Next Article in Journal
Firm Type and Women’s Leadership Aspirations Across Career Stages: Evidence from Post-Socialist Mongolia
Previous Article in Journal
Managing Human Resources Strategically in Romania: An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Digital Transformation, Sustainability and Cultural Influences
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Merits
Volume 6
Issue 2
10.3390/merits6020010
merits-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Organizational Career System Expectations and Personal Value Orientations: Evidence from Canadian and German Millennial Business Students

by
Hermann Lassleben
1,* and
Stefan Litz
2
1
ESB Business School, Reutlingen University, 72762 Reutlingen, Germany
2
Schwartz School of Business, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS B2G 2W5, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Merits 2026, 6(2), 10; https://doi.org/10.3390/merits6020010
Submission received: 5 February 2026 / Revised: 15 March 2026 / Accepted: 23 March 2026 / Published: 7 April 2026
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study examines Millennial business students’ expectations of organizational career systems (OCS) to inform the design of work environments that attract and retain Millennial employees. It explores preferred OCS features, the role of personal value orientations (PVO), and potential cross-national differences. Data were collected through a cross-national survey of 284 business students in Canada and Germany. Variance analyses and group comparisons were used to assess differences in OCS expectations, and ordinary least squares regression examined the influence of PVO on preferences for four OCS features: internal recruitment, recognition of group contributions, formal promotion processes, and tenure-based advancement. The results show that Millennial business students favor OCS that emphasize recognition of group contributions and transparent, formal procedures, while placing less importance on internal recruitment and tenure-based advancement. PVO significantly predict these preferences: self-transcendence values are positively associated with preferences for formal procedures, whereas conservation values relate positively to tenure-based advancement. Canadian respondents exhibit slightly stronger preferences for formal procedures, group recognition, and tenure than German respondents, although overall cross-national differences remain modest. The study’s reliance on a convenience sample and self-reported data limits generalizability, highlighting the need for more diverse samples and qualitative approaches. By linking career system expectations to underlying personal values rather than generational labels, this study provides theoretical insight and practical guidance for designing fair and transparent OCS aligned with the career expectations of Millennial respondents.

1. Introduction

In light of increasingly competitive labor markets, it is crucial for organizations to create work environments that attract and retain talent [1]. The urgency of this task has increased due to demographic shifts resulting in talent shortages. An additional challenge arises from the changing values of Millennials [2], also known as Generation Y [3,4]. Consequently, organizations must understand Millennials’ expectations to design work environments that appeal to this age cohort [5]. This study examines Millennial business students’ expectations regarding a specific aspect of the work environment: organizational career systems (OCS). Using a cross-national sample of Canadian and German business students, this study identifies and compares their expectations and explores their relationship with personal value orientations (PVO).
Various studies have examined the work values of Millennials [4,5,6,7,8], particularly in light of ongoing changes in early-career trajectories and labor market dynamics. More recent reviews continue to document evolving work preferences among younger cohorts [9,10,11]. Current research confirms that Millennials value inclusive workplaces and expect their employers to take meaningful action regarding diversity, social responsibility, and environmental sustainability [12,13]. Millennials prioritize work–life balance, flexible work arrangements, and career advancement opportunities [12,14]. Supportive leadership and mental well-being have also emerged as important factors in Millennials’ employment preferences [15,16].
However, few empirical studies have examined the expectations of specific generations regarding career management practices and advancement opportunities within organizations [5,17,18]. In fact, research on employees’ expectations of OCS remains scarce [19,20]. Most literature on OCS is conceptual or typological [21,22,23].
Studies on Millennials’ expectations of employers reveal that they have high expectations, are not very loyal, seek rapid advancement and development of new skills, and value their private lives [4,5,6,7]. More recent research adds that Millennials expect dynamic and self-determined careers that include leadership opportunities and regular feedback [9,24,25,26]. Millennials seek meaningful and fulfilling work that aligns with their personal values and goals. They change jobs when organizations fail to meet these expectations [9,10,12,25]. These patterns reflect protean [27] and boundaryless [28] career orientations, which are characterized by adaptability, autonomy, and meaningfulness rather than traditional hierarchical advancement [26,29]. Apart from studies by Abessolo and colleagues [30] and Gaile and colleagues [31], which examined the value orientations underlying entrepreneurial, protean, and boundaryless career orientations, little research has addressed the relationship between PVO and preferences for different types of OCS. However, as standardized career trajectories disappear in boundaryless and protean careers and as careers increasingly become subjective constructions, understanding how differences in OCS expectations relate to differences in PVO becomes critical [32,33,34]. Finally, while some studies have compared OCS across countries [35], no prior research has compared OCS expectations cross-nationally.
This study aims to address the identified knowledge gaps and answer the following research questions: (1) What kinds of organizational career systems (OCS) do Millennial business students expect? (2) How are these expectations shaped by personal value orientations (PVO)? (3) Do these expectations differ across countries? Using a cross-national sample of Canadian and German business students, the study examines contextual variation in OCS expectations and links these differences to individual-level PVO. Rather than directly testing national cultural dimensions, nationality is treated as a contextual grouping variable.
Understanding Millennials’ expectations of OCS is essential for designing career opportunities that attract and retain this generation. Since career orientations and OCS expectations are not uniform, we examine how differences in OCS expectations relate to differences in PVO. To explore contextual variation, we compare Canadian and German business students. Unlike previous studies [7,18], we do not compare Millennials with other generations but focus on identifying expectations within this cohort and linking them to PVO across countries. As our sample consists of business students about to enter professional careers, the findings should be interpreted as applying primarily to this early-career segment.
The paper is structured as follows: The next section elaborates on the concepts of OCS and PVO and places the research in the context of the relevant literature. It also outlines the research question and the hypotheses tested using data from the cross-national study. After clarifying the methodological approach, the empirical findings are presented and discussed. Lastly, the paper discusses the study’s limitations and offers recommendations to employers for designing OCS to attract and retain Millennial employees. It also explores implications for future research.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypotheses

2.1. Organizational Career Systems (OCS)

The term OCS refers to an organization’s bundle of staffing strategies, policies, and practices. It is an integral part of the broader HRM system and encompasses all HRM practices that drive career streams [21,36]. As Sonnenfeld and Peiperl put it: “Career systems are the collections of policies, priorities, and actions that organizations use to manage the flow of their members into, through, and out of the organization” [23] (p. 588). Several authors have developed typologies of OCS [21,22,37,38,39], with the one proposed by Sonnenfeld and Peiperl [23] being the most renowned. They distinguish career systems along two dimensions: (1) the supply stream, which refers to the labor market from which an organization primarily recruits personnel for managerial positions (internal vs. external). Organizations that rely on the internal labor market develop talent internally, while those that rely on the external labor market recruit talent externally. (2) The assignment stream, which refers to the criteria that organizations primarily use to select candidates (individual performance vs. group contribution). Emphasizing individual performance encourages internal competition, while emphasizing group contribution encourages teamwork and collaboration.
A ‘career system’ refers to the overall movement of employees into, through, and out of an organization [23]. In contrast, a ‘promotion system’ focuses specifically on the policies and practices that govern vertical movement within an organizational hierarchy [40]. Although careers increasingly unfold across organizations, most organizations still have some form of hierarchy and promotion system that determines how vacancies are filled through internal vertical promotions [41,42]. Various typologies of organizational promotion systems can be found in the literature [38,43]. Synthesizing these, Litz [44] proposed a typology that distinguishes promotion systems along two dimensions: (1) the extent to which organizations use well-defined processes and criteria for promotion. In this case, promotion decisions are made systematically, following formalized procedures, specified criteria and rules. (2) The extent to which promotion is linked to a defined length of service (tenure). In this case, advancement requires incumbents to complete a defined period (time in grade) in a particular role before becoming eligible for further promotion. Promotion may also be tied to overall seniority within the organization based on the rationale that long-serving employees have the necessary experience and knowledge to succeed in higher positions.
Together, these four dimensions—(1) priority of internal recruitment, (2) relevance of group contributions, (3) formality of the process, and (4) relevance of tenure—allow for a nuanced characterization of OCS. Building on this conceptual framework, the present study addresses the following central research question:
Research Question. What kinds of OCS do Millennial business students expect?

2.2. National Context and Cross-National Variation

Work is embedded in broader social and institutional contexts and shaped by socially shared frames of reference [45,46,47,48,49]. Even among economically developed Western democracies such as Canada and Germany, differences in institutional environments and socialization processes shape how individuals evaluate organizational practices. This study does not directly measure macro-level cultural dimensions. Instead, nationality is treated as a contextual grouping variable, while culturally influenced motivational priorities are captured through individual-level PVO based on Schwartz’s value theory. Given these contextual differences, it is reasonable to expect that expectations regarding OCSs vary across countries. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1.
Canadian and German Millennial business students have different expectations of OCS.

2.3. Personal Value Orientations (PVO)

There is a long tradition of studying the effects of values on workplace behaviors and attitudes [50,51]. According to Rokeach, values are basic beliefs that “a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence” [51] (p. 5). Building on Rokeach’s work, Shalom Schwartz developed his theory of basic human values, which provides a widely used and empirically validated framework for conceptualizing and measuring individual value orientations [52,53,54]. Schwartz’s framework is particularly appropriate for the present study because it conceptualizes values as individual-level motivational priorities that guide attitudes and behavior across contexts. In contrast to cultural frameworks such as Hofstede’s cultural dimensions [55] or the GLOBE project [56], which primarily capture societal-level cultural patterns, Schwartz’s theory operates at the individual level and therefore also allows the analysis of value differences between individuals within the same national context. This focus aligns with the objective of the present study, which seeks to explain heterogeneity in OCS expectations among individuals rather than differences between national cultures. Within Schwartz’s framework, values are defined as trans-situational goals that function as guiding principles in individuals’ lives and influence attitudes and behavior across situations [52,54,57].
Schwartz [52,53] distinguishes ten values based on differences in underlying motivations: universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation and self-direction. Each value motivates and rewards specific human behaviors [58]. These values are organized into four higher-order groups along two dimensions, as shown in Table 1 [52,59].
The first dimension contrasts openness to change values (stimulation and self-direction), which emphasize change and independence, with conservation values (tradition, conformity, and security), which stress stability and the preservation of traditional practices. The second dimension contrasts self-enhancement values (hedonism, power and achievement), which prioritize personal interests, even at the expense of others, with self-transcendence values (benevolence and universalism), which focus on transcending self-interest and promoting the well-being of all. Values in the openness to change group stem from mastery and activation needs and emphasize independence, autonomy, challenge, and creativity. Values in the self-enhancement group stem from the need for gratification, success, recognition, dominance, and control. These values emphasize competence, self-gratification, social status, and prestige. Values in the conservation group stem from the need for security, belonging, and stability. They focus on harmony, self-restraint, and respect for tradition and authority. Finally, values in the self-transcendence group stem from the need for affiliation, group cohesion, and shared survival. These values emphasize cooperation, equality, and the common good. Given that individuals’ PVO determine their work-related attitudes, we hypothesize that PVO also determine their expectations of OCS. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2.
Millennial business students’ expectations of OCS vary according to their PVO.

2.4. Linking PVO to Expectations of OCS

According to Schwartz [52,53,54], values are rooted in individuals’ needs and reflect distinct motivational goals. These goals underlie more concrete expectations [57], including expectations regarding the design of OCS. Therefore, examining how the motivational goals embedded in values relate to specific OCS features provides deeper insight into the drivers of individuals’ expectations.
The motivational goals associated with the openness to change value group, such as excitement, novelty, challenge, independence, autonomy, creation, and exploration [52], suggest that individuals who score high on openness to change place a strong emphasis on new opportunities and experiences. Therefore, they are unlikely to expect OCS to prioritize internal recruitment over external recruitment, as this would limit opportunities for new challenges outside the organization. Empirical evidence supports this reasoning. Segers and colleagues [60] found that independence and autonomy are positively associated with a boundaryless mindset, suggesting that careers need not be confined to a single organization. Similarly, Abessolo and colleagues [30] showed that boundaryless and protean career orientations are closely linked to intrinsic values corresponding to the openness to change value group. Based on this reasoning, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2a.
Openness to change is negatively related to the expectation that the OCS emphasizes internal recruitment.
According to Schwartz [52], the motivational goals associated with the self-enhancement value group include pleasure, self-gratification, competence, success, status, prestige, control, and dominance. These goals suggest that individuals driven by self-enhancement prioritize personal gains over collective interests. Therefore, they are unlikely to expect OCS to emphasize group contributions, as their ambition is to distinguish themselves from others. Empirical evidence confirms that achievement values [61] and power values [62,63] are positively related to the pursuit of advancement. Accordingly, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2b.
Self-enhancement is negatively related to the expectation that the OCS emphasizes group contributions.
The motivational goals associated with the conservation value group, such as security, harmony, stability, restraint, and respect for tradition [52], suggest that individuals high in conservation also value experience and maturity. Consequently, they are likely to expect OCS to emphasize tenure as a central criterion in promotion decisions, as tenure mitigates the perceived risk of failure associated with advancement. Empirical evidence supports the idea that conformity and security are associated with loss avoidance and protective behaviors [31], which aligns with an OCS that relies on tenure-based promotion. Similarly, Segers and colleagues [60] found that security was negatively related to mobility preference. Taken together, these findings support the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2c.
Conservation is positively related to the expectation that the OCS emphasizes tenure.
The motivational goals associated with the self-transcendence value group, such as protecting and enhancing the well-being of others [52], imply that individuals high in self-transcendence emphasize equal opportunities, fair treatment, and social justice [64]. Consequently, these individuals are likely to prefer OCS designs that ensure fairness and impartiality, which is most effectively achieved through formalization. Based on this, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2d.
Self-transcendence is positively related to the expectation that the OCS is formalized.
Additional hypotheses could be developed to examine the relationship between PVO and OCS expectations. However, the above hypotheses capture the most significant connections between Schwartz’s [52,53] four higher-order value groups and core OCS design features. Furthermore, these hypotheses are supported by existing empirical evidence.

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

A cross-national quantitative survey was conducted to examine Millennial business students’ expectations of OCS, compare these expectations across countries, and link them to underlying PVO. Data were collected from Canadian and German business students using a structured questionnaire. Country served as a grouping variable to assess cross-national variation. No macro-level cultural indices were included. Instead, culturally influenced motivational priorities were captured through individual-level PVO. Accordingly, the study examines contextual differences in OCS expectations rather than national culture effects.

3.2. Sampling Strategy

A non-probability convenience sampling strategy was employed. Business students from two universities, one in Canada and one in Germany, were invited to participate. Born after 1980, they belong to the Millennial cohort [3,5]. As participants were enrolled in Organizational Behavior (OB) and Human Resource Management (HRM) courses, they were familiar with relevant terminology. Work experience was neither required nor captured, as the study examines expectations rather than evaluations of experienced OCS. Such expectations are particularly relevant at the pre-entry stage, when individuals form preferences regarding prospective employers that guide early career decisions.

3.3. Sample

A total of 513 students completed the survey. Of these, 229 questionnaires were excluded from the analysis because the respondents (a) did not fully complete the questionnaire, (b) were not born in Canada or Germany, (c) did not primarily grow up there, or (d) did not hold exclusive Canadian or German citizenship. This reduced the final sample size to N = 284. The large number of exclusions was primarily due to the high proportion of international students at both universities. Since this study examines national differences in expectations regarding OCS, only participants who met all inclusion criteria—being born and raised in Canada or Germany and holding citizenship in one of these countries—were included to avoid biasing the results. Of the 284 participants, 130 (45.8%) were born and raised in Canada and held exclusive Canadian citizenship, while 154 (54.2%) were born and raised in Germany and held exclusive German citizenship. A total of 113 participants (39.8%) were male, and 171 (60.2%) were female. At the time of data collection, participants were between 20 and 34 years old (M = 24.87, SD = 2.41), with a median birth year of 1994. This suggests that they are predominantly late Millennials, as the cutoff to Generation Z is typically between 1995 and 1997 [65]. Since debates about the usefulness of the generational concept acknowledge that overly detailed chronological divisions between generations are necessarily arbitrary [66,67], this paper adopts Carlson’s [68] definition of Millennials as individuals born between the early 1980s and late 1990s. Given their age and student status, most respondents were at an early career stage and likely had limited full-time work experience and family responsibilities. The study therefore captures expectations regarding OCS prior to entry into long-term professional employment.

3.4. Data Collection

Data were collected through a self-administered survey. Participants were enrolled in undergraduate and graduate business programs and completed the survey during Organizational Behavior or Human Resource Management courses. All participants received the same questionnaire in English. Since the German students were enrolled in programs taught entirely in English, they had the necessary language skills to complete the survey, thus eliminating the risk of translation errors. Participants completed the questionnaire voluntarily. The questionnaire included demographic items as well as questions about participants’ expectations of OCS and their PVO.

3.5. Measures

All variables, except for demographic characteristics (gender, age, and citizenship), were measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = agree).
Expectations concerning the design of OCS were measured along four features: (1) the priority of internal recruitment, (2) the relevance of group contributions, (3) the formality of the process, and (4) the relevance of tenure.
The expectation that internal recruitment is prioritized was measured by the following item: “At my prospective employer, internal succession planning should be extensively used for filling management positions.” The expectation that group contributions are recognized was measured by the following item: “At my prospective employer, it should be important to consider an individual’s contribution to the group’s performance for promotion.” Both items were derived from Sonnenfeld and Peiperl [23]. The expectation that promotion processes are formalized was measured by the following item: “I would like to work for an organization, where clear formal regulations for promotion exist.” Finally, the expectation that tenure is considered in promotion decisions was measured by the following item: “I would like to work for an organization in which promotion depends on having served at least for a specified minimum of time in a position to gain experience before promotion can occur.” Both items were derived from Litz [44].
Participants’ PVO were measured using Schwartz’s ten universal human values, each with two items. These items were taken from the Personal Values Questionnaire (PVQ), which was developed by Schwartz [58] and adapted for a workplace context. A sample item for power reads: “I would like to make a career that enables me to be in charge of and supervise others.” Then, scores for PVO were aggregated at the level of higher-order value groups.

3.6. Issues of Validity, Reliability and Ethical Considerations

Expectations of OCS were measured across the four design features: (1) priority of internal recruitment, (2) relevance of group contributions, (3) formality of the process, and (4) relevance of tenure. Since OCS expectations are not psychological constructs in the strict sense, single-item measures were used, with one item representing each feature. Though there are concerns about using single-item measurements because standard reliability tests (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) cannot be applied, the literature supports using them in organizational research when constructs are narrow and well defined [69,70]. In this case, single-item measures demonstrate acceptable reliability and validity [71,72]. The OCS design features—internal staffing, group contributions, formal processes and tenure—are unidimensional and clearly definable. Thus, using single measures seemed legitimate [73]. Additionally, the items were drawn from established typologies [23,44], which adds further content validity to the approach.
We assessed the reliability of the measures for the higher-order value groups using McDonald’s omega (ω), which is considered more appropriate than Cronbach’s alpha for short scales and when items are not tau-equivalent or have correlated error variances [74,75]. The higher-order value groups showed the following reliability coefficients: Conservation (ω = 0.715—after dropping one item), Self-Enhancement (ω = 0.713), Openness to Change (ω = 0.628 after drop-ping one item), and Self-Transcendence (ω = 0.618). Although the latter two are slightly below the generally accepted threshold of 0.70, these coefficients are still considered acceptable. Schwartz’s PVQ, from which the items were drawn, is widely accepted as a valid scale, and its reliability and validity have been confirmed in various studies [76]. However, the internal consistency indices are often low for three reasons: (1) There are a small number of items per value. (2) Items are constructed to capture different conceptual aspects of values. (3) Values tend to have low intersubject response variability, resulting in lower internal consistency scores [77]. Therefore, despite modest omega values, the reliability of the PVO measures remains within acceptable limits.
Throughout the study, ethical considerations were carefully followed. Participation was completely voluntary and anonymous. Participants implied informed consent by completing the questionnaire and they could withdraw at any time without consequence. All survey responses were aggregated to prevent identification of individual participants, and data confidentiality was strictly maintained.

3.7. Analytical Procedures

Prior to the analyses, the data were screened for assumption violations. Normality tests (Shapiro–Wilk and Kolmogorov–Smirnov; both p < 0.05) revealed deviations from normal distributions. Therefore, nonparametric procedures were used for group comparisons. Friedman’s two-way analysis of variance by ranks was used to compare expectations across the four OCS design features. Mann–Whitney U-tests were used to assess differences between Canadian and German respondents.
To examine the predictive influence of PVO on OCS expectations, multiple ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses were conducted. Although the dependent variables were measured using five-point Likert scales and distributional tests indicated non-normality, OLS does not require normally distributed predictors or outcomes. The normality assumption pertains to residuals for exact small-sample inference. With a sample size of N = 284, parameter estimates are considered robust under the Central Limit Theorem [78]. Regression assumptions—linearity, independence, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity—were examined, and no severe violations were detected.
Since the residuals showed deviations from normality, bootstrapping with 2000 resamples was applied to obtain bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) confidence intervals. This approach provides distribution-independent inference and enhances the robustness of the reported estimates [79,80].

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, and mean ranks of the items that measure expectations of the four OCS features. The table also reports the number of items, McDonald’s omegas, standardized means, and standard deviations for the four higher-order value groups. Additionally, it reports correlations (Spearman’s rho) among all variables.

4.2. Millennial Business Students’ Expectations of OCS Design Features

The results show that all four features of OCS were rated above the theoretical mean (3.00). Specifically, the expectation that group contributions be recognized for promotion received the highest rating (M = 4.14, SD = 0.82). This was followed by the expectation that organizations follow formal processes when promoting employees (M = 3.99, SD = 0.91); the prioritization of internal staffing when filling vacant positions (M = 3.44, SD = 0.82); and the definition of some kind of time-in-grade before promotion can occur (M = 3.17, SD = 1.26).
A related-samples Friedman’s two-way analysis of variance by ranks was conducted to compare the ratings of the expected OCS design features. There was a statistically significant difference between the ratings of the four features, χ2(3, N = 284) = 162.93, p < 0.001. Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc tests revealed significant differences among all features (p < 0.001) after Bonferroni adjustments, except between Group and Formality (p = 0.104) and Internal and Tenure (p = 0.283). This indicates that the difference between the two higher-ranked features, Group (MRank = 3.01) and Formality (MRank = 2.84), was not significant, nor was the difference between the two lower-ranked features, Internal (MRank = 2.13) and Tenure (MRank = 2.02).
These findings answer our research question by identifying the OCS features that Millennial business respondents in this study expect organizations to emphasize: They expect recognition of group contributions in promotion decisions; implementation of formal promotion criteria and processes; prioritization of internal recruitment; and consideration of tenure as a prerequisite for advancement. However, acknowledgment of group contributions and formal processes are significantly more important than prioritizing internal staffing and considering tenure. This pattern indicates that early-career Millennial professionals particularly expect transparent, consistently applied, and collectively oriented promotion practices, while expectations regarding internal recruitment and tenure are comparatively less important.

4.3. Cross-National Differences in Millennial Business Students’ Expectations of OCS Design Features

Next, an independent samples Mann–Whitney U-test was performed to determine the significance of differences in ratings of the four OCS features between Canadian and German respondents.
As shown in Table 3, a statistically significant difference was found in the rating of Group between Canadians (MRank = 155.67) and Germans (MRank = 131.38), U = 8298.00, Z = −2.71, p = 0.007, r = 0.16, with Canadians rating this feature higher than Germans. The same pattern emerged for Formality and Tenure. For Formality, the results were MRank (Canadian) = 164.25, MRank (German) = 124.14, U = 7182.00, Z = −4.33, p < 0.001, r = 0.26, while for Tenure they were MRank (Canadian) = 152.85, MRank (German) = 133.77, U = 8665.00, Z = −2.00, p = 0.046, r = 0.12. However, no significant difference was found between Canadians and Germans for Internal. All effect sizes (Pearson’s r) were small (<0.30). The means, standard deviations, mean ranks, and test statistics (U, Z, p, and r) are reported in Table 3.

4.4. Predictive Influence of PVO on Millennial Business Students’ Expectations of OCS Design Features

Correlation analysis (Table 2) revealed moderate correlations between conservation values and tenure (rs(282) = 0.34, p < 0.01) and between self-enhancement values and the group contribution criterion (rs(282) = 0.31, p < 0.01). All other significant correlations were small.
To examine the predictive influence of PVO (Self-Enhancement, Self-Transcendence, Openness to Change, and Conservation) on participants’ expectations of OCS features (Internal, Group, Formality, and Tenure) while accounting for potential confounding effects, multiple ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses were conducted including country, gender, and age as control variables. The regression results are presented in Table 4. Because residuals deviated from normality, bootstrapping with 2000 samples was applied to obtain robust coefficient estimates and bias-corrected and accelerated confidence intervals [79,80]. For each dependent variable (Internal, Group, Formality, and Tenure), two models were estimated: Model 1 included all predictors, and Model 2 presents the optimized model after backward selection that excluded non-significant predictors.
For Internal Recruitment, Openness to Change (B = 0.192, p < 0.05) and Conservation (B = 0.348, p < 0.001) were significant positive predictors in the optimized model, explaining 9.5% of the variance (Adjusted R2 = 0.095, F = 15.93, p < 0.001). None of the control variables reached statistical significance.
For Group Contribution, Self-Enhancement (B = 0.383, p < 0.01) and Self-Transcendence (B = 0.231, p < 0.05) were significant positive predictors. In addition, Country (B = 0.253, p < 0.01) and Gender (B = 0.260, p < 0.01) were significant, indicating that Canadian respondents and female respondents expressed stronger preferences for recognizing group contributions. The optimized model explained 15.1% of the variance (Adjusted R2 = 0.151, F = 13.62, p < 0.001).
For Formality, Self-Transcendence (B = 0.435, p < 0.001) was the strongest positive predictor. Country (B = 0.508, p < 0.001) and Gender (B = 0.254, p < 0.05) were also significant, indicating stronger preferences for formalized promotion systems among Canadian and female respondents. The optimized model explained 15.7% of the variance (Adjusted R2 = 0.157, F = 18.51, p < 0.001).
For Tenure, Conservation (B = 0.643, p < 0.001) was the only significant predictor in the optimized model. None of the control variables were significant. The model explained 12.1% of the variance (Adjusted R2 = 0.121, F = 40.13, p < 0.001).
Across all models, inclusion of control variables did not substantially alter the magnitude or direction of the PVO effects. Multicollinearity was not a concern, as all tolerance values were ≥0.10 and all VIF values were < 10.

4.5. Summary of Hypotheses Testing

Hypothesis H1, which predicts that expectations of OCS vary by country, is partially supported. Although Canadian and German respondents exhibit similar tendencies and identical rankings of all features, their mean ratings of three of the four OCS features differ significantly. Canadians value formal processes, acknowledgment of group contributions, and consideration of tenure more highly than Germans do. However, the effect sizes remain small (r = 0.12–0.26).
Hypotheses H2a and H2b were rejected. H2a predicted a negative relationship between openness to change values and a preference for internal recruitment. H2b predicted a negative relationship between self-enhancement values and a preference for recognizing group contributions. However, the regression analyses revealed positive relationships between these PVO and the respective OCS features, contrary to expectations.
Hypotheses H2c and H2d were confirmed. H2c predicted that conservation values would be positively related to a preference for tenure-based promotion, and H2d predicted that self-transcendence values would be positively related to a preference for formalized promotion systems. Consistent with these hypotheses, both PVO positively influence preferences for the respective OCS features.
Across the models, the inclusion of country, gender, and age as control variables increased the explained variance for some OCS features (Adjusted R2 ranging from 0.095 to 0.157) without substantially altering the magnitude or direction of the PVO effects. Overall, the models explained approximately 10–16% of the variance in OCS expectations. While these effect sizes are modest, they are meaningful in attitudinal research, where outcomes are typically influenced by multiple factors. The findings indicate that PVO consistently and robustly shape Millennial respondents’ expectations of OCS. Therefore, Hypothesis H2, which predicts that Millennial business students’ expectations of OCS vary according to their PVO, is supported.

5. Discussion

This study contributes to theories of organizational career systems (OCS) and personal value orientations (PVO) by demonstrating that Millennial business students’ OCS expectations are systematically related to their underlying PVO. It moves beyond reductionist perspectives that explain career expectations primarily through cohort effects by positioning PVO as a broader and more generalizable explanatory mechanism [81,82]. By linking OCS expectations to PVO rather than generational membership per se, this study challenges essentialist interpretations of generational differences. The findings suggest that heterogeneity within the Millennial cohort is meaningfully explained by underlying motivational value structures, thereby offering a more differentiated and theoretically grounded account of career expectations that extends beyond generational labeling.
The findings show that participants belonging to the Millennial cohort strongly favor recognizing team contributions in promotion decisions and expect formal procedures that ensure advancement is systematic, transparent, and fair. Conversely, they place less value on internal staffing priorities for higher-level positions and tenure as a promotion criterion. This study provides one of the first empirical examinations of members of the Millennial age cohort’s expectations regarding central design features of OCS, while simultaneously advancing career system theory by introducing an individual-level value perspective. Nevertheless, the results align with existing characterizations of Millennials as valuing teamwork, demanding transparency, exhibiting lower organizational loyalty, and distancing themselves from traditional career models [4,6,8,17]. The results also reinforce earlier evidence of Millennials’ strong desire for rapid advancement and success [5,7], which explains their reluctance to accept seniority-based promotion systems.
Additionally, our results demonstrate that value-based explanations provide a more theoretically precise account than generational labels alone. Conceptualizing OCS expectations as manifestations of motivational goals shifts the focus from cohort-based attribution to underlying value structures. This perspective underscores the importance of incorporating value theory into career research to explain both the convergence and divergence of expectations [59].
As predicted, tenure-based promotion systems are particularly favored by conservative individuals. Their respect for experience, reluctance to disrupt the social order by outpacing others, and preference for stability and security help explain this relationship. Similarly, individuals high in self-transcendence particularly value formal promotion systems, which are transparent and nondiscriminatory by design. Since Weber [83], it has been recognized that applying formal rules—the essence of legal authority—protects against arbitrariness and favoritism. The principle of ‘equality before the law’ thus provides a compelling normative foundation for self-transcendent individuals’ preference for formalized procedures.
Some findings ran counter to our hypotheses and warrant further theoretical consideration. Hypothesis 2a assumed that openness to change values would align with boundaryless, externally oriented career preferences. Prior research has linked openness-related values to protean and boundaryless career orientations that emphasize mobility beyond organizational boundaries and self-directed career management [30,60]. However, internal recruitment systems do not necessarily imply confinement. Rather, they may signal structured development pathways, internal job rotation, and opportunities for upward mobility within the organization. For individuals high in openness to change, such systems may represent institutionalized opportunities for growth, challenge, and exploration within a secure context. In this sense, internal labor markets may enable ‘safe mobility’ rather than restrict it. This interpretation also resonates with findings by Dries and colleagues [18], who demonstrate that organizational careers remain an important reference point even among younger generations. Thus, openness to change may not imply rejection of internal careers, but rather a preference for dynamic opportunities within them.
Similarly, Hypothesis 2b assumed that self-enhancement values would conflict with collective promotion criteria. Achievement and power values have consistently been associated with advancement striving and status pursuit [61,62,63]. However, recognizing group contributions in promotion decisions does not necessarily undermine individual distinction. In contemporary organizations, collective performance often serves as a platform through which individuals demonstrate competence and impact. High-performing team members or leaders may gain visibility and status precisely through collective success. Thus, individuals high in self-enhancement may support group-based promotion criteria as arenas for demonstrating excellence and attaining recognition, while individuals high in self-transcendence may endorse them out of concern for fairness and collective welfare. The positive association observed for both PVO therefore reflects different motivational logics converging on a shared institutional preference.
These findings can be interpreted through the lens of context-dependent value activation. Research in value theory emphasizes that values influence behavior through motivational goals, yet the specific expression of these goals depends on situational opportunities and institutional arrangements [84,85,86]. In the present context, promotion systems that recognize group contributions may satisfy distinct motivational logics. Individuals high in self-enhancement may view collective success as a platform for demonstrating competence, leadership, and status attainment, whereas individuals high in self-transcendence may favor such systems because they reflect cooperation and concern for collective welfare. Rather than reflecting simple value opposition, the results indicate motivational complementarity: distinct value orientations may converge in supporting the same organizational arrangements through different motivational logics. This perspective suggests that organizational practices may achieve stability not only by resolving value conflicts but also by accommodating multiple motivational logics. This insight extends Schwartz’s value theory [53,54,58] by emphasizing that value-behavior relationships are context dependent and may produce equifinal institutional preferences. It therefore highlights the need to theorize about value complementarities alongside value conflicts. In this way, our findings enrich both value theory and OCS scholarship [85,86,87].
Furthermore, our findings suggest that cross-national differences in OCS expectations are gradual rather than fundamental. Although Canadian and German respondents differed significantly in three of the four OCS features, they prioritized these features in the same order. This convergence may reflect similarities in institutional frameworks, economic conditions, and higher education systems that shape expectations. It may also be linked to the relatively small differences observed in PVO. Additionally, a shared professional or academic culture may attenuate national distinctions [11,88], given that all participants were business students. Future research including more diverse professional groups and national contexts is needed to assess the generalizability of these findings. Because PVO are shaped by social context [53,89], national-level cultural influences may exert a stronger effect on OCS expectations than could be detected in this study [90].

5.1. Implications for Practice

While the explanatory power of the models is modest and the sample consists of early-career business students, the findings provide directional insights for organizations seeking to attract and retain similar talent segments. The results suggest that members of this Millennial cohort value OCS that recognize group contributions and expect formal procedures that ensure systematic, transparent, and fair advancement.
Organizations may therefore consider the following approaches: (1) Embed teamwork as an explicit criterion in performance evaluations, supported by peer- and 360-degree feedback [91]. (2) Formalize promotion processes by defining clear, standardized criteria and procedures. Transparent systems are likely to enhance perceptions of fairness, strengthen trust in leadership, and increase employee engagement [92]. (3) Proactively communicate these practices in recruitment contexts. Employer branding efforts could highlight fairness, transparency, and teamwork through career websites, recruitment campaigns, and leadership role models [5,9]. (4) For multinational organizations, the findings suggest caution regarding overly standardized career systems. A ‘glocal’ approach may be appropriate: Core principles such as fairness and transparency can apply globally, while specific practices (e.g., tenure emphasis) may require adaptation to local cultural and institutional contexts [93,94].

5.2. Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, although this study compares respondents from two countries, it does not include macro-level measures of national culture. Nationality served as a contextual grouping variable, and cultural influences were captured only indirectly through individual-level PVO. Because the study focused on personal rather than cultural value orientations, cross-national differences cannot be conclusively attributed to cultural factors. Future research should therefore incorporate societal-level cultural value measures [54] to better capture culture-specific influences on OCS expectations.
Second, the study is based on a convenience sample of Canadian and German business students from two universities. Although all respondents belong to the Millennial cohort, the findings should not be interpreted as representative of Millennials more broadly. Educational background and early-career stage may shape career expectations independently of generational membership. In addition, work experience was neither required nor captured. Although the study examines expectations rather than experienced evaluations of OCS, limited exposure to real organizational practices may have influenced how respondents interpreted OCS features. The relative homogeneity of the sample limits generalizability, particularly to other professions and cultural contexts. Future research should therefore include more diverse disciplines, professions, and countries.
Third, because the study relied on self-reported survey data, response bias and common-method variance cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it remains unclear whether alignment or misalignment between OCS expectations and actual organizational practices influences recruitment and retention. Future studies could address this through multi-group analyses (e.g., comparing job offer acceptors vs. rejectors or organizational stayers vs. leavers), thereby linking expectations to observed behavioral outcomes. Qualitative approaches, such as interviews, may also provide deeper insight into the motivational logics underlying the sometimes contradictory relationships between values and OCS expectations.

6. Conclusions

This study examined the expectations of Millennial business students regarding organizational career systems (OCS) and the influence of personal value orientations (PVO) on business students in Canada and Germany. The findings show that the Millennial business students in our sample prefer promotion systems that recognize team contributions and adhere to transparent, formal procedures. They place less emphasis on internal staffing priorities and tenure-based advancement. Importantly, the results confirm that PVO systematically affect these expectations, indicating that values are a deeper and more generalizable explanatory mechanism than generational labels alone.
The analysis also revealed unexpected alignments between seemingly opposing value orientations. For instance, both self-enhancing and self-transcendent individuals supported recognizing group contributions, albeit for different reasons. These complementarities enrich value theory by showing that organizational practices can achieve stability not only by reconciling conflicts but also by accommodating diverse motivational logics.
Cross-national differences between Canadian and German respondents were present but modest, suggesting gradual rather than fundamental variation. This convergence likely reflects similarities in institutional and economic contexts, as well as a shared professional background among business students. These differences should therefore be interpreted as contextual variation rather than direct evidence of national cultural effects. Broader and more heterogeneous samples are needed to clarify the extent to which these patterns generalize across professions and national contexts.
For practice, the study underscores the importance of designing OCS that are fair, transparent, and oriented toward teamwork. Multinational organizations should adopt a ‘glocal’ approach that combines universal principles with sensitivity to local contexts. Future research should extend this line of inquiry by linking Millennials’ expectations to their actual career outcomes, including job choice, retention, and turnover.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.L.; methodology, H.L. and S.L.; validation, H.L.; formal analysis, H.L.; investigation, H.L. and S.L.; resources, H.L. and S.L.; data curation, H.L. and S.L.; writing—original draft preparation, H.L. and S.L.; writing—review and editing, H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Research Ethics Board of St. Francis Xavier University (protocol code 21875 and date of approval 25 October 2013).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Docquier, F.; Machado, J. Global competition for attracting talents and the world economy. World Econ. 2016, 39, 530–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Howe, N.; Strauss, W.; Matson, R.J. Millennials Rising. The Next Great Generation; Vintage: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  3. Eisner, S.P. Managing generation Y. SAM Adv. Manag. J. 2005, 70, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Twenge, J.M.; Campbell, S.M.; Hoffman, B.J.; Lance, C.E. Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. J. Manag. 2010, 36, 1117–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ng, E.S.W.; Schweitzer, L.; Lyons, S.T. New generation, great expectations: A field study of the Millennial generation. J. Bus. Psychol. 2010, 25, 281–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Costanza, D.P.; Badger, J.M.; Fraser, R.L.; Severt, J.B.; Gade, P.A. Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. J. Bus. Psychol. 2012, 27, 375–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mencl, J.; Lester, S.W. More alike than different: What generations value and how the values affect employee workplace perceptions. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2014, 21, 257–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Myers, K.K.; Sadaghiani, K. Millennials in the workplace: A communication perspective on Millennials’ organizational relationships and performance. J. Bus. Psychol. 2010, 25, 225–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ayoobzadeh, M.; Schweitzer, L.; Lyons, S.; Ng, E. A tale of two generations: A time-lag study of career expectations. Pers. Rev. 2024, 53, 1649–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Badar, K.; Lasthuizen, K. Twenty years of research on Millennials at work: A structural review using bibliometric and content analysis. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, L.; Abu Hasan, N. Exploring organizational career growth: A systematic literature review and future research directions. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2024, 11, 2398728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. The Deloitte Global 2023 Gen Z and Millennial Survey. Available online: https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/about/press-room/2023-gen-z-and-millenial-survey.html (accessed on 1 September 2025).
  13. Fuchs, O.; Lorenz, E.; Fuchs, L. Generational differences in attitudes towards work and career: A systematic literature review on the preferences of generations X, Y and Z. Int. J. Innov. Res. Adv. Stud. 2024, 11, 54–71. [Google Scholar]
  14. Brink, K.E.; Zondag, M.M. Examining job attribute preferences across three generational cohorts. J. Career Dev. 2019, 48, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Badri, S.K.Z.; Yap, W.M.; Ramos, H.M. Workplace affective well-being: Gratitude and friendship in helping Millennials to thrive at work. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2022, 30, 479–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pasko, R.; Maellaro, R.; Stodnick, M. A study of Millennials’ preferred work-related attributes and retention. Empl. Relat. Int. J. 2021, 43, 774–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. De Hauw, S.; De Vos, A. Millennials’ career perspective and psychological contract expectations: Does the recession lead to lowered expectations? J. Bus. Psychol. 2010, 25, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dries, N.; Pepermans, R.; de Kerpel, E. Exploring four generation’s beliefs about career: Is ‘satisfied’ the new ‘successful’? J. Manag. Psychol. 2008, 23, 907–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Crabtree, M.J. Employees’ perceptions of career management practices: The development of a new measure. J. Career Assess. 1999, 7, 203–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Eby, L.T.; Allen, T.A.; Brinley, A. A cross-level investigation of the relationship between career management practices and career-related attitudes. Group Organ. Manag. 2005, 30, 565–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gunz, H.P.; Jalland, R.M. Managerial careers and business strategies. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1996, 21, 718–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Krishnan, T.N.; Maheshwari, S.K. A re-conceptualization of career systems, its dimensions and proposed measures. Career Dev. Int. 2011, 16, 706–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sonnenfeld, J.A.; Peiperl, M.A. Staffing policy as a strategic response: A typology of career systems. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1988, 13, 588–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Boyle, K.A. Career identities and Millennials’ response to the graduate transition to work: Lessons learned. J. Educ. Work 2022, 35, 78–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kodagoda, T.; Deheragoda, N. War for talent: Career expectations of Millennial employees in Sri Lanka. Millenn. Asia 2021, 12, 209–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pignault, A.; Vayre, E.; Houssemand, C. What do they want from a career? University students’ future career expectations and resources in a health crisis context. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hall, D.T. Protean careers of the 21st century. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 1996, 10, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Arthur, M.; Rousseau, D. The Boundaryless Career: A New Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ng, E.S.W.; Posch, A.; Köllen, T.; Kraiczy, N.; Thom, N. Do “one-size” employment policies fit all young workers? Heterogeneity in work attribute preferences among the Millennial generation. Bus. Res. Q. 2022, 27, 483–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Abessolo, M.; Hirschi, A.; Rossier, J. Work values underlying protean and boundaryless career orientations. Career Dev. Int. 2017, 22, 241–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gaile, A.; Baumane-Vitolina, I.; Sumilo, E.; Skiltere, D.; Flores, R.M. Values and career behaviors of entrepreneurs and employees. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2019, 26, 1607–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Iqbal, M.B.; Li, J.; Yang, S.; Sindhu, P. Value-driven career attitude and job performance: An intermediary role of organizational citizenship behavior. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1038832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mello, R.; Suutari, V.; Dickmann, M. Taking stock of expatriates’ career success after international assignments: A review and future research agenda. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2023, 33, 100913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rodrigues, R.; Guest, D.; Budjanovcanin, A. From anchors to orientations: Towards a contemporary theory of career preferences. J. Vocat. Behav. 2013, 83, 142–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Baruch, Y.; Budhwar, P.S. A comparative study of career practices for management staff in Britain and India. Int. Bus. Rev. 2006, 15, 84–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Krishnan, T.N. Diversity in career systems: The role of employee work values. Indian J. Ind. Relat. 2012, 47, 685–699. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23267370 (accessed on 12 August 2025).
  37. Baruch, Y. Career systems in transition: A normative model for organizational career practices. Pers. Rev. 2003, 32, 231–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nicholson, N. Career systems in crisis: Change and opportunity in the information age. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 1996, 10, 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wils, T.; Guérin, G.; Bernard, R. Career systems as a configuration of career management activities. . Int. J. Career Manag. 1992, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ferris, G.R.; Buckley, M.R.; Allen, G.M. Promotion systems in organizations. Hum. Resour. Plan. 1992, 15, 47–68. [Google Scholar]
  41. Bidwell, M.; Briscoe, F. The dynamics of interorganizational careers. Organ. Sci. 2010, 21, 1034–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ray, C. Internal mobility: A review and agenda for future research. J. Manag. 2023, 50, 264–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bruederl, J.; Diekmann, A.; Preisendoerfer, P. Patterns of intraorganizational mobility: Tournament models, path dependency, and early promotion effects. Soc. Sci. Res. 1991, 20, 197–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Litz, S. Karrieremanagement: Dynamik, Ansätze, Beispiele; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Fouad, N.A.; Byars-Winston, A.M. Cultural context of career choice: Meta-analysis of race/ethnicity differences. Career Dev. Q. 2005, 53, 223–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Taras, V.; Rowney, J.; Steel, P. Half a century of measuring culture: Review of approaches, challenges, and limitations based on the analysis of 121 instruments for quantifying culture. J. Int. Manag. 2009, 15, 357–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Adams, G.; Markus, H.R. Toward a conception of culture suitable for a social psychology of culture. In The Psychological Foundations of Culture; Schaller, M., Crandall, C.S., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Hillsdale, MI, USA, 2004; pp. 335–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gelfand, M.J.; Erez, M.; Aycan, Z. Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2007, 58, 479–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  50. Posner, B.Z.; Munson, J.M. The importance of values in understanding organizational behavior. Hum. Resour. Manag. 1979, 18, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values; Free-Press: New York, NY, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  52. Schwartz, S.H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 25, 1–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Schwartz, S.H. A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. Quest. Dev. Package Eur. Soc. Surv. 2003, 259, 261. [Google Scholar]
  54. Schwartz, S.H. A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comp. Sociol. 2006, 5, 137–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hofstede, G.; Hofstede, G.J.; Minkov, M. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  56. House, R.J.; Hanges, P.J.; Javidan, M.; Dorfman, P.W.; Gupta, V. (Eds.) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies; Sage: London, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  57. Dose, J.J. Work values: An integrative framework and illustrative application to organizational socialization. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 1997, 70, 219–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Schwartz, S.H. An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2012, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ros, M.; Schwartz, S.H.; Surkiss, S. Basic individual values, work values, and the meaning of work. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 48, 49–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Segers, J.; Inceoglu, I.; Vloeberghs, D.; Bartram, D.; Henderick, E. Protean and boundaryless careers: A study on potential motivators. J. Vocat. Behav. 2008, 73, 212–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Goulet, L.R.; Singh, P. Career commitment: A re-examination and an extension. J. Vocat. Behav. 2002, 61, 73–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gandal, N.; Roccas, S.; Sagiv, L.; Wrzesniewski, A. Personal value priorities of economists. Hum. Relat. 2005, 58, 1227–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Tartakovsky, E.; Cohen, E. Values in the bank: Value preferences of bank frontline workers and branch managers. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2014, 23, 769–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Steenhaut, S.; van Kenhove, P. An empirical investigation of the relationships among a consumer’s personal values, ethical ideology and ethical beliefs. J. Bus. Ethics 2006, 64, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lanier, K. 5 things HR professionals need to know about Generation Z: Thought leaders share their views on the HR profession and its direction for the future. Strateg. HR Rev. 2017, 16, 288–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Costanza, D.; Finkelstein, L. Generationally based differences in the workplace: Is there a there? Ind. Organ. Psychol. 2015, 8, 308–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rudolph, C.W.; Rauvola, R.S.; Costanza, D.P.; Zacher, H. Generations and generational differences: Debunking myths in organizational science and practice and paving new paths forward. J. Bus. Psychol. 2021, 36, 945–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Carlson, E. The Lucky Few; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherland, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Fuchs, C.; Diamantopoulos, A. Using single-item measures for construct measurement in management research: Conceptual issues and application guidelines. Die Betriebswirtschaft 2009, 69, 195–210. [Google Scholar]
  70. Bergkvist, L.; Rossiter, J.R. The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. J. Mark. Res. 2007, 44, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Wei, X.; Zhang, L. Single-item measures: Queries, responses and suggestions. Adv. Psychol. Sci. 2019, 27, 1194–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Fisher, G.G.; Matthews, R.A.; Gibbons, A.M. Developing and investigating the use of single-item measures in organizational research. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2016, 21, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Diamantopoulos, A.; Sarstedt, M.; Fuchs, C.; Wilczynski, P.; Kaiser, S. Guidelines for choosing between multi-item and single-item scales for construct measurement: A predictive validity perspective. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 434–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Dunn, T.J.; Baguley, T.; Brunsden, V. From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br. J. Psychol. 2014, 105, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. McDonald, R.P. Test Theory: A Unified Treatment; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Hillsdale, MI, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sandy, C.J.; Gosling, S.D.; Schwartz, S.H.; Koelkebeck, T. The development and validation of brief and ultra brief measures of values. J. Personal. Assess. 2017, 99, 545–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Rodriguez, M.C.; Maeda, Y. Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha. Psychol. Methods 2006, 11, 306–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Field, A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  79. Efron, B.; Tibshirani, R.J. An Introduction to the Bootstrap; Chapman and Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wright, D.B.; London, K.; Field, A.P. Using bootstrap estimation and the plug-in principle for clinical psychology data. J. Exp. Psychopathol. 2011, 2, 252–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Lyons, S.; Kuron, L. Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. J. Organ. Behav. 2014, 35, 139–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Parry, E.; Urwin, P. Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and evidence. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2011, 13, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Weber, M. Economy and Society, 2019 Translated ed.; Harvard University Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Arieli, S.; Sagiv, L.; Roccas, S. Values at work: The impact of personal values in organisations. Appl. Psychol. 2020, 69, 230–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Schwartz, S.H.; Cieciuch, J.; Vecchione, M.; Davidov, E.; Fischer, R.; Beierlein, C.; Ramos, A.; Verkasalo, M.; Lönnqvist, J.-E.; Demirutku, K.; et al. Refining the theory of basic individual values. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 103, 663–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Roccas, S.; Sagiv, L. Personal values and behavior: Taking the cultural context into account. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2010, 4, 30–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Calogero, R.M.; Bardi, A.; Sutton, R.M. A need basis for values: Associations between the need for cognitive closure and value priorities. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2009, 46, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Auer-Rizzi, W.; Berry, M. Business vs. cultural frames of reference in group decision making: Interactions among Austrian, Finnish, and Swedish business students. J. Bus. Commun. 2000, 37, 264–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bardi, A.; Goodwin, R. The dual route to value change: Individual processes and cultural moderators. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2011, 42, 271–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Briscoe, J.; Dickmann, M.; Hall, D.T.; Mayrhofer, W.; Parry, E. Understanding Careers Around the Globe. Stories and Sourcebook; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Bracken, D.W.; Timmreck, C.W.; Church, A.H. (Eds.) The Handbook of Multisource Feedback: The Comprehensive Resource for Designing and Implementing MSF Processes; Jossey-Bass/Wiley: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  92. Cropanzano, R.; Bowen, D.E.; Gilliland, S.W. The management of organizational justice. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2007, 21, 34–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Aycan, Z. The interplay between cultural and institutional/structural contingencies in human resource management practices. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2005, 16, 1083–1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Houdek, P. The deep roots of cross-cultural differences in organizational behavior: Do human resource management education has to respect them? Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2023, 21, 100876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Higher-Order Value Groups, Values, and Motivational Goals Based on Schwartz’s [52] Theory of Basic Human Values.
Table 1. Higher-Order Value Groups, Values, and Motivational Goals Based on Schwartz’s [52] Theory of Basic Human Values.
Higher-Order Value GroupsValuesMotivational Goals
Self-EnhancementPowerSocial status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources
AchievementPersonal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards
HedonismPleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself
Openness to ChangeStimulationExcitement, novelty, and challenge in life
Self-DirectionIndependent thought and action-choosing, creating, exploring
Self-TranscendenceUniversalismUnderstanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection of the welfare of all people and nature
BenevolencePreservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in personal contact
ConservationTraditionRespect, commitment and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide
ConformityRestraint of actions, inclinations and impulses that could upset or harm others, or violate social expectations or norms
SecuritySafety, harmony and stability of society, of relationships, and of self
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables.
VariablesItemsωMSDCorrelations
12345678
OCS
1. Internal1 3.440.82
2. Group1 4.140.820.09
3. Formality1 3.990.910.19 **0.20 **
4. Tenure1 3.171.260.16 **−0.050.05
PVO
5. Self-Enhancement60.7134.290.500.060.31 **0.22 **−0.030.65
6. Self-Transcendence40.6184.400.530.090.28 **0.29 **−0.030.41 **0.68
7. Openness to Change30.6284.110.630.13 *0.20 **0.17 **−0.050.42 **0.34 **0.75
8. Conservation50.7153.040.780.28 **−0.050.12 *0.34 **0.060.02−0.090.69
Note. N = 284. McDonald’s ω is reported for value constructs. Values on the diagonal are average variances extracted (AVE) squared. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed).
Table 3. Group Differences in OCS Expectations and PVO (Mann–Whitney U Test).
Table 3. Group Differences in OCS Expectations and PVO (Mann–Whitney U Test).
VariablesCanadian (N = 130)German (N = 154)UZpr
MeanSDMRankMeanSDMRank
OCS
1 Internal3.480.84142.663.420.81142.369989.0−0.0330.9730.002
2 Group4.290.72155.674.010.88131.388298.0−2.7130.007 **0.161
3 Formality4.250.82164.253.770.93124.147182.0−4.3320.000 ***0.257
4 Tenure3.331.24152.853.031.27133.778665.0−2.00.046 *0.119
PVO
5 Self-Enhancement4.380.46156.384.210.52130.798206.0−2.6310.009 **0.156
6 Self-Transcendence4.410.52143.914.400.53141.319826.5−0.270.7870.016
7 Openness to Change4.200.63153.084.050.63133.578634.5−2.020.043 *0.12
8 Conservation3.290.82168.262.840.67120.766661.5−4.8720.000 ***0.29
Note. MRank = Mean Rank. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001 (two-tailed).
Table 4. OLS Regression Results with Bootstrapped Confidence Intervals (Full).
Table 4. OLS Regression Results with Bootstrapped Confidence Intervals (Full).
PredictorOCS Features
Model 1Model 2
BSEBca 95% CIBSEBca 95% CI
LowerUpperLowerUpper
Internal
Self-Enhancement−0.0800.113−0.3050.152
Self-Transcendence0.0370.097−0.1550.224
Openness to Change0.220 *0.0970.0330.4060.192 *0.0790.0380.349
Conservation0.382 ***0.0810.2150.5340.348 ***0.0740.2090.491
Control Variables
Country−0.1220.097−0.3130.076
Gender0.0620.102−0.1370.249
Age0.0060.020−0.0320.043
Model Fit
Adjusted R20.089 0.095
F4.956 *** 15.930 ***
Group
Self-Enhancement0.374 **0.1340.1330.6300.383 **0.1110.1770.614
Self-Transcendence0.220 *0.1040.0010.4250.231 *0.1020.0340.431
Openness to Change0.0280.116−0.2020.261
Conservation−0.1150.060−0.2290.010
Control Variables
Country0.274 **0.0910.0850.4550.253 **0.0910.0810.429
Gender0.258 *0.1020.0580.4520.260 **0.1010.0780.445
Age0.0210.020−0.0140.061
Model Fit
Adjusted R20.155 0.151
F8.418 *** 13.622 ***
Formality
Self-Enhancement0.1640.134−0.1130.431
Self-Transcendence0.345 **0.1140.1220.5630.435 ***0.0960.2520.610
Openness to Change0.0670.101−0.1320.263
Conservation0.0970.079−0.0560.253
Control Variables
Country0.470 ***0.1080.2710.6820.508 ***0.1000.3130.698
Gender0.285 **0.1080.0870.5020.254 *0.1100.0300.480
Age−0.0290.022−0.0740.016
Model Fit
Adjusted R20.164 0.157
F8.941 *** 18.512 ***
Tenure
Self-Enhancement−0.1780.171−0.5440.163
Self-Transcendence−0.0250.162−0.3490.277
Openness to Change0.0100.130−0.2570.291
Conservation0.651 ***0.1110.4350.8680.643 ***0.1020.4470.833
Control Variables
Country0.0390.159−0.2660.361
Gender−0.0740.158−0.3870.252
Age−0.0040.030−0.0630.057
Model Fit
Adjusted R20.109 0.121
F5.937 *** 40.133 ***
Note. B = Unstandardized Regression Coefficient; SE = Standard Error; Bca = Bias corrected accelerated; CI = Confidence Interval. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001 (two-tailed, based on 2000 bootstrap samples).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lassleben, H.; Litz, S. Organizational Career System Expectations and Personal Value Orientations: Evidence from Canadian and German Millennial Business Students. Merits 2026, 6, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits6020010

AMA Style

Lassleben H, Litz S. Organizational Career System Expectations and Personal Value Orientations: Evidence from Canadian and German Millennial Business Students. Merits. 2026; 6(2):10. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits6020010

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lassleben, Hermann, and Stefan Litz. 2026. "Organizational Career System Expectations and Personal Value Orientations: Evidence from Canadian and German Millennial Business Students" Merits 6, no. 2: 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits6020010

APA Style

Lassleben, H., & Litz, S. (2026). Organizational Career System Expectations and Personal Value Orientations: Evidence from Canadian and German Millennial Business Students. Merits, 6(2), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/merits6020010

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop