No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Generation Z is increasingly entering and shaping contemporary workplaces. Commonly defined as the cohort born from the mid-1990s onward, Generation Z has been described as growing up in contexts marked by digital connectivity, social and economic uncertainty, rapid technological change, and heightened public discourse around psychological well-being. These conditions may shape how work is experienced, what is expected from employers, and how workers respond to occupational demands and resources. At the same time, workplace psychological well-being is a multifactorial construct. It may include both positive indicators, such as engagement, thriving, and satisfaction, and negative indicators, such as stress, burnout, emotional exhaustion, and psychological distress. These outcomes are influenced by a wide range of individual, interpersonal, organizational, and contextual factors, including coping resources, social support, work design, leadership, flexibility, job insecurity, recognition, and organizational climate. Despite increasing interest in Generation Z in human resource management, organizational psychology, and occupational health, the available evidence appears fragmented and conceptually inconsistent. Studies may differ in how they define Generation Z, whether they explicitly isolate this cohort, which well-being outcomes they examine, and whether associated influences are framed as predictors, correlates, demands, resources, risks, or protective factors. As a result, the field lacks a clear map of what is currently known about the factors associated with work-related psychological well-being among Generation Z workers. A scoping review is appropriate because the literature is likely to be heterogeneous in terminology, study design, occupational sector, and conceptual framing. Mapping this evidence may clarify how Generation Z workers are studied, which work-related psychological outcomes have been examined, which risk and protective factors have been identified, and where important research gaps remain. No preliminary or currently ongoing scoping review on this exact topic has been identified by the review team. Review question What is known from the existing empirical literature about the risk and protective factors associated with work-related psychological well-being among Generation Z workers? Inclusion criteria Participants This review will consider studies involving Generation Z workers engaged in formal or paid employment. Studies will be eligible if participants are: • explicitly identified by the authors as Generation Z, Gen Z, or equivalent generational labels; or • described using an age range or birth-year range that is clearly consistent with Generation Z; or • included within mixed-generation samples when findings for Generation Z are reported separately. Because generational boundaries vary across studies, the review will accept author-defined operationalizations of Generation Z and extract these definitions during data charting. For the purposes of screening, Generation Z will be understood approximately as individuals born from the 1995-2012. Eligible employment statuses include: • paid employees • salaried or wage workers • formally employed interns, apprentices, or trainees • early-career employees, only when age or cohort information clearly indicates that the sample belongs to Generation Z Studies will be excluded if they involve: • students only, without a formal employment context • university samples without a work role • adolescents who are not employed • mixed-generation samples where Generation Z data cannot be isolated • participants described only as “young workers” or “early-career workers” without sufficient age or cohort information to classify them as Generation Z Concept The concept of interest is work-related psychological well-being, including both positive and negative indicators, examined in relation to workplace experiences. Eligible outcomes may include, but are not limited to: • psychological well-being at work • work-related well-being • mental health in occupational contexts • psychological distress linked to work • occupational stress • strain • burnout • emotional exhaustion • work engagement • thriving at work • job satisfaction • affective well-being at work Studies examining anxiety or depressive symptoms will be included only when these outcomes are explicitly linked to workplace experiences or occupational conditions. The review will map risk factors and protective factors associated with these outcomes. These factors may operate at different levels, including: • individual: coping, resilience, perfectionism, self-efficacy, emotion regulation • interpersonal: coworker support, supervisor support, conflict, workplace incivility • organizational: workload, autonomy, flexibility, recognition, leadership, role clarity, psychological safety, job insecurity • contextual/structural: labor precarity, remote work conditions, economic uncertainty, sector-specific demands, digital overload Studies will be excluded if they focus exclusively on: • physical health outcomes • clinical psychiatric diagnoses not linked to work experiences • general life satisfaction outside the workplace • social well-being outside employment contexts • career preferences or consumer-style workplace attitudes without a psychological well-being component Context This review will consider studies conducted in workplace, organizational, or occupational settings in which Generation Z individuals are engaged in formal or paid work. Eligible contexts include: • private sector workplaces • public sector workplaces • non-profit organizations • institutional settings • industrial and service sectors • in-person, remote, and hybrid work environments All occupational sectors will be eligible. Studies will be excluded if they are conducted in: • school settings involving non-working students • university settings without a formal employment role • community settings not connected to employment • purely clinical treatment settings with no workplace focus • internships without payment Types of sources This scoping review will consider empirical peer-reviewed studies, including: • quantitative studies • qualitative studies • mixed-methods studies The following will be excluded: • Secondary data • narrative reviews • editorials • opinion papers • commentaries • theoretical or conceptual papers • conference abstracts without full text • dissertations and theses • grey literature Language and date limits Only articles published in English will be included. The search will be limited to studies published from 2016 onward, as this period corresponds more closely to the emergence of Generation Z as a visible cohort in workplace and organizational research. Methods Review design This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. The reporting of the completed review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Search strategy The search strategy will aim to locate published peer-reviewed empirical studies on the topic. In line with JBI guidance, a three-step search strategy will be used. First, an initial limited search of selected databases will be undertaken to identify relevant articles on the topic. The words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, as well as the index terms used to describe them, will be analyzed to inform the development of the full search strategy. Second, a comprehensive search strategy using all identified keywords and index terms will be adapted and conducted across all included databases. Third, the reference lists of all included articles will be screened for additional relevant studies. Terms such as “risk factors” and “protective factors” will not be used as mandatory search limits because relevant studies may examine associated predictors, correlates, demands, resources, or supports without explicitly labeling them using those exact expressions. Risk and protective factors will instead be identified during study selection and data extraction. Information sources The databases to be searched will include: • PsycINFO • Scopus • Web of Science Core Collection • PubMed Study selection Following the search, all identified citations will be collated and uploaded into a reference management software, and duplicates will be removed. The remaining records will then be imported into a screening platform such as Rayyan. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts against the inclusion criteria. Potentially relevant studies will then be retrieved in full and assessed in detail by two independent reviewers. Reasons for exclusion of full-text articles that do not meet the inclusion criteria will be recorded and reported in the final review. Any disagreements that arise between reviewers at any stage of the selection process will be resolved through discussion. If consensus cannot be reached, a third reviewer will be consulted. The study selection process will be reported in a PRISMA-ScR flow diagram. Data extraction Data will be extracted from included studies using a draft data charting form developed by the review team. The form will be piloted on a small number of studies and revised as necessary during the review process to ensure that all relevant information is captured. Two reviewers will independently extract data, or one reviewer will extract data and a second reviewer will verify the extracted information, depending on team resources. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion, with involvement of a third reviewer if needed. Table 2 contains an example of the extraction table. The extracted data will be presented in tabular form and accompanied by a narrative summary that addresses the review question and objectives. Findings will be summarized descriptively according to: • publication characteristics • geog
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.