Search Strategy

A search strategy was developed to capture peer-reviewed Scopus-indexed journal articles on Gen Z in organizational and workplace contexts. The Scopus database was used to ensure broad coverage. Scopus is recognized as one of the largest and most comprehensive multidisciplinary bibliographic databases, which provides broader journal coverage than Web of Science and more structured indexing than Google Scholar (Falagas et al., 2008; Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). Previously, studies have confirmed that Scopus provides wide coverage of high-quality peer-reviewed journals, robust citation tracking, and advanced filtering options, making it particularly suitable for systematic and bibliometric reviews (Martín-Martín et al., 2018).

Consistent with recommended integrative review practice (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005), the search was deliberately restricted to this single, high-coverage database rather than being run across multiple databases. This reflects a considered trade-off rather than an oversight: for a tightly bounded population, which is Gen Z specifically, in workplace or organizational contexts specifically, a single, consistently indexed database reduces duplicate and low-quality records at the cost of the broader (but noisier) coverage that multi-database searches provide. The authors treat this as an explicit boundary condition of the review; its implications for the generalizability of the synthesis are discussed in Section “Limitations of Existing Literature and Future Research”, and multi-database replication is proposed as a specific direction for future research.

The following keywords were used to retrieve the data: “Gen Z,” “Generation Z,” and “Workplace.” The review concentrated on research published from 2017 to 2025. This timeframe was chosen for two reasons: Academic focus on Gen Z as a working demographic increased notably after 2017, with the major entry of Gen Z into full-time employment. Concentrating on this timeframe ensured the study reflected current organizational dynamics, including post-COVID-19 workplace changes such as hybrid work, digitization, and evolving employment expectations.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The screening process was conducted in multiple stages (Figure 1). First, the database search generated an initial pool of 351 articles based on keywords. Second, to ensure that only relevant studies were available for review, we developed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Only those studies were included that were from the domain of business and management, focused primarily on Gen Z as the target population, examined issues related to the workplace, employment, or organizational behavior, were published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and were written in English. Studies were excluded if they were focused solely on Millennials or mixed generations without a specific analysis of Gen Z; addressed Gen Z only in educational or consumer behavior contexts; or were conference papers, book chapters, theses, or non-peer-reviewed reports. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a pool of 121 articles remained. Third, articles were screened manually for relevance based on titles and abstracts. Studies that did not clearly address Gen Z in workplace or organizational contexts were removed. After eliminating irrelevant studies, a final sample of 50 peer-reviewed articles was retained for in-depth analysis.

Figure 1. PRISMA Flowchart of Systematic Review Study Identification and Inclusion.

Data Extraction and Coding

The systematic extraction and coding of the literature were conducted, and as a result, a matrix was developed. The following heads were used to classify the information from the literature: author(s) and year of publication, journal and disciplinary focus, country or context of study, research objectives, theoretical framework(s), key constructs examined, methodology and sample characteristics, major findings, practical implications, limitations, and future research directions. This coding process enabled cross-study comparison and facilitated the identification of recurring patterns, convergences, and contradictions in the literature.

To strengthen coding reliability, the first author coded all 38 studies against this matrix, and the second author independently re-coded a purposive subset of the sample and cross-checked the resulting thematic groupings; discrepancies in category placement or theme labels were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. This two-reviewer verification step, while more limited than full dual-independent coding of the entire sample, was intended to reduce single-coder bias in theme construction. The authors note this explicitly as a methodological boundary condition rather than a completed inter-rater reliability test, and recommend that future reviews in this stream report a quantitative reliability statistic (e.g., Cohen’s kappa) computed across the full sample.

Theme Synthesis and Analysis

The analysis followed an iterative thematic synthesis approach. After coding all studies, comparison techniques were used to analyze the data and identify themes from the extracted data. The synthesis process involved creating a mind map that grouped studies by common research topic, identified dominant theoretical perspectives, and mapped methodological trends. The analysis resulted in themes presented in the next section.

Characteristics of Gen Z Employees

A major part of the existing literature has been dedicated to studying the characteristics of Gen Z. Growing up with smartphones, Gen Z has been described as more tech-savvy and as digital natives (Chillakuri, 2020; Lazányi & Bilan, 2017). These extreme uses of technology and exposure have shaped future preferences for hybrid work, instant feedback, and rapid communication.

The prevalent characteristics of Gen Z are highly independent, practical, and entrepreneurial, and Gen Z employees demonstrate a stronger inclination toward autonomy, ongoing education, and personal growth compared to millennials and previous generations (Chillakuri & Mahanandia, 2018). Nonetheless, they demonstrate diminished organizational loyalty and keen employer demands. The existing literature challenges common stereotypes that portray Gen Z as disengaged or unprofessional. Studies suggest that their level of commitment is not necessarily lower; rather, it depends on various factors (Nguyen & Petchsawang, 2026). They expect transparency, authenticity, inclusiveness, respect, and meaningful work to be essential for their engagement (Janssen & Carradini, 2021; Kataria et al., 2026). Therefore, Gen Z should be understood as a cohort that has differing expectations regarding technology, flexibility, communication, and psychological safety.

Work Values and Career Priorities of Gen Z

One of the most extensively researched strands addresses the work values and priorities of Gen Z employees. Several studies have explored the concerned topic in different settings, and findings are more or less similar to each other. Arora et al. (2020), Maloni et al. (2019), and Pataki-Bittó and Kapusy (2021) contribute to identifying dominant work values: work-life balance, continuous learning and development, job security and stability, flexibility, autonomy, positive social relationships, and meaningful work (Nguyen & Petchsawang, 2026).

There are priorities among Gen Z that differ from those of previous generations (da Silva Sousa & Douglas Colauto, 2021). Preference for compensation is the same across the generations. The main differences lie in personal growth, flexibility, less hierarchy, and well-being, where Gen Z is more sensitive to these aspects than previous generations (Barhate & Dirani, 2022; Egerová et al., 2021). De Boer and Bordoloi (2022) argue that cross-national studies and many work values are culturally specific, although Gen Z employees have intrinsic motives and values that drive them to contribute significantly, grasp opportunities, and foster learning and observable outcomes that are universally valid.

Workplace Expectations and Psychological Contracts

Different workplace expectations are a major phenomenon unraveling across the literature. The new workplace expectations aim to foster new forms of psychological contract with the organization, including the following: transparent leadership, frequent feedback, hybrid work opportunities, friendship, respectfulness, and inclusivity (Egerová et al., 2021; Jaya et al., 2026; Maloni et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2026).

Unlike previous generations, Gen Z is more serious about their demands. Studies from Romania and central Europe demonstrated that unmet expectations are strongly associated with dissatisfaction and turnover intentions among Gen Z (Botezat et al., 2023; De Boer & Bordoloi, 2022; Egerová et al., 2021). After COVID-19, hybrid workplace has become the most nonnegotiable demand for Gen Z (Osorio & Madero, 2025). Gen Z assesses employers from a transactional, expectation-centric, social, and legal perspective; when firms fail to meet these expectations, psychological disengagement occurs swiftly, and Gen Z is likely to engage in moonlighting (Bhore et al., 2025).

Motivation, Engagement, and Retention Drivers

A body of research focuses on the retention and motivation of Gen Z. Across industries, several consistent drivers of engagement are revealed: a supportive environment, recognition, learning, autonomy, a skill-role match, fairness, and justice. Chillakuri (2020) and Kgarimetsa and Naidoo (2024) found that supervisor support significantly moderates turnover intentions, particularly when employees experience boredom or unmet expectations. Similarly, for retention, recognition and flexibility are the main antecedents in the mining and banking industries (Brown, 2025; Kgarimetsa & Naidoo, 2024).

Unlike previous generations who are motivated by pay or status, Gen Z employees seek holistic motivational packages that combine financial, developmental, moral, and psychological elements (Botezat et al., 2020; Krishna & Agrawal, 2024; Nguyen & Petchsawang, 2026). Moreover, the retention of Gen Z talent is influenced more by daily managerial assistance, feedback, and meaningful engagement than by conventional loyalty programs (Ignatius Soni Kurniawan et al., 2026; Peemanee et al., 2026). For example, a study was conducted in the Jordanian context, which revealed that Gen Z demands a combination of financial, social, and emotional factors that can ensure their financial-emotional well-being and interpersonal relationships (Al-Twal et al., 2025).

Organizational Support Mechanisms and Human Resource Practices

Scholars and researchers are consistently working toward the smooth integration of Gen Z into the organization. Organizational support and HR practices are major factors that can help achieve a smooth integration of Gen Z, increase satisfaction and career intentions in the workplace (Nguyen & Petchsawang, 2026; Pauli & Dudek, 2025; Tabi et al., 2025). The literature emphasizes the importance of structured onboarding, mentoring, coaching, frequent communication, experience, and development-oriented HR policies (Ngobeni et al., 2026; Pauli & Dudek, 2025).

Research on onboarding suggests that inductions that are structured, interactive, and feedback-rich are preferred more by Gen Z (Chillakuri, 2020). Furthermore, recent studies suggest increasing personalization in human resource management (HRM) by using AI technology and customized career paths (Thomas et al., 2025). Conventional uniform HR strategies are becoming progressively inadequate for Gen Z; tailored, development-oriented frameworks are essential (Pauli & Dudek, 2025).

Communication Preferences and Soft-skill Challenges

Gen Z has used digital communication aggressively and proficiently, yet several studies highlight problems in Gen Z’s interpersonal and professional communication (Visser & Terblanche, 2025). Janssen and Carradini (2021) report that despite being technically fluent, Gen Z employees often struggle with face-to-face communication, conflict management, and professional etiquette. A review of soft skills of Gen Z workers reveals that communication and cooperation are the most esteemed yet most lacking soft skills among Gen Z employees (Visser & Terblanche, 2025). Organizations are continuously working to develop soft-skill programs, coaching, and mentoring to address this issue (Visser & Terblanche, 2025). In the midst of a communication crisis, digital communication has played a significant role in maintaining work-life balance by providing opportunities for flexible work and increasing job satisfaction (Gunnoo et al., 2026).

The Post-COVID and Hybrid Work Context

The most recent literature examines how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced Gen Z’s workplace behavior. Studies from 2022 to 2026 indicate that hybrid and flexible work arrangements are strongly preferred by Gen Z, which has also resulted in retention (Kgarimetsa & Naidoo, 2024; Pauli & Dudek, 2025). Mental health and well-being have become pivotal concerns; flexibility is viewed as a central employment right, and personalized work experiences are increasingly anticipated (Taslim et al., 2026). The post-pandemic period has intensified Gen Z’s demand for independence, remote work opportunities, and technology-driven customization (Osorio & Madero, 2025). This increase in alternative work settings has shown mixed results for well-being, loneliness, and job satisfaction (Chmiel, 2025).

Cross-cutting Patterns in Literature

Beyond themes, several patterns emerged from the literature.

• Methodological trends: Most studies are cross-sectional. Students are predominantly used as samples. Use of mixed methods has increased since 2022.

• Theoretical trends: Several theoretical lenses are used to explain phenomena related to Gen Z—generational cohort theory, social exchange theory, self-determination theory, person-environment fit, theory of planned behavior, psychological contract, and organizational justice are the primary theories used in the literature.

• Geographical trends: The literature spans the globe, from Europe to North America, the Subcontinent, and Australia. Still, the representation of underdeveloped countries is less.

Gen Z Profile

Gen Z has distinct characteristics, and in the workplace, expectations and values differ as well (Al-Twal et al., 2025). Table 1 outlines the characteristics, expectations, and values of Gen Z. Gen Z brings these aspects of their conduct to the workplace, and organizations must take them into account through practices and processes (Pauli & Dudek, 2025). Organizations must provide person-organization fit to these characteristics, work values, and workplace expectations (Taslim et al., 2026).

Organizational Practices and Processes

In the second stage, all practices and processes must be shaped to ensure a smooth integration of Gen Z into the workplace, rather than challenging or questioning its expectations and values. The organizational practices and processes are listed in Table 2. If the organizational practices and processes line up with Gen Z’s prospects and values, the outcomes can be favorable (Pauli & Dudek, 2025). Empathetic leadership, inclusive leadership, supervisor support, reshaping organizational practices, culture, and communication have the potential to influence adaption and integration of Gen Z (Durman et al., 2026; Gunnoo et al., 2026; Janssen & Carradini, 2021; Ngobeni et al., 2026; Taslim et al., 2026).

Outcomes

The alignment between Gen Z’s characteristics, values, and expectations and organizational practices and processes influences individual and organizational outcomes, as mentioned in Table 3. The better the fit, the better the outcomes. At the core of the framework is the person-environment fit. The review suggests that the organization’s practices and processes need to be reshaped so that Gen Z feels a sense of fit (Chaudhry, 2024; Saraiva & Nogueiro, 2025). The misalignment between Gen Z expectations, values, and workplace processes and policies can lead to several detrimental outcomes for both individuals and the organization (Saraiva & Nogueiro, 2025) (see Table 3).

Conceptual Fragmentation

The literature on Gen Z is not conceptually sound in terms of theory integration and constructs. Theories such as cohort theory, social exchange theory, self-determination theory, person-environment fit, theory of planned behavior, and organizational support theory have been used largely but without integration. Furthermore, constructs such as “expectations,” “values,” “engagement,” and “motivation” have been studied in empirical studies explaining causation, but varied forms of conceptualization can be found for a single construct. This makes findings less cohesive.

Overreliance on General Stereotypes

The oversimplistic view of Gen Z’s characteristics is another conceptual limitation that must be addressed. Although the generational cohort lens provides insight into a particular generation, several studies have ignored the role of context in shaping Gen Z’s characteristics. Furthermore, the homogeneous view of Gen Z is problematic because it masks individual differences. However, evidence from cross-national research suggests significant variation by gender, culture, education level, and work experience. Consequently, some parts of the literature risk reinforcing popular stereotypes rather than offering a nuanced empirical understanding.

Dominance of Cross-sectional Design

A major pitfall in studies on Gen Z is the use of a cross-sectional design, which captures any construct at a point in time. This creates several problems: Inability to establish causal relationships and the evolution of expectations and behavior. Considering that the careers of several Gen Z employees are in the nascent or mid-stages, longitudinal methodologies are crucial for understanding the evolution of their workplace behaviors over time.

Reliance on the Student Sample

A very large number of studies use student samples and make claims about the workplace context or for the employees. Although the sample of university students is convenient to obtain, it might not fully represent the organizational employees. This constrains external validity and prompts questions about the extent to which findings precisely reflect the experiences of Gen Z professionals in long-term job settings.

Predominance of Self-reported Data

The self-reported data dominate the literature, which raises several questions and biases: common method variance, social desirability bias, and the universality of the measure. Objective metrics of performance, retention, or organizational results are infrequently utilized. Consequently, a significant portion of the evidence base illustrates views and intentions rather than definitive workplace behaviors.

Context and Geographical Constraints

The literature is from around the world, spanning continents such as North America, Australia, Europe, and the Subcontinent. Still, the representation of underdeveloped countries is missing in the literature. This geographic bias limits the generalizability of conclusions, particularly when cultural values significantly shape work attitudes.

Neglect of Organizational and Leadership Perspectives

Most studies focus on one side of the story. That is, the leadership perspective on how they wish to integrate Gen Z is missing. The literature on the successful integration of Gen Z into the workplace from a leadership perspective can lead to greater contributions, but multilevel studies remain scarce.