**3. Results**

The results obtained from the application of the two psychological instruments are shown in the graphs below.

The results obtained after applying the AMI, for the scales considered relevant for the study: Engagement—EN, Confidence in success—EZ, Flexibility—FX, Fearlessness—FU, Internality—IN, Preference for di fficult tasks—SP, Independence—IN, Status orientation—ST, Competitiveness—WE and Goal setting—ZS, are presented in Figure 2. In the graph, the green color indicates the scores obtained for the selected scales, reported along with average scores for the same scales, presented in the chart with blue color.

The values are in the statistical range 90–110, described by the authors, H. Schuler, GC Thorton III and Frintrup as average motivational performance. The obtained values show us that there is an opportunity to develop an educational curriculum adapted to new paradigms imposed by Industry 4.0, to improve these traits.

The results obtained after applying AMI are in the average range of 90–110. This result shows us that there is a willingness to improve these traits.

The values obtained after applying the EQ-I inventory, for the scales relevant to the psychological profile required by the Industry 4.0 specification, are within the statistical range 90–109, described by Reuven Bar-On as e fficient acting. This range represents the dynamic operating range (Figure 3).

**Figure 2.** Selection of AMI scales correlated with the characteristics of iMillennials.

**Figure 3.** Selected EQ-I scales.

New technologies impose challenges with the rise of Industry 4.0. The intelligent systems associated with AI require from both of the actors involved in the development of new technologies, i.e., education and industry leaders, individual attention to ethics. There is a correlation between *engagement* and the *total coe*ffi*cient of emotional intelligence—EQT* (general degree of adequate emotional and social functioning), the degree to which a person has specific noncognitive abilities and skills that they use successfully in adapting to the pressures and demands of the environment.

The values calculated by the Pearson coefficient indicate a correlation considered reasonable: 0.54 between engagemen<sup>t</sup> and assertiveness, 0. 49 between commitment and reality testing, and 0.41, respectively, for the total quotient of emotional intelligence (Figures 4 and 5).

**Figure 4.** Graphical representation for the correlation between AMI and EQ-I.


**Figure 5.** Results of the correlation between AMI and EQ-I scales.

According to the authors H. Schuler et al., Engagement—EN—describes the personal willingness to support an effort, its level and the workload. In other words, the ability to maintain a high level of activity over long periods. [15]

Following Reuven Bar-On, *assertiveness* represents the ability of a person to express their feelings, beliefs, and thoughts, and to defend their rights in a non-destructive manner. Assertiveness does not mean handling situations through high social and verbal skills but instead finding the proper language to support one's point of view [14].

Each inventory used focuses on specific features that describe motivational achievement (AMI) or emotional intelligence (EQ-I). Besides the motivational features, the AMI questionnaire also refers to socio-emotional abilities. A correlation between the parameters of the two inventories is described in Figures 4 and 5. We identified three correlated parameters (assertiveness, reality testing, and commitment). As one can see in Figure 5, these results fill the existing gap in terms of the correlation between engagemen<sup>t</sup> and total coefficient of emotional intelligence (the quotient given by the general degree of emotional and social efficiency). Table 5 describes in detail the correlation between commitment, assertiveness, and reality testing.


