America at work (pp. 241–256). Springer.
Chapman, C. (2009). Retention begins before day one: orientation and socialization in libraries.
New Library World, 110(3/4), 122–135.
Cheng, Y.-W. (2011). Relevant research on supervisor leadership styly, employee job
satisfaction and willingness. Department of Technology Application and Human Resource
Development.
Chester, E. (2005). Getting them to give a damn: How to get your front line to care about your
bottom line. Kaplan Publishing.
Chew, J., & Chan, C. C. A. (2008). Human resource practices, organizational commitment and
intention to stay. International Journal of Manpower, 29(6), 503–522.
Chiang, 江逸之. (2017). 23% Enterprises cant’ keep youger generation employee, salary and
benefits are not the biggest reason). Common Wealth Magazine.
104

Clark, K. R. (2017). Managing multiple generations in the workplace. Radiologic Technology,
88(4), 379–396.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2014). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Pulbishing, Inc.
Clause, C. (2017). Traditionalist generation: Definition and characteristics. Study. com.
Cloutier, O., Felusiak, L., Hill, C., & Pemberton-Jones, E. J. (2015). The importance of
developing strategies for employee retention. Journal of Leadership, Accountability &
Ethics, 12(2).
Coffman, C. (2000). Is your company bleeding talent? How to become a true “employer of
choice.” The Gallup Management Journal.
Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based differences in the workplace:
Is there a there there? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 308.
Council, C. L. (2005). HR considerations for engaging Generation Y employees. Washington,
DC: Corporate Executive Board.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage publications.
Cucina, J. M., Byle, K. A., Martin, N. R., Peyton, S. T., & Gast, I. F. (2018). Generational
differences in workplace attitudes and job satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Psychology.
Curtis Bush, M. B. A. (2017). Leading and motivating Generation Y employees. Accounting
Basics Part 4: Net Present Value, 19.
Cutler, G. (2001). The human side: Internet summons pete to jump ship. Research-Technology
Management, 44(2), 58–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2001.11671420
105

D’Amato, A., & Herzfeldt, R. (2008). Learning orientation, organizational commitment and
talent retention across generations: A study of European managers. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 23(8), 929–953.
Daly, E., III. (2010). Behaviorism. The Gale Group.
https://www.education.com/print/behaviorism/
Das, B. L., & Baruah, M. (2013). Employee Retention: A Review of Literature. IOSR Journal of
Business and Management, 14(2), 08–16. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-1420816
Deal, J. J. (2007). Retiring the generation gap: How employees young and old can find common
ground (Vol. 35). John Wiley & Sons.
Deal, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2010). Millennials at work: What we know and
what we need to do (if anything). Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 191–199.
DelCampo, R. G., Haggerty, L. A., & Knippel, L. A. (2017). Managing the multi-generational
workforce: From the GI generation to the millennials. Routledge.
Dols, J., Landrum, P., & Wieck, K. L. (2010). Leading and managing an intergenerational
workforce. Creative Nursing, 16(2), 68–74.
Eastland, R., & Clark, K. R. (2015). Managing generational differences in radiology. Radiology
Management, 37(3), 52–56.
Eckleberry-Hunt, J., & Tucciarone, J. (2011). The challenges and opportunities of teaching
“Generation Y.” Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 3(4), 458–461.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1),
51.
Espinoza, C., & Ukleja, M. (2016). Managing the millennials: Discover the core competencies
for managing today’s workforce. John Wiley & Sons.
106

Explorance. (2021). 5 Steps to creating effective training programs. Explorance.
https://explorance.com/blog/5-steps-to-creating-effective-training-programs/
Fang, C.-H., Chang, S.-T., & Chen, G.-L. (2009). Applying structural equation model to study of
the relationship model among leadership style, satisfaction, Organization commitment and
Performance in hospital industry. 2009 International Conference on E-Business and
Information System Security.
Ferri-Reed, J. (2010). The Keys to engaging millennials (ways to engage younger employees).
Fitz-enz, J. (1990). Getting and keeping good employees. In Personnel, 67(8), 25–29.
Flick, U. (2014). Mapping the field. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, 1–18.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1),
45–56.
Gibson, J. W., Greenwood, R. A., & Murphy E. F., Jr. (2009). Generational differences in the
workplace: Personal values, behaviors, and popular beliefs. Journal of Diversity
Management (JDM), 4(3), 1–8.
Gilbert, J. (2011). The Millennials: A new generation of employees, a new set of engagement
policies. Ivey Business Journal, 75(5), 26–28.
Glen, C. (2006). Key skills retention and motivation: the war for talent still rages and retention is
the high ground. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(1), 37–45.
Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. ERIC.
107

Govaerts, N., Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., & Baert, H. (2011). Influence of learning and working
climate on the retention of talented employees. Journal of Workplace Learning, 23(1), 35–
55.
Gurumani, V. S. (2010). Invaluable tools for talent retention. Human Capital, 4, 54–55.
Haar, J. M., & White, B. J. (2013). Corporate entrepreneurship and information technology
towards employee retention: A study of New Zealand firms. Human Resource Management
Journal, 23(1), 109–125.
Hahn, J. A. (2011). Managing multiple generations: scenarios from the workplace. Nursing
Forum, 46(3), 119–127.
Haji Hasin, H., & Haji Omar, N. (2007). An empirical study on job satisfaction, job-related stress
and intention to leave among audit staff in public accounting firms in Melaka. Journal of
Financial Reporting and Accounting, 5(1), 21–39.
Harding, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: From start to finish. SAGE Publications.
Hausknecht, J. P., Rodda, J., & Howard, M. J. (2009). Targeted employee retention:
Performance-based and job-related differences in reported reasons for staying. Human
Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business
Administration, The University of Michigan and in Alliance with the Society of Human
Resources Management, 48(2), 269–288.
Hebenstreit, R. P. (2008). A call to apply the principles of the enneagram in organizations to
attract, retain and motivate employees. Enneagram Journal, 1(1), 4–21.
Hendricks, J. M., & Cope, V. C. (2013). Generational diversity: what nurse managers need to
know. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(3), 717–725.
Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An organization and
management perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 211–223.
108

Hill, R. P., & Stephens, D. L. (2003). The compassionate organization in the 21st century.
Organizational Dynamics, 4(32), 331–341.
Hillman, D. R. (2014). Understanding multigenerational work-value conflict resolution. Journal
of Workplace Behavioral Health, 29(3), 240–257.
Hom, P. W., & Kinicki, A. J. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of how dissatisfaction
drives employee turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 975–987.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. Vintage.
Hsiao, T.-T. (2019). A study on the relationship between job design and intentions to stay of Y
Generation employees: The mediating role of job involvement and moderating effect of Job
Motivation. NCCU MBA Program.
https://doi.org/10.6814/THE.NCCU.MBA.023.2019.F08
Hsu, P.-M. (2016). The relationship among motivation factors, job characteristics and intention
to retain in different generation employees. National Chung Cheng University, Department
of Business Administration.
Hsu, Y.-W. (2016). A study of work value of Y Generation. Institute of Human Resource
Management, NSYSU.
Huang, I. C., Lin, H. C., & Chuang, C. H. (2006). Constructing factors related to worker
retention. International Journal of Manpower, 27(5), 491–508.
Huang, W.-H., Lin, Y.-J., & Lee, H.-F. (2019). Impact of population and workforce aging on
economic growth: Case study of Taiwan. Sustainability, 11(22), 6301.
Hulin, C. L., & Smith, P. C. (1965). A linear model of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 49(3), 209.
Hytter, A. (2007). Retention strategies in France and Sweden. Irish Journal of Management,
28(1), 59–79.
109

Insala. (2019). Best Practices for Creating a Career Development Program. Insala.
https://www.insala.com/blog/6-best-practices-for-creating-a-career-development-program
Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation: A collection of
principles, methods, and strategies useful in the planning, design, and evaluation of studies
in education and the behavioral sciences. Edits publishers.
Johnson, M., & Johnson, L. (2010). Generations, Inc.: From boomers to linksters--Managing the
friction between generations at work. Amacom.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Joo, B.-K., & Mclean, G. N. (2006). Best Employer Studies: A Conceptual Model from a
Literature Review and a Case Study. Human Resource Development Review, 5(2), 228–257.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484306287515
Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Brown, R. G. (1998). Generational comparisons of public employee
motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18(4), 18–37.
Kacmar, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (1989). Theoretical and methodological considerations in the
age-job satisfaction relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 201.
Kaliprasad, M. (2006). The human factor 1: Attracting, retaining, and motivating capable people.
Cost Engineering, 67(8), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.15.030215
Kane, S. (2015). Traditionalists (aka The Silent Generation). About Careers.
Karp, H., Fuller, C., & Sparks, D. (2002). BRIDGING THE BOOMER-XER GAP. Training,
39(11), 84.
Ke, W.-C. (2014). Panic for talent - The inheritance of talent pool in small and medium sized
enterprises of Taiwan.
Kehrli, S., & Sopp, T. (2006). Managing generation Y. HR Magazine, 51(5), 113–119.
110

Keoni Everington. (2018). Taiwan predicted to become “hyper-aged” country within 8 years.
Taiwan News.
Kilber, J., Barclay, A., & Ohmer, D. (2014). Seven tips for managing Generation Y. Journal of
Management Policy and Practice, 15(4), 80.
Kim, S. (2012). The impact of human resource management on state government IT employee
turnover intentions. Public Personnel Management, 41(2), 257–279.
Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Concepts, principles, guidelines and techniques.
Evaluation Training Programs: The Four Levels, 3–81.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas F. (2010). Cognitive load theory.
https://www.education.com/print/cognitive-load-theory/#B
Kompaso, S. M., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving
performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n12p89
Kong, H., Sun, N., & Yan, Q. (2016). New generation, psychological empowerment.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management.
Krishnaraj, A., Weinreb, J. C., Ellenbogen, P. H., Patti, J. A., & Hillman, B. J. (2012). Impact of
generational differences on the future of radiology: proceedings of the 11th annual ACR
Forum. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 9(2), 104–107.
Kultalahti, S., & Liisa Viitala, R. (2014). Sufficient challenges and a weekend ahead--Generation
Y describing motivation at work. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(4),
569–582.
Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: Strategies for effective management.
The Health Care Manager, 19(1), 65–76.
111

Kyndt, E., Dochy, F., Michielsen, M., & Moeyaert, B. (2009). Employee retention:
Organisational and personal perspectives. Vocations and Learning, 2(3), 195–215.
Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2003). When generations collide: Who they are, why they clash,
how to solve the generational puzzle at work. HarperBusiness.
Larsson, R., Brousseau, K. R., Kling, K., & Sweet, P. L. (2007). Building motivational capital
through career concept and culture fit: The strategic value of developing motivation and
retention. Career Development International, 12(4), 361–381.
Lavin, M. (2018). 6 ways managers can support team well-being to drive engagement. Engage.
https://www.achievers.com/blog/6-ways-managers-can-support-team-well-drive-
engagement/
Lin, S., & Chang, J. (2005). Goal orientation and organizational commitment as explanatory
factors of employees’ mobility. Personnel Review, 34(3), 331–353.
Lipscomb, V. G. (2010). Intergenerational issues in nursing: learning from each generation.
Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 14(3).
Liyanage, H. M., & Gamage, P. (2017). Factors influencing the employee engagement of the
generation Y employees. Proceedings of APIIT Business & Technology Conference, 66–77.
Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement for competitive advantage. Society
for Human Resource Management Research Quarterly, 1(1), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2007.324
Luscombe, J., Lewis, I., & Biggs, H. C. (2013). Essential elements for recruitment and retention:
Generation Y. Education+ Training, 55(3), 272–290.
Lyons, S. T., Schweitzer, L., Ng, E. S. W., & Kuron, L. K. J. (2012). Comparing apples to
apples. Career Development International.
112

Macky, K., Gardner, D., & Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational differences at work: Introduction
and overview. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 857–861.
Macky, K., Gardner, D., Forsyth, S., Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. (2008). Generational
differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. Journal of
Managerial Psychology.
Maestas, N., Mullen, K. J., & Powell, D. (2016). The effect of population aging on economic
growth, the labor force and productivity.
Mann Annamarie. (2021). Why we need best friends at work. Callup.
Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity: What managers need to know
about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(1), 39-44.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage
publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson/Allyn & Bacon Boston, MA.
McCready, V. (2014). Generational issues in supervision and administration. ASHA Leader.
April 26, 2011.
McGuire, D., By, R. T., & Hutchings, K. (2007). Towards a model of human resource solutions
for achieving intergenerational interaction in organisations. Journal of European Industrial
Training.
Medhi, B. (2021). 11 incredibly powerful ways to nurture inclusion at the workplace. Vantage
Circle.
Mermin, G. B. T., Johnson, R. W., & Murphy, D. P. (2007). Why do boomers plan to work
longer? The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences,
62(5), S286--S294.
113

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Messmer, M. (2000). Orientation programs can be key to employee retention. Strategic Finance,
81(8), 12.
Meyer, J., Topolnytsky, L., & Krajewski, H. (n.d.). Gellatly Ian.(2003). Best Practices:
Employee Retention.
Miller, N. G., Erickson, A., & Yust, B. L. (2001). Sense of place in the workplace: The
relationship between personal objects and job satisfaction and motivation. Journal of
Interior Design, 27(1), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-1668.2001.tb00364.x
Munde, G. (2010). Considerations for managing an increasingly intergenerational workforce in
libraries. Library Trends, 59(1), 88–108.
MYCUSTOMER. (2017). 12 Steps to designing a successful sales compensation plan.
MYCUSTOMER. https://www.mycustomer.com/selling/sales-performance/12-steps-to-
designing-a-successful-sales-compensation-plan
Nenty, H. J. (2009). Writing a quantitative research thesis. International Journal of Educational
Sciences, 1(1), 19–32.
Noah, Y. (2008). A study of worker participation in management decision making within
selected establishments in Lagos, Nigeria. Journal of Social Sciences, 17(1), 31–39.
Olowu, D., & Adamolekun, L. (2005). Human resources management. Public Administration in
Africa: Main Issues and Selected Country Studies. Spectrum Books.
Osman, I., Ho, T. C. F., & Carmen Galang, M. (2011). The relationship between human resource
practices and firm performance: an empirical assessment of firms in Malaysia. Business
Strategy Series, 12(1), 41–48.
114

Pan, K.-L. (2019). The relationship among job stress, Emotional exhaustion and employee
retention : A case study of Generation Y [National Kaohsiung University of Science and
Technology]. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/2msq99
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and
evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79–96.
Parry, E., & Wilson, H. (2009). Factors influencing the adoption of online recruitment.
Personnel Review, 38(6), 655–673.
Pasieka, S. A. (2009). Exploring the changing workforce: Understanding and managing the
generation of Millennial workers. Northcentral University.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods,
3(1), 344–347.
Pazzaglia, A. M., Stafford, E. T., & Rodriguez, S. M. (2016). Survey methods for educators:
Analysis and reporting of survey data (part 3 of 3)(REL 2016--164). Washington, DC: US
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast &
Islands. Retrieved from Http://Ies. Ed. Gov/Ncee/Edlabs.
Petroulas, E., Brown, D., & Sundin, H. (2010). Generational characteristics and their impact on
preference for management control systems. Australian Accounting Review, 20(3), 221–
240.
Prince, J. B. (2005). Career-focused employee transfer processes. Career Development
International, 10(4), 293–309.
Raines, C. (2003). Connecting generations: The sourcebook for a new workplace. Thomson
Crisp Learning.
115

Rajput, N., Marwah, P., Balli, R., & Gupta, M. (2013). Managing multigenerational workforce:
Challenge for millennium managers. International Journals of Marketing and Technology,
3(2), 132–149.
Raman, G., Ramendran, C., Beleya, P., Nadeson, S., & Arokiasamy, L. (2011). Generation Y in
institution of higher learning. International Journal of Economics and Business Modeling,
2(2), 142–148.
Rehman, S. (2012). A study of public sector organizations with respect to recruitment, job
satisfaction and retention. Global Business & Management Research, 4(1).
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2004). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Sage.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. ERIC.
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2019). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage
Publications.

Sawicki, A. (2016). Motivation of Y Generation employees. World Scientific News, 44, 279–290.
Sedrak, M., & Cahill, T. F. (2011). Age-related conflicts: the generational divide. Health
Progress (Saint Louis, Mo.), 92(4), 30–35.
Seli, H., & Dembo, M. H. (2019). Motivation and learning strategies for college success.
Routledge.
Silbert, L. (2005). The effect of tangible rewards on perceived organizational support. University
of Waterloo.
Smither, S. (2015). Facing generational differences: understanding is key. Vet Team Brief, 45–
47.
116

Srinivasan, V. (2012). Multi generations in the workforce: Building collaboration. IIMB
Management Review, 24(1), 48–66.
Su, Y.-Y. (2017). Research on Work Life Balance and Turnover Intention of Cross Generations
Employees. Institute of Human Resource Management, NSYSU, 1–79.
Taiwan Ministry of Labor. (2020). Ministry of Labor.
Tan, S. K., & Wan Yusoff, W. F. (2012). Generation x and y and their work motivation.
Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown up digital. McGraw-Hill Education Boston.
Taylor, R., Davies, D., & Savery, L. (2001). The role of appraisal and training in reducing staff
turnover in the Western Australian accommodation industry. Management Research News,
24(10/11), 56–57.
Tolbize, A. (2008). Generational differences in the workplace. Research and Training Center on
Community Living, 5(2), 1–21.
Tomlinson, A. (2002). High technology workers want respect: Survey. Canadian Human
Resources Reporter, 15(3), 2.
Tracey, J. B. (2014). A review of human resources management research: The past 10 years and
implications for moving forward. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 26(5), 679–705.
Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation me: Why today‘s young Americans are more confident.
Assertive, Entitled—and More Miserable Than Ever Before, 1.
Underwood, C. (2007). Bridging the generation gaps. American Gas, 89(6), 42–43.
Vui-Yee, K., & Paggy, K. (2018). The effect of work fulfilment on job characteristics and
employee retention: Gen Y employees. Global Business Review, 0972150918778912.
Walker, J. W. (2001). Perspectives. In Human resource planning (pp. 6–10).
117

Watty-Benjamin, W., & Udechukwu, I. (2014). The relationship between HRM practices and
turnover intentions: A study of government and employee organizational citizenship
behavior in the Virgin Islands. Public Personnel Management, 43(1), 58–82.
Webb, D. (2010). Del Webb Baby Boomer Survey: Working to live, not living to work.
Westerman, J. W., & Yamamura, J. H. (2007). Generational preferences for work environment
fit: Effects on employee outcomes. Career Development International, 12(2), 150–161.
Weyland, A. (2011). Engagement and talent management of Gen Y. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 43(7), 439–445.
White, A. T., & Spector, P. E. (1987). An investigation of age-related factors in the age-job-
satisfaction relationship. Psychology and Aging, 2(3), 261.
White, D., & White, P. (2017). 5 Ways to Promote Healthy Competition. Entrepreneur.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/292628
Wiedmer, T. (2015). Generations do differ: Best practices in leading traditionalists, boomers, and
generations X, Y, and Z. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 82(1), 51–58.
Wilson, B., Squires, M. A. E., Widger, K., Cranley, L., & Tourangeau, A. N. N. (2008). Job
satisfaction among a multigenerational nursing workforce. Journal of Nursing Management,
16(6), 716–723.
Wroten, K. (2019). In good company: How to create a culture of collaboration at work. Slack.
https://slack.com/intl/zh-tw/blog/collaboration/culture-collaboration-work
Yamamoto, H. (2011). The relationship between employee benefit management and employee
retention. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(17), 3550–3564.
Young, S. J., Sturts, J. R., Ross, C. M., & Kim, K. T. (2013). Generational differences and job
satisfaction in leisure services. Managing Leisure, 18(2), 152–170.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13606719.2013.752213
118

Yu, H.-C., & Miller, P. (2003). The generation gap and cultural influence--a Taiwan empirical
investigation. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal.
Yu, H.-C., & Miller, P. (2005). Leadership style: The X Generation and Baby Boomers
compared in different cultural contexts. Leadership and Organization Development
Journal, 26(1), 35–50.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at work: Managing the clash of
Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in your workplace. Amacom.

119

Appendix A: Recruitment Letter
Hello!

My name is Mandy Lee, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at
University of Southern California in the USA. I am conducting research as part of my
dissertation, Generation Y Employee Retention in a Diverse Generational Mix.

You are cordially invited to participate in the study.

If you agree, you will be asked to complete an online survey of multiple-choice questions
which is anticipated to take no more than 15 minutes to complete. Once you are finished, you
will be offered a lottery opportunity to win an AirPod3.0.

Depending on your responses to the survey, you may also be asked to participate in an online
video- and audio-recorded interview at a future date on the Cisco Webex Meeting platform. The
interview is voluntary and expected to last approximately 30 to 60 minutes. You will receive
NTD1000 as a reward for your participation in this interview. You do not have to answer any
questions if you don’t want to; if you don’t want to be taped, handwritten notes will be taken.

Participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times during and after the study.

If you would like to participate, please begin the survey via the link here:

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me shwuyual@usc.edu; cell-phone: 0932-
567-25; Line: mandylee0430.

Thank you in advance for your participation,

Mandy Lee
Doctoral Candidate - Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

120

Appendix B: Survey Instrument
Demographic questions:
1. Are you a Taiwanese citizen?
• Yes
• No
2. Do you currently work in Taiwan?
• Yes
• No
3. Have you worked in Taiwan for more than 12 months?
• Yes
• No
4. Your birth year:
• 1980 or earlier
• 1981–1985
• 1986–1990
• 1991–1995
• 1996–2000
5. Gender
• Male
• Female
• Gender neutral
6. How long you have stayed in your current job?
• Less than a year
• 1–2 years
• 3–4 years
• 5–6 years
• 7–8 years
• 9–10 years
• More than 10 years
7. How often you change job on average?
• Less than a year
• 2–3 years
• 3–4 year
• More than 5 years
8. Educational background
• Less than high school degree
• High school degree
• 2 year vocational degree
• 4 year university degree
• Master degree
• Doctorate degree
9. Your current job position:
• Entry level
• Mid-level supervisor
121

• High-level supervisor/ manager
• Senior high-level supervisor/ manager
10. When do you next want to change your job?
• Not considering job change
• After Chinese New Year
• Within one year
• I will change job but don’t know when
• I will wait to be dismissed and receive severance pay

The purpose of this survey is to focus on the influences that will affect your decision to stay at
your organization for at least three years. The following are hypothetical situations. Imagine if
you were in that situation, how would it affect your decision to stay in that organization? Please
choose the answer that most closely reflects your opinion.

Table B1
Survey

Organizational influences on retention of Generation Y
employees
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
1 I am constantly reminded who is the boss (for example: I feel I
should obey the orders) – Do you agree or disagree that this
will impact your decision to stay at your job for at least 3
years.

2 I am involved in the decision-making process – Do you agree or
disagree that this will impact your decision to stay at your job
for at least 3 years.

3 My supervisors trust my approach and allows me to go ahead
without checking with them – Do you agree or disagree that
this will impact your decision to stay at your job for at least 3
years.

4 My supervisors listen to my ideas – Do you agree or disagree
that this will impact your decision to stay at your job for at
least 3 years.

5 I am allowed to express my ideas when I do not agree with
certain decisions – Do you agree or disagree that this will
impact your decision to stay at your job for at least 3 years.

6 I must do whatever has been assigned to me without any
opportunity to discuss the assignment – Do you agree or
disagree that this will impact your decision to stay at your job
for at least 3 years.

122

7 My idea can be forwarded to a higher level of management – Do
you agree or disagree that this will impact your decision to
stay at your job for at least 3 years.

8 Teamwork is encouraged in my organization – Do you agree or
disagree that this will impact your decision to stay at your job
for at least 3 years.

9 Competition is more valuable than collaboration in my
organization – Do you agree or disagree that this will impact
your decision to stay at your job for at least 3 years.

10 Competing against colleagues is valued more than teamwork –
Do you agree or disagree that this will impact your decision to
stay at your job for at least 3 years.

11 Teamwork minimizes my opportunity to express my talents and
will negatively affect my intention to stay in the organization
– Do you agree or disagree that this will impact your decision
to stay at your job for at least 3 years.

12 Collisional environment reduces my intention to stay in the
organization – Do you agree or disagree that this will impact
your decision to stay at your job for at least 3 years.

13 My organization has a friendly atmosphere – Do you agree or
disagree that this will impact your decision to stay at your job
for at least 3 years.

14 My organization provides training to enhance my job
performance – Do you agree or disagree that this will impact
your decision to stay at your job for at least 3 years.

15 I am expected to build up all professional skills by self-learning
– Do you agree or disagree that this will impact your decision
to stay at your job for at least 3 years.

16 My supervisor mentors me while I am learning the necessary
knowledge and skills to become competent in my job – Do
you agree or disagree that this will impact your decision to
stay at your job for at least 3 years.

17 My organization provides professional development
opportunities – Do you agree or disagree that this will impact
your decision to stay at your job for at least 3 years.

18 I can always get help from my supervisor when I encounter
problems – Do you agree or disagree that this will impact your
decision to stay at your job for at least 3 years.

19 My supervisors help me to fit in the organization when I first
start working here – Do you agree or disagree that this will
impact your decision to stay at your job for at least 3 years.

20 My supervisors set clear, short-term goals for me with sufficient
support to help me achieve those goals – Do you agree or
disagree that this will impact your decision to stay at your job
for at least 3 years.

21 My supervisors provide training to enhance my problem-solving
skills, ability to deal with problems – Do you agree or

123

disagree that this will impact your decision to stay at your job
for at least 3 years.
22 Supervisors give me frequent feedback and critical information
to correct my actions or mistakes – Do you agree or disagree
that this will impact your decision to stay at your job for at
least 3 years.

23 My supervisor’s effective feedback increases my motivation to
stay in the organization – Do you agree or disagree that this
will impact your decision to stay at your job for at least 3
years.

24 I get rewarded when I perform excellently – Do you agree or
disagree that this will impact your decision to stay at your job
for at least 3 years.

25 I am encouraged to be innovative when solving problems – Do
you agree or disagree that this will impact your decision to
stay at your job for at least 3 years.

26 My supervisor can support me as a friend when I encounter
problems in my personal life – Do you agree or disagree that
this will impact your decision to stay at your job for at least 3
years.

27 My supervisors maintain good relationships with their
subordinates – Do you agree or disagree that this will impact
your decision to stay at your job for at least 3 years.

Thank you for completing this survey! You are invited to participate in an online video- and
audio-recorded interview at a future date on the Cisco Webex Meeting platform. The interview is
voluntary and expected to last approximately 30 to 60 minutes. You will receive NTD1000 as a
reward for your participation in this interview. Participation in this study is completely
voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain confidential at all times during and after the
study.

Twelve people will be randomly selected for an interview out of 400 survey participants,
and only those 12 will receive the additional interview compensation; participants who are
interested in being interviewed should provide their contact information. These 12 people will be
randomly chosen according to three particular criteria: four people who change jobs once year on
average, four people who change jobs within 3 years on average, four people who change jobs
after more than 5 years on average. If there are fewer than four volunteers from each criteria, all
the volunteers will be accepted for the interview.

124

If you would like to participate the interview, please answer the question and fill in your
name and contact email address and cell phone number in the column below, or send them to :
shwuyual@usc.edu; or Line: mandylee0430.

Question:
What is your job change frequency?
l One year on average
l 3 years on average
l 5 years on average
125

Appendix C: Interview Protocol –Generation Y employees in Taiwan

Respondent (Name): _______________________________________________

Country of Citizenship: ___________________

Location of Interview: ____________________________________________________

Time in / Time out: _________________________________________

Introduction
Thanks for meeting with me today. I am conducting this study as part of my dissertation
research for my doctoral program at USC, exploring the gaps in the organizational resources
related to achieving the goal of retaining Generation Y employees for at least three years. I
anticipate taking no more than 30 to 60 minutes of your time, and I have eight questions for your
consideration.

Your participation is completely voluntary. We can skip any question you want at any time, and
you may stop the interview at any time. Any identifiable information obtained in connection
with this study will remain confidential. Your responses will be encrypted with a false name
(pseudonym) and maintained separately. If you are comfortable with the possibility, I would like
to record our conversation, and the recording will be destroyed after it is transcribed. Do you
have any questions? Ready to begin?

Demographic questions:
11. Are you a Taiwanese citizen?
• Yes
• No
12. Do you currently work in Taiwan?
• Yes
• No
13. Have you worked in Taiwan for more than 12 months?
• Yes
• No
14. Your birth year:
• 1980 or earlier
• 1981–1985
• 1986–1990
• 1991–1995
• 1996–2000
15. Gender
• Male
• Female
• Gender neutral
16. How long you have stayed in your current job?
• Less than a year
126

• 1–2 years
• 3–4 years
• 5–6 years
• 7–8 years
• 9–10 years
• More than 10 years
17. How often you change job on average?
• Less than a year
• 2–3 years
• 3–4 year
• More than 5 years
18. Educational background
• Less than high school degree
• High school degree
• 2-year vocational degree
• 4-year university degree
• Master degree
• Doctorate degree
19. Your current job position:
• Entry level
• Mid-level supervisor
• High-level supervisor/ manager
• Senior high-level supervisor/ manager
20. When do you want to change your job?
• Not considering job change
• After Chinese New Year
• Within one year
• I will change job but don’t know when
• I will wait to be dismissed and receive severance pay

Interview question:
1. Tell me about your role in the organization’s decision-making process. How does that
role influence your decision to stay or leave your current job?
2. How well do you feel you currently fit in at this organization? How does this influence
your decision to stay or leave your current job?
3. Tell me which word fits your work environment better: teamwork or collisional? How
does this influence your decision to stay or leave your current job?
4. Does your supervisor provide training to enhance your job performance? How does this
influence your decision to stay or leave your current job?
5. Does your organization provide professional development opportunities? How does this
influence your decision to stay or leave your current job?
6. Does your supervisor provide a supportive culture, such as short-term goal-setting or
frequent feedback to help you enhance self-efficacy. How does this influence your
decision to stay or leave your current job?
127

7. Do you want to stay in this current job for at least one or two more years? Why?
8. In your opinion, how many years of staying with one organization is considered long
enough before you feel the need to change to another organization?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Today’s workplaces are increasingly multigenerational, with new and complex implications for employee retention. The generational differences influence the workplace environment and create challenges in management that impede the retention of younger generations. Taiwan became an aging society in 1993 and is expected to become a hyper-aged society by 2026, and the ratio of the younger workforce to the total population is declining. Since Generation Y is the major cohort in the Taiwanese workforce, this population aging in the Taiwanese labor market is expected to negatively affect economic growth. The purpose of this study is to conduct an organizational gap analysis of low retention rates of Generation Y employees in Taiwan. Its goal is to find out what factors influence Generation Y employees to choose to stay at their organization for at least 3 years, and what solutions will lead to retaining 70% of Generation Y employees in a diverse generational mix workplace. The methodological approach for this study combines qualitative and quantitative data collection instruments; they were applied to test the reliability and validity of four propositions: leadership style, collaborative environment, professional development, and supportive culture. The convergent parallel mixed method was applied to analyze both quantitative and qualitative elements independently, while interpreting together the results and findings from the same phases of the research process. The key findings are based on the support of the mixed methods, and the organizational and emergent motivational factors found are leadership style, collaborative environment, professional development, supportive culture, and personal perspectives. Finally, eight recommended solutions to answer the second research question of what solutions will lead to retain 70% of Generation Y employees in a diverse generational mix workplace, are to increase sense of inclusion, build up collaboration culture, encourage healthy competition, set up a long-term training program, set up a professional development program, provide supervisor support, create transparent remuneration plan, and arrange anonymous surveys and interviews.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Perceptions of professional development from the lens of the global teacher in a rapidly evolving, linguistically diverse instructional environment

PDF

Millennial workforce retention program: an explanatory study

PDF

Preparing international students for management school through pathway programs

PDF

An examination of soft skills in the virtual workplace

PDF

Increasing female representation in the finance and banking sector in Qatar

PDF

Early to mid-career employee development: an exploratory study

PDF

Establishing multi-unit fast casual restaurant education at UNLV Hospitality College: an innovation study

PDF

The impact of school racial climate on the retention of teachers of color

PDF

Understanding the varied effects of leadership on employee retention in high stress work environments

PDF

Career-related parent support in a high school in Shanghai: a needs analysis

PDF

Understanding how organizational culture and expectations influence retention of managers

PDF

Minority Reserve Officer Training Corps officer candidate recruitment and retention: a gap analysis

PDF

Welcoming and retaining expatriate teachers in an international school

PDF

Teacher retention in an urban, predominately Black school district: an improvement study in the Deep South

PDF

Developing and retaining employees: exploring talent management initiatives for enlisted women

PDF

Creating a comprehensive professional development program for MBA students: a needs analysis

PDF

Don’t leave: a safety net hospital’s response to retain nurses during a nursing shortage

PDF

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

PDF

A promising practice case study from Singapore of socio-emotional development in a non-traditional context

PDF

The role of divisional principals in teacher retention in East African international schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Lee, Shwu-Yuan (author)

Core Title Generation Y employee retention in a diverse generational mix

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Degree Conferral Date 2021-08

Publication Date 07/29/2021

Defense Date 07/01/2021

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag collaborative environment,employee retention,generation Y,leadership style,multi-generation,OAI-PMH Harvest,personal perspectives,professional development,supportive culture,Taiwanese workforce

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hinga, Briana (committee chair), Krop, Cathy (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email mandy@inova.co,mandylee0430@mac.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15666845

Unique identifier UC15666845

Legacy Identifier etd-LeeShwuYua-9934

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Lee, Shwu-Yuan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu