Talent Management and Generation Z: A Systematic Literature Review through the Lens of Employer Branding

Abstract

Generation Z is arriving on the labour scene. In the near future, this generation will dominate organisations’ recruitment and selection processes. Theories regarding the attraction and retention of talent were initially developed based on the characteristics of previous generations in the late 20th century. This study aimed to conduct the first comprehensive literature review focused on identifying the attributes of attracting and retaining Generation Z talent. The findings will allow for the identification of the most significant attributes within the examined context. However, certain gaps were uncovered, such as the limited availability of publications explaining the applicability of the conventional theory of attracting and retaining talent to Generation Z natives. Significant lines of research are also suggested for the future.

1. Introduction

Today’s society operates within a globalised context. The conventional belief from just a few years ago, wherein individuals expect to secure lifelong employment within a single company and remain in a fixed location, is no longer popular. This paradigm shift can be attributed to various factors, including the dissolution of barriers between nations, the accessibility of transportation through modern means, the advancements in technology, and, most notably, the rapid emergence of alternative work arrangements (Shet 2020; Stiglbauer et al. 2022). The global pandemic experienced from 2020 to 2022 has significantly influenced and solidified this transformation (Cappelli and Keller 2014; M. Islamiaty et al. 2022; Keller and Swaminathan 2020; Skuza et al. 2022; Vaiman et al. 2012). This new reality has opened up the labour market (Martin et al. 2011; Smith et al. 2019). Today, recruitment takes place in real time via the internet and social networks and on a global scale. This has created very complex scenarios in terms of human resource management (HRM) and talent retention (Benítez-Márquez et al. 2022; Howe and Strauss 2007). Turnover can now reach much higher levels (Biswas and Suar 2016; Zhong et al. 2023), especially in more vulnerable sectors, where working from home is increasingly being promoted and favoured by companies and employees. Hence, the workplace can be anywhere on the planet and, as a result, recruiting and attracting talent has become virtually global (Charbonnier-Voirin et al. 2017; Lai et al. 2019; McDonnell et al. 2017; Plé 2019).

So-called Generation Z (GenZ) is now starting to enter the labour market. These are the individuals born between 1997 and 2012, who are now aged between 11 and 26 (Dimock 2019). GenZ natives have behavioural characteristics that distinguish them from previous generations, namely millennials, Generation X, and baby boomers. Since they are significantly influenced by their upbringing, which is characterised by a stable social environment, ample availability of resources, and a deep immersion in the digital realm, the recruitment and management of GenZ individuals present additional challenges for organisations (Deloitte 2022; Schroth 2019). In 2021, around 21 per cent of the US population belonged to this generation (Statista 2021), so in the near future, the recruitment and selection of new employees in companies will be dominated by GenZ natives (Zhong et al. 2023). The theories currently used to frame talent management (TM), including employer branding (EB), are of fundamental importance (Edwards 2009; Lievens and Slaughter 2016; Stiglbauer et al. 2022).

The organisational strategy known as EB (Biswas and Suar 2016; Zhong et al. 2023) has demonstrated high effectiveness and is widely recognised as a suitable approach to attract and retain talented individuals (Kapoor 2023). It is important to note that these theoretical models were developed based on diverse organisational contexts and generations of workers who were influenced by vastly different environments compared to the current GenZ cohort (Cappelli and Keller 2013). Consequently, comprehending the needs and expectations of the GenZ workforce remains a significant challenge for both researchers and organisations (Benítez-Márquez et al. 2022; Deloitte 2022; Williams and Page 2011).

No academic papers were found that specifically examined and contextualised the concepts of EB and TM with a specific focus on GenZ. Among recent literature reviews, the noteworthy work of Barhate and Dirani (2022) deserves mention. The authors conducted a systematic review that sought to synthesise the reported career aspirations of GenZ individuals as documented in the selected articles. Additionally, Benítez-Márquez et al. (2022) performed a bibliometric review that focused on enhancing our understanding of the integration of GenZ into corporate organisations. Both of these articles possess distinct scopes and objectives compared to the present study. Therefore, by taking into account the gaps identified in the conceptualisation, the following research questions were formulated to drive this study (Bryman 2012):

RQ1:

Are there any differences in the motivations for work between Gen Z and millennials?

RQ2:

Which attributes of EB and TM are suitable for the realities of GenZ?

RQ3:

What are the current methodological approaches used to study Gen Z, TM, and EB?

RQ4:

What lacunae are present in the current body of research concerning Generation Z and their assimilation into the labour market?

To answer these questions, according to Sloan and Quan-Haase (2017), a systematic literature review (SLR) is considered appropriate. We consequently chose the most pertinent articles within this realm of investigation and subsequently conducted an analysis of the chosen articles. Ultimately, we formulated a series of research proposals that align with the identified gaps.

This article constitutes a significant scholarly endeavour within the field of HRM, specifically focusing on the crucial aspects of talent attraction and retention. Grounded in an exhaustive analysis of the most pertinent articles pertaining to EB, TM, and GenZ, covering the period from January 2010 to April 2023, this study reveals various gaps in the existing body of knowledge. Consequently, it puts forth novel avenues for future research endeavours that aim to bridge the identified gaps. Through this scholarly contribution, an enhanced comprehension of TM and EB is attained, thereby equipping both academics and organisations with fresh guidelines to guide their HRM practices within the contemporary landscape and the foreseeable future.

This article is organised into five sections, which present the conceptualisation of the topic, the identification of the gaps found, the formulation of research questions, the answers to these questions, and the presentation of new proposals for extending current knowledge.

2. Conceptual Framework

2.1. The Importance of Managing Talent in Organisations

In an organisational context, the replication of all aspects is feasible except for the unique intellectual and creative capital contributed by skilled human resources (HR) (Biswas and Suar 2016). As a result, TM has emerged as a significant managerial challenge for companies (Shet 2020; Stiglbauer et al. 2022). This concern has gained considerable attention in recent years, particularly since the late 1990s, when McKinsey consultancy expressed serious concern about the complexity of effectively managing and retaining talented personnel within organisations (Chambers et al. 1998). The consultancy firmly positioned talent as the most important resource for organisations, addressing the growing challenges associated with attracting and retaining talent at the senior management level. This shortage of talent is becoming increasingly relevant due to demographic shifts, particularly the ageing population in more advanced economies, as well as the forces of globalisation, the rise of knowledge workers, and the proliferation of remote work (Skuza et al. 2022; Stuss 2020). The significant growth and internationalisation of smaller companies have also contributed to a rising demand for experienced and talented HR (Charbonnier-Voirin et al. 2017; McDonnell et al. 2017). The current global situation therefore creates a complex environment for retaining talented HR, as they now have access to and can evaluate professional development opportunities from almost anywhere in the world.

In response to the emergence of the aforementioned issue, the academic community has devoted significant attention to the study of TM over the past 25 years. However, a universally accepted definition of talent remains elusive, leading to a proliferation of definitions in the literature (Skuza et al. 2022). This study aims to provide two illustrative examples to shed light on its conceptualisation. In addition to possessing requisite skills and competencies for effective task performance, talented employees must demonstrate ambition, a willingness to invest considerable effort, dedication, and time in order to achieve organisational success. Furthermore, they must exhibit the capacity to learn from past mistakes and experiences and display a high level of mental agility, particularly in the face of novel challenges (Ulrich and Smallwood 2012). Alternatively, talent can be succinctly characterised as the harmonious interplay of three dimensions: action, passion, and vision. Action encompasses the skill set necessary for task execution; passion signifies the enthusiasm, commitment, and respect for the organisation that employees exhibit during task performance; and vision denotes the ability to anticipate problems and devise solutions within the context of their projects (da Camara et al. 2007).

TM refers to the process of strategically attracting and retaining suitable employees who can effectively contribute towards achieving an organisation’s objectives. This multifaceted process encompasses the ongoing management of employee motivations to ensure optimal performance standards are maintained (Schiemann 2014; Stuss 2020). TM is a complex undertaking that should be consistently integrated throughout the entire employment lifecycle, encompassing various stages such as attraction, acquisition, onboarding, training, performance optimisation, development, retention, and transition (Cappelli and Keller 2014; Schiemann 2014). As employees engage with organisations at different points within the talent lifecycle, TM finds practical expression in this cyclical progression. Effective TM directly influences the return on investment in highly skilled HR (Vaiman et al. 2012).

TM and the subsequent retention of skilled employees have significant implications for companies. Primarily, it reduces the expenditures associated with recruiting new employees and turnover costs. Additionally, it diminishes the investment in training and development for both existing employees and the talented individuals within the organisation (Rothwell 2011). However, the most crucial aspect of TM lies in the influence that skilled employees can exert on a company’s performance, often serving as its primary source of competitive advantage (Barney 1991; Barney et al. 2011; Gelens et al. 2013). Exceptional HR contribute to enhanced productivity, profitability, and overall outcomes. TM plays a pivotal role in ensuring organisational success as it facilitates the cultivation of advantageous opportunities (Arocas and Morley 2015).

Companies try to retain their talent by using several strategies, for example, by developing emotional relationships between employees and the organisation as a way of achieving an emotional commitment between the two and fostering employee engagement (Cadigan et al. 2020; Thakur and Bhatnagar 2017; Wiblen 2016). Companies develop internal marketing strategies with a strong culture of identity and values as a way of increasing recognition among employees and the community in general. These strategies involve the development of a strong company brand as a way to communicate the company’s organisational values, culture, and principles with the aim of attracting and retaining talent workers (Keller and Swaminathan 2020). These employer branding strategies, which are discussed in the following section, significantly contribute to enhancing recruitment strategies and mitigating their expenses. Moreover, they play pivotal roles in diminishing turnover rates and augmenting organisations’ capacity to retain talented individuals (Ahmad and Daud 2016; Hadi and Ahmed 2018). Thus, TM is companies’ response to the challenges of the contemporary economy, since identifying and retaining talent is essential for their competitiveness (Biswas and Suar 2016; Skuza et al. 2022; Stuss 2020).

2.2. Employer Branding

Employer branding (EB) has been proposed as an effective organisational strategy that differentiates an organisation from other competitors and allows it to gain competitive advantages in the labour market (Lievens and Highhouse 2003; Saini 2023). It is a concept in which marketing principles, particularly branding theories, are applied to the HRM. The use of employer branding models suggests a strong differentiation of the company’s characteristics as an employer; the employer brand highlights the unique aspects that the company offers (Backhaus and Tikoo 2004; Edwards 2009). EB sits at the intersection of HRM and brand equity and is seen as an essential strategy for overcoming the challenges of recruiting and retaining talented HR (Theurer et al. 2018). In 1996 employer brand was defined as the “package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by and identified with the employing company”, suggesting the application of marketing techniques to attract and retain talent (Ambler and Barrow 1996; Charbonnier-Voirin et al. 2017). In the same way that a brand associated with a product communicates characteristics, benefits, ideas, principles, and associated values (J. L. Aaker 1997), the employer brand communicates to current and potential employees the experience that they have or will have in the organisation. In other words, all employees may recognise a (company) brand, but not all will be effectively committed to the organisation in order to differentiate themselves as employees of that organisation. EB strategies aim to overcome this adversity (Backhaus 2016).

Distinct from employer brand, the employer branding concept (EB), a term adapted from marketing and branding theories, also explained by the application of branding theories to HRM, is the process of building a unique and identifiable employer identity. In other words, it is the promotion of a unique and attractive employer image (Backhaus and Tikoo 2004; Behrends et al. 2020). It is also distinct from internal branding, which is more related to the company’s brand awareness, especially when future employees apply to work for the company. EB is related to the differential effect that knowledge of the company’s brand has on employee responses as a result of internal brand management (Saini 2023). In other words, EB can contribute to implementing internal branding in an organisation. Therefore, the purpose of EB is to present an attractive and positive image of the organisation to current and potential employees (Backhaus 2016; Reis et al. 2021).

EB is a very effective organisational strategy for attracting and retaining talent (Biswas and Suar 2016), and it is perhaps the most critical aspect for effectively achieving this (Kapoor 2023). It is based on the idea that HR are valuable company assets that contribute to increasing organisational value and performance, very much in line with the resource-based view. According to this theory, HR are some of company’s main assets and often their main sources of competitive advantage. For example, a company’s internationalisation is more likely to be successful if it is led by experienced and competent HR (Barney 1991).

The concept of EB was initially developed by Ambler and Barrow (1996) when they tested the application of brand management techniques to HRM. It was later conceptualised by Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) in a seminal paper published in 2004, which brings together marketing and HR concepts (see Figure 1). Heavily influenced by Aaker’s conceptualisation of brand equity (D. A. Aaker 1991), the authors define two main outcomes of EB: EB associations (EBA) and EB loyalty (EBL). EBA reproduces an employer’s image, which is reflected in greater attractiveness for potential employees, for example, through objective attributes such as a better income, additional benefits, and flexible working hours, or through subjective attributes such as perceptions of the company’s prestige. On the other hand, EB impacts organisational culture and identity, which, in turn, stimulates EBL. EBL has a very positive impact on organisational performance.

The same authors conclude by defining a set of prepositions that reinforce the positive impact of EB on organisational performance in its different aspects: organisational culture, loyalty to the company, identification and differentiation, productivity, and career management (Backhaus and Tikoo 2004). It can be divided into external EB (the management of the organisation’s image) and internal EB (the management of the organisation’s identity) (Lievens and Slaughter 2016; Theurer et al. 2018).

2.3. Determinants of EB

There is no consensus in the existing literature regarding the definition of the determinants of EB. Ambler and Barrow (1996) identified four determinants: corporate culture, internal marketing, corporate reputation, and trust. Backhaus and Tikoo (2004) developed the first conceptualisation of EB. They were heavily influenced by the theories of branding and brand equity (BE) and defined a conceptual model based on the determinants of BE, namely loyalty, quality, associations, awareness, and identity, which were initially conceptualised by D. A. Aaker (1991), to which they added two new determinants: assets/symbols and extensions. Edwards (2009) conceptualised the following determinants: reputation, psychological contract, organisational identity, and personality. Biswas and Suar (2016) also used the conceptualisations of EB equity, loyalty, employee engagement, talent attraction, and retention. The absence of a universally applicable construct and the extensive range of determinants employed by different authors (refer to

Table 1. Determinants of EB.

EB Determinant		Authors
Associations	ASS	(Backhaus and Tikoo 2004)
Awareness	AWA	(Backhaus and Tikoo 2004)
Brand loyalty/employee engagement	BLO	(Biswas and Suar 2016; Backhaus and Tikoo 2004)
Corporate culture	CCU	(Ambler and Barrow 1996)
Corporate reputation	CRE	(Ambler and Barrow 1996; Edwards 2009)
EB equity	EBE	(Biswas and Suar 2016)
Extensions	EXT	(Backhaus and Tikoo 2004)
Identity	IDE	(Backhaus and Tikoo 2004; Edwards 2009)
Internal marketing	IMK	(Ambler and Barrow 1996)
Personality	PER	(Edwards 2009)
Psychological contract	PSY	(Edwards 2009)
Quality	QUA	(Backhaus and Tikoo 2004)
Symbols/assets	SAS	(Backhaus and Tikoo 2004; Biswas and Suar 2016)
Talent attraction/retention	TAT	(Biswas and Suar 2016)
Trust	TRU	(Ambler and Barrow 1996)

) seem to be significant gaps in the existing body of literature on the EB theory (Stiglbauer et al. 2022).

The organization and the EB both need to have a unique, relevant, resonant, and newsworthy brand (Moroko and Uncles 2008). This means that the corporate image and EB must be aligned to prevent communication inconsistencies, which can have negative effects on various audiences and organizational productivity (Backhaus and Tikoo 2004; Foster et al. 2010).

There is a substantial body of scholarly literature that illustrates the favourable influence of the effective management of EB determinants on organizational performance. A notable illustration of this phenomenon can be found in a study that encompassed 172 employees from both the public and private sectors. The study revealed that a sense of emotional attachment and identification with the organization, known as affective commitment, is fostered through involvement and engagement. The findings of this study establish a positive association between EB and affective organizational commitment (Alves et al. 2020). Another study, which examined data from 93 companies, demonstrated a positive relationship between EB and organizational performance. This association was found to be mediated by the cultivation of a positive affective environment. Furthermore, the study concluded that these outcomes can be solely attributed to EB, independent of any other characteristics of the company’s brand (Tumasjan et al. 2020). Ahmad and Daud (2016) conducted a study in which they examined employees’ perceptions of EB across five distinct dimensions. One of these dimensions is interest value, which refers to the perception that an organization fosters an enthusiastic work environment that encourages creativity for the purpose of developing innovative and distinctive products. Social value pertains to the perception that a company offers a friendly work environment that promotes a culture of teamwork. Economic value encompasses the perception that a company compensates employees at a level that surpasses the industry average. Development value encompasses the perception that a company actively supports employee development and offers opportunities for advancing one’s professional career. Lastly, application value refers to the perception that employees are afforded the opportunity to apply their knowledge and skills in order to develop and train other employees through mentoring programs.

The study of employer branding (EB) is continuously progressing to encompass additional societal values, such as the principles of organizational sustainability. Originally, the construct of EB was designed to integrate branding, HRM, and corporate social responsibility. Additional qualities pertaining to the collaborative creation of value, the ongoing discussion of this value with stakeholders and their expectations (where current and future employees fulfil the role of stakeholders in this context), and the fostering of employer–employee relationships oriented towards continual introspection on shared necessities and future prospects were subsequently incorporated into the initial concept (Aggerholm et al. 2011).

The concept of EB is poised to encounter significant challenges in the future due to its vital role in attracting and retaining talented HR, which are often considered an organization’s greatest competitive advantages (Behrends et al. 2020; Biswas and Suar 2016; Cascio 2014). These challenges revolve around the ability (or necessity) of EB to effectively manage the employee lifecycle. Primarily, they are associated with shifts in the age distribution and the subsequent ageing of populations, particularly affecting more developed nations (Bărbulescu and Vasiluță-Ștefănescu 2021; McDonnell et al. 2017). This demographic trend further diminishes the pool of skilled employees, thereby intensifying the urgency to cultivate robust and impactful EB strategies across all organizations (Abbasi et al. 2022; Backhaus 2016).

EB also encounters the generational dilemma posed by the influx of young workers into the job market, whose requirements and motivations may not align with those of workers from preceding generations (Hadi and Ahmed 2018; Plé 2019; Stuss 2020). This theme will be addressed in the next chapter.

2.4. Generation Z

The categorization of individuals into generational cohorts allows for the characterization of a group based on its historical period as well as its shared educational and cultural backgrounds. This framework provides insights into the common perceptions, interests, and behaviours exhibited by each generation. A generation is defined as a cohort of individuals who belong to the same age group and have undergone or will undergo similar life experiences that have shaped their personalities (Hung et al. 2007). Consequently, different generations can be distinguished based on factors such as birth location and date, upbringing, educational patterns, and cultural and social environments. As a result of growing up in the same macro environment, individuals belonging to a particular generation tend to exhibit a shared set of behaviours, attitudes, and perspectives. While there is general agreement in the literature on the identification of five generations, the exact dates demarcating each generation may vary. For the purposes of this study, we have adopted the Pew Research Center’s recommended generational definitions (see

Table 2. The different generation cohorts according to the Pew Research Centre.

Generation	Year of Birth
Silent Generation	1928–1945
Baby Boomers	1946–1964
Generation X	1965–1980
Generation Y	1981–1996
Generation Z	1997–2012
Generation Alpha	2013–…

Source: (Dimock 2019).

), which include the following cohorts: the Silent Generation (born between 1928 and 1945), Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964), Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980), Generation Y (born between 1981 and 1996), GenZ (born between 1997 and 2012), and Generation Alpha (born from 2013 onwards) (Dimock 2019; Williams and Page 2011).

This study focuses on GenZ, which is made up of individuals born between 1997 and 2012. The people in this generation are also known as “digital natives”, who are highly qualified, experienced in the use of technology, innovative, and highly creative (Duffett 2017; Plé 2019; Priporas et al. 2017). GenZ individuals cannot fathom a world devoid of a permanent internet connection, as they have never experienced such a reality. Moreover, they are commonly referred to as screen enthusiasts due to their intrinsic interconnectivity with electronic devices. This cohort can also be identified as homo digitalis, digital natives, or the NET generation, owing to their complete reliance on the digital realm. They have come of age amidst the swift advancement of innovative technologies, including smartphones, tablets, Wi-Fi, online gaming platforms, and social networking sites (Meirinhos 2015). This generation exhibits a range of distinguishing characteristics. First and foremost, they have become highly reliant on technology, displaying a notable preference for incorporating it into their daily lives. Additionally, they possess a distinct open-mindedness and embrace multiculturalism, displaying enthusiasm and a genuine receptiveness to diversity. Moreover, they demonstrate an impressive level of innovation and entrepreneurial spirit, which is indicative of their intelligence and adaptability. Furthermore, this generation is notably more culturally educated and better equipped for the challenges of the contemporary world compared to previous generations. They also exhibit a progressive stance towards racial and gender issues, actively advocating for equality and justice. In addition, they strongly prioritise sustainability practices and uphold ethical and deontological principles with a remarkable level of conviction and integrity (Priporas et al. 2017; Schroth 2019). Gen Z individuals possess advanced cognitive abilities and exhibit adeptness in utilising various sources of information and assimilating diverse experiences, be they direct or virtual. Their professional expectations surpass those of preceding generations, while their brand loyalty is notably diminished. They exhibit a core inclination towards immediate experiences rather than long-term considerations (Bărbulescu and Vasiluță-Ștefănescu 2021; Vieira et al. 2020).

To gain deeper insights into the perspective of Generation Z, it is imperative to consider the contextual backdrop in which they came of age. The advent of the iPhone© in 2007 coincided with the eldest members of Generation Z reaching the tender age of 10, rendering them incapable of recollecting the pivotal events surrounding the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Furthermore, the pervasive presence of broadband internet and the near-ubiquitous accessibility of Wi-Fi had already permeated the global landscape. Consequently, Generation Z grew up amidst an era defined by the prevalence of streaming platforms and digital content formats found abundantly on the internet, divorcing them from the experience of procuring music through traditional means such as CDs or DVDs. These unique circumstances have indelibly shaped the behavioural tendencies, attitudes, and overall lifestyles of Generation Z (Dimock 2019).

GenZ individuals are now entering the workforce, and their unique characteristics present intriguing challenges for organisations. This generation, often considered the most well prepared due to their mastery of technology and high levels of education, was born into a period of relative economic stability and security despite the prevailing climate of global uncertainty (Williams and Page 2011). However, GenZ individuals also face unique obstacles when it comes to the job market, as they possess less prior work experience compared to previous generations. Additionally, their frequent interactions in virtual environments, where the approval of others is often sought through likes and online validation, may make them more vulnerable to episodes of anxiety and depression (Schroth 2019). Consequently, they may be less prepared to handle the complexities and potential challenges of face-to-face interactions within a corporate setting (Plé 2019; Przybylski et al. 2013; Zhong et al. 2023). This specific context poses challenges for organisations, which have historically managed employees from disparate generations and are now faced with adapting to the unique needs and characteristics of GenZ (Schroth 2019).

GenZ individuals have a strong desire for a career that offers rapid progression and advancement to higher positions within the organisational hierarchy. However, this ambition can sometimes lead to impatience and demotivation. They tend to prefer working on individual tasks rather than in group settings. Despite this, they generally exhibit positive attitudes, display interest and involvement, and possess a high propensity for mobility (Rzemieniak and Wawer 2021). This generation places a great emphasis on work environments characterised by diversity, transparency, and open dialogue. They greatly value the opportunity to become actively engaged in the organisation’s projects and align with its values. The initial phase of onboarding and adapting to the organisation plays a critical role in establishing trust and minimising the risk of anxiety. Furthermore, it is crucial for Gen Z individuals to have a clear understanding of their roles and potential career prospects within an organisation. However, managing these specific needs can prove challenging for managers, as they often belong to different generations with distinct behaviours and may not be adequately prepared to address the unique characteristics and expectations of young employees. This generational conflict has the potential to negatively impact motivation and increase turnover (Jung et al. 2023; Schroth 2019) Thus, organisations must be prepared to comprehend the specific expectations and values of Gen Z individuals, as they will soon dominate the job market. Recruitment, selection, onboarding, and career management processes must be adapted to accommodate this new reality (Rzemieniak and Wawer 2021).

Barhate and Dirani (2022) conducted a comprehensive literature review in order to ascertain the professional ambitions of individuals belonging to Generation Z. They noted that a majority of the chosen studies focused on participants who were either students or unemployed, which aligns with the prevalent youthful demographic characteristic of this generation (see

Table 3. Summary of professional aspirations of GenZ natives.

Framework	Attitudes	Attributes
Career Expectations	- Organisational culture - Work and personal life balance - Stability	- Activities, communication, diversity, flexibility at work, good working environment, work in mobility, security, salary
Career Development	- Learning - Mentoring - Growth opportunities	- Skills, casualness, career progression, task flexibility, learning, monitoring

Source: (Barhate and Dirani 2022).

).

GenZ represents the most recently emerged cohort of individuals entering the workforce. Despite their significance, there exists a paucity of knowledge concerning their specific behaviours within professional environments. However, it is well established that this generation requires a distinctive approach with respect to the selection, recruitment, admission, and inclusion processes within organisations (Stiglbauer et al. 2022). Moreover, capturing and retaining talent prove to be particularly crucial given that GenZ stands as one of the most academically and technologically advanced cohorts of workers. Consequently, there exists a considerable void in understanding the applicability of current theories on TM and employee branding within the context of GenZ.

This is because the body of these theories was defined based on a completely different work environment than the one we live in today. TM models were created in the late 20th century (Chambers et al. 1998) when the predominant working generation was still Generation X. EB models appeared a little later, in the first decade of the 21st century. Generation Y was still entering the market (Backhaus and Tikoo 2004; Kele and Cassell 2023; Krywalski Santiago 2023). In the past 20 years, there has been little progress in adapting these concepts to the new realities resulting from the effects of globalisation, technological developments, and new generations of workers (Azmy et al. 2023; Grigore et al. 2023; Küpper et al. 2021). This study endeavours to address this gap.

3. Methods

Based on the preceding chapter’s research theme and theoretical framework, it is evident that a notable dearth of works in the literature exists regarding the integration of Generation Z individuals into the labour market. This deficit becomes even more pronounced when considering the lack of discourse on talent retention and employer branding strategies aimed at this demographic. The limited scholarly output on this subject can be attributed to its novelty, given that the majority of Generation Z individuals are currently beginning their professional careers.

The initial search conducted on employee branding (EB) and TM over the past two decades has yielded a substantial number of articles. However, only a few of these articles specifically address the job market behaviours of Generation Z. This dearth of literature may be the primary reason why our research questions remain unanswered. In this study, we adhere to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and its subsequent 2020 update, as briefly outlined in Figure 2 (Moher et al. 2009; Page et al. 2021).

The search was conducted utilising the B-On, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS) platforms, which are widely recognised and esteemed platforms in the field of academic research.

Article Selection Criteria

(a)

Initial screening carried out through the B-On, Scopus, and WoS platforms;

(b)

Selection of articles in English, which is the universal language for scientific communication (Di Bitetti and Ferreras 2017);

(c)

Articles published in academic, indexed, and peer-reviewed journals;

(d)

Articles published between January 2010 and March 2023;

(e)

Search carried out in titles (TI), keywords (KW), and abstracts (AB);

(f)

The following search terms: “gen* z” AND “employ* brand*”;

(g)

The following search terms for the complementary search: “gen* Z” AND “talent management”;

(h)

Application of Boolean search.

Given the research questions and the objective of identifying the maximum number of connections between employer branding (EB), talent management (TM), and Generation Z (GenZ), the operator “*” was employed alongside the terms “gen”, “employ”, and “brand” to encompass the various descriptors utilised in the search.

The search process and data gathering were conducted in April 2023. Following the utilisation of the search terms on both platforms, a total of 67 articles were retrieved. In an initial analysis carried out using the MS Excel 2018© software, 11 duplicated articles were identified and subsequently eliminated. Subsequently, a more comprehensive analysis was performed on the remaining set of 56 articles, involving a thorough examination of abstracts, keywords, and, where necessary, the complete article content. According to Moher et al. (2009), SLR is an iterative process wherein researchers may need to make adjustments to their research procedures. In order to ensure a sound analysis and selection process, the scope of this study was carefully structured. Consequently, only conceptual or empirical articles that focus on identifying attributes defining GenZ and their impacts on EB and TM were included. As a result, 32 articles that did not align with these research objectives were excluded. Additionally, one article was removed due to insufficient detailed information for analysis. Consequently, the final selection consisted of a total of 23 articles (refer to Figure 2).

4. Results

4.1. Bibliometric Analysis

4.1.1. Frequencies of Publications, Publishers, Citations, and References

The final selection reveals a high concentration of publications in the past three years (see Figure 3), which is most likely due to the fact that GenZ has been studied more frequently very recently as a result of the age of this cohort of individuals.

The publishers associated with the chosen publications (refer to

Table 4. Frequency of articles based on publisher.

Entity	n
Emerald	3
MDPI	3
IEEExplore	2
Beladi Publishing House	1
BEIE&S Publications	1
Cardiometry	1
Centre of Sociological Research	1
Eastern-European J. Enterprise Technologies	1
Editura ASE	1
EDP Sciences	1
Elsevier	1
Nicolae Titulesku University	1
SAGE	1
SCIndeks	1
Silesian University of Technology	1
Technology audit and production reserves	1
Universitas Jenderal Soedirman	1
University of Merdeka Malang	1

) were subjected to analysis. The findings reveal a substantial level of variability, possibly stemming from the fact that the majority of these studies seem to be preliminary investigations. Additionally, given the relatively recent nature of the subject, there is a dearth of publications presenting comprehensive studies. However, it is foreseeable that in the forthcoming years, more conclusive investigations will be conducted and subsequently published. It is noteworthy that a significant proportion of these publishers have direct affiliations with universities. Detailed information pertaining to the journals was not included in the analysis due to the even higher level of variability, which lacked substantial analytical significance.

4.1.2. Citations and References

We have checked the number of citations for each article using Google Schoolar (https://scholar.google.com/, accessed on 24 October 2023). Most of them have a low number of citations, with 12 of them having zero or one citation (see Figure 4). There are two exceptions: the article titled “Attitudes of Z generations to job searching through social media” has 24 citations (Karácsony et al. 2020), and the article titled “Employer branding in the context of the company’s sustainable development strategy from the perspective of gender diversity of generation Z” has 33 citations (Rzemieniak and Wawer 2021).

In terms of the references provided within each article, a noteworthy observation is that 12 works, constituting approximately 66% of the total, demonstrate a relatively modest number of bibliographic references, less than 50 references. In contrast, only two articles, comprising around 11%, exhibit a high number of references surpassing 75 (see Figure 5).

4.1.3. Type of Investigation

With the exception of a singular article, all other articles in this compilation reflect inquiries of an empirical nature. In the examination of the outcomes garnered from empirical studies, a diverse range of statistical techniques were employed, albeit with a notable emphasis on less sophisticated methods, such as descriptive analysis and exploratory factor analysis (see Figure 6).

4.1.4. Most Frequent Keywords

During the analysis, not only were the keywords themselves taken into account, but also the titles and summaries of the articles. This was carried out to enhance the availability and density of words and to deepen the results obtained, particularly in relation to the most significant words found in the selected articles. The necessary information was extracted from the metadata of the studies, which were exported from the B-On, Scopus, and WoS search engines. To standardise terms and expressions, as well as to eliminate irrelevant words or expressions in the context of this study, the outputs obtained underwent a treatment process. Subsequently, the finalised file was imported into the MaxQDA© 2022 application, where an analysis of the most frequent words was conducted, resulting in the word cloud presented in Figure 7.

The findings reveal that the keywords “employers”, “branding”, “generation”, and “Z” are the most relevant, aligning with the initial search terms. However, it is worth noting that other words, such as “attractiveness”, “talent”, “value”, “management”, “expectations”, and “gender”, also emerged during the analysis. The existence of these words is intriguing as they are deemed significant attributes within the context of talent retention, thereby contributing to the relevance of our investigation.

A correspondence analysis between keywords was also carried out using VOSviewer, version 1.6.18 (https://www.vosviewer.com/, accessed on 20 March 2023). This correspondence analysis extends the results of the previous analysis, highlighting the strongest relationships between words. In this analysis, only the most relevant connections were considered. It is interesting to note the correspondence between GenZ and values, talent acquisition, and employer attractiveness, while employer branding is more related to brand management, employer value propositions, and the labour market (see Figure 8).

4.2. Content Analysis

The selection criteria were established over an extended period of time, starting in 2010, with the aim of identifying all pertinent articles and, if feasible, discerning a chronological progression in the various approaches to the subject matter. Nonetheless, only articles published after 2019 were discovered. A comprehensive summary of all of the chosen articles is provided in Appendix A.

In approximately 11 studies, which accounts for roughly 50% of the total articles examined, samples of students were surveyed (refer to

Table 5. Types of samples used in article selection.

Sample	n
Students	11
Hospitality	3
Workers	3
People applying to a job offer	1
HR managers	1
Recruitment agency database	1
Internship candidates	1
Start-up companies	1

). This discovery indicates that the authors aimed to gauge the perceptions of the respondents when selecting a company prior to entering the job market. This suggests a heightened interest in the specific aspirations of this generation in contrast to potential constraints, perceptions, or concerns of employers regarding the categorisation of employees belonging to this particular generation (e.g., Dzhulai et al. 2022; Kunal et al. 2022; Lukić-Nikolić and Lazarević 2022). The field of tourism and hospitality is the sole professional sector mentioned, and it is only referenced in three studies (Goh and Okumus 2020; Kapuściński et al. 2022; Tang et al. 2020). Therefore, the authors manifest great concern regarding the acquisition and retention of talent within this new generational cohort, especially within a sector that heavily relies on human capital.

In this selection, the authors aimed to ascertain the factors that contribute to job attractiveness among individuals belonging to Generation Z. As an illustration, this cohort exhibits a preference for utilising digital and online platforms to search for employment, while traditional means like print publications have experienced a marked decline in interest. Consequently, social networks have emerged as prominent avenues for exploring new job opportunities (Gajanova 2021; Karácsony et al. 2020). Controversially, a study revealed that the LinkedIn social network is not perceived as attractive by GenZ as a means of job searching (Gajanova 2021).

Moreover, other researchers have examined the behavioural disparities between Generation Z and millennials (also known as Generation Y) and did not find significant differences in terms of employer attractiveness dimensions (Bărbulescu and Vasiluță-Ștefănescu 2021; Jackel and Garai-Fodor 2022; Kunal et al. 2022). Nevertheless, certain characteristics of employer branding have been observed, with Generation Z placing particular emphasis on factors such as knowledge of the company’s reputation, employer image campaigns, opportunities for professional development and growth within the organisation, and collaborations with educational institutions as a means of attracting talented individuals (Lukić-Nikolić and Lazarević 2022; Pandita 2022).

GenZ is deeply focused on defending social values (M. Islamiaty et al. 2022; Kapuściński et al. 2022; Priporas et al. 2017; Schroth 2019; Silva and Carvalho 2021). Thus, it has been demonstrated that offering volunteering practices is a good technique to attract talent in this generation (Garai-Fodor et al. 2021). Moreover, it was found that GenZ individuals are very sensitive to sustainability strategies and that the development of these initiatives increases their motivation to work in these organisations (Rzemieniak and Wawer 2021).

Regarding gender, several differences in behaviour have been identified, particularly in the appreciation of corporate values, which is more pronounced among females. Conversely, it is this gender that exhibits lower salary expectations upon entering companies (Silva and Carvalho 2021).

It was evident that Generation Z demonstrates a prioritisation of workplace well-being and employee satisfaction. Factors such as salary level, employer-provided training, flexibility and leisure time, and opportunities for personal and professional growth within the organisation were deemed important by this cohort (Anggraeni 2022; Dzhulai et al. 2022; Garai-Fodor and Jackel 2022; M. Islamiaty et al. 2022; Kunal et al. 2022; Lukić-Nikolić and Lazarević 2022). Conversely, a study indicated that the loyalty of Generation Z towards organisations is lower compared to other generational groups (Jackel and Garai-Fodor 2022), which is a finding that was previously observed by Schroth (2019).

Table 6. GenZ’s professional aspirations found in article selection.

GenZ Attributes	n	EB Determinant
Workplace (WOR)	7	CCU
Social Responsibility (SOR)	6	CCU
Salary (SAL)	6	ASS/SAS
Company Reputation (COR)	5	CRE
Career Opportunities (CAO)	4	ASS/SAS
Coaching (COA)	3	PSY
Learning Opportunities (LEO)	3	ASS/SAS
Personal Development (PED)	3	PSY
Work–Life Balance (WLB)	3	ASS/SAS

ASS: associations; CCU: corporate culture; CRE: company reputation; PSY: psychological contract; SAS: symbols/assets.

provides a summary of the prevailing career aspirations among Generation Z. This analysis reaffirms the significance of workplace conditions, ethical considerations, and the reputation of employers, which are on par with wage-related concerns (e.g., Kapuściński et al. 2022; Prasetyaningtyas et al. 2022; Samoliuk et al. 2022; Tang et al. 2020; Wawer 2022). Upon comparison with the determinants of employer branding (EB) identified in the theoretical framework, it is apparent that they encompass the aspirations and attributes expressed by Generation Z in this review. Thus, the EB theory appears to provide a framework for comprehending the career aspirations of Generation Z in the job market. Nevertheless, this assertion requires further contextualisation and empirical confirmation. The findings of this review broadly align with those of previous studies (Steckl et al. 2019).

5. Conclusions

Recruiting and retaining talent are currently two of the foremost challenges faced by organisations (Shet 2020). This issue spans across all levels of the organisational structure, particularly in leadership roles, rather than being solely the responsibility of HRM (Plé 2019; Schroth 2019). This challenge is further complicated by the global and transformative nature of today’s labour market (Howe and Strauss 2007; Verbeke and Hutzschenreuter 2021). The entry of a new generation, known as GenZ, into the workforce presents an additional obstacle for companies. GenZ possesses distinct behavioural characteristics shaped by their upbringing in an environment characterised by digital reliance, relative security, resource abundance, high mobility, easy access to information, and education (Howe and Strauss 2007; Przybylski et al. 2013; Stiglbauer et al. 2022). However, this generation tends to have less preparation as they enter the job market due to limited work experience and unfamiliarity with internal company dynamics (Schroth 2019; Zhong et al. 2023). Consequently, these challenges in job search and selection contribute to heightened levels of unease, anxiety, and depression among GenZ employees, surpassing the prevalence observed in previous generations (Lyngdoh et al. 2023). Such circumstances result in substantial turnover rates, particularly within the first six months of their employment with companies (Deloitte 2022; Smith et al. 2019).

This situation presents significant challenges in the attraction and retention of talent. The objective of this study was to conduct the first literature review to identify the attributes of EB and TM that GenZ individuals value when seeking entry into the job market (refer to Table 6).

This research aims to address the initially formulated research questions. It confirms the scarcity of studies covering GenZ, TM, and EB, possibly due to the limited amount of research conducted on this generation, as it is the most recent cohort to enter the job market. Therefore, no studies prior to 2019 were identified.

Answering the RQ1, our study revealed distinct aspects concerning the needs and anxieties of GenZ individuals, which differentiate them from individuals of previous generations. Specifically, it unveiled the relative lack of preparedness of GenZ for the job market, their high levels of insecurity, and their propensity for episodes of anxiety and depression (Lyngdoh et al. 2023; Smith et al. 2019). Nevertheless, our study revealed that these conclusions are not universally agreed upon. Mahmoud et al. (2021) concluded that there are differences between generations, with GenZ being more sensitive to episodes of demotivation and extrinsic motivation factors. On the other hand, Bărbulescu and Vasiluță-Ștefănescu (2021) did not find significant differences between Generation Y and GenZ regarding the dimensions of employer attractiveness. Garai-Fodor and Jackel (2022), in their study on the professional aspirations of different age groups, identified generational differences in terms of salary expectations, opportunities for career advancement, and the work environment, which are more highly valued by GenZ (El-Menawy and Saleh 2023). However, no differences were found in relation to the innovative environment and work–life balance. In another study, these authors also did not find differences between GenZ and millennials with regard to work performance, loyalty to employers, and working with older generations of workers, as GenZ individuals prefer to be a part of teams comprising individuals of the same age (Jackel and Garai-Fodor 2022). In other words, further research is necessary to explore and confirm this point.

Regarding RQ2, this research has clearly identified the most relevant attributes to this generational cohort. We identified workplace conditions and social responsibility (belonging to the EB corporate culture attribute); salary, career and learning opportunities, and work–life balance (belonging to the EB associations/symbols/assets attribute); company reputation (belonging to the same EB attribute); and finally, coaching and personal development (belonging to the EB psychological contract attribute), as the most frequent attributes (see Table 6).

According to RQ3, this systematic investigation also uncovered that the majority of studies retain an exploratory nature, frequently utilising methods to assess and substantiate simple and less robust hypotheses (e.g., Dzhulai et al. 2022; Garai-Fodor and Jackel 2022; Kunal et al. 2022; Samoliuk et al. 2022). Furthermore, it was observed that a substantial number of these studies are conducted and published in university-affiliated journals (e.g., the studies by Jackel and Garai-Fodor 2022; Lukić-Nikolić and Lazarević 2022; and Wawer 2022). In fact, the main limitations of this study are linked to this particular finding. Another limitation is attributable to the inclusion of a small number of articles, namely 23. The rationale for this was previously elucidated in the preceding chapters and is connected to the scarcity of studies that specifically focus on Generation Z and their interactions with the job market, particularly pertaining to talent attraction and retention.

The limitations identified in this review present fertile ground for future research endeavours, which would enhance the existing but limited body of knowledge. In accordance with RQ4, considering the outcomes of this research, it seems clear that there is a need to better understand how EB can affect TM in GenZ. In particular, it would be important to carry out the following:

(a)

Conduct a research inquiry with the primary objective of delineating the characteristics of EB and TM and examining these attributes within distinct segments of GenZ;

(b)

Ascertain whether novel attributes of EB or TM exist that are specific to this generational cohort;

(c)

Determine the disparities in talent attraction and retention behaviours across generations, specifically comparing GenZ with the immediately preceding cohorts: generation Y and generation X.

This study did not reveal concerns regarding the different sectors of activity. With the exception of the hotel and tourism sector, with three studies identified, no other sectors were identified. Based on these assumptions, the following question is generated:

(d)

Are the behaviours of GenZ individuals in the job market identical, regardless of the sector of activity?

This review primarily consists of experimental and exploratory studies, in which the authors used less robust analysis techniques. Thus, the following conclusion is made:

(e)

It is crucial to conduct robust studies with sufficiently large sample sizes and well-defined variables based on the existing literature. Such studies would enable the application of more sophisticated statistical techniques, which can be critical for gaining a better understanding of the actual needs of GenZ in relation to attracting and retaining talent.

In this review, the selected articles sought to identify the factors and attributes prevalent in GenZ in the job choice process. On the other hand, there was a total absence of articles that studied the attitudes of companies and employers as well as the perceptions of HR recruitment and selection companies. Therefore, potential research questions include the following:

(f)

What is GenZ’s perception of HRM among companies?

(g)

What are the most crucial factors or attributes that companies identify when it comes to capturing and retaining GenZ talent?

(h)

Will there be differences in the approach to HRM for GenZ among companies in different sectors of activity?

(i)

What recruitment and talent acquisition strategies specific to GenZ are being adopted by recruitment agencies?

In this systematic review, no articles were found that specifically aimed to examine the antecedents or outcomes of managing Generation Z in business activities. As a result, the following research questions are proposed:

(j)

What variables can be considered as outcomes of TM and retention within Generation Z?

(k)

What are the potential consequences for management when there is a better alignment of Generation Z resources?

(l)

What is the impact of effectively managing Generation Z individuals on the performance of the company?

(m)

Are there any mediating effects of certain employer branding or TM variables?

(n)

What are the moderating variables that need to be taken into account when managing GenZ individuals? How could these possible moderating effects contribute to alleviating some of the integration challenges faced by GenZ, such as workplace anxiety?

This study contributes to the existing literature on GenZ theory and EB, providing valuable insights and information. Its findings have the potential to inspire other scholars to further investigate this topic, particularly due to its significance within the realm of organisational management. Specifically, we identified the most salient distinguishing features of Gen Z workers and what they seek in their initial employment. However, our systematic review makes evident that the current TM and EB models do not adequately consider the unique qualities that define this generational cohort and their career aspirations (Kucherov et al. 2023). This finding presents an intriguing challenge to academic researchers to investigate and discover novel and valuable insights to update the existing body of theory in HRM according to the current global employment landscape and the particular characteristics of Gen Z. Perhaps becoming aware of this fact is the most significant contribution of the present study.

Moreover, it is essential to highlight the implications for HRM in various settings, including recruitment companies, HR departments, and management teams. These findings will prepare such professionals with the knowledge that is necessary to effectively address the challenges presented by Generation Z in the current organisational landscape.