Young professionals’ first experiences and preferences in
their new work environment
A qualitative approach to time management
Master Thesis
Student name: Sabine Boes
Student number: 10876049
Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam MSc Business Administration
Track: Leadership and Management
Date of submission: 26 January 2018
First supervisor: Dr. Wendelien van Eerde Second supervisor: Dr. Corine Boon
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Sabine Boes who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of Contents
1. Preface ... 5 2. Abstract ... 6 3. Introduction ... 7 4. Literature Review ... 9 4.1 Time Management ... 9 4.1.1 TM behaviours ... 10 4.1.1.1 Tools ... 11 4.1.2 Contextual influences on TM... 13 4.1.3 Effects of TM ... 15 4.1.3.1 Positive effects ... 16 4.1.3.2 Negative effects ... 16 4.2 Generations ... 174.3 Generations in the work field ... 19
4.3.1 Baby Boomers ... 20
4.3.2 Generation X ... 21
4.3.3 Millennials ... 21
4.4 Highly educated Millennials and TM ... 26
4.5 Research Question ... 28
5. Data and Method... 29
5.1 Research Approach ... 29
5.2 Sample Selection ... 30
5.3 Data Collection ... 30
5.4 Data Analysis ... 32
5.5 Strengths and limitations... 33
6. Results ... 35
6.1 Background of the Respondents ... 35
6.2 Young professionals’ TM characteristics ... 36
6.2.1 TM perceptions ... 37
6.2.2 TM behaviours ... 37
6.2.3 Tool use ... 42
6.2.4 School-to-work-transition ... 45
6.3.1 Workplace ... 47
6.3.2 Work-life balance... 48
6.3.2.1 Work-life balance challenges ... 49
6.4 Young professionals’ TM environment ... 50
6.4.1 Supervision ... 50
6.4.2 Co-worker interaction ... 51
6.4.3 Job clarity ... 53
6.4.4 Time values and time demands ... 53
6.4.5 Support for TM processes ... 53
6.4.6 Autonomy ... 54
7. Discussion... 55
7.1 Main results ... 55
7.2 Strengths of This Study ... 61
7.3 Limitations of This Study and Recommendations for Future Research ... 62
7.4 Practical Implications... 64
8. Conclusion ... 65
9. References ... 69
Appendix 1 : Interview Design... 78
Appendix 2: Coding Scheme ... 83
Appendix 3: Single Coding Query ... 85
Appendix 4: Coding Query ... 86
1. Preface
This study is conducted as part of the Master Business Administration, Track Leadership and Management, at the Amsterdam Business School. When I look back at the last six months, writing my thesis has been a challenging and educational experience. I have enjoyed this research, especially the interviews I have held. These conversations made clear to me that I would also like to interview people in my future job. Furthermore, I would like to thank some people that helped me along the way. First of all, my family, friends and boyfriend, who supported me during the process. Second, the co-readers who gave me some constructive feedback. Third, I would like to thank all the respondents who participated in this study. Thank you for your time, honesty and valuable stories. Fourth, Elisabeth Koning, for providing the Thesis Workshops, her time and helpful feedback. Last but not least, I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my supervisor Dr. Wendelien van Eerde, for guiding me through this process. Our meetings have been a rewarding and thought-provoking experience. Her feedback helped me to reach my true potential.
Enjoy your reading!
2. Abstract
The key purpose of the present study was to contribute to the time management (TM) literature. This study examined young professionals’ experiences and preferences in their new work environment. Specifically, it explored the TM perceptions, TM behaviours and their use of TM tools. Also, the transition from university to their new work environment has been taken into consideration. Experiences and challenges in their new work-life balance are studied. Furthermore, context factors in their new TM environment are discussed. Semi-structured interviews with 16 young professionals from a variety of occupations in various sectors provided qualitative data. The findings are partly consistent with the literature on TM and Millennials but also indicate some new insights. The results suggest that young professionals perceive TM slightly different than other generations. Their school-to-work transition is more challenging than was known, especially because of their new work-life balance. Supervision, feedback and support by their supervisor and co-workers is valued by young professionals. These factors increase their TM behaviours and decrease procrastination. Young professionals are easily distracted by their technological devices and surroundings and need more quiet workplaces. Flex working is also desired, as long as the technological facilities are supportive, their supervisor gives them a feeling of trust and is managing on output. These findings have implications for future researchers by increasing understanding of the TM characteristics of young professionals, their TM preferences and an appropriate stimulating TM environment. Furthermore, the findings could help organizations in understanding their youngest generation in the workplace and inform them how they should organize the work environment to get the most out of their employees when these enter their new work environment.
Keywords: Time management ▪ (digital) Time management tools ▪ TM environment ▪ Work-life balance ▪ Millennials ▪ Young professionals ▪ STWT ▪
3. Introduction
At the beginning of the 1980s, two substantial changes took place: the rise of the internet and a new generation, the Millennials. Since then, technological developments continued, and the Millennials grew up. These two developments have had and still have an impact on organizations in the way that they need to organize their work processes differently. Since Millennials have different work values than older generations, organizations need to adapt to their specific needs (Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman & Lance, 2010). Simultaneously, technological development means that communication, work, and essentially also life is moving faster. In this digital world, the concept of time is changing. The clock determines behaviour in such a way that people need to manage their time in an efficient manner. Considering the above developments, the concept of time management (TM) needs revision.
TM can be defined as “behaviors that aim at achieving an effective use of time while performing certain goal-directed activities” (Claessens, Van Eerde, Rutte & Roe, 2007, p. 36). Over the years, TM obtained a theoretical basis and is still developing (Van Eerde, 2015). In this study, five research gaps will be addressed. These gaps emphasize why this study is necessary and what have been the main reasons for this study. First, this study will focus on TM of employees in the workplace. Most studies on TM and procrastination have been conducted among students (Grunschel, Patrzek & Fries, 2013; Häfner, Stock, Pinneker & Ströhle, 2013; Tuckman, 2007), whereas studies on TM of employees are scarce.
Second, this study will focus on the current young professionals, described as highly educated Millennials, working in business organizations for a maximum of three years. In the existing literature on Millennials at work, there are few studies that have made a distinction in study level background. None of the previous studies focussed on Millennials at work and their TM (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Twenge et al., 2010). Millennial work values and characteristics differ in some areas with older generations in the workplace. Typical Millennial work characteristics are for example preference for structure and feedback, work-life balance, teamwork and endless technological possibilities (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). In this study it is questioned whether these characteristics also apply to young professionals and how these characteristics influence their TM.
Third, this study will provide revised insights in the field of TM tools. Considering technological developments in the last ten years, it could be assumed that the literature on TM tools is outdated and needs revision of contemporary TM tools that are used in the workplace nowadays (Blandford & Green, 2001). Fourth, this study will elaborate on contextual influences on TM in the workplace. Little attention is paid in the literature to the
TM environment (Claessens et al., 2007). Context factors are reviewed for young professionals (Burt, Weststrate, Brown & Champion, 2010; Van Eerde, 2015). Fifth, the school-to-work-transition (STWT) has been neglected in the TM literature (Kuron, Lyons, Schweitzer & Ng, 2015). This study provides more insights into the experiences young professionals are facing during and after this transition.
Considering these research gaps, this study will answer the following research question: What are young professionals’ first experiences and preferences in their new work environment, considering their time management? This is an open question since the aim of the study is both to supplement the existing TM literature with young professionals’ experiences, and to find some new insights. Therefore, a combination of a deductive and an inductive approach is applied. A qualitative research method has been chosen, which provides the opportunity to go into more depth on the experiences, feelings, opinions and thoughts of the respondents. A qualitative approach helps to understand the organizational context of young professionals and provides practical, rich information. By conducting 16 semi-structured interviews with young professionals, qualitative data of their first experiences and preferences concerning their TM in the workplace is gathered.
This thesis contributes in three areas. First, there still is a lack of qualitative empirical research on young professionals and TM environment. Much of the existing research on TM is quantitative in nature, and research on young professionals’ TM features is lacking. This study attempts to narrow that research gap by adopting a qualitative research approach. Second, the study focusses on young professionals, which deepens understanding of Millennial employees and thus could help organizations and managers to improve the way they attract, support and retain this generation. Third, this study contributes to the literature on TM tools. It provides a revised version of TM tools that are used in the workplace nowadays, both on the individual and team level. These insights could also be valuable for organizations, they could learn from each other’s best practices in the way they support young professionals.
This study starts with an overview of the existing literature on TM and generations, focussing on Millennials in the workplace. At the end of this literature review, the research question is formulated. Subsequently, the research methodology will be discussed. This will demonstrate how this research is conducted. Next, the results based on the interviews will be presented. The discussion stresses the most important findings and contributions, strengths and limitations, theoretical and practical implications, and possible future research directions. Finally, the research question will be answered, and conclusions can be drawn.
4. Literature Review
In this chapter an overview will be given of the existing literature regarding TM and generations, focusing on highly educated Millennials in the workplace. Research gaps will be identified and, as a result of these gaps, the research question will be proposed.
4.1 Time Management
In the following paragraph, procrastination and TM will be described. Procrastination can be defined as the delay due to “the avoidance of the implementation of an intention” (Van Eerde, 2000, p. 375). The concerned delay is frequently seen as irrational because people often have many possibilities not to delay. However, they still do so even if they experience a sense of discomfort (Van Eerde, 2015). Schouwenburg (2004) distinguished three components to overcome procrastination; training self-regulatory skills, building emotional strength, and using social support to sustain desirable behaviour. The first one, training self-regulatory skills, consists of planning and other strategies to decrease the gap between intentions and behaviour. This is where TM starts to play a role. TM and procrastination are related in the sense that TM can overcome procrastination. The core intervention within TM is planning, but this intervention is not enough to reduce procrastination (Van Eerde, 2015). The two other mentioned interventions, building emotional strength and using social support, can help to provide the control that procrastinators are missing (Schouwenburg, 2004).
TM can be defined as “behaviors that aim at achieving an effective use of time while performing certain goal-directed activities” (Claessens et al., 2007, p. 36). Van Eerde (2015, p. 3) defines TM as “a container concept that includes several tools to organize work and life in order to accomplish tasks effectively and efficiently”. The basis of TM could be found in self-regulation theory (Van Eerde, 2007). Behaviour is described as taking place in a dynamic cycle, wherein a person adjusts to changing conditions. Behaviour in this dynamic cycle includes cognition, affect and volition (Lord, Diefendorff, Schmidt & Hall, 2010). TM is a specific case of self-regulation, focused on the use of time (Van Eerde, 2015). Van Eerde’s (2015) conceptual model shows TM as the dynamic cycle in the centre in which planning, implementation and evaluation are considered as the three phases. These three phases may be distinguished in the dynamic adaption of those behaviours. See the model below in Figure 1. There is some doubt whether TM is a skill or rather a stable personality factor. Many research designs do not make a distinction between these two.
In the TM literature, students are a highly dominant focus group in past research on TM. Van Eerde (2015) states that research on procrastination in the workplace is relatively rare. Moreover, it has been mentioned that issues in the workplace are different than issues students experience, and consequences of not finishing tasks or poor performance can be significant (e.g. losing their job). Also, not only employees may be affected by poor TM, but also others who are dependent on these employees (Van Eerde, 2015). Therefore, it is essential to do more research on TM in the workplace. Furthermore, performance outcomes as a result of TM appear to be different between the academic environment and job-related environment. Research on students’ TM showed a positive effect between TM and their study results (Britton & Tesser, 1991), whereas Macan (1994) did not find a positive relation between TM and job performance for employees. These conflicting outcomes provide grounds for more research on employees.
In the next sections, TM behaviours and tools, influences on TM, TM environment, and positive and negative effects of TM are discussed.
4.1.1 TM behaviours
Behaviours connected to TM are, for example, planning, monitoring, prioritizing, goal setting, organizing and being more aware of time use (Van Eerde, 2015). Planning could be considered as the core of TM (Van Eerde, 2015). Sitzmann and Johnson (2012) concluded that a dynamic perspective on TM helps planning. They state that it is important to not only make a plan but also staying aware of the plan and keeping it alive. Planning is more
effective in combination with other interventions such as monitoring, concentration and learning strategies (Sitzmann & Johnson, 2012). Monitoring progress can be done by peer groups or supervisors. Tuckman (2007) showed in a study among students that increased monitoring by peers had an effect on procrastination and influenced the grades of the procrastinators positively. Another study showed that when processes used to achieve goals are continuously monitored by the supervisor, it reduces stress and turnover intentions (Burt et al., 2010).
Prioritizing is making continuously trade-off decisions between tasks. Priorities can be discussed with an employee’s supervisor or with its peers. For employees, it is essential to have clear and complete information about task characteristics and expectations. When the information given about the specific project or task is unclear, it may be hard to prioritize time resources to crucial elements of a project (Burt et al., 2010). Goal setting is another TM behaviour that is frequently mentioned in the literature. Goal setting theory states that “specific, high goals lead to a higher level of task performance than do easy goals or vague, abstract goals such as the exhortation to ‘do one’s best” (Locke & Latham, 2006). When an employee is committed to a goal, has the abilities to achieve that goal and does not have conflicting goals, there could be a positive linear relationship between goal difficulty and task performance (Locke & Latham, 2006). Key moderators of goal setting are feedback, commitment to the goal and task complexity.
Organizing work and life is another TM behaviour that can help to accomplish tasks adequately and conveniently. It is about organizing activities and being well organized in ones’ work habits (Britton & Tesser, 1991). Organizing also entails organizing the workspace (Macan, 1994). Awareness of time use helps people to be more conscious about how time is wasted and how activities can be combined within the same time frame to use time more effectively and efficiently (Van Eerde, 2015). Some instruments can help to divide time carefully. These instruments are defined as TM tools, which will be explained in the next paragraph.
4.1.1.1 Tools
TM techniques and tools help to make smart decisions on how to allocate time wisely (Van Eerde, 2015). Tools such as to-do lists, reminders and email-management can help to spend less time on unimportant tasks. So, the increased remaining time can be spend on more important tasks (Claessens, Van Eerde, Rutte & Roe, 2010; Huang, Lin & Lin, 2011). By implementing such tools, many effects are identified. Some studies point out that
procrastination interventions that overlap with TM, such as improving planning and self-regulation skills, increased monitoring by others and peer support, are very useful to overcome procrastination (Klingsieck, 2013; Tuckman, 2007; Van Eerde, 2015). A possibility to educate employees on how to manage their time is TM training. Training often consists of setting goals, prioritizing, making lists, scheduling and planning, organized desks and papers, dealing with procrastination, and dealing with interruptions (Häfner & Stock, 2010; Macan, 1994). To implement these learned skills, examples of tools are given in those trainings.
Research suggests that TM tools are for instance: to-do lists (Claessens et al., 2010), reminders, archiving and email management (Huang et al., 2010) and personal and group (electronic) diaries (Blandford & Green, 2001). These tools may be more efficient and effective in allocating time, planning and prioritizing (Van Eerde, 2015). Blandford and Green (2001) demonstrated how people use a battery of tools at the same time and how people manage their tool use. Technologies that were used by respondents to support their TM are divided into six categories: human memory, objects as reminders, informal reminders, methodical reminders, PDAs and Meeting Maker (group scheduling software). The study suggests that future research should aim to understand the relative advantages and disadvantages of each technology. Furthermore, future research should try to integrate these different tools (Blandford & Green, 2001).
After publication of their research in 2001, many new technologies have been introduced to daily life and the workplace. Gadgets such as laptops, smartphones, tablets and electronic watches have become indispensable in all day activities and have been gradually integrated into the work environment. For instance, 99% of the young professionals has a cell phone (Exterion Media, 2017). With the advent of smartphones, many apps are designed that can be used for planning, digital diaries, to-do lists and other tools that are used to manage time. Although these apps are already used on a daily basis, research concerning these new upcoming apps is lacking (Messinger, 2015). Since technology plays a vital role in the use of TM tools, it is possible that these new technologies are associated with new ways of TM and related TM tools. However, little research has been done on new TM tools and technologies.
The TM literature is lagging behind in the field of TM technology and needs a revised version of contemporary TM tools that are used in the workplace nowadays. By examining this, further insights in TM tools will be established and will provide more information for possible future research on TM tools that can be used for managers and employees in current work environments. The next section continues with possible influences on TM.
4.1.2 Contextual influences on TM
Besides the lack of attention to employees in TM research and possible new TM tools, little attention is given to the contribution of organizational or workplace factors in combination with TM (Claessens et al., 2007). Although one expects positive effects of TM behaviour on performance, the direct effects of TM on work performance could not always be illustrated. Claessens et al. (2007) suggested that future research could focus more on the characteristics of the work situation. These include the level of autonomy, workload, the influence of others such as colleagues and managers, or a planning system that could have influence on TM and therefore TM outcomes (Claessens et al., 2007).
In line with Van Eerde’s model (2015) mentioned before in Figure 1, Burt et al. (2010) presented an integrative model, wherein context variables are determined. This model is presented below in Figure 2. Burt et al. (2010) predict that a right TM environment makes it easier for employees to engage in TM behaviours. The environment mediates the relationship between TM competencies/training and perceived control of time. Considering the TM literature, six context variables could be distinguished, based on these two models (Van Eerde, 2015; Burt et al., 2010). Factors considered to be supportive are supervision, co-worker interaction, job clarity, time values and demands, support for TM processes and autonomy. These six factors will be explained below.
I. Supervision
Task, goal and priority information can be provided within a work environment via the interplay between employees and their supervisor. Supervisors can directly provide support for TM behaviour. Such as stimulating planning and task completion (Burt et al., 2010). Of all five factors in Burt et al.’s model (2010), supervision was most highly (negatively) related to stress and is, therefore, the most significant predictor of stress. Another study found that reminders from supervisors may help some employees in their TM but can be overflowing for others (Gevers & Demerouti, 2013). A third study shows that strong temporal leadership is positively related to performance (Mohammed & Nadkarni, 2011).
II. Co-worker interaction
Supportive co-worker interaction is another instrument by which tasks, goals and priority information can be achieved and clarified. Given the rising popularity of team-based work, it may be important that co-workers discuss task priorities, goals and the time required to complete the task. The staff could remind each other of appointments and work together to organize everyone’s day schedule (Burt et al., 2010).
III. Job clarity
Tasks, goals and priority information can also be supplied via formal documents such as job descriptions. Also, from key performance indicators (KPIs) which can be communicated in performance management processes and reviewed within a performance appraisal system (Burt et al., 2010; Fisher, 1995). Other job-descriptive processes that could provide clarity about tasks, roles and expectations can be less formal. It could be the case that reviews of goal achievement are undertaken on a regular basis.
IV. Time values and time demands
An organization can communicate at least two different types of TM related value. The first considers the productive use of time as a key value. The second stresses the time resource, wherein time is considered as an important resource. Furthermore, an organization could value deadlines and ‘keeping on time’, which could have a positive influence on their business. This emphasis on time is helpful for supervisors to support their employees in TM behaviours and it makes it easier for employees to meet TM behaviours (Burt et al., 2010). With respect to time demands, Van Eerde (2015) demonstrates that not every job is suitable for planning. Service-oriented or highly standardized jobs, for instance, do not require planning and evaluation. Furthermore, interruptions and distractions by colleagues, social media and other technological advances may make uninterrupted work more challenging (Hofmann, Baumeister, Förster & Vohs, 2012; Perlow, 1999).
V. Support for TM processes
Support concerns all aspects relating to structure, clarity and other conditions that organizations can provide to help its employees in managing their time well (Van Eerde, 2015). For instance, an employee has learned in a TM training to prioritize tasks and points to their own limits when a colleague or supervisor asks to do more tasks. It could happen that they do not take ‘no’ for an answer and expect that the employee will finish the specific request immediately (Chase et al., 2013). The organizational climate is an important variable and precondition to manage time. When the climate is not supportive, it would be impossible for employees to manage their time (Van Eerde, 2015). An organization could provide training in TM techniques, encourage to make time to plan the days work and provide documents on TM practices. Support for TM processes was related most strongly (negatively) to turnover intentions and is, therefore, the most significant predictor of turnover intentions (Burt et al., 2010).
VI. Autonomy
Not all employees have the discretion to plan their own day and delegate tasks in order to increase their effectiveness. This is especially relevant in cultural settings where autonomous decisions are not allowed and a paternalistic leadership style may be used (Van Eerde, 2015). To conclude, an organization that scores highly on supervision, co-worker interaction, job clarity, time values and demands, support for TM processes and autonomy, might not only have employees with strong TM, but these processes may also result in reducing stress and turnover intentions. Claessens et al. (2007) noted that conditions in the workplace were not included in past research. In addition to this, Van Eerde (2015) argues that context may play a more significant role than TM would describe. TM focusses on the individual, not particularly on the social or organizational context. By investigating the conditions in the work environment, this gap will be bridged in this thesis. It is relevant to conduct more research on the influence of the organizational environment on TM of employees because it is unclear yet what the exact influence is of the context variables. By investigating this, it will become more evident whether and what kind of conditions in the workplace will have an influence on TM and how TM can help to improve performance.
4.1.3 Effects of TM
The literature on outcomes of TM presents both positive and negative outcomes. It is argued that TM could lead to positive outcomes such as higher performance and less stress. On the other hand, research claims that a lack of TM and/or a less supportive environment for TM
behaviours could lead to adverse outcomes such as stress and turnover. In the following paragraphs, the positive and negative effects of TM will be discussed.
4.1.3.1 Positive effects
Most studies on TM support positive relations between TM and well-being, organizing, and feelings of control (Chang & Nguyen, 2011). Claessens et al. (2007) focused on the relationship between TM and outcomes. It was demonstrated that TM behaviour relates positively to job satisfaction, health, perceived feelings of control of time and relates negatively to stress. Häfner and Stock (2010) showed that a one-day TM-training contributed to the reduction of stress and increased feelings of control in comparison to a control group that did not receive training. However, the results did not show improvements in performance.
Direct effects of TM on job performance cannot always be demonstrated. One of the reasons some studies could not be compared is because of performance variables vary largely among the studies. Performance outcomes differ from sales performance and self-rated performance to supervisor ratings of employees attending TM-training and time spend on important tasks (Claessens, Van Eerde, Rutte & Roe, 2004; Häfner & Stock, 2010; Nonis, Fenner & Sager, 2011; Rapp, Bachrach, & Rapp, 2013;). That a direct effect of TM on job performance could not always be demonstrated suggests that TM could only be valuable when interacted with other variables. Van Eerde (2015) argues that planning and TM need interaction with both goal intentions (motivation) and implementations intentions (planning) to affect performance.
According to Burt et al.’s (2010) model, when the environment for TM behaviours is facilitating and supportive, positive actual outcomes could be: punctuality, procrastination avoidance, awareness of time use and planning, temporal prioritizing tasks, accurate allocation of time, staying on schedule, meeting deadlines, synchronization and coordination, autonomy of time use. A positive psychological outcome could be perceived control of time.
4.1.3.2 Negative effects
According to Burt et al.’s model (2010), when the environment for TM behaviour is not facilitating and not supportive, it will lead to negative effects such as stress, turnover and unsatisfactory performance. With regard to time demands, Perlow (1999) shows that frequent interruptions by others can create vicious cycles of time pressure which influence employees negatively.
To summarize, the literature on TM illustrates that TM can overcome procrastination. The basis of TM could be found in self-regulation theory. Three phases of TM could be distinguished: planning, implementation and evaluation. Past research focused on students’ procrastination and TM, and found conflicting results concerning performance. More research on TM of employees in the workplace is needed. Considering technological developments, the literature on TM tools needs revision. Furthermore, more research is needed on context variables, which could influence engagement in TM behaviours of employees. In the next section, an overview is given of the existing literature on generations in general and generations in the work field. Subsequently, the focus generation for this study, Millennials, is discussed in more detail.
4.2 Generations
In 1929, the socialist Karl Mannheim wrote his famous “Das Problem der Generationen”. He wanted to draw attention to the role of generations in historical change. Mannheim (1929) suggested that each generation has its own set of ideas and beliefs and its own way of interpreting events such as a war, a revolution or an economic crisis. In addition, generations can be influenced by other broad forces such as parents, peers, media, critical economic and social events, and popular culture. These forces create common value systems which differentiate one generation from another (Twenge et al., 2010). Sometimes, generations are referred to as ‘generational cohorts’, which include “individuals born around the same time who share distinctive social or historical life events during critical developmental periods” (Twenge et al., 2010, p. 1120).
Because of the growth of global communications technology, such as television and the internet, generations can communicate across national boundaries and through time. The instant confrontation with news items triggers reactions across the globe at the same time. For example, 9/11, the Tsunami in 2004 or several terrorist attacks by IS, were all events that have gone beyond national borders (Edmunds & Turner, 2005). In addition to the importance of the media in creating a global consciousness, global interdependence also has a part in this. Global communication technology enabled people to transmit culture and knowledge across the globe (McLuhan, 1964). The increases in mobility, tourism, education and global labor markets are important in the construction of global generations. The increasing networked society nowadays will lead to more and more globalized contact and therefore to stronger global generations (Edmunds & Turner, 2005).
Each generational cohort has, on average, a duration of 20 years (Jones, Jo & Martin, 2007). Every 80-90 years, generations go through four different stages, also called ‘turnings’. Four turnings together form one full cycle of history, which is termed a ‘saeculum’ meaning “a long human life” and “a natural century” (Strauss & Howe, 1997, p. 14-15). The four most recent generations in society are the Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials and Generation Z (Grubb, 2017). In the literature, there is a wide variance on names and birth years of these four generations. Especially Millennials have many different names, varying from Generation Y, Millennials or Screenagers to Generation Me, Echo Boomers or Gen-Y. Therefore, in Table 1, a self-constructed overview is given of the different names and birth years defined by several different authors in various research fields. Generation Z is a relatively new generation, therefore some authors did not describe this generation yet.
Author(s) Baby Boomers Generation X Millennials Generation Z
Alsop (2008) Baby Boomers Generation Xers Millennials -
- - 1980-2001 -
Edmunds & Turner (2005)
Postwar generation 1960s generation E-generation or Internet generation
-
- - - -
Grubb (2017) Baby Boomers Generation Xers Millennials Generation Zers
1946-1964 1965-1980 1981-1997 1998-present
Jones, Jo & Martin (2007)
Baby Boomers Generation-X Millennials/ Generation-Y Generation-Z or the New Silent Generation 1946-1963 1964-1980 1980-2000 2000-2020 Myers & Sadaghiani (2010)
Boomer workers Generation X workers Millennials -
Straus & Howe (1997)
Boomers Gen Xers Millennials -
- 1965-1981 1982-1998 -
Twenge (2010) Baby Boomers Generation X Millennials
(or Generation Me)
iGeneration
1943-1960 1961-1981 1982-1999 After 2000
Twenge, Campbell,
Hoffman & Lance (2010)
Baby Boomers Generation X (GenX) Generation Me (GenMe)
-
1946-1964 1965-1981 1982-1999 -
Yu & Miller (2005)
Baby Boomers X Generation (Xers) Y Generation
(dot.com generation) -
1945-1964 1965-1980 Born after 1980 -
Table 1: Definitions in the current literature on four generations
Within this thesis, the definitions and birth years by Twenge (2010) will be used to define the generations: Baby Boomers (1943-1960), Generation X (1961-1981) and Millennials (1982-1999). These are the most common definitions and average birth years, and her work is most influential for the literature on generations (Twenge, 2001; Twenge & Campbell, 2008; Twenge, 2010). A comprehensive description of each generation and their work characteristics will be given in the following chapter.
4.3 Generations in the work field
Today’s workforce can be divided into three distinct groups of employees: Baby Boomers, Generation X and Millennials (Grubb, 2017; Twenge et al., 2010; Yu & Miller, 2005). Generation Z will be entering the labour market in approximately five to ten years (Grubb, 2017). Research showed many generational differences in work characteristics, mental health and behaviours (Kessler et al., 2005; Twenge et al., 2010). The work characteristics of these three generations are important issues for organizations because they have to react differently on each cohort. Yu & Miller (2005) showed that employees from different generations with different work characteristics are more effective and productive when a corresponding leadership style is implemented. Work values of employees as part of their work
characteristics have an important role in how they see the world of work. Each generation has their work values and organizations have to react differently to these values.
Work values are defined as “the outcomes people desire and feel they should attain through work” (Twenge et al., 2010, p. 1121). Work values form employee’s preferences in the workplace, influencing employee attitudes and behaviours, job decisions and approaches (Dose, 1997; Judge & Bretz, 1992; Lofquist & Dawis, 1971; Ravlin & Meglino, 1987). There can be made a distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic work values. Extrinsic work values are “the tangible rewards external to the individual, such as income, advancement opportunities, and status” (Twenge et al., 2010, p. 1121). Intrinsic work values are “the intangible rewards that reflect the inherent interest in the work, the learning potential, and the opportunity to be creative” (Twenge et al., 2010, p. 1121). Other work values could be autonomy in decision making, job security, giving something back to society, interpersonal relationships at work and leisure. The latter indicates leisure time, holiday, and freedom from supervision (Herzog, 1982; Johnson, 2002; Miller, Woehr, & Hudspeth, 2002).
Generational differences in work values can influence employees’ perception of their person-organization fit. Organizational climates are often still in line with the values and goals of the founders and/or leaders of the organization (Schneider, 1987). Today’s organizational leaders are predominantly Baby Boomers and Generation X members. It could be the case in organizations that Millennial work values do not mirror their leaders’ work values and therefore experience person-organization misfit (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008). This misfit could harm their attitudes towards work, influence their performance negatively and increase turnover tendencies (Twenge et al., 2010). Millennials are entering the workforce with different work values, which also may affect recruitment and management (Twenge et al., 2010). These different work values could influence their TM behaviour and preferences in the workplace. In the paragraphs below, the three current generations in the workplace will be discussed and compared, looking at their work values.
4.3.1 Baby Boomers
Baby Boomers, born between 1943 and 1960, are currently the oldest generation in the workplace. Work values for Baby Boomers emphasize loyalty to their employer and the willingness to work hard. They like to work in teams and accept but also expect from their manager to get commands and lead them towards organizational goals. Baby Boomers operate best with clear hierarchies and expect to make step by step promotion (Grubb, 2017; Yu & Miller, 2005). They are technically challenged and generally do not like change (Raths,
1999). This generation is used to work with phone, fax and e-mail, and is introduced to Internet and personal computers as adults (Grubb, 2017). Baby Boomers prefer a stable working environment and like to have a balance in work and family (Yu & Miller, 2005).
4.3.2 Generation X
Generation X, born between 1961 and 1981, entered the workforce around 1985. Work values for Generation X emphasize personal satisfaction. Due to job loss as a result of downsizing, this generation is less committed to their employer and likely to switch jobs. They see work-life balance as excessively important, however, they are also called “workaholics” (Beutel & Wittig-Berman, 2008; Glass, 2007; Grubb, 2017). It could be said that they are a more individualistic generation and they prefer to work alone. They like an autonomous work environment and do not have the wish for leadership. Generation X is shrewd enough to update their technological knowledge and is enthusiastic to apply this knowledge in their work. This generation grew up with many changes in technology, for example, the introduction of the fax, printer, computer, Internet, mobile phone and later smartphone. Due to these technological changes, Generation X is technically savvy (Grubb, 2017; Society of Human Resource Management, 2004; Yu & Miller, 2005).
4.3.3 Millennials
Millennials, born between 1982 and 1999, are currently the youngest generation in the workplace. Influential events and trends for this generation are the 9/11 attacks, busy schedules, the introduction of the personal computer, smartphones and the financial crisis. Although many Millennials grew up with divorced parents, their parents (on average Generation X) gave them earnest and eager attention. Millennials lived protected childhoods as their parents commuted them from one place to another in their busy, tight schedules. Their parents’ efforts to protect their children left some Millennials dependent on their parents (Grubb, 2017). Since they were very young, Millennials are told that they are special, valued, and they received for every little activity or participation an award. Hence they are sometimes referred as ‘trophy kids’ (Alsop, 2008). They are more individualistic and self-focused than Generation X, hence some articles named them ‘Generation Me’ (Grubb, 2017; Twenge, 2010; Twenge et al., 2010).
Millennials are better educated than Generation X and Baby Boomers and are more well-spoken. Millennials are the first generation in which female students outnumber male students in college (Grubb, 2017). They entered the workforce around 2004 and will continue
to do so until around 2022 (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010), which makes them the youngest generation in today’s workforce (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010; Twenge et al., 2010). Their way of approaching the world of work is different than older employees in organizations, especially in the context of their relationships with technology and institutions (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). Considering Millennial work values, many differences compared to the Baby Boomers and Generation X could be distinguished.
Work values for Millennials emphasize especially interesting work and work-life balance (Kuron et al., 2015). They are more likely to value extrinsic rewards in their work than Baby Boomers but less than Generation X. Extrinsic work values for Millennials entail “work-life balance, salary, job security, information to do one’s job, benefits and hours of work” (Kuron et al., 2015, p. 1003). Furthermore, they are less likely to value intrinsic rewards in their jobs compared with other generations. Intrinsic work values for Millennials entail “interesting work, advancement and achievement” (Kuron et al., 2015, p. 1003). Since Millennials are the focus generation of this thesis, an extensive overview of their work characteristics will be given. The following five characteristics can be distinguished, based on many articles reviewing Millennials at work, their work values and generational differences in the workplace: structure & feedback, work & life, employer relationships, commitment and technology.
I. Structure & Feedback
Millennial workers are described by their managers as demanding, needy and high-maintaining (Alsop, 2008; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). As ‘trophy kids’ who are used to receive medals just for showing up, Millennials are convinced since their childhoods to seek confirmation and appreciation (Alsop, 2008). This affection and praise have caused a sometimes, exorbitant tendency to continuously seek guidance and direction in the workplace (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). Millennials have a strong need for structure and support. Additionally, they require very clear defined expectations and assignments (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). “Need supervision” is in the literature also associated with Millennials (Society of Human Research Management, 2004). Because their parents made decisions for them, it can be hard for Millennials to make (small) decisions.
In addition, Millennials are achievement-oriented (Farrell & Hurt, 2014), which makes them look for continuous feedback (Alsop, 2008; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Meister & Willyerd, 2010; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). Feedback provides them with a feeling of certainty, and they thrive in organizations where a clear path to success is formulated
(Epstein & Howes, 2008). “Millennials want rewards that are meaningful and exciting to them when they have done good work or an outstanding job” (Suleman & Nelson, 2011, p. 42). However, many Millennials only want positive feedback and avoid negative feedback (Alsop, 2008). Many employers complain about this constant need for feedback because it is very time-consuming. Though most employers who manage Millennials agree that their youngest employees perform excellently when given clear goals (Howe & Strauss, 2007). II. Work & life
Although Millennials desire structure, they also ask for variety in tasks and flexibility in the way they can work. Flexibility entails flexible working arrangements (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010) such as a flexible environment that includes team and open workspaces, access to technology, options for telecommuting and flexible work schedules (Beekman, 2011; Cahill & Sedrak, 2012). In contrast to the Baby Boomers and Generation X, Millennials desire a work-life balance and have a slightly different work ethic (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). “They work to live, not live to work” (Espinoza & Ukleja, 2016, p. 56). Millennials want to maintain a balanced personal and family life outside of work.
Twenge et al. (2010) showed that Millennials find leisure at work significantly more important than Generation X and Baby Boomers. They do not prefer to work overtime and are more likely to choose a job which gives the opportunity to have time for other things than work in their lives (Twenge et al., 2010). Besides this balance, Millennials also seek the freedom to have fun in the workplace. Google, for example, has made its workplace environment playful by installing such diversions as pool tables and grand pianos (Alsop, 2008). The desire for more work-life balance can be facilitated by technology. It helps employees to work anytime anywhere, convenient to their preferences (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). Given that Millennials both value extrinsic rewards and leisure confirms the ‘sense of entitlement’ many researchers already mentioned (Alsop, 2008; Twenge et al., 2008). Preferring to have more leisure, while still expecting more status and compensation, illustrates their overconfidence (Twenge et al., 2010).
Some studies argue that Millennials prefer a “work-life blending”, which means they do not mind working during their personal time, and simultaneously want to able to access their personal life during work time (Espinoza & Ukleja, 2016). Furthermore, Espinoza and Ukleja (2016) argue that the intrinsic value of work-life blending leads to autonomy, another work value that Millennials prefer (Espinoza & Ukleja, 2016; Sheahan, 2005). Considering their need for structure, direction and supervision, autonomy has a different meaning in their case. Espinoza and Ukleja (2016) suggest that it should involve giving the feeling of
autonomy and communicating that their manager believes in their ability and trusts them (Espinoza & Ukleja, 2016). Millennials do not like to be micromanaged and see it as a sign of distrust (Kilber, Barclay & Ohmer, 2014). Micromanaging is when a manager or leader tells employees exactly how to do their job, assigning work and monitoring employees extremely (Romero, 2012). Millennials desire “to be coached, rather than directed” (Sheahan, 2005, p. 102).
Millennials tend to have lower job satisfaction and higher turnover intention under emotional exhaustion, compared to Baby Boomers and Generation X (Lu & Gursoy, 2016). Therefore, Lu & Gursoy (2016) argue that organizations should focus more on work-life balance for their employees. Providing Millennials with flexible work hours and suitable supervision could help Millennial workers to organize their work and social life. This would enable them to have a feeling of job control, which may help to fulfil their desire of instant gratification (Bohl, 2008; Lu & Gursoy, 2016).
III. Employer relationships
Beyond this desire for work-life balance, Millennials have specific expectations for their relationship with their employer. As Millennials are used to have close relationships with their parents, teachers, mentors and advisors, they prefer close personal relationships with their supervisors and colleagues in the workplace (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). Since they were young, Millennials have been encouraged to challenge authority and feel comfortable to express their ideas and beliefs to adults (Howe & Strauss, 2007). Millennials like informality and expect open communication and transparency, even though this information is not reserved for them in their low-level position.
Furthermore, Millennials expect continuous communication and collaboration with their managers and colleagues, both virtually and face-to-face (Howe & Nadler, 2010). They tend to be loyal in a family-like environment, where the organization provides them personal attention and support (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). However, Millennials do not always advocate for friendships in their professional environment. Because technology allows them to stay connected with their friends and family, they may less seek out friendships at work (Twenge et al., 2010).
IV. Commitment
Some Baby Boomer and Generation X managers may question Millennial workers’ commitment and loyalty to their organization, because of their different attitude (Alsop, 2008; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). Overall, Millennials are less committed to their employer than Baby Boomers (Grubb, 2017; Yu & Miller, 2005). Many organizations mention it is
hard to retain Millennial employees since they frequently switch jobs (Alsop, 2008; Grubb, 2017). They do not perceive changing jobs as a bad thing. Their higher turnover rate can be explained by their desire for enjoyment and job satisfaction for their overall happiness (Sheahan, 2005). According to Suleman and Nelson (2011) is a fun and gratifying environment essential to retain Millennial employees.
Millennials are loyal to organizations that are loyal to them. To Millennial workers, loyalty stands for supporting organizations that provide them sufficient opportunities. They desire an environment where there is room for personal and professional development and growth (Hershatter, 2007; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Suleman & Nelson, 2011). Since their childhoods, Millennials have been stimulated to assert themselves, asking for preferential treatment (Howe & Strauss, 2003). Furthermore, Millennials prefer teamwork because they perceive this as more pleasant. However, they are known to be risk-averse (Alsop, 2008; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). Millennials are grown up with structured, collaborative group projects at school, and they have been trained to work in teams (Howe & Nadler, 2010). Compared with other generations Millennials are more involved, committed and make a great effort to achieve the team goals (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010).
V. Technology
“Perhaps the most apparent difference between Millennials and other generations in the workplace is their distinctive relationship with technology” (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010, p. 212). Millennials grew up with incredibly rapid technological innovations (Grubb, 2017). Since technologies are incorporated into their lives as a ‘sixth sense’, they are often referred to as ‘digital natives’ or the ‘Net Generation’ (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). Since they are “tech-savvy” and do not even remember a time when computers did not exist, it makes sense to use their technological skills as much as possible (Society of Human Research Management, 2004; Twenge, 2010). They tend to be constantly connected with technology and are particularly dependent on using technology to exchange information rather quickly. They are used to instant messaging, text messaging, and social networking sites. For Millennials, email is too slow. They expect to continuously connect in a two-way exchange of information (Alsop, 2008).
Millennials are expert multi-taskers (Bohl, 2008). Because of their ability to use these technologies, they can work on multiple tasks at the same time and complete them rapidly (Alsop, 2008; Farrell & Hurt, 2014). Millennials enjoy engaging in various experiences at the same time. However, multitasking can be distracting and obstruct effective writing and oral communication (Alsop, 2008).
4.4 Highly educated Millennials and TM
To narrow down the target group, highly educated Millennials will be studied. A related definition in the literature are the so-called Millennial college graduates (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). However, not many studies on Millennials have made a distinction in study level background. When students graduate and start their first job, it could be assumed they are going to work in a new environment, with new tasks, schedules, deadlines and colleagues. This new environment could be challenging for them (Kuron et al., 2015).
Employees at the beginning of their career, are so-called ‘young professionals’. Although this is a commonly used term in practice, it is not specifically defined in scientific research yet. Therefore, the definition that will be used, in this study, is conducted from the advertising industry. A young professional is defined as “a college and university graduate who is aged between 20 and 35 years”. These people are “developing themselves, are ambitious and motivated. They are open to innovations, new experiences and are sensitive to trends. Young professionals are the information-generation and looking for interaction” (Exterion Media, 2017). Hence, in this thesis, highly educated Millennials will be referred to ‘young professionals’, born between 1982 and 1999, graduated from university and working in business organizations. Business organizations are considered as organizations that aim to make profit. The sample selection will be discussed in more detail in the methodology.
Previous research concerning TM has relied on student samples and Generation X employees. This is questioning the generalizability of results to young professionals. It could be that young professional TM preferences change over time. Therefore, young professionals that just made the transition from university to work will be investigated in this research. Based on the literature review and the identified research gaps, six sub-questions are defined, which will lead to the main research question of the thesis.
In the literature, some definitions of TM are given based on the perceptions of researchers and non-Millennial respondents. Hence, it would be interesting to know how young professionals perceive the concept of TM. Since Millennials have different work values and characteristics than other generations, it could be the case they perceive TM differently. Therefore, the first sub-question will be: What are young professionals’ perceptions of TM?
Given the sociological, cultural and structural differences between university and the workplace, the school-to-work-transition (STWT) can be challenging for new graduates (Kuron et al., 2015). Many graduates have unrealistic high expectations of their new workplace, which may lead to disappointment and job dissatisfaction (Gardner & Lambert,
1993; Lyons, Ng & Schweitzer, 2012). It might be that young professionals’ STWT could not only be challenging because of high expectations but also because of a challenging new TM environment. Furthermore, this transition might influence their work-life balance as well since they have to organize their lives differently. Accordingly, the second sub-question will be: How do young professionals experience the transition from study to work?
Since students are used to a certain TM environment and developed some TM behaviours in university, it could be that their new work environment asks for other TM behaviours. Because Millennials seek for continuous feedback (Alsop, 2008; Epstein & Howes, 2008; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Meister & Willyerd, 2010), this could influence some TM behaviours such as goal setting, monitoring and prioritizing. In addition, due to their ability to use many technologies in the workplace, they can work on multiple tasks at the same time and complete them fast. This could also have some implications for young professionals’ TM behaviours. Insights into this transition and their adaption of potential new TM skills would be interesting. The third sub-question will be: What are young professionals’ TM behaviours?
As mentioned before, the last fifteen years there have been many technological developments. These developments could have influenced TM in the workplace. To be more specific, Millennials were the first generation with Wi-Fi in their classrooms. Furthermore, they were the first where cell phones and computers are important icons in their lives (Grubb, 2017; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). They are used to take notes during lectures on their laptops or mobile devices (such as iPads), not on paper (Grubb, 2017). Considering this, it could be the case that Millennial workers prefer digital TM tools (such as digital agenda’s and digital to-do lists) over paper tools. However, research on this topic is lacking. Therefore, the fourth sub-question will be: What TM tools do young professionals use?
Millennials’ desire for a work-life balance, so to not work overtime, could have some implications for the way young professionals are organizing their lives and work (Espinoza & Ukleja, 2016; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). It could be that young professionals need strong TM because they want to work efficiently and effectively to have enough time for their social lives. Millennials’ need for flexible work environments (Beekman, 2011; Cahill & Sedrak, 2012; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010), could also have some implications for young professionals’ TM. At the moment it is not known how these flexible work environments influence their TM, what happens if they do not get these options or how this will influence their TM behaviour. Accordingly, the fifth sub-question will be: How do young professionals prefer to organize their work and life?
Looking at the current TM literature, concerning the influence of the organizational environment, it could be questioned how these context models are in line with Millennial work characteristics and their work values. Some expectations concerning their TM environment can be outlined. For example, Millennials’ need for supervision, structure and support and their tendency to continuously seek guidance and direction in the workplace (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010), would suggest that supervision is an important factor in their TM environment. Also, their need for clearly defined expectations and assignments could indicate their need for strong job clarity. Furthermore, their preference for personal, close relationships with their supervisors and colleagues in the workplace (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010) in combination with their preference for teamwork (Alsop, 2008; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010), could have an influence on the contextual factor co-worker interaction.
Discussing task priorities, goals and the required time for tasks might look slightly different for young professionals, perhaps more informal. It could be questioned if this informality will have positive or negative influences on their co-worker interaction and TM outcomes. Additionally, one of the mentioned work values for Millennials is autonomy (Espinoza & Ukleja, 2016; Sheahan, 2005). This value is also one of the mentioned context variables in the TM literature (Van Eerde, 2015). The role of this factor for young professionals could be an interesting aspect for the TM literature. It would be valuable to know which context factors are important in the young professional TM environment. TM models might be adapted or extended for young professionals. Therefore, the last sub-question will be: What are the most evident context factors in the young professional TM environment?
4.5 Research Question
By answering the mentioned six sub-questions, comprising young professionals’ TM perceptions, TM behaviours, their school-to-work-transition, TM tools, work and life preferences and their TM environment, the following main research question will be answered:
What are young professionals’ first experiences and preferences in their new work environment, considering their time management?
5. Data and Method
In the previous chapter, the central research question has been formulated, based on previous literature on TM and generations (in the workplace). The research question of this thesis is an open question, in order to ensure an open approach as much as possible. Since very little is known about young professionals and their TM, a qualitative approach was preferable. In this chapter, the choice for this applied research method will be explained further.
5.1 Research Approach
Qualitative research has been chosen because it provides the possibility to study a particular subject in depth (Myers, 2013). Qualitative research methods help to understand social and cultural contexts (Myers, 2013), which is very useful in this study concerning the organizational context of young professionals. “It is often the case that human decisions and actions can only be understood in context – it is the context that helps to ‘explain’ why someone acted as they did” (Myers, 2013, p. 5). A qualitative approach gives the opportunity to explore a subject in as real a manner as is possible. Qualitative data can be characterised by their richness and fullness (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2012). These rich data can be helpful to provide a basis for further research.
Using the ‘research onion’, the philosophy, approach, strategy, method choice, time horizon and the techniques and procedures were carefully selected (Saunders, Lewis, Thornhill & Wang, 2009). An interpretive philosophy is used, believing that it is necessary to understand differences between humans in their roles as social actors. The methodology was qualitative and relied on semi-structured, individual interviews with 16 young professionals, working in varying business organizations in the Netherlands. The semi-structured interviews were used in order to answer the formulated research question.
Furthermore, this thesis has had a combination of a deductive and inductive approach. In this study, young professionals and their TM were compared with the existing literature in these fields. Therefore, a deductive approach was present (Yin, 2009). Based on the TM and Millennial literature, research questions for the semi-structured interviews were formulated. However, since no theoretical framework was constructed and the interview questions were generally open questions, there was still room for a more explorative, inductive approach (Yin, 2009). In the interviews, several new topics were discussed with the respondents that had not been prepared in advance. Due to the combination of a deductive and inductive approach, I was both able to link my research into the existing body of knowledge in the literature on TM and simultaneously generate some new findings (Saunders et al., 2012).
5.2 Sample Selection
To guarantee an adequate quantity of data, it was aimed to interview a number of 16 respondents. By selecting them using purposive sampling, I was able to focus on particular characteristics of a specific group, i.e. young professionals (Saunders et al., 2012). General features of the respondents needed to be: Dutch nationality, Millennial (born between 1982 and 1999), university-level degree, six months to three years working experience, full-time position and working in a business environment. Additionally, I tried to divide the respondents into work fields of finance, advocacy, consultancy and HR/recruitment, differing among international firms, mid-size firms and start-ups, men and women equally divided. Limited access to these specific respondents resulted in the expansion of some more work fields, adding energy, insurance, IT and Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) as sectors.
By selecting respondents in different fields and organizations, many different organizational environments were involved. Since the ‘main character’ in the thesis is the young professional, and the organizational environment plays a supporting role, I differentiated for many different organizations with varying organizational environments. More information about the background of the respondents can be found in paragraph 6.1 Background of the Respondents.
Since I personally know many young professionals, I made a list of potential respondents in my personal and professional network. The selection process was done by looking at their LinkedIn-profile. They were selected if they fulfilled the features that are stated above. Potential respondents were approached via WhatsApp, Facebook messenger or LinkedIn chat. Using snowball sampling, some respondents provided access to new subjects (Browne, 2005). The fact that I knew some of the respondents could have influenced the research outcomes because I had some foreknowledge of their personalities. However, many respondents were acquaintances and not friends, so this influence was limited. The interviews were serious conversations about work. In other conversations with these persons, these topics would probably not be addressed. Due to this, I was able to collect valuable information. A potential positive side effect was that I was no stranger to them, which probably influenced them in a positive way. In other words, the respondents felt at ease, so they had the feeling that they could say everything even though it was on the record.
5.3 Data Collection
To gather detailed information about the thoughts, needs, daily routines and feelings of young professionals, semi-structured interviews have been held and predetermined questions were
