185 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers 1 Received: 1st September 2023; Accepted: 21st February 2024 Employee Motivation in Contemporary Academic Literature: A Narrative Literature Review Petra JARKOVSKÁ 1 , Martina JARKOVSKÁ 2 1 Škoda Auto University, Department of Human Resources Management, Mladá Boleslav, Czech Republic, pjarkovska@hotmail.com (corresponding author) 2 Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Czech Republic, jarkovska@pef.czu.cz Background: Using the correct type of motivation is pivotal in triggering employees’ affirmative work attitudes, such as work performance, job satisfaction, or voluntary retention, ultimately leading to increasing the organiza- tion’s overall efficiency. Despite the ongoing academic debate, academics provide practitioners with mixed results on which motivation factors are relevant for targeted employee groups whose needs are under the economic and socio-psychological pressure of the rapidly evolving environment. Elton Mayo was the first to acknowledge these socio-psychological factors as significant motivation drivers almost a century ago. Methods: Therefore, the purpose of this paper, using the narrative literature review method (supported by a system- atic search strategy) on 83 articles, is to evaluate the research findings on employees’ motivation (related to their affirmative work attitudes) and to unfold the motivation theory’s advancement. Results: Key motivation drivers were identified and unified into five motivation sets applicable to different employee groups. The findings also suggest that most academic works, theoretically grounded in classical motivational con- cepts, are quantitative analysis-based. Conclusion: To increase the efficiency of employees’ performance, internal motivation or internalization of external motivation seems to be the best solution. Employees’ “floating” needs call for practitioners to be trained in tech- niques from psychology. Keywords: Elton Mayo, Employee motivation, Motivation factor, Motivation theory DOI: 10.2478/orga-2024-0013 1 Introduction George Elton Mayo is best known for his series of studies known as the “Hawthorn Study” or the “Hawthorn Experiment” conducted between 1927 and 1932. Based on the studies, using techniques from disciplines such as psychiatry or psychology (e.g., psychoanalysis or counsel- ling), Mayo was the first to demonstrate the complexity of workers’ motivation based on a socio-psychological rather than the economic concept of an individual (Hansson & Wigblad, 2006). Although Mayo reached this knowledge almost a century ago, the findings still seem more than recurrent as a growing body of practical literature is concerned with employee day-to-day negative experiences (e.g., work-life balance, work stress, mental health, or burnout syndrome). The same applies to academic debate. For instance, Safari (2020) deals with burnout syndrome, Budnick et al. (2020) with work-home boundaries, and Lutz et al. (2020) with 186 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers employees’ mental health. Even though the phenomenon of “motivation” has played a significant role in academic research for decades (e.g., Gagné et al., 2010; Kuuvas et al., 2017; Ahmed et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023), there seems to be a widening gap between theory and practice as organ- izations often fail to implement the new theoretical knowl- edge in practice. The reluctance to adopt the latest concepts might be caused by the lack of theoretical knowledge on the one hand or over-theorizing on the other. Another rea- son against successful adoption might be scarce resources or poor employee motivation management (Safari, 2020). This paper uses the narrative literature review meth- od on research articles to identify contemporary employee motivation drivers, current theories, and methods as they appear in the latest academic research. Thus, the research was guided by the following research question (RQ): RQ: What motivates contemporary employees (what aspects of motivation are analysed in scientific research)? To fulfil the paper’s objectives and to answer the research question (RQ) to the fullest, two supporting sub-questions (SQs) were formulated: SQ 1: What theoretical concepts are used by the au- thors under analysis? SQ 2: What research methods do the authors under analysis use? To accomplish given objectives, the following subsec- tion presents current theoretical approaches to employee motivation (1.1). Section Material and Methods (2) high- lights the method used to identify the studies under review. Section Results and Discussion (3) provides an overview and a summary of contemporary employee motivation as presented in the studies. It also synthesizes theoretical ap- proaches and discusses the methods used in the current re- search. The review strategy is depicted in Figure 1. 1.1 Current theoretical approaches to employee motivation Mayo’s legacy for contemporary motivational theo- ries Highhouse (1999) states that radical behaviourism pre- vailed in industrial/business psychology in the era before Figure 1: Overview of the study (authors’ own work) Hawthorn’s experiments, which is an approach based on the assumption that an individual’s behaviour can be sci- entifically examined without knowledge of his/her inner mental states. Mayo’s thesis that employees are human beings pursuing their interests and attaining self-satisfac- tion through their work and that the work itself is a social activity, and that is why most people strive for work that is fulfilling and meaningful became a ground-breaking idea at the time, which provided the basis for formulating new theoretical approaches to employee motivation (Khoshne- vis & Tahmasebi, 2016). Thereby, it could be concluded that the results of the Hawthorne study have proven and thus shown the crucial importance of socio-psychological factors, such as the sense of belonging to a group, the abil- ity to make decisions, and the importance of an employ- ee as an individual for work productivity and employee satisfaction. The effectiveness of wage incentives is thus dependent on their relationship to other factors. It cannot be considered something that has an individual effect on an individual. Only in connection with interpersonal rela- tionships at work and an individual’s personal life it cre- ates key determinants affecting labour productivity (Mayo, 1933). According to Highhouse (1999), this is Mayo’s leg- acy for contemporary motivational theories and human re- source management. Scientists distinguish two theoretical approaches to contemporary employee motivation: the classical (tradi- tional) approach, which is referred to as “classical theory,” and the holistic approach, referred to as “modern motiva- tion theory” (Lee & Raschke, 2016; Ryan, 2017). Classical (traditional) motivational theories Traditional motivational theories focus on specific factors that motivate employees to perform. According to some authors (e.g., Khoshnevis & Tahmasebi, 2016; Lee & Raschke, 2016), classical theories originated at the turn of the last century and are the most often used by academia and practitioners. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs According to Maslow (1943), there are five levels of needs. After fulfilling a particular need, the individual is motivated to satisfy another need in the hierarchy—phys- iological, security, safety, social, recognition, and self-re- alization needs. If managers know the level of employee 187 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers satisfaction, they can effectively motivate their employees. McGregor’s motivational theory X and Y McGregor’s Theory X (McGregor, 1960) assumes that employees do not like to work, do not want to be respon- sible, and do not care about their overall performance. It is, therefore, necessary to force them. In contrast, employ- ees defined by the Y theory (McGregor, 1960) are consid- ered dynamic, capable, and creative individuals. They can make decisions and accept responsibility for their work. McGregor (1960) does not claim that the Y theory can de- fine all employees, but if employees are treated according to theory X, they will behave accordingly. Knowing the right “typology” of employees enables managers to choose appropriate employee management. Herzberg’s theory of two factors Herzberg et al. (1959) distinguish between motiva- tion and hygiene factors. Motivation factors or motivators bring employee satisfaction (e.g., success, recognition, growth opportunity). Hygiene factors are, e.g., organiza- tion policy, working conditions, relations with superiors, relations with colleagues, and financial remuneration. Hygiene factors alone do not satisfy employees, but their absence causes dissatisfaction. A hygiene factor (e.g., fi- nancial remuneration) can only motivate an employee if linked to a motivator (e.g., recognition). Other classical theories include Vroom’s theory of ex- pectations (Expectancy theory) (Vroom, 1964), Skinner’s motivational theory based on support and positive evalua- tion of employee behaviour (Reinforcement theory) (Skin- ner, 1953) or Deci’s theory of self-determination (Self-de- termination theory) (Deci, 1971). Modern (holistic) motivational theories Holistic (modern) theories are based on an interdisci- plinary approach to employee motivation and use knowl- edge from neurology, biology, and psychology. For exam- ple, Nohria et al. (2008) use knowledge from various fields to explain “human nature” as an elementary factor influ- encing employee motivation. It is natural for employees to be driven by ownership (e.g., financial reward), belonging (e.g., company culture), understanding (e.g., job descrip- tion), and feeling safe (e.g., performance management pro- cesses and resource allocation). The organization’s perfor- mance is maximized if these so-called “drivers” effectively motivate employees. Additional approaches to motivational theories Another possible way to classify motivational theories is based on the very approach to motivation. Scientists dis- tinguish between theories that deal with motivational fac- tors (Theories on factors of motivation), such as Maslow’s Theory of Needs (Maslow, 1943), Herzberg’s theory of two factors (Herzberg et al., 1959), or theories that focus on explaining the motivation process itself (General-pro- cess theories). These include Vroom’s Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) and Adams’s equilibrium theory (Steers et al., 2004). 2 Materials and Methods Literature reviews synthesize published literature on a topic and describe its current state of the art (Ferrari, 2015). While a narrative literature review is a comprehensive, critical, and objective analysis of the current knowledge on a topic (Baker, 2016), a systematic literature review iden- tifies, selects, and critically appraises research to answer a clearly formulated question (Ferrari, 2015). In contrast to a systematic review, a narrative review can address one or more questions, and the selection criteria for inclusion of the articles may not be specified explicitly. However, the quality of a narrative review may be improved by bor- rowing from systematic review methods to reduce bias in selecting articles and employing an effective bibliographic research strategy (Ferrari, 2015). Thus, due to the fragmented focus of each article under investigation, a narrative and systematic literature review were considered the most suitable. For the systematic search of articles, in line with Fer- rari’s (2015) suggestions, one research question (RQ) and two supporting sub-questions (SQs) were formulated re- flecting the intended use (see 1 Introduction). 2.1 Article selection strategy The selection criteria used to identify those studies that responded to the research question (RQ) were as follows: • The studies were searched in the Web of Science and Science Direct databases. • To resemble organizations’ primary concern - em- ployees’ efficiency appraisal (research intentions of Mayo’s Hawthorn experiment), the search included terms such as “employee motivation and job satisfaction,” “employee motivation and commitment,” “employee motivation and volun- tary retention,” “employee motivation and labour productivity,” or “employee motivation and job performance.” • The search was limited to peer-reviewed works. • The search was limited to works written in Eng- lish. • The search was limited to works published be- tween January 2000 and July 2023. Cleaning strategy Based on the content analysis of article titles, abstracts, and keywords resembling the search terms, the works that did not meet all the criteria were excluded. Thus, after excluding those not meeting the criteria, the final number of articles was 83 (FN = 83). The number of articles based on empirical research was 73 (N = 73/83), and the number of articles based on systematic literature review was 10 (N = 10/83). 188 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers Selected articles To answer RQ, due to a very fragmented focus, the 83 articles were divided into five thematic sub-sections (In- ternal and external motivation, Motivation of Generation Y , Motivation of knowledge workers, Motivation of aging employees, and Motivation for pro-environmental behav- iour of employees), as depicted in Table 1. To answer supporting SQ 1 and SQ 2, only empirical research findings were under investigation (N = 73). Table 1: Selected articles division into thematic sub-sections (authors’ own work) Thematic sub-section Article concern regarding motivation and employee efficiency and productivity appraisal Individual articles listed in alphabetical order Internal and external moti- vation (N=28) Internal and external motiva- tion, Intrinsic and extrinsic moti- vation. Benabou & Tirole, 2003; Bowles & Polanía-Reyes, 2012; Chatzopoulou et al., 2015; Contiu et al., 2012; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Deci et al., 2016; Donze & Gunnes, 2018; Elizur & Koslowsky, 2001; Frey & Jegen, 2001; Gagné & Deci, 2005; Gagné et al., 2010; Haghighatian & Ezati, 2015; Hitka & Balážová, 2015; Howard et al., 2016; Izvercian et al., 2015; Judge et al., 2010; Khoshnevis & Tahmasebi, 2016; King et al., 2017; Kuuvas et al., 2017; Lo et al., 2012; Maxwell, 2005; Mitchell et al., 2020; Moran et al., 2012; Rusu & Avasil- cai, 2014; Siu et al., 2014; Vetráková & Mazúchová, 2016; Zámečník, 2014; Zhang & Liu, 2022. Motivation of Generation Y (N=14) Generation Y , millennials, internet generation, or young employees. Allen, 2004; Aycan & Fikret-Pasa, 2003; Campos Monteiro et al., 2015; Chapman et al., 2005; Eisner, 2005; Frye et al., 2019; Lu & Adler, 2009; Lutz et al., 2020; Rosenbaum & Wong, 2012; Stewart et al., 2017; Supanti & Butcher, 2019; Wong et al., 2017; Wood, 2004; Xiong & King, 2019. Motivation of knowledge workers (N=16) Motivation of “knowledge,” “highly skilled,” “executive,” “talented,” or “creative” employees. Davenport, 2005; Gupta et al., 2023; Hanaysha & Tahir, 2016; Lee & Kim, 2021; Lee & Suzuki, 2020; Li et al., 2021; Li et al., 2023; Mahjoub et al., 2018; Mládková, 2012; Mládková, 2013; Mládková, et al., 2015; Ng, 2017; Ozkeser, 2019; Pohle et al., 2022; Reboul et al., 2006; Schermuly et al., 2013. Motivation of aging em- ployees (N=8) Aging employees, old em- ployees, elderly employees, retired employees, or retiring employees. Armstrong-Stassen, 2008; Armstrong-Stassen & Ursel, 2009; Budnick et al., 2020; Francis-Smith, 2004; Heslin et al., 2019; Johns, 2003; Kooij et al., 2014; Pak et al., 2018. Motivation for pro-envi- ronmental behaviour of employees (N=17) Motivation for “pro-en- vironmental,” “green,” or “pro-philanthropic” employee behaviour. Ahmed et al., 2021; Aitken et al., 2016; Appiah, 2019; Davis et al., 2020; Giocirlan, 2023; Goh & Ferry, 2019; Graves & Sarkis, 2012; Graves et al., 2013; Graves & Sarkis, 2018; Hu et al., 2016; Macke & Genari, 2019; Maki et al., 2016; Mamun, 2023; Sheldon et al., 2016; Voegtlin & Greenwood, 2016; Yuriev et al., 2018; Zhang & Huang, 2019. 3 Results and Discussion 3.1 Motivation of contemporary employees (RQ) Internal and external motivation The most crucial outcome of motivation is employee performance. Thus, we can define internal motivation as a 189 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers desire to do the task for itself and to experience the satis- faction it provides (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Internal motiva- tion is associated with positive results such as engagement, productivity, and identification with work (e.g., Chatzo- poulou et al., 2015; Howard et al., 2016; Deci et al., 2016). In contrast, external motivation is usually defined as a de- sire to pursue the task to achieve positive consequences, such as incentives, or avoid negative consequences as pun- ishment (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Judge et al., 2010). Although the research on the relationship between in- ternal and external motivation and its impact on employ- ee performance has lasted nearly half a century, essential questions about the relationship between these motivations and their outcomes still need to be answered. At the gen- eral level, there is an ongoing debate about whether these two motivations positively affect each other or whether their effects differ. Therefore, they are mutually exclusive. Some scientists view both motivations as compatible. The assumption is that external motivation triggered by tangible incentives is positively related to internal motiva- tion triggered by intangible incentives such as social rec- ognition (Stajkovic & Luthans, 2003). Therefore, Donze and Gunnes (2018) suggest that organizations should be more sensitive to social ideals and foster social interaction in the workplace. In other words, investing in social bond- ing reinforces the effectiveness of monetary incentives and increases average effort, ultimately helping homogenize the workplace and thus making it more productive. However, other studies have shown that these two types of motivation are contradictory. Deci and Ryan (2000) concluded that tangible incentives or punishments disrupt internal motivation, suggesting that the association is negative. Other studies provided similar evidence (e.g., Frey & Jegen, 2001; Bowles & Polanía-Reyes, 2012). For example, according to Benabou and Tirole (2003), materi- al incentives have signalling properties, indicating that the task requires further strengthening, probably because it is unpleasant. Such incentives undermine the intrinsic inter- est and change employee preferences (Benabou & Tirole, 2003). Also, the results of King et al. (2017) suggest that employees’ work values, based on their former work mem- ories, influence their current performance, with intrinsic values having a positive impact while extrinsic values dis- playing no significance. The explanation for these partially contradictory find- ings may lie in how the tasks are coded in the meta-anal- yses and the different types of incentives under examina- tion. More precisely, there are differences in the size and timing of incentives, the difficulty in obtaining them, and thus in the percentage of employees receiving them. Moreover, external motivation has an ambiguous ef- fect on overall work performance. This is partly due to its multi-tasking effect: In the context of tangible incentives, employees focus on tasks they are motivated by the most and neglect those they are motivated by the least. When employees focus only on achieving positive incentives, affirmative affective states associated with internal mo - tivation (e.g., enthusiasm, engagement, and well-being) are not present. Conversely, external motivation is usually associated with anxiety and lower satisfaction levels, re- ducing employee concentration and preventing them from fully engaging in the task (Gagné et al., 2010). Kuuvas et al. (2017) further state that internal motiva- tion is positively linked to work performance but negative- ly to dismissive outcomes such as an intention to retire, burnout, and conflict between work and personal life. Ex- ternal motivation is negatively linked or unrelated to work performance but positively related to the above-mentioned negative outputs. These findings thus support the crowd- ing-out effect. Likewise, according to Chatzopoulou et al. (2015), the most satisfying motivation factor is the nature of work, irrespective of gender, age, education, or hierar- chy at work, even under economic turndown circumstanc- es. Hence, Kuuvas et al. (2017) propose that organizations should address internal and external motivation separately. Concerning employee performance, organizations should focus on increasing employees’ internal motivation. Employees should be invited to decision-making and re- ceive feedback when taking the initiative, not only when having problems. Organizations should exercise caution in using enforcement techniques such as conditional tangi- ble incentives, staff monitoring, and benchmarking. These findings are also supported by Mitchell et al. (2020), who, based on a gamification study, conclude that extrinsic mo- tivation can reduce employee autonomy and competence need satisfaction. However, internalizing extrinsic motiva- tion (e.g., through perceived personal values) can support intrinsic motivation. Thus, through suitable development programs, e.g., fitting gamification and simulation-based learning design, organizations could manage the co-exist- ence of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to their advan- tage. The Motivation of Generation Y Generation Y is a collective term for those born be- tween 1980 and 2000 (Eisner, 2005). They are also re- ferred to as the internet generation or millennials. Genera- tion Y grew up in economic expansion and prosperity but matured over years of economic uncertainty and upheaval (Wong et al., 2017). Many millennials gain work experi- ence before leaving school; therefore, they are assumed to have clear expectations of what they want to do, for whom they want to work, and what they want to achieve (Wood, 2004; Wong et al., 2017). According to Allen (2004) and Lu and Adler (2009), millennials want to set personal goals and do meaningful work. A study by Chapman et al. (2005) showed that Gen- eration Y requires clear direction and managerial support while requiring competency and flexibility to carry out tasks in their own way. Millennials prefer an inclusive 190 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers management style; they do not like the slow pace and re- quire immediate feedback to evaluate their performance (Francis-Smith, 2004). They are willing to fight for free- dom and appreciate home and family. Maxwell (2005) admits that job flexibility is a way to achieve work-life balance; therefore, flexibility should be promoted by man- agement and corporate culture. According to scientists (e.g., Stewart et al., 2017; Wong et al., 2017; Xiong & King, 2019; Supanti & Butch- er, 2019), due to more career choices, millennials multi- ple needs must be met simultaneously; thus, they find it hard to reach a compromise. As a result, they are often motivated to work on multiple needs (Wong et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the prioritization of these needs is chang- ing over time. Employees are often affected by economic changes. For example, millennials placed greater emphasis on financial remuneration and job security during the glob- al financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, while following the 2010-2013 crisis, they increasingly emphasized socio-or- ganizational and self-actualization aspects. Likewise, the role of monetary reward as an extrinsic motivator might be more significant for those for whom access to money is more complex, and thus, as a result, the deprivation of basic needs satisfaction is their daily life experience (Judge et al., 2010; Campos Monteiro et al., 2015). The findings of longitudinal qualitative studies (Wong et al., 2017) also show that wage levels have more weight for fresh graduates, while career success is more important for those working for several years. While an individual’s personality traits can affect career and job choices, the in- fluence of family and friends plays an even more important role. Millennials prefer to work for organizations that use advanced technology and enable employees to use social media. However, as Rosenbaum and Wong (2012) suggest, social media can be a potential problem in work perfor- mance and employee satisfaction, as internet addiction is related to attention deficit disorder and hyperactivity. Also, “trespassing” work-home boundaries (work-related mes- saging in the private domain or private messaging in the work domain) has a significant negative effect on employ- ees’ emotional well-being (Lutz et al., 2020). There is a causal relationship between motivation and employee loyalty. There are three types of commitment: commitment to financial reward, commitment to people and organization, and commitment to career success (Ay- can & Fikret-Pasa, 2003; Wong et al., 2017). Even if an organization meets the need for financial rewards, mil- lennials do not necessarily stay loyal to the organization. According to some scientists (e.g., Stewart et al., 2017; Supanti & Butcher, 2019; Frye et al., 2019; Xiong & King, 2019), millennials would feel less under pressure, happier and more likely to remain in the organization if the organ- isation responded to their needs for interpersonal relation- ships, the working environment as well as their develop- ment and achievements. The Motivation of Knowledge Workers Knowledge consists of two dimensions - explicit and tacit. The explicit knowledge is formally expressed by coding (e.g., picture or language). Tacit knowledge is that part of knowledge gained by nature, learning, or experi- ence. The tacit knowledge is intangible and, therefore, challenging to manage. Managers cannot control how em- ployees work since their results heavily rely on their tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge may be partially or entirely subconscious. Knowledge or creative work does not have to be line- ar. Individual’s ideas and solutions can come up randomly, usually when employees are relaxed and outside the organ- ization. Thus, the work results may be difficult to control and manage. They might differ in the short and long term. Also, knowledgeable or creative employees usually work under pressure, are stressed, and lack time. Thus, manag- ers should check the independently working employees to see if they know the organization’s goals and are guided by them. Scientists suggest that knowledge workers are usually highly motivated to perform well, make decisions, self-ac- tualize, and manage their activities (Davenport, 2005; Mahjoub et al., 2018; Ozkeser, 2019; Pohle et al., 2022). However, as various motivation theories show, different employees are motivated by different incentives. Mlád- ková et al. (2015) claim that managers often do not under- stand the importance of proper motivation when working with such a group of employees. Managers should, there- fore, be cautious about aspects that characterize knowl- edge workers. Knowledge workers can know more about their work than their managers (Li et al., 2023). Tacit knowledge is partially or fully subconscious, and even a knowledge worker may not realize or underestimate its im- portance for the organization. It is the employee who owns the knowledge, not the organization. When employees leave the organization, their knowledge leaves them (Dav- enport, 2005; Mládková et al., 2015). Therefore, accord- ing to Lee and Suzuki (2020), reciprocity is essential in motivating “information exchange” between an organiza- tion and a knowledge worker. Moreover, according to Lee and Kim (2021), symmetrical internal communication and leadership communication enhance creativity, with feed- back-seeking behaviour mediating the relationship. These findings are supported by the work of Li et al. (2021), who claim that multisource information exchange partially me- diates the relationship between an employee’s personality and his or her creativity. Based on qualitative research and literature review, Mládková et al. (2015) state that the essential motivational factors for knowledge workers are achieving goals, work character, and independence. Significant demotivating fac- tors are the inefficient use of the worker’s energy and the manager’s low morals (Li et al., 2023). 191 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers The motivation of aging employees As a result of increased life expectancy and declining fertility rates, the workforce’s composition is changing in developed countries. Older employees often leave their jobs before the retirement age. However, fewer younger employees are available to replace them entirely. States are coping with rising retirement costs and anticipate la- bour shortages by encouraging employees to work later, e.g., by increasing their mandatory retirement age and dis- couraging early exit from the labour market (Ng, 2017). Therefore, organizations should design work so that older workers would continue working and be motivated to do so (Siu et al., 2014; Pak et al., 2018). Pak et al. (2018) suggest that employee manage- ment based on the ability-motivation-opportunity theory (Marin-Garcia & Martinez, 2016) can positively affect older employees’ performance. Employees must be able and motivated to work longer (Armstrong-Strassen, 2008; Armstrong-Strassen & Ursel, 2009). Also, they should be given the right opportunities (Pak et al., 2018). Similarly, being in a “learning mode” may enable aging employees to sustain their working careers. Heslin et al. (2019) state that identifying prime sustainable career challenges via self-regulatory career meta-competency is vital. There- fore, constant self-actualization and updating may help employees foster sustainable career development across their lifespan. According to Kooij et al. (2014), the possibility of continuing work is conceptualized as an organizational climate towards work until a later age. An organizational climate towards work until a later age is defined as the per- ception of justice or injustice of business processes, prac- tices, and behaviour towards different age groups shared by the “members of a group.” People who experience a hostile climate longer want to retire earlier (Schermuly et al., 2013). Alternatively, e.g., the employees’ “fear of missing out” does not predict work well-being but higher work burnout and frequent message-checking behaviour (Budnick et al., 2020). Kooij et al. (2014) constructed a set of personnel pro- cedures to increase the motivation to continue working in older age. The set includes development, maintenance, utility, and adaptation procedures. Development proce- dures, such as education, internal support, and continuous development, help employees achieve a higher level of performance. Personnel maintenance procedures allow for maintaining their current performance level despite age-re- lated changes, such as health check-ups, reduced working weeks, and ergonomic workplace modifications. Personnel utility practices consider older employees’ knowledge, ex- perience, and competencies, such as mentoring roles, par- ticipation in decision-making, and second careers. Person- nel adaptation procedures help employees work less when maintenance or utility is no longer possible, e.g., partial retirement or exclusion from overtime. In conclusion, to improve the skills and motivation of aging employees, practitioners must ensure a sufficient balance between job requirements and job resources, ei- ther by reducing job requirements or providing adequate resources to help employees face high workloads. Suppose organizations do not have the means to measure current levels of ability, motivation, and employment opportuni- ties. In that case, they can focus on improving the level of proximal and distal labour resources, which positively im- pacts the ability, motivation, and willingness to continue working till a later age. According to Pak et al. (2018), au- tonomy is an example of a proximal labour resource, and managerial support is an example of a distal job resource. Motivation for pro-environmental behaviour of em- ployees According to Yuriev et al. (2018), there has yet to be a definitive conceptualization of pro-environmental em- ployee behaviour. Graves and Sarkis (2018) define pro-en- vironmental behaviour as a broad set of environmental responsibilities such as learning more about the environ- ment, developing and implementing ideas to reduce neg- ative environmental impact, developing environmental processes and products, recycling, and questioning prac- tices that harm the environment. Graves and Sarkis (2018) distinguish between basic behaviour, such as recycling or reducing energy consumption, and advanced behaviour, which requires a proactive approach, such as finding new environmentally friendly ways of working or enhancing environmental knowledge. Basic pro-environmental be- haviour is short-term, less demanding, and relatively com- mon. Advanced behaviour is more prolonged, more chal- lenging, and less common. Although basic and advanced pro-environmental behaviour tends to be linked, motiva- tion is differentiated (Aitken et al., 2016). Based on their findings, Graves and Sarkis (2018) claim that internal motivation is positively related to ba- sic and advanced pro-environmental behaviour. On the other hand, external motivation is not positively linked to basic or advanced pro-environmental behaviour, which is a finding contrary to other studies (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Moran et al., 2012; Aitken et al., 2016). External motiva- tion places minimal demands on employees. Therefore, it is unclear whether focusing on external rewards and moti- vation effectively facilitates pro-environmental behaviour. The effectiveness of such rewards may depend not only on their nature but also on how they are handled (Deci et al., 2016; Maki et al., 2016; Graves & Sarkis, 2018). The self-determination theory argues that behaviour depends on the type of motivation, not just the amount of motivation and that external and internal motivation coex- ist because employees have multiple reasons for pro-en- vironmental behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Deci et al., 2016). Similar results are reported by Ahmed et al. (2021), 192 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers whose findings from the hospitality industry setting reveal that green HR practices positively relate to extrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Regarding external motivation, em- ployees behave pro-environmentally because of external incentives, e.g., they expect rewards or praise or want to avoid sanctions (Graves et al., 2013; Zhang & Huang, 2019). In contrast, internal motivation partially stems from the employee and includes introjected, identified, and in- trospective motivation. Employees with the introjected motivation partially internalized external reports. They believe they should behave pro-environmentally and feel guilty if not (Graves et al., 2013; Zhang & Huang, 2019). For example, in the study of motivational factors of hos- pitality industry employees (Goh & Ferry, 2019), most respondents reported feelings of guilt when expressing at- titudes toward food waste. When motivation is identified, employees behave in line with their values. They fully ad- vocate the importance of sustainability. Those who are mo- tivated introspectively see pro-environmental behaviour as entertaining, interesting, or challenging and find pleasure in, for example, streamlining the waste reduction process. Although the three internal motives for pro-environmental behaviour are theoretically different, they are similar and related to each other due to the common origin of the indi- vidual (Sheldon et al., 2016; Giocirlan, 2023). However, Graves and Sarkis (2018) suggest that em- ployees with strong environmental sensitivity respond more positively to environmental initiatives than those with weak ones. Thus, “top-down” green programs may not work uniformly for green and non-green employees. Organizations committed to sustainability should identify and recruit employees with strong environmental values (Appiah, 2019; Macke & Genari, 2019; Davis et al., 2020). Another option is to shift employee values, but the level of change in values is unclear (Graves & Sarkis, 2018). In this respect, Ahmed et al. (2021) suggest pro-environ- mental training as the most effective practice. Seemingly, Hu et al. (2016) propose learning as a moderating tool be- tween, e.g., corporate volunteering and work performance. The positive effect of learning might be even strengthened by social support from, e.g., family and friends (Hu et al., 2016). 3.2 Summary of the results on the motivation of contemporary employees (RQ) To evaluate what motivates current employees’ effi- ciency and productivity appraisal (e.g., work performance, job satisfaction, organization commitment, or voluntary retention), there was a need to divide the selected articles into five thematical sub-sections, which demonstrate the tendencies in current research (Internal and external moti- vation, Generation Y , Knowledge workers, Aging employ- ees, and Pro-environmental behaviour). The summarised findings suggest that Mayo’s assumptions are a recurrent issue (Table 2). As a result, we can say that 34 % of works (N = 28/83) deal with extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, which could be assigned to no consensus on the co-existence of internal and external motivation as agreement upon their synerget- ic effect has not been reached so far. Hence, employees in the same organization may “experience” the same moti- vation factors differently. To increase employees’ perfor- mance efficiency, internal motivation or internalization of external motivation is the most efficient and universal solution. Thus, to homogenize workplace values, we sug- gest the most suitable learning techniques like role-play, gamification, or learning through practical experience (e.g., volunteering). Likewise, we recommend employees’ participation in decision-making or getting positive feed- back (if successful) and emotionally neutral (in the case of failures). Organizations should address rewards or pun- ishments with sensitivity and caution when benchmarking or assessing employees’ performance. These measures in- deed call for managers to be trained in techniques from psychology (e.g., cancelling or psychoanalysis) and high morals (e.g., ethical management, spiritual leadership). Almost the same percentage of work deals with pro-en- vironmental behaviour (20%) and knowledge workers’ motivation (19%). This could be credited to increased de- mand for innovative behaviour, pro-environmental-mind- ed behaviour, and a shift in skill demand (need for soft skills and technical skills due to automatization, digital- ization, and robotization across organizational structures and industries). Surprisingly, only 10 % of work (N = 8/83) deals with finding the right stimuli for aging employees. Organiza- tions should provide employees with suitable motivation stimuli, matching opportunities, and corresponding re- sources to support their affirmative work attitudes across their lifespan. Employees should work on their self-actu- alization to be adaptable to changing work environments. Thus, their work-life balance is manageable. This could be managed by being in a “learning mode” across one’s lifespan. If we look carefully at the Identified motivation driv- ers across the five Thematic subsections (Table 2), we can detect the deep need for autonomy and competence, meaningful work, development and learning, social bond- ing, feedback-seeking behaviour, and work-home balance, which could be translated into respect seeking behaviour, recognition, forgiveness, and tolerance in case of employ- ee’s failure and urge for praise and honour in case of suc- cess, and maintaining fulfilling relationships, which we believe make the true essence of every individual, yet at the same time make him or her very fragile, especially in a highly competitive environment, which workplace is. This is why we firmly believe that ethical management 193 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers and management practices based on sociopsychology are needed. As a result, for more straightforward practical im- plications, the motivation drivers were unified into five motivation sets (social bonding, nature of work, flexibility, internalization of extrinsic motivation, and management support). Likewise, an urgent need for life-long learning can be traced in all five thematical subsections under re- search. Therefore, the suggested practical implications (Social bonding, Nature of work, Flexibility, Internaliza- Motivation pursues Thematic subsections under research Identified motivation drivers Authors’ suggestions for practical implications Internal and external motivation (N =28/83, 34%) Interpersonal relationships, mean- ingful work, autonomy, competence, decision-making, feedback, internal- ization of external motivation Employee efficiency and productivity appraisal Generation Y (N = 14/83, 17%) Interpersonal relationships, meaning- ful work, self-actualization, work-life balance, competency, feedback, highly competent and ethical management, tangibles Social bonding (personalized and shared values, two-way symmetrical communication, ethical management, knowledge-sharing behaviour) Nature of work (self-realization, self-ac- tualization, autonomy, competence, goal achieving, decision-making) Flexibility (work flexibility, employ- ability, self-actualization, work-home boundaries, work-life balance) Internalization of extrinsic motivation (personalizing values) Knowledge workers (N = 16/83, 19%) Interpersonal relationships, mean- ingful work, autonomy, competence, learning, goal achievement, highly competent and ethical management Management support (highly ethical and competent management, feedback, adequate resources, and requirements distribution, two-way symmetrical communication) Aging employees (N = 8/83, 10 %) Self-actualization, work-home binder- ies, internal support and friendly work environment, decision-making, autonomy Pro-environmen- tal behaviour (N = 17/83, 20 %) Internalization of external motivation, support from family, shared values, learning Table 2: Summary of motivation drivers and suggested implications (authors’ own work) tion of extrinsic motivation, and Management support) could be achieved through learning mode, which benefits both the organization (e.g., increased work productivity, job satisfaction, organizational commitment), and the em- ployees (e.g., increased employability, self-realization, self-actualization, social bonding) (Table 2). These conclusive recommendations are not only in line with the original Mayo’s findings (1933) but also with the latest findings of Siu et al. (2014), Hanaysha & Tahir 194 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers (2016), Lutz et al. (2020), Mitchell et al. (2020), Budnick et al. (2020), and Li et al. (2023). 3.3 Summary of the theoretical background of current scientific research (SQ 1) The articles (N = 73) analysed for this study employed mainly classical (traditional) theories for theoretical background and further implications. In particular, those are the theory of self-determination (Deci, 1971) - 42%, Herzberg’s two-factor motivation theory (Herzberg et al., 1959) - 9%, or the combination of two or more motiva- tional theories - 15%, e.g., Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943) and McGregor’s Motivational theory X and Y (McGregor, 1960). The interdependence of these four theories is depicted in Table 3. Based on the review results (3.1), we can say that, e.g., knowledge workers, creative employees, executives, or millennials are motivated primarily by factors such as independent and creative work, use of their expertise, or self-actualization. Using Maslow’s theory of needs, this could be explained by the fact that such employees are on “the upper salary scale.” Therefore, their core needs have already been met, or these motivation factors resonate with their values. Applying the terminology of Deci’s mo- tivational theory of self-determination (Deci, 1971), these factors can be considered “internal” or “motivational,” if based on the two-factor motivational theory by Herzberg et al. (1959). Analogically, employees, e.g., on “a lower salary scale” or deprived of satisfying their core needs, are motivated mainly by, e.g., financial remuneration, job se- curity, or a well-defined reward and punishment system. These factors can be described as “external” according to Deci’s theory of self-determination (Deci, 1971) or hy- gienic according to Herzberg’s two-factor motivation the- ory (Herzberg et al., 1959). Several analysed works (23%) were based on the above-mentioned classical motivational theories, supple- mented with knowledge from behavioural economics or social psychology (e.g., signalling theory, social exchange theory, or social identity theory). 10% of the analysed works did not specify their theoretical grounds (Graph 1). Those and many other so-called “Classical Theories” (e.g., McClelland, 1951; Vroom, 1964; Skinner, 1965) are, according to Ryan (2017), the “product” of the golden era of social psychological research (the 1950s - 1970s). They were based on long-term and thoughtful theorizing, obser- vation, and experimentation (Ryan, 2017). Therefore, it Maslow (1943) Herzberg (1959) McGregor (1960) Deci (1971) Hierarchy of needs theory Theory of two factors Motivational theory X and Y Self-determination theory Physiological needs Security and safety needs Need for togetherness and belonging Source for hygiene factors Source for employee’s “X” motivation Source for external moti- vation Recognition needs Self- actualization needs Source for motivation factors Source for employee’s “Y” motivation Source for internal moti- vation Table 3: Interdependence among the most cited motivational theories (authors’ own work) Graph 1: Used classical motivation theories in analysed articles (authors’ own work) 195 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers may not be surprising that recent research based on statisti- cal analytical methods has yielded little or no benefit in de- veloping employee motivation theory. The solution might be, for example, to find better methodological approaches to the study of organizational processes and managing em- ployee motivation. Several studies reached this conclusion (e.g., Woodside, 2013; Lee & Raschke, 2016; Ryan, 2017). Although the vast majority of works are grounded in theory, the mixed results, absence of micro and macro environment variable influence, and fragmented focus of each investigation call for the clarification of existing the- ories or for the initiation of a search for a new theory or conceptual approach which would be more comprehensi- ble and universal, and thus easier to follow and apply into practice. Based on the findings, the authors of this paper suggest that the newly formed concepts should be ground- ed in scientific disciplines such as psychology, psychiatry, or social psychology to depict contemporary employees’ true needs, e.g., by adopting such techniques as psychoa- nalysis or counselling. Unfortunately, these techniques are being paid little or no attention by today’s management scientists. On the more conventional side, the Wong et al. (2017) model seems to be the most versatile and flexible. It replicates Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs but op- erates like a dashboard. It considers the employees’ de- mand to meet multiple needs simultaneously or the need to meet different needs regardless of their “location” in the hierarchy. Thus, this model respects the changing needs of employees and the micro- and macro-environment condi- tions of the organization. To make this model function in practice and not represent only a sunk cost, managers must be empathetic and responsive to employee needs using, e.g., regular monitoring or personnel counselling, as sug- gested by Elton Mayo almost a century ago (Mayo, 1933). Therefore, managers’ training in the principles of employ- ee motivation, cancelling, and the basics of psychoanalysis is more than suggested. Interestingly, although motivation theories support Mayo’s thesis, none of the researched works use it as a theoretical background. 3.4 Summary of current trends in the methodology of scientific research (SQ 2) Research on the causal relationship between employ- ee motivation and employee affirmative work attitudes is mainly applied to the service sector (68%), namely tour- ism, hospitality, and health care. Geographically, most of the research is located equally in Asia and Europe (33%). 23% of research was conducted in the USA. Latin America as a research location was rep- resented by one work only (Campos Monteiro et al., 2015), and Africa as a research location was not presented in the analysed sample (Graph 2). The investigated works were based on quantitative (N = 57/73) and qualitative (N = 16/73) analyses. Hence, the predominant method of conducting empirical research is a quantitative analysis (N = 57/73, 78%), especially mul- tiple regression, correlation, or factor analysis, which are currently the prevailing methods of conducting social re- search (Woodside, 2013; Lee & Raschke, 2016). However, Lee and Raschke (2016) believe that these methods aim to find associations (correlations) that are symmetrical and linear but are not the only ways to understand employee motivation and performance. The symmetric analysis as- sumes that the effects of independent variables are linear and additive. The key to understanding the relationship be- tween motivation and employee performance is not to de- termine which variable has the most significant impact but whether there is only one combination or several different combinations of conditions capable of generating the same result and how those combinations arise (Delery & Doty, 1996; Lee & Raschke, 2016). Employee performance is a “function” of many factors: motivation, individual abil- ities, or the work environment (Ryan, 2017). Thus, for Graph 2: Geographical location (authors’ own work) 196 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers example, the configuration approach allows organizations to be seen as clusters of interconnected structures and pro- cedures rather than modular or loosely connected entities whose sub-elements can be understood and examined sep- arately (Fiss, 2007). The configuration approach is a ho- listic and systematic approach to organizations (Delery & Doty, 1996) and is, therefore, more compatible with the so-called “new” motivational theories based on an inter- disciplinary approach (Lee & Raschke, 2016; Ryan, 2017). Conclusion Even though our literature review simplifies the com- plexity of motivation, it allows us to trace current tenden- cies and trends. Despite the diversity of employees, we identified five key motivation drivers (Social bonding, Nature of work, Flexibility, Internalization of extrinsic motivation, and Management support) to homogenize the organization’s approaches and to provide employees with efficient stimuli. The unfolded results demonstrate that the best way to increase employees’ efficiency (e.g., work per- formance, job satisfaction, or organizational commitment) and to homogenize workplace goal ambiguity is to inter- nalize extrinsic motivation (e.g., through perceived per- sonal values). Thus, development training techniques such as gamification, role-playing, or simulation-based learning designs are suggested. Findings also indicate that self-de- velopment programs serve employees’ efficiency and per- sonal interests (e.g., lifespan flexibility, work-life balance, career growth, and self-actualization). To understand the motivation drivers and to unify the pluralistic goals, man- agers are recommended to be educated and practically trained in techniques from social psychology and psychol- ogy (e.g., counselling, mentoring, ethical management, spiritual leadership, or communication). The studies under investigation rely on traditional ap- proaches to employee motivation. Thus, it would be in- teresting to find out how much practicing managers know about various motivational theories and how and why they implement them into organizational practice. As advocates of Mayo’s thesis, we encourage future research on using ethics (e.g., management’s ethical be- haviour or an organization’s ethical principles) as employ- ee motivation drivers. The studies under review do not consider organizations’ disposable resources, which might hinder adopting the proposed suggestions. Likewise, we challenge researchers to control both endogenous and ex- ogenous variables, as the effect of exogenous variables on the macro-level was often neglected. We identified a trend towards quantitative studies taking place at the sub-nation- al level. Therefore, we would like to encourage researchers to conduct studies on the national and transnational levels. Conclusively, to advance the motivational theory, a con- figurational approach (a cluster and fuzzy logic qualitative comparative analysis) could be proposed to analyse and capture the complexity of employee motivation. Literature Ahmed, M., Guo, Q., Qureshi, M.A., Raza, S.A., Khan, K.A., & Salam, J. (2021). Do green HR practices enhance green motivation and proactive environ- mental management maturity in the hotel industry? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 94, 102852. https://doi.org/j.ijhm.2020.102852 Aitken, N.M., Pelletier, L.G., & Baxter, D.E. (2016). Doing the difficult stuff: influence of self-determined motivation toward the environment on transportation pro-environmental behaviour. Ecopsychology, 8, 153- 162. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2015.0079 Allen, P. (2004). Welcoming Y . Benefits Canada, 28(9), 51–53. Appiah, J.K. (2019). Community-based corporate social responsibility activities and employee job satisfac- tion in the US hotel industry: An explanatory study. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 38, 140-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.01.002 Armstrong-Stassen, M. (2008). Human resource practices for mature workers - And why aren’t employers using them? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 46(3), 334-352. https://doi. org/10.1177/1038411108091755 Armstrong-Stassen, M., & Ursel, N.D. (2009). Perceived organizational support, career satisfaction, and the re- tention of older workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 201–220. https:// doi.org/10.1348/096317908X288838 Aycan, Z., & Fikret-Pasa, S. (2003). Career choices, job selection criteria, and leadership preferences in a transitional nation: The case of Turkey. Journal of Career Development, 30(2), 129-144. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1026112127918 Baker, J.D. (2016). The Purpose, Process, and Methods of Writing a Literature Review. AORN Journal, 103(3), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2016.01.016 Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2003). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The Review of Economic Studies, 70(3), 489-520. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00253 Bowles, S., & Polanía-Reyes, S. (2012). Economic incentives and social preferences: Substitute or complements? Journal of Economic Literature, 50(2), 368-425. https://doi.org/ 10.1257/jel.50.2.368 Budnick, C.J., Rogers, A.P., & Barber, L.K. (2020). The fear of missing out at work: Examining costs and ben- efits to employee health and motivation. Computers in Human Behaviour, 104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2019.106161 Campos Monteiro, D.L., Penaloza, V ., Pinto, F.R., & Coria, M.D. (2015). Attitudes towards money and motivational orientation to work in Brazilian young workers. Contaduría y Administración, 60, 11-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0186-1042(15)72145-5 197 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers Chapman, D.S., Uggerslev, K.L., Carroll, S.A., Piasentin, K.A., & Jones, D.A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 958–944. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.928 Chatzopoulou, M., Monovasilis, T., & Vlachvei, A. (2015). Employees’ Motivation and Satisfaction in Light of Economic Recession: Evidence of Grev- ena Prefecture – Greece. Procedia Economics and Finance, 24, 136-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212- 5671(15)00633-4 Contiu, L.A., Gabor, M.R., & Oltean, F.D. (2012). Em- ployees’ Motivation from a Cultural Perspective – A Key Element of the Hospitality Industry Competitive- ness. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3, 981-986. Davenport, T. (2005). Thinking for Living. HVB School Publishing. Davis, M.C., Unsworth, K. L., Russell, S.V ., & Gavon, J. (2020). Can green behaviours be increased for all employees? Trade-offs for “deep greens” in a goal-oriented green human resource management intervention. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2367 Deci, E.L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,18(1), 105–115. https://doi. org/10.1037/h0030644 Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determina- tion of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227– 268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01 Deci, E.L., Olafsen, A.H., & Ryan, R.M. (2016). Self-de- termination theory in work organizations: the state of the science. Annual Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behaviour, 4, 19-43. https://doi.org/ 10.1146/an- nurev-orgpsych-032516-113108 Delery, J.E., & Doty, D.H. (1996). Modes of strategic hu- man resource management theorizing: Test of univer- salistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 802-835. https://doi.org/10.2307/256713 Donze, J., & Gunnes, T. (2018). We are becoming “We” instead of “I” identity management and incentives in the workplace. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 148, 105-120. Eisner, S.P. (2005). Managing generation Y . SAM Ad- vanced Management Journal, 70(4), 4-15. Elizur, D., & Koslowsky, M. (2001). Values and Orga- nizational Commitment. International Journal of Manpower, 22, 593-599. Ferrari, R. (2015). Writing narrative styles literature reviews. Medical Writing, 24(4), 230–235. https://doi. org/10.1179/2047480615Z.000000000329 Fiss, P.C. (2007). A set-theoretic approach to organi- zational configurations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1180–1198. https://doi.org/10.5465/ amr.2007.26586092 Francis-Smith, J. (2004). Surviving and thriving in the multigenerational workplace. The Journal Record, Available via https://journalrecord.com/2004/08/26/ surviving-and-thriving-in-the-multigeneration- al-workplace/. Accessed 17 January 2020 Frey, B., & Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation crowding theory. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(5), 589-611. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00150 Frye, W.D., Kang, S., Huh, C., & Lee, M.J. (2019). What factors influence generation Y’s employee retention in the hospitality industry? An internal marketing approaches. International Journal of Hospitality Man- agement, available via https://e-tarjome.com/storage/ panel/fileuploads/2019-12-21/1576933826_E14114-e- tarjome.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2020 Gagné, M., & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organization- al Behaviour, 26, 331-362. https://doi.org/10.1002/ job.322 Gagné, M., Forest, J., Gilbert, M.H., Aubé, C., Morin, E., & Malorni, A. (2010). The motivation at work scale: Validation evidence in two languages. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(4), 628-646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409355698 Giocirlan, C.E. (2023). “Have me do, and I’ll always be true”: Exploring the match between green em- ployees and their jobs. Journal of Cleaner Produc- tion, 383, 135471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cle- pro.20222.135471 Goh, E., & Ferry, J. (2019). To waste or not to waste: Exploring motivational factors of generation Z hos- pitality employees towards food wastage in the hos- pitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 80, 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijhm.2019.02.005 Graves, L.M., & Sarkis, J. (2012) Fostering employee pro-environmental behaviour: the role of leader- ship and motivation. Environmental leadership: A Reference Handbook (1). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 161 – 171. Graves, L.M., Sarkis, J., & Zhu, Q. (2013). How trans- formational leadership and employee motivation combine to predict employee pro-environmental behaviours in China. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 35, 81-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jenvp.2013.05.002 Graves, L.M., & Sarkis, J. (2018). The role of employee’s leadership perceptions, values, and motivation in employee’s pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Cleaner Production, 196, 576-587. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.013 Gupta, M., Behl, A., Pereira, V ., Yahiaovi, D., & Varma, 198 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers A. (2023). From full-time to part-time: Motivation model for the turbulence -hit knowledge workers. Journal of Business Research, 163, 113926. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.busres.2023.113926 Haghighatian, M., & Ezati, Y . (2015). An investigation into effective factors on human resources productiv- ity (Case study: Region 11, Islamic Azad University, Iran). Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 205, 601-607. Hanaysha, J., & Tahir, P.R. (2016). Examining the Effects of Employee Empowerment, Teamwork, and Em- ployee Training on Job Satisfaction. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 219, 272-282. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.016 Hansson, M., & Wigblad, R. (2006). Recontextualising the Hawthorne effect. Scandinavian Journal of Man- agement, 22, 120-137. 10.1016/j.scaman.2005.12.003 Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B.B. (1959). The motivation to work. NY: John Wiley. Heslin, P.A., Keating, L.A., & Ashford, S.J. (2019). How being in learning mode may enable a sustainable career across the lifespan. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Available via https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jvb.2019.103324. Accessed 17 January 2020 Highhouse, S. (1999). The Brief History of Personnel Counselling in Industrial-Organizational Psycholo- gy. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 55, 318–336. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1685 Hitka, M., & Balážová, Ž. (2015). Comparison of Mo- tivation Level of Service Sector Employees in the Regions of Slovakia and Austria. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 348-355. Howard, J., Gagné, M., Morin, A.J., & Van den Broeck, A. (2016). Motivation profiles at work: A self-de- termination theory approach. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 95/96, 74-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jvb.2016.07.004 Hu, J., Jiang, K., Mo, S., Chen, H., & Shi, J. (2016). The motivational antecedents and performance conse- quences of corporate volunteering: When employees volunteer and when does volunteering help versus harm work performance. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 137, 99-111. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.005 Izvercian, M., Potra, S., & Ivascu, L. (2016). Job satisfac- tion variables: A grounded theory approach. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 221, 86-94. Johns, K. (2003). Managing generation diversity in the workforce. Trends & Titbits (April 11). Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F., Podsakoff, N.P., Shaw, J.C., & Rich, B.L. (2010). The relationship between pay and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 77, 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.002 Khoshnevis, H., & Tahmasebi, A. (2016). The Motivation System in Governmental Organization. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 230, 212–218. King, C., Murrillo, E., & Lee, H. (2017). The effects of generational work values on employee brand attitude and behaviour: A multi-group analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 66, 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.07.006 Kooij, T.A.M., Jansen, P.G.W, Dikkers, J.S.E., & De Lange, A.H. (2014). The influence of age on the associations between HR practices and both affective commitment and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 31(8), 1111- 1136. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.666 Kuuvas, B., Buch, R., Weibel, A., Dysvik, A., & Nerstad, C.G.L. (2017). Does intrinsic and extrinsic motivation relate differently to employee outcomes? Journal of Economic Psychology, 61, 244-258. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.05.004 Lee, G., & Suzuki, A. (2020). The motivation for infor- mation exchange in a virtual community of practice: Evidence from a Facebook group for shrimp farmers. World Development, 125. http://www.akes.or.kr/conf/ papers/2018/33.full.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2020. Lee, M.T., & Raschke, R.L. (2016). Understanding employee motivation and organisational performance: Arguments for a set-theoretic approach. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 1(3), 162-169. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.01.004 Lee, Y ., & Kim, J. (2021). Cultivating employee creativ- ity through strategic internal communication: The role of leadership, symmetry, and feedback-seeking behaviours. Public Relations Review, 47, 1011998. https://doi.org/10.1016/pubrev.2020.101998 Li, B., Yu, W., Lei, Y ., & Hu, M. (2023). How does spiritual leadership inspire employees’ innovative behaviour? The role of psychological capital and intrinsic motivation. European Review of Applied Psychology, 73(6), 100905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. erap.2023.100905 Li, X., Zhang, A., & Guo, Y . (2021). Are proactive employees more creative? The roles of multisource information exchange and social exchange-based employee-organization relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 170, 110484. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110484 Lo, K.I.H., Wong, I.A., Yam, C.M.R., & Whitfield, R. (2012). Examining the impact of community and or- ganization embeddedness on self-initiated expatriates: The moderating role of expatriate-dominated private sector. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(20), 4211-4230. Lu, T., & Adler, H. (2009). Career goals and expectations of hospitality and tourism students in China. Jour- nal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 9(1/2), 63-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220903041972 199 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers Lutz, S., Schneider, F. M., & V orderer, P. (2020). On the downside of mobile communication: An experimental study about the influence of setting inconsistent pres- sure on employees’ emotional well-being. Computers in Human Behaviour, 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2019.106216 Macke, J., & Genari, D. (2019). Systematic literature review on sustainable human resource management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, 806-815. Mahjoub, M., Atashsokhan, S., Khalilzadeh, M., Aghajan- loo, A., & Zahrehvandi, S. (2018). Linking “Project Success” and “Strategic Talent Management”: satis- faction/motivation and organizational commitment as mediators. Procedia Computer Science, 138, 764-777. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.10.100 Mamun, A.M. (2023). Motivating green behaviour in Bangladeshi employees: Self-determination theory application. Heliyon, 9(7), el 181555. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.el18155 Maki, A., Burns, R.J., Ha, L., & Rothman, A.J. (2016). Paying people to protect the environment: a me- ta-analysis of financial incentive interventions to promote pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 242–255. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.07.006 Marin-Garcia, J.A., & Martinez, J.T. (2016). Decon- structing AMO framework: A systematic review. Intangible Capital, 12(4), 1040–1087. http://dx.doi. org/10.3926/ic.838 Maslow, A.H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 394–395. Maxwell, G.A. (2005). Checks and balances: The role of managers in work-life balance policies and prac- tices. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(3), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretcons- er.2004.06.002 Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of industrial civi- lization. NY: MacMillan. McClelland, D.C. (1951). Personality. NY: Dryden Press. McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. NY: McGraw Hill. Mitchell, R., Schuster, L., & Jin, H.S. (2020). Gamifica- tion and the impact of extrinsic motivation on needs satisfaction: Making work fun? Journal of Business Research, 106, 323–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2018.11.022 Mládková, L. (2012). Management of Knowledge Work- ers. Bratislava: Wolter Kluweer Business. Mládková, L. (2013). Management of Knowledge Workers. Academic Publishing International Limited, 766-773. Mládková, L., Zouharová, J., & Nový, J. (2015). Moti- vation and Knowledge Workers. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 207, 768-776. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.163 Moran, C.M., Diefendorff, J.M., Kim, T.Y ., & Liu, Z.Q. (2012). A profile approach to self-determination theory motivations at work. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 81(3), 354-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jvb.2012.09.002 Ng, T.W.H. (2017). Transformational leadership and per- formance outcomes: analyses of multiple mediation pathways. Leader Quarterly, 28, 385–417. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.11.008 Nohria, N., Groysberg, B., & Lee, L.E. (2008). Employee motivation: A powerful new model. Harvard Business Review, 86(7/8), 78-84. Ozkeser, B. (2019). Impact of training on employee motivation in human resources management. Pro- cedia Computer Science, 158, 802-810. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.117 Pak, K., Kooij, T.A.M., De Lange, A., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2018). Human Resource Management and the ability, motivation, and opportunity to continue working: A review of quantitative studies. Human Resource Management Review, 7(2), 1-17. Pohle, A., Villani, E., & Grimaldi, R. (2022). Personnel motivation in knowledge transfer offices: The role of university-level and organizational-level antecedents. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 181, 121765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tecfore.2022.121765 Reboul, C., Horel, G., Krtousova, Z., & Lanthier, T. (2006). Managing Knowledge Workers: The KWP Matrix. Conference Proceedings MOMAN 6, Praha. Rosenbaum, M.S., & Wong, I.A. (2012). The effect of instant messaging services on society’s mental health. Journal of Services Marketing, 26(2), 124-136. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041211215284 Rusu, G., & Avasilcai, S. (2014). Linking human resourc- es motivation to organizational climate. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 124, 51-58. Ryan, J.C. (2017). Reflections on the conceptualisation and operationalisation of a set-theoretic approach to employee motivation and performance research. Jour- nal of Innovation and Knowledge, 2, 45-47. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.12.001 Safari, I. (2020). A Study on the Relationship between Burnout and Job Satisfaction of Iranian EFL Teach- ers Working in Universities and Schools. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 13(4), 164–173. https://doi.org/10.7160/ eriesj.2020.130401 Sheldon, K.M., Wineland, A., Venhoeven, L., & Osin, E. (2016). Understanding the motivation of environ- mental activities: a comparison of self-determination theory and functional motives theory. Ecopsychology, 8, 228-238. https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2016.0017 Schermuly, C. C., Meyer, B., & Dammer, L. (2013). Leader-member exchange and innovative behaviour: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. 200 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12(3), 132-142. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000093 Siu, O.L., Cooper, C., & Phillips, D.R. (2014). Interven- tion studies on enhancing work well-being, reducing burnout, and improving recovery experiences among Hong Kong health care workers and teachers. Interna- tional Journal of Stress Management, 21(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033291 Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behaviour. NY: Macmillan. Stajkovic, A.D., & Luthans, F. (2003). Behavioural management and task performance in organizations: Conceptual backgrounds, meta-analysis, and the test of alternative models. Personnel Psychology, 56, 155-194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003. tb00147.x Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., & Shapiro, D.L. (2004). The future of work motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 379–387. Stewart, J.S., Goad, O.E., Cravens, K. S., & Oishi, S. (2017). Managing millennials: Embracing generation- al differences. Business Horizons, 60, 45–54. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.08.011 Supanti, D., & Butcher, K. (2019). Is corporate social re- sponsibility (CSR) participation the pathway to foster meaningful work and helping behaviour for millenni- als? International Journal of Hospitality Management, 77, 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.001 Vetráková, M., & Mazúchová, L. (2016). Draft of Man- agement Model of Work Motivation in Hotels. Proce- dia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 230, 422-429. V oegtlin, Ch., & Greenwood, M. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and human resource management: Systematic review and conceptual analysis. Human Resource Management Review, 26, 181–197. Vroom, V .H. (1964). Work and Motivation. NY: Wiley. Wong, I.A., Wan, Y .K.P., & Gao, J.H. (2017). How to attract and retain Generation Y employees? An ex- ploration of career choice and the meaning of work. Tourism Management Perspectives, 23, 140- 150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2017.06.003 Wood, F.B. (2004). Preventing post parchment depres- sion: A model of career counselling for college seniors. Journal of Employment Counselling, 41(2), 71-79. Woodside, A.C. (2013). Moving beyond multiple re- gression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 463–472. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.021 Xiong, L., & King, C. (2019). Aligning employee’s attitudes and behaviour with hospitality brands: The role of employee brand internalization. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 40, 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.06.006 Yuriev, A., Boiral, A., Francoeur, V ., & Paillé, P. (2018). Overcoming the barriers to pro-environmental behaviours in the workplace: a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 379-394. Zámečník, R. (2014). The measurement of employee motivation by using multi-factor statistical analysis. Procedia - Social and Behavioural Sciences, 109, 851-857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.553 Zhang, J., & Huang, R. (2019). Employee’s pro-en- vironmental behaviours (PEBs) at international hotel chains (IHCs) in China: The mediating role of environmental concerns (ECS). Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 39, 129-136. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.03.007 Zhang, Y ., & Liu, S. (2022). Balancing employees’ extrinsic requirements and intrinsic motivation: A paradoxical leader behaviour perspective. European Management Journal, 40(1), 127–136. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.emj.2021.11.008 Petra Jarkovská received her Ph.D. in Human Resources Management at the Faculty of Economics, University of South Bohemia in České Budějovice. She is a teacher and researcher at the Department of Human Resources Management at Škoda Auto University in Mladá Boleslav. She specializes in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), ethical management, strategic management of human resources and management, giving lectures and tutorials in managerial psychology and sociology, ethics in personnel management, and human resources management. Her research mainly focuses on areas in CSR, ethical management, and employee retention and motivation. Martina Jarkovská received her Ph.D. in English linguistics at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague. She is a senior lecturer at the Department of Languages at the Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague. She teaches English for Academic Purposes and English for Specific Purposes (ESP), concentrating mainly on human resources, marketing, and law. In her ESP courses, she incorporates the Content and Language Integrated Learning Approach (CLIL) into her teaching. In her research activities, she focuses on ESP and CLIL issues related to law, marketing, and human resources. 201 Organizacija, V olume 57 Issue 2, May 2024 Research Papers