GENERATIONS AND MODERN WORK: A COMPARISON BETWEEN BRAZILIAN AND GERMAN MILLENNIALS AND GENERATION ZERS

Transcrição

1 FUNDAÇÃO GETULIO VARGAS ESCOLA DE ADMINISTRAÇÃO DE EMPRESAS DE SÃO PAULO ESTHER QUINTAS JORDÃO GENERATIONS AND MODERN WORK: A COMPARISON BETWEEN BRAZILIAN AND GERMAN MILLENNIALS AND GENERATION ZERS SÃO PAULO 2021

2 ESTHER QUINTAS JORDÃO GENERATIONS AND MODERN WORK: A COMPARISON BETWEEN BRAZILIAN AND GERMAN MILLENNIALS AND GENERATION ZERS Thesis presented to Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo of Fundação Getulio Vargas, as a requirement to obtain the title of Master in International Management (MPGI). Knowledge Field: Internationalisation of Companies Adviser: Prof. Dr. Isabela Baleeiro Curado SÃO PAULO 2021

3 Jordão, Esther Quintas. Generations and modern work: a comparison between Brazilian and German Millennials and Generation Zers / Esther Quintas Jordão f. Orientador: Isabela Baleeiro Curado. Dissertação (mestrado profissional MPGI) Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo. 1. Relações entre gerações. 2. Emprego em tempo parcial. 3. Geração Y. 4. Geração Z. 5. Administração de pessoal. I. Curado, Isabela Baleeiro. II. Dissertação (mestrado profissional MPGI) Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo. III. Fundação Getulio Vargas. IV. Título. CDU Ficha Catalográfica elaborada por: Isabele Oliveira dos Santos Garcia CRB SP /O Biblioteca Karl A. Boedecker da Fundação Getulio Vargas - SP

4 ESTHER QUINTAS JORDÃO GENERATIONS AND MODERN WORK: A COMPARISON BETWEEN BRAZILIAN AND GERMAN MILLENNIALS AND GENERATION ZERS Dissertação apresentada à Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo da Fundação Getulio Vargas, como requisito para obtenção do título de Mestre Profissional em Gestão Internacional. Campo do Conhecimento: internacionalização de empresas Data de Aprovação: 24/02/2021. Banca Examinadora: Profa. Dra. Isabela Baleeiro Curado Prof. Dr. Marcelo de Andrade Pinheiro Prof. Dr. Leonardo Nelmi Trevisan

5 Acknowledgements This dissertation is dedicated to my father, Manoel, and my mother, Adriana, for supporting my efforts towards obtaining a master s degree, to my advisor, Professor Isabela Curado, for accepting the challenge of guiding me through the intense process of writing this thesis, and to my sister, Clara, for walking by my side in every moment of this journey and being my partner in the adventure of being alive.

6 Abstract Members of generations Y (Millennials) and Z (Generation Zers) have distinct sets of values and preferences. Millennials need flexibility, whilst Generation Zers need stability; Millennials search for work with purpose, whilst Generation Zers take a pragmatical approach towards work opportunities. Nationality seems to play a secondary role in defining preferences, with slight differences being perceived between Brazilian and German Millennials. The gig economy, although displaying appealing features, still does not arise as a silver lining for members of these generational cohorts to experience the attributes they prefer in terms of their work lives, and traditional work relations are perceived as compatible with a series of important preferences these youngsters have. Key words: intergenerational relations, employment relations, generation Y, generation Z, personnel management.

7 Resumo Membros das gerações Y (Millennials) e Z (Geração Zers) têm conjuntos distintos de valores e preferências. Millennials precisam de flexibilidade, enquanto Geração Zers precisam de estabilidade; Millennials buscam trabalho com propósito, enquanto Geração Zers têm um approach pragmático em relação a oportunidades de trabalho. A nacionalidade parece ter um papel secundário na definição de preferências, com pequenas diferenças percebidas entre Millennials brasileiros e alemães. A economia gig ( gig economy, no original), apesar de ter características atraentes, não surge como uma boa alternativa para membros destas gerações vivenciarem, no dia a dia de trabalho, os atributos que preferem neste sentido, enquanto as relações de trabalho tradicionais são percebidas como compatíveis com uma série de preferências importantes para estes jovens. Palavras-chave: relações entre gerações, relações de emprego, geração Y, geração Z, administração de pessoal.

8 Table of Contents 1. Introduction Literature Review Modern Work Gig Economy Defining the gigs Generations The Millennials Gen Zers Reflections on generations Y and Z, and their perception of the gig economy Culture Brazil Germany Comparison Methodology Research Method Qualitative Research Quantitative Research Results Sample, Distribution, and Analysis Work Preferences Perceptions on New and Traditional Work Relations Conclusions and Limitations References Websites Annexes... 84

9 Table of Figures Table 1a: list of features associated with gig economy jobs (i.e., gigs).. p. 22 Table 2: list of characteristics attributed to Millennials. p. 27 Table 3: list of characteristics attributed to Generation Zers.. p. 32 Table 1b: list of features associated with gig economy jobs (i.e., gigs) and compatibility with generations Y and Z..... p. 35 Graphic 1: Hofstede s 6-dimension cultural model scores for Brazil p. 40 Graphic 2: Hofstede s 6-dimension cultural model scores for Germany... p. 42 Graphic 3: Hofstede s 6-dimension cultural model scores for Brazil and Germany.. p. 44 Table 4: interviewees of the qualitative research p. 49 Table 5: mapped axes and related gig characteristic.. p. 49 Table 6: list of work-related characteristics for attribution to different types of work relationships.... p. 51 Table 7: distribution of respondents between target nationalities and generations p. 53 Table 8: results of overall preference on the traditional gig axes p. 55 Table 9: results of overall preference on the traditional gig axes, split by degree of preference.... p. 56 Table 10: results of Millennial preferences on the traditional gig axes.. p. 57 Table 11: results of Generation Zers preferences on the traditional gig axes... p. 58 Table 12: results of Millennials preferences on the traditional gig axes, split by degree of preference p. 59 Table 13: results of Generation Zers preferences on the traditional gig axes, split by degree of preference..... p. 60 Table 14: results of Brazilian Millennials preferences on the traditional gig axes p. 61 Table 15: results of German Millennials preferences on the traditional gig axes p. 62 Table 16: overall perceptions regarding work relations.... p. 64 Table 17: Millennials perceptions regarding work relations... p. 66 Table 18: Generation Zers perceptions regarding work relations..... p. 67 Table 19: Brazilians perceptions regarding work relations... p. 68 Table 20: Germans perceptions regarding work relations... p. 69

10 1. Introduction The gig economy, platform-based businesses that connect service providers with end consumers, have become increasingly important in the digital economy after an exponential growth in the preceding years, being considered the new norm as tens of millions of jobseekers will find work through platforms in the coming decades (Healy et al., 2017, pp. 232, 238; Ke, 2017, pp. 1 2; Zwick, 2018, p. 680). Despite its advantages, such as great degree of flexibility for workers and easy access to workforce for companies, the gig economy reignites an important debate about the precarity of employment relations between individuals and companies (Burtch et al., 2018, p. 5498; Crouch, 2019, p. 56; Healy et al., 2017, p. 234; MacDonald & Giazitzoglu, 2019, p. 725; Healy et al., 2017, p. 236; Petriglieri et al., 2019, p. 128; Piovesan, 2019, p. 2; Zwick, 2018, p. 686). The subject is yet not fully developed and deserves serious attention from scholars (Flanagan, 2017; Healy et al., 2017, p. 241). Another relevant trend arising from the past couple of years is the entrance of generation Z into the workforce. In 2016, Millennials and Gen Zers represented 40% of the total labour force in the United States and a study from 2019 estimated that, in 10 years, generation Z would represent 22% of the US workforce (Bradbury, 2019, p. 39; Babushkina, 2019, p. 39). A generation can be defined as a group of people or cohorts who share birth years and experiences as they move through time together, influencing and being influenced by a variety of critical factors, and therefore developing shared values, beliefs and preferences, among others (Kupperschmidt BR, 2000, p. 66). Unlike their predecessors, generation Z is the first real global generation, who was born to older parents, more exposed to life s difficulties and more well-prepared to deal with adversities (Bencsik et al., 2016, p. 93; Desai & Lele, 2017, pp ; Merriman, 2015, p. 7). In comparison with Millennials, they are more digitally savvy, but have a surprisingly traditional outlook on employment (Babushkina, 2019, p. 40; Bencsik et al., 2016, p. 93; O Boyle et al., 2017, p. 5), despite sharing a series of values that appear to be compatible with working in the gig. Alongside with that trend, the human resources community has observed the rapidly changing workplace demographics and is (understandingly) concerned about hiring and retaining talented people. Younger workers tend to be more intentional about 10

11 crafting their own careers, with many taking a "portfolio approach", i.e., getting skills and experience from a particular job and then moving onto another opportunity (Zhao, 2019, pp. 1-2). Understanding the different value systems and work demands of employees from different generations, most importantly the newly arrived generation Z, is important for all companies to adjust not only to their preferred skill set but their workplace policies to attract and retain this different cohort of individuals, such as a preference for money reward instead of benefits (Babushkina, 2019, p. 40; O Boyle et al., 2017, p. 9), preference for having a manager to whom they can discuss both their careers and personal issues (such as emotional well-being and mental health concerns) on one-on-one, recurring sessions (Kuehner-Hebert, 2019, p. 1), among others. It is clear that generation Z has a different set of expectations regarding their professional life and their employers, and it is also clear that companies need to follow trends on workplace demographics in order to have a competitive advantage in acquiring and retaining talent, but the relationship between the Gen Zers values and preferences and the livelihood of companies that rely their business models heavily on the gig type of employment is yet to be discovered. In order to collaborate to this discussion, the present study intends to understand what the expectations of both generational cohorts regarding work are, and whether the gig economy presents itself as an appealing possibility for Millennials and Gen Zers. Additionally, the research intends to understand the perceptions of the two generational cohorts on traditional and new work relations. In order to accomplish that goal, an exploratory research was conducted with members of generations Y and Z from two distinct nationalities. The data collected was analysed, the results were commented considering the reviewed literature, and possible actions were suggested to businesses and managers. The present study emerges in a scenario of uncertainty and fast-paced changes in work availability and relations, of intensification of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and an overall perception of a mismatch between the young talent pool and the opportunities available. Generation Z and Millennials, as explored further on the next chapter, have different sets of expectations regarding work, and both the new work relations and traditional employment seem to lack important features for these generations. The research, therefore, aims to shed light on the work preferences for generations Y and Z and, hopefully, collaborate towards a better fit between these young professionals and the shape of future work. 11

12 2. Literature Review In the following section, the existing literature on the gig economy, generations and culture will be explored in order to further develop the research question and its hypothesis Modern Work The Fourth Industrial Revolution, which began over the past decade (Schwab & Zahidi, 2020, p. 8) with the birth of ground-breaking technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and genome editing, announces a series of social, political, cultural, and economic upheavals that will unfold over the 21st century (Schwab, 2018). As observed in previous industrial revolutions, the profound technological, political and social transformations have the power to shape economies and disrupt the labour market; the forces of globalisation and technology caused disruptions to labour markets in the near term. In addition, the labour market impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, previously forecasted by the World Economic Forum as manageable in terms of unemployment levels, has suffered yet another jolt in 2020 due to the global recession caused by the coronavirus pandemic, in which short-term and long-term disruptions are intertwined, which indicates a somewhat intensified transformation process (Schwab & Zahidi, 2020, p. 9). Two of the transformations brough by the Fourth Industrial Revolution (which is a product of its predecessor, the Digital or Third Industrial Revolution) seem to converge in terms of its consequences and are particularly relevant for the present research: remote work and the shift in the nature of work. Regarding the first, although remote working was already emerging as a tendency, it was not proceeding very far or fast before the COVID-19 crisis (Sneader & Singhal, 2021); its widespread adoption was a direct result of the life-preserving measures to stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus (Schwab & Zahidi, 2020, p. 10), with companies transitioning to remote work models virtually overnight (Sneader & Singhal, 2021). In a survey with 291 business leaders of multinational and large local corporations, that accounted for 7.7 million workers worldwide, over 80% report they are accelerating automation of their processes and expanding their use of remote work (Schwab & Zahidi, 2020, p. 13). As per an estimate calculated by McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), over 20% of the workforce globally can 12

13 work for the majority of time remotely with no impact in efficacy (Sneader & Singhal, 2021). Additionally, there seems to be an emerging marketplace for remote work due to an increased demand both from jobseekers and employers (Schwab & Zahidi, 2020, p. 18). Nevertheless, the adoption of remote work is not evenly distributed across industries or countries; sectors such as tourism and retail cannot be fully resumed in remote work (WEF p.10), the theoretical share of any given economy that can be performed remotely varies significantly from high-income to low-income economies (from 38% to 13%, respectively), especially when adjusted to account for internet access disparities (from 33.6% to 4%, respectively) (Schwab & Zahidi, 2020, p. 16), and is concentrated in high-skilled jobs (Sneader & Singhal, 2021). Thus, there is concern about the potential increase in inequality brought by the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Schwab, 2018) and the greater impact of the pandemic crisis on the most disadvantaged communities (Schwab & Zahidi, 2020, p. 19). The second transformation, a shift in the nature of work from routine work to work environments with growing diversity and complexity, is a consequence of higher levels of automation (O Boyle et al., 2017, p. 2) that affects particularly the demand for unskilled workers (Bernstein & Anand, 2015). Higher levels of automation made entry-level jobs less available and shifted the nature of work from routine work to environments with growing diversity and complexity (O Boyle et al., 2017, p. 2). The change in the nature of work is followed by a shift in the skills required to allow companies to profit from new technologies; in the past 5 years, cross-functional skills such as critical thinking and analysis, self-management (leadership, resilience etc.), and working with people have consistently ranked top among skills with increasing demand (Schwab & Zahidi, 2020, p. 35). Skilful communication and the ability to interact with others, for instance, are critical for leadership development and for the business long-term success, since they drive the aggregation of tacit knowledge (O Boyle et al., 2017, p. 5). Altogether, skills that can be replicated by machines are becoming increasingly obsolete, whilst high-end creativity and interpersonal relations, among others (Bernstein & Anand, 2015), are experiencing increased demand. The turbulent labour markets the world is experiencing on the recent years represent an additional challenge to young professionals starting their work lives (Schwab & Zahidi, 2020, p. 23); not only are entry-level jobs less available, but were also the most 13

14 severely affected, with greater requirements, such as higher-order critical thinking and reasoning, being expected by employers (O Boyle et al., 2017, pp. 2 7). Alongside with these trends, in recent years companies have shifted towards independent contractors and part-time workers to lean their cost structure and face shift in demand more rapidly (Zwick, 2018, p. 679). From 2005 to 2015 in the US, 94% of net employment growth came from alternative work arrangements (Zhao, 2019, p. 2), supporting the theory that the standard employment model is less and less dominant, especially among young workers (MacDonald & Giazitzoglu, 2019, p. 728). Additionally, the pandemic brought yet another pressure on employment, with unemployment rates growing to an overall crisis level of 10% and stable low hiring rates, which could indicate the world is heading towards a jobless recovery (Schwab & Zahidi, 2020, p. 13). There is an overall tendency to lower businesses personnel investment; of the 291 business leaders interviewed by the World Economic Forum, 28% expect to temporarily reduce their workforce and one in five expect to do so permanently. One potential consequence of new work arrangements and companies willingness to hire new personnel is a shift by employers towards flexible work relations, such as provided by the gig economy. In conclusion, according to the literature reviewed thus far, the implementation of technologies developed before and during the Fourth Industrial Revolution, as well as the intensification of the transformation process due to the COVID-19 crisis, have not only resulted in new forms of work (in terms of location, nature of work, and relationship between individuals and companies) and the need for a specific set of skills, but also in a pressure onto young workers and a potential undermining of low-skilled occupations Gig Economy The gig economy is a term commonly applied to define short-term, non-standard work arrangements between a hirer (or buyer ) and a worker (or seller ) that were connected through an online platform, in which the former undertakes a job as an independent contractor (Healy et al., 2017, p. 232; MacDonald & Giazitzoglu, 2019, p. 725). The shift towards non-traditional forms of employment (such as hiring independent contractors and relying on part-time workers) as a means to lean company s cost structure and adapt to fluctuations in demand (Zwick, 2018, p. 679) can be interpreted as a strategy 14

15 applied by companies to be somewhat freed from traditional labour relationship obligations (Crouch, 2019, p. 13). The prevalence of the gig economy can flourish in markets with surplus of workforce, in which workers accept the lack of security trade-off as their only alternative, or in markets where there is a demand for qualified work, in which companies offer employment-like benefits for the sake of retaining the workers and, in such case, shift in power from the current gig economy relationships would be observed (Crouch, 2019, pp ). The gig economy is in fast paced growth and has the potential to radically change the economy; the utilisation of labour platforms was growing globally by 25% a year as of 2017 (Graham et al., 2017, p. 137). The status attributed to the gig economy as the new norm (Zwick, 2018, p. 680) is apparently justified since its expansion does not seem to change in the near future, as millions of jobseekers were expected to find employment through platforms in the next few decades (Healy et al., 2017, p. 236), with 51% of employees from the United States indicating they are interested in a contract of freelance work instead of a full-time job (Zhao, 2019, p. 2) and the forecast that, in the future, one in three workers will freelance full or part-time (Piovesan, 2019, p. 1). Businesses in the gig economy are anticipated to represent a relevant portion of the economy in the coming years, with serious economic implications", such as disrupting long-standing industries and threatening the establishment of dominant players (Burtch et al., 2018, p. 5497). Automation and digitalisation have not only affected the availability of entry-level jobs (O Boyle et al., 2017, p. 7) but will continue to shift power towards managers of labour through surveillance, monitoring and control, facilitating the gig economy and allowing them to define the nature of jobs, skills necessary and how they are performed (Crouch, 2019, p. 56). In brief, the gig economy does not seem to be heading to its final days. For individuals, the gig economy represents the possibility of generating new and additional sources of income (Francis & Hoefel, 2018, p. 7; Ke, 2017, p. 2), and the perspective of monetary compensation is one of the main reasons for participating in it (Ke, 2017, p. 2). A group particularly prone to joining the gig economy are immigrants (Zwick, 2018, p. 686) that, due to the scarcity of labour opportunities in their local markets and the overall greater connectivity, turn to "outsourced, digitally mediated work" (Graham et al., 2017, p. 137). Undertaking gigs is also an additional way to relate to companies individuals engage as consumers (Francis & Hoefel, 2018, p. 7), a logic that could be intensified by the consumerisation of the workplace, a new form of handling the 15

16 selection of job opportunities, adopted by modern workers, similarly to how they choose smartphones, vacation destinations, among others (Zhao, 2019, p. 1). Like most trends, the gig economy is not exempt from criticism; scholars debate whether the prevalence of the gig economy is a matter of preference or necessity, as many of the gig workers have a relationship of dependency on one or a few employers (due to availability, minimum commitment in terms of hours, among other reasons) (Crouch, 2019, p. 56). Critics of its model argue that negotiating conditions and quantity of work are not possible due to the asymmetry of power between the individuals and the company, or platform, making work terms standardised and non-negotiable (Zwick, 2018, p. 681) and undermining workers from having individual price-setting capacity (Healy et al., 2017, p. 236). In that sense, gig workers become "price-takers" instead of "price-setters" (Graham et al., 2017, p. 140), in addition to having no employment protection (Crouch, 2019, p. 56). Although the unconventional work relations affect particularly the younger workers (Crouch, 2019, p. 43), understanding whether the gig is perceived by the youngsters as a new mechanism companies use to disguise employment is a relevant question for its survival (Crouch, 2019, p. 43; Flanagan, 2017, p. 378). Further than the apparent lack of bargaining power, gig workers face a challenge in establishing organisations such as labour unions (Flanagan, 2017, p. 380; Healy et al., 2017, p. 237). Working in isolation (Flanagan, 2017, p. 380), these workers have no collective endorsement (Petriglieri et al., 2019, p. 125), and can experience tedium, loneliness and alienation (Flanagan, 2017, p. 380; Graham et al., 2017, p. 153; Petriglieri et al., 2019, p. 125). This particular aspect of gig work supports the view that it represents a process of precarity in work relations (MacDonald & Giazitzoglu, 2019, p. 725), and the independent contractor status attributed to its subjects allows companies to disguise employment and avoid employee status benefits, representing a return of the 'spot labour market' that was common in agriculture and factories (Healy et al., 2017, p. 234). Finally, on a social level, gigs could mean the absence of social security and rights such as maternity or paternity leave, access to retirement, among others, appearing incompatible with personal plans like having a family, buying a house etc. Due to the motives presented so far, the gig economy can be perceived as causing precarious work relationship for employees (Crouch, 2019, pp. 13, 56). Likewise, on the individual level, the gig economy can be understood as an issue to its adherents. Strong attachment to organisations is a tool used to provide self-esteem and protection from social anxiety, and its lack makes is difficult to develop and sustain a 16

17 stable work identity, incurring in lack of security, self-esteem and legitimacy for the individual (Petriglieri et al., 2019, pp. 125, 127). In terms of professional development, there is a limit to the skill development ability through virtual work, since companies usually disclose a very limited amount of information for its independent contractors (Graham et al., 2017, p. 151). Unlike in traditional work arrangements, gig workers face unclear expectations about appropriate behaviour (Petriglieri et al., 2019, p. 125) and many digital workers perform low-skill tasks that were not compatible with their existing skill set or previous experience (Graham et al., 2017, p. 152). Finally, these workers lack the guidance, stability and community provided by traditional work relationship with organisations, as well as the support for their actions that would happen to employees (Petriglieri et al., 2019, p. 134). Finally, the critics of the gig economy highlight the relationship between its notable effect on younger generations and unemployment. Despite being a way of helping graduates enter the labour market (Healy et al., 2017, p. 240), the high unemployment level among the younger workforce, observed by institutions such as the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics (Employment and Unemployment Among Youth Summary, 2020), is not only a product of automation (which makes entry-level jobs less required) (O Boyle et al., 2017, p. 7) but a sign of a misalignment of the economy and a crisis in youth transition (MacDonald & Giazitzoglu, 2019, p. 729). Nevertheless, many companies, neoliberal thinkers and public policymakers worldwide are shifting towards new forms of employment that somehow free employers of traditional labour relationship obligations (Crouch, 2019, p. 13); some examples are UK s on-call and zero-hours contracts, Germany s Minijobs and Midijobs, Brazil s carteira verde e amarela (green and yellow work record, in free translation). On the positive side, working in the gig economy has a series of advantages in comparison to traditional work relationships. First and foremost, it allows workers to have a flexible schedule, providing them with unprecedent levels of flexibility (Burtch et al., 2018, p. 5498; Healy et al., 2017, p. 236; Piovesan, 2019, p. 2). Additionally, and perhaps consequently, gigs are regarded as a means to have healthy, better work-life balance (Piovesan, 2019, p. 2; Zwick, 2018, p. 679). Another take on flexibility made possible by the gig economy is the possibility to work from anywhere (Piovesan, 2019, p. 1), since work is traditionally the most place-bound factor of production (Graham et al., 2017, p. 136). 17

18 If, on the one side, the gig economy can be understood as a playbook move for companies to explore economically vulnerable populations (Zwick, 2018, p. 686), the other side of the coin in that it also promotes inclusion. Working gigs represents an easier route into self-employment for groups that have markedly had difficulty in getting a job, such as single parents, long-term unemployed, older people, among others (Nevin, 2017). Although platform-based work can be understood as a way for companies to explore vulnerable populations, virtual labour allows workers to create a virtual personas and, therefore, dodge common biases towards minority groups (Graham et al., 2017, pp ), being a way to promote economic inclusion. On the individual level, there are more upsides still. The concept of gig economy is accompanied by empowerment (Graham et al., 2017, p. 135), as the newly empowered workforce can decide if, when, how and for how long to work (Healy et al., 2017, p. 236). The ability to be their own boss is another source of the feeling of being empowered (Piovesan, 2019, p. 2), and workers can be entrepreneurs that work when and to whom they want (Crouch, 2019, p. 56). In that sense, the gig represents a continuum with earlier forms of entrepreneurial work (MacDonald & Giazitzoglu, 2019, p. 725), and is a good way for small businesses to readily access labour (Healy et al., 2017, p. 236). Unlike traditional work forms, the gig can be a form to kickstart one s own business and gain independence (Crouch, 2019, p. 56). The relationship between working in the gig economy and entrepreneurship goes even further; there is debate on whether it is sought out by those who truly want to endeavour and have their own businesses, or if they would be "necessity-based" entrepreneurs in the absence of platforms, i.e., are they entrepreneurs by choice or are there no standard employment opportunities available? (Burtch et al., 2018, p. 5515). The trend regarding the lack of strong attachments to an organisation is another point of controversy. Petriglieri et al. (2019) found that the feeling of accomplishing endurance and freedom on their work, in opposition to security and status, is a source of pride for the gig workers that can happily navigate the independent work. In addition to providing higher pay (Piovesan, 2019, p. 2), skill-based gigs can produce a better match between workforce and work opportunities (Healy et al., 2017, p. 236). Although not having a traditional professional relationship to a company can impact the sense of security and self-esteem, independent work can be elevating if associated with a broader purpose (Petriglieri et al., 2019, p. 127,147). 18

19 Some workers understand the gigs as a potential step stone to develop skills that will be useful for standard employment (Healy et al., 2017, p. 239). Particularly, the younger workers tend to be crafty with their careers, taking a "portfolio approach" by getting skills and experience from a particular job and then moving onto another opportunity (Zhao, 2019, p. 2). In addition to being less appealing to younger generations (Piovesan, 2019, p. 1), traditional work is potentially more alienating than independent work, although generally being less consuming (Petriglieri et al., 2019, p. 158). In short, opting for the gig economy can be a pathway to professional development and personal fulfilment, as opposed to the traditional careerist approach represented by traditional work forms Defining the gigs In October 2016, McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) published a study conducted with over 8,000 participants in six different countries and its findings, which could be extrapolated to US and EU-15 countries, bring a greater understanding of independent work, the gig economy and its participants. By MGI s definition, three key features characterise independent work: a high degree of control and flexibility (for the worker) regarding workload, schedule and work portfolio, payment based on task, assignment, contract or volume of sales instead of time spent working, and short-term relationship between parties (limited to 12 months). Independent work comprises renting assets (such as a property or spare room), selling goods, and providing services, and it can be found in all occupations and industries, mirroring the broader mix of the country s economy (Manyika et al., 2016, pp. 2 5; What Kinds of Work Are Done through Gigs?, n.d.). By MGI s concept, independent work may or may not be facilitated by a third party, usually a digital platform; other authors (Istrate & Harris, 2017; Korzeniowski, 2019; Lepanjuuri et al., 2018) define the gig economy as independent work facilitated through platforms. For the purpose of this research, the gig economy will be considered the activities that attend all three characteristics defined by MGI and that are intermediated through platforms, allowing them to be performed across borders. Regarding the workers that engage in the gig economy, McKinsey Global Institute segments them in four clusters, defined by two axis: whether the gig work is their primary or supplementary source of income, and whether it is their preferred or necessary choice 19

20 (Crouch, 2019, p. 56; Manyika et al., 2016, p. 8). This segmentation results in the following categories: i) Free agents, or those whose primary source of income come from the gigs and as their preferred choice; ii) Casual earners, those who choose engaging in gigs by choice to supplement their income; iii) Reluctants, workers who depend on the gig economy to obtain their primary source of income but would prefer to have a traditional job; and iv) Financially strapped, i.e., individuals who take on gigs to supplement their income but would prefer not to have side jobs out of necessity. According to MGI s research, 10 to 15 percent of the working-age population relies on independent work as a primary source of income (Manyika et al., 2016, p. 3), which comprises both free agents and reluctants. Surprisingly, the majority (from 70% to 75%) of gig workers fall into the first two categories, choosing this type of job as a preference rather than out of necessity. Casual earners are the majority of players in the gig economy, accounting for 40% of all participants, followed by free agents, who account for over 30% (Manyika et al., 2016, p. 7; Sahadi, 2015, p. 1). The findings of a research conducted by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) of the United Kingdom with over 2,000 people in Britain (Lepanjuuri et al., 2018, p. 20), 37% of those who engage in the gig economy provide services (other than courier, transport, or food delivery) through websites or apps, which indicated a flaw to the general concept that the gig economy is largely based on low-skilled tasks. Additionally, the findings of MGI s research support that those who engage in independent work through platforms are more likely to do so out of choice than those who do not use intermediaries. Regarding satisfaction, both the research conducted by BEIS and MGI support that gig workers who engage in the gig economy by choice report greater satisfaction with work than those who do so by circumstance or those in traditional jobs (Lepanjuuri et al., 2018, p. 37; Manyika et al., 2016, p. 10). The latter comparison even highlighted that free agents show higher levels of satisfaction regarding work topic, overall work life, the number of hours worked, perceived level of empowerment, creativity they can express at work, the opportunities to grow and learn, recognition they receive, and level of income than traditional workers and casual earners (Manyika et al., 2016, p. 11). Both free agents and casual earners show higher levels of satisfaction than traditional workers regarding 20

21 independence in their work lives, atmosphere at their workplaces, relationship with their bosses, their ability to choose their working hours, and the flexibility they have regarding work location as well (Manyika et al., 2016, p. 11). For the present research, the concept of gig economy and new work relations will focus on those who join it out of choice, rather than necessity, and therefore its target are mostly free agents and casual earners. Despite all perceived benefits, there is still little information regarding the wages paid in the gigs (Gig Economy Data Hub, n.d.), making it difficult to compare to traditional employment; is it possible that, to perform the same task, gig workers are paid a greater wage than traditional workers? The trade-offs workers would make for independence is one of the study s suggestions for further research (Manyika et al., 2016, p. 5). The following table summarises the key concepts identified throughout the literature review as characteristics of the gig economy: Gig characteristics Autonomy and control Digitally mediated Empowerment Entrepreneurship Flexibility schedule Flexibility workplace Independence Professional development opportunities Project-based work Satisfaction regarding work topic Task-based pay Work-life balance Table 1a: list of features associated with gig economy jobs (i.e., gigs). Regarding demographics, participants of the gig economy are diverse. As the present research aims to better understand the intersection between the gig and generations, the following section will focus on age. According to the Gig Economy Data Hub (Who Participates in the Gig Economy?, n.d.), younger people are slightly more likely to join the gig, but they represent less than 25% of all independent work (Manyika et al., 2016, 21

22 p. 5). The definition of young, according to the McKinsey Global Institute, comprises those of up to 25 years of age (born from 1991 on); by the data available in the Gig Economy Data Hub (Who Participates in the Gig Economy?, n.d.), 50% of contingent workers, or individuals working by demand rather than on traditional jobs, have between 16 and 35 years of age born from 1985 on. Contrasted with traditional employees or the self-employed, gig workers are definitely more likely to be young (between 16 and 34 years of age) (Balaram et al., 2017, p. 18). These findings are in line with the growth of both trends, the growth of the gig economy and generation Z entering the workforce. In the following section, available literature on generations will be reviewed, with a particular emphasis on their perspectives on work and the gig economy itself Generations A generation can be defined as a group of individuals born in close proximity, who share the same conditions of the same period, so close to each other, and undertake similar responsibilities (Civelek et al., 2017, p. 337). Generational cohorts are bound by the kinship created through shared events (political, social, economic or technological disruptions) that shaped society (Merriman, 2015, p. 3); the shared experiencing of major events, shifts in society-wide attitudes, and changes in social, political and economic policy (Kupperschmidt BR, 2000, p. 66) makes each generation share a collective identity, be driven by different motivators (Heyns & Kerr, 2018, pp. 2 3), and have a common set of attitudes and expectations (Merriman, 2015, p. 3) that influences every aspect of their lives, including their attitude towards organisations, expectations and needs from work, and how to achieve them (Kupperschmidt BR, 2000, p. 66). Generational gaps are perceived globally by industries and businesses, and they might delay the process of catching up with trends and innovating by businesses (Desai & Lele, 2017, p. 803). Employees from different generations, although displaying no difference between importance of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Heyns & Kerr, 2018, p. 8), have different value systems, work demands, and response to common life events (Kupperschmidt BR, 2000, p. 65). Understanding the dynamics of generations in the workplace is fundamental for companies; more specifically, understanding generation Y and Z's behaviour will determine corporate success in the long-run (Bencsik et al., 2016, p. 90). Organisations still know relatively little about how their strategy and performance might be potentially impacted by generational differences in motivational needs, and 22

23 should develop a deep understanding of their motivational drives (Heyns & Kerr, 2018, p. 1) in order to achieve and sustain advantage from their competitors. Generation Z, which has recently entered the workforce, as well as the previous generation, the Millennials, are the most relevant groups for companies in the next few years. In 2016, Millennials and Gen Zers represented 40% of the total labour force in the United States (Bradbury, 2019, p. 14) and, according to an estimate published in 2019, Millennials would make up half the workforce and 20 millions of Gen Zs will have started their careers by 2020 (Zhao, 2019, p. 1). Since the majority of problems Human Resources managers experience come from attracting and recruiting employees, and the two more recent generations are decisive to corporate success (Bencsik et al., 2016, p. 90,103), companies should be concerned about the shared values, behaviours, attitudes and preferences, or peer personality (Kupperschmidt BR, 2000, p. 66), of members of these cohorts in order to better adapt their policies, perhaps adopting some of the practices common on the gigs (Gen Z and the Gig Economy, 2019) The Millennials The Millennials, members of generation Y, are those born from the range between 1980, 1981, and 1982, to the range between 1994, 1995, and 1996 (Babushkina, 2019; Bencsik et al., 2016; Bradbury, 2019, 2019; Francis & Hoefel, 2018; Heyns & Kerr, 2018; Merriman, 2015; O Boyle et al., 2017; Piovesan, 2019; Santos et al., 2017, p. 12; Stewart et al., 2017, p. 46; Zhao, 2019, p. 1). After reviewing the consulted authors classifications, for the present research generation Y will be considered individuals born between 1982 and Millennials were highly desired by their parents, having grown up in a protective and safe environment (Civelek et al., 2017, pp ). They were born to helicopter (Merriman, 2015, p. 7), child-focused (Heyns & Kerr, 2018, p. 3) parents who were extraordinarily involved (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 232) and dedicated to raising them and building their self-esteem, as well as in sheltering them from the bad side of the world (Heyns & Kerr, 2018, p. 3; Merriman, 2015, p. 7; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 232). Members of this cohort were the subject of intense interest by their families; their parents validated their actions and choices, awarding them for trying or participating, and often interceded on their behalf (Civelek et al., 2017, p. 340; Merriman, 2015, p. 7; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 232). They experienced welfare periods growing up (Civelek et 23

24 al., 2017; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 232; Santos et al., 2017, p. 15). After growing up in a protective, somewhat idealistic environment, when exposed to the reality of the world, Millennials feel the world is cold and rejecting (Bencsik et al., 2016, p. 93). Although part of the literature supports Millennials are reluctant to plan for longer periods, adopting a living for today approach towards their decisions, are somewhat dependent on others, and are afraid of becoming adults (Bencsik et al., 2016, p. 92; Civelek et al., 2017, p. 340), there is evidence to indicate that theory is changing: in a survey conducted in April and May 2020 (i.e., in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic) by Deloitte with over 5,500 Millennials in 13 countries, more than 60% had (and controlled) a budget on either a weekly or monthly basis and set long-term financial goals. Additionally, the top concern for 30% of them was health care (The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey, 2020, p. 9). Generation Y is the first wave of the digital generation (Bencsik et al., 2016, p. 92); members of this cohort were born in households that already had computers and grew up in environments with digital media (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 231). In an extensive research on generations conducted by the Pew Research Center in the United States in 2014, almost one in four Millennials indicated that their use of technology is what made them distinct from other generations, by far the higher score for the top attribute in all four surveyed generations (Stewart et al., 2017, p. 50). Thus, Millennials are considered technologically savvy (Civelek et al., 2017, p. 341) and highly qualified in digital knowledge, they have a never-ending online presence and a virtual social circle (Bencsik et al., 2016, p. 92), and they prefer computer mediated communication (CMC), e.g. e- mail or text interactions, over phone calls or meeting in person (Heyns & Kerr, 2018, p. 3; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 232). In the popular literature, popular press, as well as in academic publications, a series of characteristics considered negative are used to describe Millennials (Stewart et al., 2017, p. 225).They are portrayed as selfish, self-centred, self-assured, overly confident, lacking in commitment, narcissistic, defensive, and entitled, among others. Potentially under influence of such depiction, generation Y was somewhat feared by companies due to its defiance of the traditional idea of organisational practices held by former generations (Civelek et al., 2017, p. 340; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 226). They reject traditional hierarchy, preferring an "as long as the job is done" approach, and need to be recognised as equals with their peers (including those who have more work experience than they do) (Civelek et al., 2017, p. 342; Heyns & Kerr, 2018, p. 3; Myers & Sadaghiani, 24

25 2010, pp ; Stewart et al., 2017, p. 51). They expect to have a greater say on their assignments and goals, where they do their job and what their workplace looks like, as well as to participate in management, and they need transparent communication with and constant feedback from their superiors (Civelek et al., 2017, p. 341; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 228; Zhao, 2019, p. 1). Millennials are perceived by their employers to be less loyal then previous generations, perhaps because they believe they can easily change jobs as a means to achieve their target career position (Civelek et al., 2017, p. 340; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 225). Nevertheless, in a survey conducted in 2019 by Deloitte with 13,715 Millennials across 43 countries, the number of respondents that intended to stay in their current employer for the next five years was higher than that for respondents who wanted to leave within two years, which represented a considerable change comparing to the trends observed in the surveys conducted from 2015 onwards (The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey, 2020, p. 3). A possible explanation for this result, according to the report, is that employers are managing to better address their Millennial employees needs. A critical necessity for this generation is to have work-life balance; Millennials need not only more personal time at work, but flexible working programs and flexible work environment as well (Civelek et al., 2017, pp ; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 227; The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey, 2020, p. 15). The post-pandemic scenario and the introduction of remote work practices seems to have collaborated somehow for that purpose (The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey, 2020, p. 5). If compared to previous generations, Millennials have high salary expectations, partly due to the living standards they had growing up but also because of a pressure from parents they report feeling in accomplishing external success (i.e., material success). Overall, Millennials idea of success involves career and money and leaves family to the background; nevertheless, the traditional conception of building a career (adopted by Baby Boomers, for example) is not a primary motivator for them (Bencsik et al., 2016, p. 93; Civelek et al., 2017, p. 340; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, pp ). Some of generation Y s professional priorities are to work with what they find personally meaningful, to enjoy what they do in their works, and to have fun and be social in their workplace (Bencsik et al., 2016, p. 92; Civelek et al., 2017, p. 342; Zhao, 2019, p. 1). For them, the purpose of work is to have enough money to enjoy their free time and relax (Bencsik et al., 2016, p. 93), which, perhaps surprisingly, does not mean they are only focused on financial compensation and supports the literature indicating the importance of work-life balance for this generation. They prefer jobs they 25

26 consider complex and that have a global perspective (Civelek et al., 2017, pp ; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 228). Finally, they care about the company s reputation and image (Civelek et al., 2017, p. 341; The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey, 2020, p. 19). Although the stereotypical Millennial description may depict the cohort as generally egocentric and entitled, there is another side to it. Due to their extensive digital experience and familiarity with globalisation, Millennials easily adapt to multitasking, accept changes, and deal with diversity (including multicultural diversity), to the extent that they want to be in a diverse work environment (Bencsik et al., 2016, p. 92; Civelek et al., 2017, p. 341; Heyns & Kerr, 2018, p. 3). Members of generation Y have a focus on human relationships and are prone to cooperate with others; they expect to do teamwork in their professional experiences and are more comfortable with doing so than any previous generation (Civelek et al., 2017, p. 340; Heyns & Kerr, 2018, p. 3; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 226; Stewart et al., 2017, p. 50). Millennials have a desire to learn and evolve and a focus on personal achievement and success, meaning that, for this generation, reskilling and training opportunities play an important role in their professional lives (Civelek et al., 2017, p. 340; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 233; The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey, 2020, p. 15). Lastly, Millennials have social consciousness and actively take part in protecting the environment (Civelek et al., 2017, p. 340; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010; The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey, 2020, pp. 9 12). The following table summarises the characteristics associated with Millennials and respective authors: Generation Y attributes Accept changes and diversity Change jobs easily Collaborative Company reputation matters Author(s) Bencsik et al., 2016 (p. 92); Civelek et al., 2017 (p. 341) Civelek et al., 2017 (p. 340); Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010 (p. 225) Civelek et al., 2017 (p. 340); Heyns & Kerr, 2018 (p. 3); Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010 (p. 226); Stewart et al., 2017 (p. 50) Civelek et al., 2017 (p. 341); The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey, 2020 (p. 19) 26