Millennials are generally characterised as entitled, narcissistic, self-interested, unfocused, shallow and lazy.^{1,4,5,7,13,14} It is furthermore indicated that they thrive on authenticity, individuality and unique experiences.^15,17 Millennials’ loyalty is self-directed,¹⁶ as a result they are more loyal to their own career than to any specific organisation.

Despite this self-centeredness, Millennials have been found to have lower self-esteem than any other generation and lack the coping mechanisms to deal with stress.⁴ Deloitte¹⁸ reports that Millennials acknowledge that they lack confidence and interpersonal skills. This could be attributed to the fact that they have not had to build and sustain relationships in the ‘real world’ as they live in the artificial world of Facebook and Instagram, which is disadvantaging them in the workplace¹. Therefore, it may be suggested that the appropriate workplace interventions should help Millennials build confidence, develop their teamwork, cooperation and soft skills, and build patience, perseverance and trust.¹⁹

Having grown up in a world of instant gratification, Millennials demand a workplace where they have a meaningful work that allows for quick career progression and promotion, pays well and gives opportunities for training, development and mentorship.^5,13,15 Although Millennials demand constant feedback, they are good at handling multiple responsibilities and are less willing to sacrifice personal time for their career.^3,5 Their infatuation with technology may, however, threaten the work-life balance that is so important to them.¹⁹

In the United States, Millennials spend less than 3 years in a job before moving on² and in South Africa this is ‘not more than 2 years’.⁷ A total of 73% of Millennials who plan to stay with their employer for more than 5 years do so because of the education (training) opportunities such employer offers (Deloitte¹⁸). Millennials report that their formal education contributes only 23% to the skills, knowledge and experience they use in their job.¹⁸

As Millennials are impatient with talk without action¹³ and focus on delivering on the value drivers of the organisation, it is not surprising that the commodification of employment, evident from the so-called ‘gig economy’ where employees have short stints at a number of employers either simultaneously or consecutively, is very attractive to Millennials at all levels of the organisation.¹⁸ By pursuing the gig economy as a means to, or because of the need for a higher income, Millennials may be their own worst enemy²⁰ as the achievement of short-term goals do not necessarily result in long-term career gains. Instant gratification does not necessarily equate to the job satisfaction, deep fulfilment or career advancement they so keenly want.

Definitions of employee engagement abound, including ‘the emotional commitment the employee has to the organisation and its goals’,¹² ‘the extent to which people are personally involved in the success of a business’²¹ and ‘a positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind that is characterised by vigour, dedication and absorption’.⁹ Vigour manifests in high levels of energy and investment in the work environment. Dedication manifests in involvement in the work leading to feelings such as enthusiasm and pride, whilst absorption leads to full concentration and attachment to the work. These three concepts underlying employee engagement, that is, vigour, dedication and absorption form the basis of this study.

Employee engagement has been studied from a variety of angles. South African researchers²² found that a positive work-life balance impacted positively on employee engagement. They concluded that work-life balance and employees’ engagement impact positively on the bottom line. This link between work-life balance and employee engagement as a determinant of business success is confirmed by local researchers.⁶

Vanover and Ludolf identify four key requirements for employee engagement, namely the ability to work remotely, having a meaningful job, receiving timeous and consistent feedback and appropriate reward systems.^8,14 Bothma supports the notion of technology as an enabler to ensure an engaged workforce and improved productivity.¹² Schaufeli, a leader in the conceptualisation of engagement and his collaborators⁹ found that engaged workers feel more successful and productive in their jobs. These authors also found in their study that work engagement is related to perceptions of professional success and that work engagement increases with age.

Employee engagement has also been investigated from a leadership perspective. The Harvard Business Review²³ reports that executive and senior management have a far more optimistic perception of employee engagement than staff at other levels. This publication further indicates that high engagement results in less absenteeism, lower staff turnover and less safety issues, as well as more customer satisfaction, productivity and profitability. In fact, 71% of their respondents identified engagement as very important to achieving overall organisational goals. Employee engagement is argued to be a result of engaged leadership where ‘leaders … lead in ways that engage employees’.²⁴

This leadership style creates the climate for positive engagement, but if leaders put profit before people, micromanage and ignore staff feedback they would be on the right path to ‘killing’ employee engagement.²¹

Leaders caution that the traditional HR approach of valuing tenure over impact will have a negative impact on employee engagement in what the author calls the ‘new world of work’.²⁰ Millennials are realistic about this world of work and generally expect Industry 4.0 to have a dramatic, but generally positive, impact in the workplace by augmenting their job and allowing them to move away from the mundane aspects thereof.¹⁸

Given that Millennials will form 50% of the global workforce by 2020,⁸ it is critical to business success to ensure that they engage in the workplace. Ludolf urges employers to work with the strengths of Millennials rather than emphasising their weaknesses as their impact on the world of work – and business – will continue to grow.¹⁴

As a perfect match rarely exist between an incumbent and his or her job description,²⁵ adaptability is required both of the organisation and the individual, which may be a challenge to Millennials. Given South Africa’s history of an unequal, and in some instances dysfunctional, education system a ‘more flexible’ approach to hiring and retention of Millennials in this country is supported.¹⁶ However, Baron-Williamson cautions that employers should not, in their eagerness to hire skilled Millennials, neglect key HR processes such as background screening.¹¹ Given the rise in CV fraud generally and specifically in an environment such as South Africa where unemployment is at an all-time high, stringent HR processes is the only way to mitigate the risk of appointing candidates that are not appropriate – which will have a negative impact on employee engagement in general. Recruiters should ensure that the Millennials they consider have ‘curious minds’ and are flexible so that they fit both the specific role and the company.²⁵

Millennials are characterised by low self-esteem⁴ and a limited ability to accept constructive criticism.¹ This manifests in a higher suicide, accidental death because of drug overdose and depression rates amongst Millennials. However, this may also be as a result of their unrealistic career expectations, which underscores the necessity of relevant engagement programmes for this generation.⁴ Particularly in the ‘ultra-marathon length’ career they face²⁶ working into their seventies, they need to acquire an understanding that unlike the instant gratification they have become used to, competence and excellence take time – more for some and less for others. Employee engagement programmes for Millennials will have to focus on teaching them the skills to continuously reinvent themselves through continuous learning without becoming Jack of all trades but master of none. There is much to be said in this regard for the so-called ‘lattice career path’²⁷ that features both vertical and horizontal career moves for developing a diverse but well-rounded millennial workforce, but it requires career adaptability skills.

Given the fact that Millennials are increasingly the leaders who implement and execute change²⁶ and are facing the ‘ultramarathon length career’ mentioned earlier, these changing demands on engagement initiatives are relevant to consider for organisations that want to allow Millennials sufficient opportunity to grow, learn and develop.

Are the best practice findings regarding the determinants of business success and employee engagement different for different generations? Some contend that although Millennials want to feel connected and committed to their role, they see it by and large as a stepping stone and growth opportunity.²⁰ This means that Millennials’ employee engagement initiatives need to be fast-tracked to ensure a meaningful contribution and impact in the shortest period of time, whilst retaining a focus on personal development. South African researchers¹⁹ identified a significant positive relationship between dimensions of career adaptability and employee engagement, which may indicate that Millennials may be engaged even though they seem to job hop.

From the aforementioned, it is clear that the impact of Millennials on the South African and international work environment will only increase and that engagement initiatives will have to keep track of their changed demands in the work environment.

A cross-sectional survey design was used. A cross-sectional design is well suited to describe a population and compare groups within that population. Surveys allow for the relative quick and economical collection of data from large samples. The design suited the research well in both respects.

The target population was all employees in all sectors. However, because of practical constraints, data was collected from a convenient sample of South African organisations. Access to organisations, which employed more than 60 employees (this was the only exclusion category), was gained via students enrolled for their Master’s in Business Leadership at a South African business school. Within each organisation, random samples of employees were drawn until a limit of 60 respondents per organisation was reached and completed the questionnaire. This permitted proportional coverage of all the generations.

The original data collected in accordance with the prescribed guidelines of the Graduate School of Business Leadership. The use of that data, as secondary data, was approved by the Research Permission Sub-Committee (RPSC) of the Senate Research, Innovation, Postgraduate Degrees and Commercialisation Committee (SRIPCC) of the University of South Africa (UNISA). (Ethical clearance number: 2018_PRC_REW_012.

The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9) consisting of nine items was used to measure employee engagement. The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-9 comprises three dimensions, namely vigour, dedication and absorption.¹⁰ Three items measure each dimension, as set out in Table 1.

Respondents were required to indicate the occurrence of each event on a seven-point scale, ranging from 0 (never), 1 (a few times a year or less), 2 (once a month or less), 3 (a few times a month), 4 (once a week), 5 (a few times a week) to 6 (every day). A high score on any of the items, or dimensions, or the total score would be indicative that the respondent experiences the particular aspect more often than those with lower scores.

With regard to reliability, Schaufeli and Bakker²⁸ reported that the Cronbach’s α of all nine items varies from 0.85 to 0.94 (median = 0.91) across the nine national samples. The α-value for the total database is 0.90.

In a South African sample²⁹ a Cronbach’s α of 0.780, 0.890 and 0.780 for vigour, dedication and absorption, respectively, was reported. In two other South African samples³⁰ Cronbach’s α of .908 and .911 was reported.

Schaufeli and Bakker²⁸ also reported that the suggested three-factor structure of engagement is confirmed (cross-samples from different countries) and that the construct is related to other constructs in an expected manner. Within the South African context, a three-factor model of work engagement was confirmed,²⁹ whilst another study³¹ could not replicate the three-factor structure and reported the presence of a very strong general factor and, in comparison, two weak group factors. However, in a meta-analysis the validity of employee engagement in the workplace was broadly confirmed.³² Despite the aforementioned, measurement invariance was reported across gender³⁰ and across race in South African samples.²⁹

Age was self-reported and generational differences were based on the following numbers: Baby Boomers – born between 1945 and 1964; Generation X – born between 1965 and 1979; Generation Y (Millennials) – born between 1980 and 1996; and lastly Generation Z – born after 1996. This study focused on the difference between the two largest groups in the sample, namely Generation X and Generation Y (Millennials).

Firstly, demographic statistics were calculated mostly to describe the sample and to verify the validity of the sample, comparing sample statistics with the statistics reported on the workforce composition of South Africa.

Secondly, the reliability coefficient for the UWES-9 across the different generations was calculated. An acceptable cut-off score for acceptable reliability is 0.70^33,34 and this was applied in the study.

Exploratory factor analyses were performed to gain insights into measurement invariance across the generations, and as such, the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity was conducted to sanction the suitability of the data for factor analysis. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy is acceptable when above the minimum criterion of 0.5 is met, with the Bartlett’s test of sphericity showing statistical significance (p < 0.05).³⁵ These guidelines were also used in this study.

It is acknowledged that the traditional three-factor solution is not always replicated in South Africa,³¹ but it has been found to be valid across several cultures.¹⁰

With regard to measurement invariance,^36,37 signs of invariance were firstly analysed comparing the factor structure of a one factor solution, for Generation X and Millennials, using the Tucker’s phi-test. These calculated scores were interpreted similarly to what local researchers³⁸ did, interpreting Tucker’s phi-values greater than 0.90 as essential agreement and values above 0.95 as pointing to very high agreement. With regard to the theoretically sound three-factor solution, inspection of the exploratory factor analyses factor loadings was used as indicator of measurement invariance, focusing on the same items loading on the same factors and similarity with regard to the highest loadings per solution.

Next correlations between the independent variable (age) and the dependent variable (engagement) were calculated. These correlations were deemed statistically significant when the significance was smaller than or equal to 0.01, particularly as the sample size was relatively large. The practical significance was interpreted as the amount of variance explained, by interpreting the coefficient of determination as the percentage of variance explained in the dependent variable. The coefficient of determination was calculated by squaring R and multiplying it by 100.^33,39 To gain insight into the relative importance of age, the correlation between tenure, management position, post level and engagement was also calculated.

Remaining with the theme of the relative importance of independent variables, age, tenure, management position, as well as post level were regressed to predict engagement. Apart from aspiring for an appropriate model fit (statistically significant F-value), the interpretation of significant betas was important. Significance (p < 0.05) was used to identify those variables, which uniquely and significantly predict engagement. If the beta was not statistically significant, it was interpreted that the variable does not contribute to the declared variance in the dependent variable.

Lastly, to explore whether the mean scores on engagement differed for Generation X and Millennials, t-tests were performed, focusing on the differences in the total engagement score, scores on the subscales, as well as mean differences at an item level. T-values with a p-value less than 0.05 was considered as an indication of a statistically significant difference between groups⁴⁰ and a Cohen’s d-value larger than 0.2 as evidence that the differences were of practical significance.⁴¹

Cohen’s d was calculated using the following formula: Cohen’s d = (Mean Y - Mean X) / ([s.d. X + s.d.Y) / 2]). The Cohen’s-d value presents the difference between mean values in terms of standard deviation units.