E3S Web of Conferences 381, 01034 (2023) https://doi.org/10.

1051/e3sconf/202338101034
AQUACULTURE 2022

Beliefs, attitudes, values and engagement of

generation X, Y employees
Diana Daver1*
1 DonState Technical University (DSTU), Department of Educational Psychology and Organizational
Psychology, Gagarin Square 1, 344010 Rostov–on–Don, Russian Federation

Abstract. This study starts with employee opinion survey, which is a

measurement tool of employee engagement and satisfaction. The result of
the survey, performed among 1480 employees of international construction
company, points at certain targets for improvement in well-being field. We
strove to find a correlation within least contented employees, between such
factors as their seniority status in the company, gender, age and their low
satisfaction, thus we found out that generation X employees are more
satisfied (9% more) and as a result more engaged in the company culture
than Y employees. This article reveals the reasons of this difference in
satisfaction level between employees of two generations. Our first
hypothesis was that shift in value orientation caused inconsistency with
corporate culture, but after having used method of values ranking (system
of «Life Meanings» by V. Yu. Kotlyakov) for a group of 620 employees of
both generations, we had to accept that our hypothesis was only partially
true and value changes in two generations were not dramatic. Our second
hypothesis stated that deeper changes in reality perception like beliefs and
self-concept could lead to lower satisfaction of Y generation employees
with their work. We supposed that these deeper changes include beliefs as
the basic elements of any complicated construct. We applied method of
collectivism and individualism orientation measuring by Pochebut L. G to
the group of 248 respondents of both generations. The outcome of this
study shows that generation X employees’ beliefs reflect collectivism
orientation and beliefs of the generation Y employees reflect individualism
in 50% of the sampling.

1 Employee engagement is a mighty tool in retention strategy

Last two decades managers of companies are struggling to improve productivity and
effectiveness under pressure of fast pace of digitalization and sharp competition. At the
same time psychologists and sociologists search for peculiarities in psychology of different
generations [1-5]. Organizations should work hard to be competent and successful in the
highly competitive and global environment, especially on the human resource side, so they
must tale into consideration differences in perception of reality by employees of different
generations [1;6]. Finck et al. [7] stated that organizations must recognize that the human
factor is more important for organizational continuity and business success when

* Corresponding author: dianadaver@gmail.com

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E3S Web of Conferences 381, 01034 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202338101034
AQUACULTURE 2022

employees are happy and feel wellness throughout their life. Chinamomo and Mofokeng
[8] state that developing and maintaining a relationship with employees has become a
necessary thing for businesses to be competitive in today’s dynamic environment. Matzler
& Renzl [9] prove that commitment of employees is critical in ensuring competitive ability
of an organization. As Morgan and Hunt [10] noticed, commitment has an emotional
connotation and it has correlation with engagement and satisfaction. One of the success
factors in human capital retention is work and life balance (WLB), the last one makes
employees work more effectively and raises effectiveness of the whole organization [11].
Same point of view is shared by many scientists, for example Chinamomo and
Mofokeng [8] underline that committed employees are more likely to facilitate the
provision of superior service quality. Baral and Bhargava [12] also agree that WLB entails
employees' positive attitudes and behaviors, which are crucial to an organization's
effectiveness, called organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as stated by Van Dyne [13].
While OCB refers to organizationally beneficial behavior, this behavior is discretionary and
goes beyond existing role standards Van Dyne et al. [13]. Greenhaus claims three elements
of WLB as retention instrument: time, involvement, and satisfaction [14]. As we measured
satisfaction we could realize which spheres of well-being needed our attention.
Communication also plays great role in engagement. As Howell and Annansingh [15]
stated an inadequate supply of information and lack of communication restrains employees
from fulfilling their duties better.
Robbins & Judge [16] state that some causes of employee engagement could be:
appreciation and a good manager, enjoyable meaningful work and clear goals.
Taking all above said into account engagement includes satisfaction, commitment,
transparent communication, also WLB is necessary for satisfaction and OCB as high level
of commitment.
Above mentioned factors are the determining factors of employees’ productivity and
engagement in the corporate life. In order to measure the engagement level of the
employees the construction company held employee opinion survey (EOS) and found that
the engagement level is lower than the management expected.
This employee opinion survey was conducted in 2021 with measurement tools and
support of professional HR consulting company. Employees of a multinational
development company in the number of 1480 individuals took part in the survey
simultaneously. Their answers were analyzed in the framework of qualitative and
conventional content analysis. The aim of the survey was to reveal influential factors,
which lie beyond lower engagement level of generation Y employees in comparison with
generation X. This survey brought us to an opening that generation Y employees’ beliefs
encompass individualism culture and are inconsistent with corporative culture of the
company, which is oriented at generation X employees’ necessities.

2 Method of engagement survey and problem statement

2.1 Core statements to measure engagement level

Core statements to evaluate engagement are presented below. Statements were organized in
three groups, two questions in each. First couple of questions is aimed at verbal
communication about the company (Whenever possible, I tell people about my company; I
will recommend this company to a friend without a doubt)., second pair of questions is
aimed to measure if the person is ready to stay or not (I will not leave easily from this
company; I do not think of working somewhere else apart from this company), the third
pair of questions (I do not think of working somewhere else apart from this company; this

2
E3S Web of Conferences 381, 01034 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202338101034
AQUACULTURE 2022

company encourages me to do more than my job requires). The results of the whole
company in Russia are presented in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. Three sets of questions to measure commitment with results.

Overall result of engagement was in the lowest level of medium area (lower quarter up
to 65 per cent), the result of the company was 65 for some categories of employees and
lower or a little higher for other categories.
The problem which needed to be solved: what were the factors causing low level of
engagement among the personnel? If we look at the figure 2 we will discover that people of
generation Y (we took 1981-2000 years according to classification by Howe and Straus
[17]) compose the majority of the company. It was decided to investigate why the Y
generation employees are 9% less engaged than generation X employees (born between
1961 -1980 according to classification by Howe and Straus [17]). We do not look here into
generation Z employees since we have not enough data (16 respondents). According to this
data we can propose that there are some specific necessities of generation Y employees,
which were ignored. What was special or lacking in the Company culture that Y generation
employees disapproved.

2.2 The following categories of personnel took part in the survey

1. Construction project employees – 1281 individuals (both managers and engineering

staff), headquarters - 204 employees (engineers and management).
2. Three generations: Generation Z -16 employees, Generation Y- 1188 employees,
Generation X – 258 employees.
Generation X are considered people born 1963-1983, Y generation - 1983-2003 and Z
generation -born after 2003. The classification by Howe and Straus.
3. Seniority of employees up to three years and more than 3 years
4. Due to the field of activity of the company (construction and development) gender
diversity is not widely presented (1188 – male employees and 258 female employees).
5. To analyze engagement of employees 3 sets of questions were asked.
They were organized to 1. evaluate leadership, 2. evaluate talent focus, 3 evaluate
agility.
For the analysis employees were divided into 2 categories (generation X -258
respondents and Y – 1188 respondents – both figures were taken as 100% for their
category).
The overall evaluation consisted of 46 beliefs (Table 1). The respondents were supposed
to choose an answer out of strongly agree-positive-negative-strongly disagree. In the table 1
it is showed the statements reflecting employees’ beliefs about the top management (the left
column) and agreement in percentage provided by X and Y generation. We included in
category «agreed» answers ranged from “agree” to “positive”. We must consider that

3
E3S Web of Conferences 381, 01034 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202338101034
AQUACULTURE 2022

generation X employees mostly occupy managerial and senior positions, so their perception
predictably differs at some points.
Table 1. Statements for evaluation in EOS.
Statements Agreement Agreement Difference
by by in
employees employees perception
of of
generation generation
X Y
1. My direct upline gives me the support I need to be 84 76
successful. 8
2. Top Management inspired me about the future of this 66 52
organization. 14
3. Top Management is open and transparent in 72 70
communication. 2
4. My direct upline appreciates my efforts and business 66 54
results. 12
5. Top Management shows clear direction for the future. 60 48
12
6. I can explain clearly the positive aspects of working 76 68
here compared to working at other companies. 8
7. This company's mission/purpose gave me a 75 50
meaningful direction. 25
8. I am working at the most suitable company for 47 50
someone with my skills and experience. -3
9. This company has important social message 75 38
43
10. Senior Management employees are the most valuable 48 42
assets of the company sees. 6
11. Top Management is open about communication and it 78 69
is transparent. 9
12. Top Management shows a clear direction for the 76 60
future. 16
13. Senior executives clearly explained how we would 78 55
implement our strategy. 23
14. This company offers very good career opportunities to 68 45
me 23
15. This company strongly supports the initiatives 45 20
25
16. This work has enough opportunities to work on 38 25
assignments/projects that will give me new skills. 13
17. Future career prospects in this company look good. 56 50
6
18. We get quick and accurate decisions. 65 56
9
19. We take reasonable decisions backed up by data. 60 42
18
20. I understand business goals and company goals. 72 69
3
21. Performance management approach is dedicated to 58 52
revealing my strengths and areas of development. 6
22. My performance in my job has a significant impact on 62 54
my salary. 8
23. Salary I receive is based on my contributions to the 65 68
success of the company. -3
24. There is an appropriate recognition (apart from my 18 12
salary and benefits) for my contributions and achievements. 6
25. My colleagues respect my feelings and thoughts. 68 72
-4
26. Cooperation between different groups/departments in 78 62
my company is good. 16
27. We respond quickly to the changing needs of our 62 60
2

4
E3S Web of Conferences 381, 01034 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202338101034
AQUACULTURE 2022

external customers.
28. Colleagues share their work - related knowledge and 82 78
experience with each other. 4
29. I am involved in the decision-making process related 60 48
to my job and have sufficient influence on the taken
decisions. 12
30. I can try new things, even if it causes mistakes from 68 48
time to time. 20
31. My thoughts and ideas are considered by the company. 75 62
13
32. I feel a sense of accomplishment from my work. 70 59
11
33. My work is suitable for my skills and experience. 58 55
3
34. The technology provided in our company allows me to 46 40
be as productive as possible in my work. 6
35. Our current business processes allow me to be as 46 32
productive as possible. 14
36. We are fast in new ideas that will ensure future 40 38
success. 2
37. My company supports me to develop ideas that will 52 54
make this place more successful. gives. -2
38. An organizational structure supports us to achieve our 54 50
goals. 4
39. There is a working environment where individual 78 80
differences and different ideas are accepted. -2
40. Diversity (e.g. ethnicity, age, language, education, 70 82
disability, different perspectives and opinions, etc.) is
valued at this company and equal opportunities are
provided to employees (hire, promotion, compensation,
training). -12
41. The people we hire are ready to achieve our business 62 60
goals. 2
42. I can handle level of stress at about my work. 50 52
-2
43. We are developing personnel that adapts well to 54 52
change. 2
44. We have sufficient human resources to do our job. 42 56
-14
45. Employees with the skills that will enable us to reach 40 46
our goals are promoted. -6
46. In my company work and life balance is achieved. 45 20
25

According to these answers the perception is dramatically different (more than 12 points
difference) in beliefs about:
1. 5, 13- perception how open the top management is
2. 7, 9 –content/discontent of employees with social message which company makes and
meaning of their input
3. 29 - perception of individual significance in the company
4. 14,15,16- perception of the future in the company
5. 30, 35 - perception of agility of the company
6. 46 - work and life balance
In general generation X employees are more contented with the company’s environment
than generation Y.
After further analysis we can state that there is a clear disadvantage of communication
with top management, which is significant to Y generation employees, who feel confident
when aware of the whole picture, and can see potential and clear future in comparison to
generation X, the representatives of which went through personality formation in hard
economical and unstable political environment and can take volatility easier (questions 5,

5
E3S Web of Conferences 381, 01034 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202338101034
AQUACULTURE 2022

13). Low level of individual significance in the company reflects underestimation of

employees of Y generation by executives, which includes denial to share ideas and vision,
excluding of important meetings and project groups. This also can result from the absence
of opportunity to share and promote their ideas (question 29).
Questions 30 and 35 show that agility of the company, its flexibility and decision-
making culture is also a field of concern for Ys. This may be explained by the fact that Ys
are flexible and expect this from the employer.
Reflection of the perception of the future in the company also causes risks: if employees
do not see their future in the company their level of performance can hardly be high, as well
as risk of leaving the company arises (questions 14,15,16). Work and life balance is what
mostly make generation X and Y different. The Ys more often have entrepreneurial mindset
and find it difficult to stick to job discipline (question 46). After COVID 19 a lot of
companies started practice of hybrid working schedule, distant work and flexible working
hours, such innovations did not touch the company where EOS was held. This fully
coincides with the generations description by V.I. Pischik [18-21].
The research held by Hamed M. S. Ahmed [22] and others shows strong impact of work
and life balance (WLB) on the organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as stated by Van
Dyne et al., [13]. Importance of WLB was proved by numerous researches like Baral and
Bhargava, [12] Bosworth and Hogarth [23], Clark [24].
The question which arises is why exactly now and especially generation Y employees
are less satisfied with work and life balance and other stated above points. Our hypothesis
was that these changes are required due to the shift in value system of generation Y
employees.
To check validity of this hypothesis we measured values of generation Y employees,
using Kotlyakov’s method.

3 System of «Life Meanings» by V. Yu. Kotlyakov

In order to check to what extent low engagement on the mentioned above points in EOS
connected with generation Y representatives’ peculiarities, method by V. Yu. Kotlyakov
was applied to the group of 620 employees. Respondents were divided into 2 groups: 310
employees of generation X and 310 employees of generation Y.
The questionnaire consisted of 24 statements, which respondents were to rank softly
from 1 to 8. In this way each value was to be ranked 3 times and was able to score a
number from 3 to 24. The most important value was supposed to gain lower scores since it
goes first (e.g. first place – 1 point) and the least important value was supposed to gain the
highest scores since it goes last.
The weight of the following values was measured: altruistic, existential, hedonistic,
self-realization, status, communicative, family, cognitive.
After the answers were collected they were as following:
For each value of each respondent the rank was counted, then the number of
respondents in each value were distributed between those for whom this value has high
importance, medium and low. Below you can see the 300 ranked results of generation X
employees. In the tables 2 and 3 the number of respondents with high, medium and low
significance of the stated above values are represented.
The highest results are marked in blue, number differ little, but general tendency looks
similar. It is seeable that generation X are less hedonistic (the biggest number of
respondents gave highest scores, which means gave last places, to this value). More
employees of generation X than generation Y pay attention to their status. More employees
of generation Y gave last place significance to communication. Twice more Y employees
gave lowest significance to the family values compared to X generation employees.

6
E3S Web of Conferences 381, 01034 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202338101034
AQUACULTURE 2022

To understand if this data is worth further consideration or not we combined results of

high and medium significance of each generation and applied to these 2 samplings the
Mann–Whitney U test. First sampling included positive results (high and medium) for
values of generation X and the second sampling included positive results (high and
medium) for values of generation Y (Figure 2).
Table 2. Number of respondents of generation X employees crediting maximum and minimum
importance values.

Level
of Altruıs Existetia Hedonis Self- Communi Cogmiti
Status Family
signifi tıc l tic realisation cations ve
cance

High 106 118 80 175 105 89 147 78

Mediu
152 155 159 110 135 170 127 104
m

Low 40 25 58 13 58 39 24 116

Table 3. Number of respondents of generation Y employees crediting maximum and minimum

importance values.

Level of Self-
significanc Altruıstı Existetia Hedonisti realisatio Statu Communication Famil Cogmitiv
e c l c n s s y e
High 115 138 109 182 131 93 136 89
Medium 144 144 154 115 135 157 115 96
Low 42 19 38 4 35 51 50 116

Generation X sampling Generation Y sampling

Fig. 2. Samplings for Y and X generation.

The Mann-Whitney U-test is 27.5 The critical value of the Mann-Whitney U-test for a
given number of compared groups is 1327.5 > 13, therefore, the differences in the level of
the trait in the compared groups are not statistically significant (p>0.05)

7
E3S Web of Conferences 381, 01034 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202338101034
AQUACULTURE 2022

After analysis of this data we realized, that our hypothesis did not prove itself-
difference in value significance could not explain that fact that generation Y is less engaged
then generation X employees, such values as family, self- realization are still mainstream
for both generations. Minor differences in status, hedonism, communication perception in
this way we were driven to the conclusion that we need to search deeper into orientation
and beliefs of different generations.

4 Method of collectivism and individualism orientation

measuring by L. G. Pochebut
Collectivism/Individualism is relatively newly formed construct, not many scientists have
research in this field. We can note the works of the following authors who explore its
individual aspects: [25-31] and others. G. Hofstede [32] included this construct in his
organizational culture model.
Y. Kashima [33] proved that it makes sense to consider collectivism and individualism
as different cultural patterns. The Russians are mostly inclined to collectivism pattern – this
specific feature of Russian people was noticed by [25-29].
V.I. Pischik [19] differentiates horizontal and vertical collectivism and individualism
(Table 4). Horizontal individualism involves beliefs, attitudes and values equality of all
people and at the same time understanding the uniqueness of each person. Horizontal
collectivism is based on attitudes and values of universal equality, status privileges are not
allowed. Vertical individualism means considering status privileges. There are no uniform
rules for this, each person sets his own measure of their individuality and importance.
Vertical collectivism is characterized by attitudes and norms of a rigid status hierarchies in
relationships.
This method was developed on the basis of cultural syndromes test by H.C. Triandis.
Cultural syndromes consist of shared beliefs, attitudes, norms, role and self-definitions, and
values of members of each culture that are organized around a theme. In other words, it
tests cognition map with its beliefs and Triandis pointed out at 2 kinds of maps:
collectivism and individualism. As V.I. Pischik [19] states collectivism and individualism
were earlier accepted by sociologists and psychologists as opposite orientations but recently
they are treated as 2 poles of one scale.
Triandis method adapted by L. G. Pochebut is also based on beliefs which people share
about sociocultural environment: behaviour, feelings, attitudes about what is right or
wrong, self-concept, styles of communication and interaction, systems of reletionships. H.
Triandis on the basis of statistical data showed that in one culture both collectivist and
individualist models can coexist, but the percentage of one of them will always prevail.
Table 4. Criteria for individualism/collectivism construct by V.I. Pischik, Criteria of construct
collectivism/individualism.
No. Criteria Construct features

Collectivism Individualism

1 Self-concept interdependent self, not independent self, worrisome cognitive

disturbed by cognitive inconsistency
inconsistency
2 Orientation at the group, considers the Oriented at himself, considers the
context, strives to change characteristics of the individual and
themselves for the sake of the the situation, strives to change others
group

8
E3S Web of Conferences 381, 01034 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202338101034
AQUACULTURE 2022

3 Value group values, individual values,

orientations authority orientation,
oriented at traditional
values
4 Attitudes equality, small distance to the
group, highly sociable,
interdependence, self-
confidence (not to be a burden
to the group),
inclusion in a limited number
groups, conformism,
authoritarianism (vertical
collectivism), status
5 Norms rigidity,
disputes within the group are
not welcome,
sacrifice for the group, modesty
is a priority
6 Communication strict implementation of status,
rules role rules
7 Relationship subordination, hostility
system to
"strangers", show little
social laziness
8 Communication compromise, family integrity,
strategies indirect allusions,
indirect communication
8 Interaction cooperation,
styles support, in a conflict situation
they confront less, use
integration and compromise
9 The personality Extraversion -introversion,
model includes accommodation, conformity.
Emotional stability, openness
independence from authorities,
oriented at
social values
hierarchy, great emotional distance,
isolation, self-confidence, hedonism,
superficial attachment to the group,
inclusion in an unlimited number of
groups, status, nonconformism
open-mindedness, disputes within the
group are welcome, sacrifice is not
welcome, emphasize is on high opinion
about yourself
freedom in the rules, confusion of roles
distancing, equal relations with both
“ours” and “strangers”, more often
show
social laziness
competition, rivalry,
direct
communication
equal relations, in a conflict situation
they often use
confrontation, rivalry, aggressiveness
Extraversion
- introversion
Accommodation.
Conformity
Emotional stability
openness

Two hundred and ninety-eight employees’ statements of generation X and Y (148 and
150 accordingly) were evaluated. The purpose was to receive the proportion index and
evaluate what orientation (collectivism or Individualism) prevails in one generation group.
The closer the index to 1, the more equal is representation of two orientations in the group.
Employees were offered thirty statements, varied in such a way that indirectly they
manifested collectivistic or individualistic set of beliefs about life. Each respondent was
supposed to choose either one or the other statement. These statements reflected attitude
and beliefs on such subjects like: orientation, self-concept, communication style, interaction
style, norms and attitudes. After interpreting the results which meant counting points for
each statement supporting individualism pattern and collectivism pattern.

5 Results and conclusions

Out of 148 employees of generation X only 48 employees demonstrated collectivism
orientation and 100 employees demonstrated individualism which indicates proportion
index is equal to 0,48. In the Y generation group the portion of individualism was higher:
73 respondents demonstrated individualism and 87 employees displayed collectivism
orientation, so proportion index in the Y generation sampling is 0,84. As stated V.I. Pischik

9
E3S Web of Conferences 381, 01034 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202338101034
AQUACULTURE 2022

one of the important characteristics of the construct is its variability. As we see out of this
research it can change from generation to generation.
Out of these results it follows that Y generation employees who are less engaged into
the corporative culture have more individualism-oriented mind maps than generation X.
Secondly, we can state that collectivism orientation is more numerable in both groups,
which is predictable for Russian employees. Russian culture has mostly collectivistic roots
[2;3;18;25-28].
After two tests for X and Y generation groups we can suppose why younger generation
is less engaged and satisfied, but we can state a hypothesis that individualism orientation
which is highly demonstrated among generation Y makes people to strive for more
independence, healthy competition, open, changing roles easier and expecting such a
behavior from others, they are more hedonistic, so they find well-being part of corporative
life more important than generation X, they appreciate hybrid schedule, distant work, which
the company did not have at the moment of the study.
The last but not the least is the question about dynamic of variability of the mentality
construct: if generation Y has more individualism-oriented representatives, does this mean
that Z generation is going to be even more individualistic.

Refferences
1. E.A. Locke, The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction, in Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology (Dunnatte Marvin ed. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976)
2. V.Yu. Kotlyakov, Methods of studying the system of life meanings. Siberian
psychology today: Sat. scientific tr. Issue. 2 (Kemerovo: Kuzbassvuzizdat, 2004)
3. L.G. Pochebut, Gender and Culture: Russian perspective. Psychology of Gender
Through the Lens of Culture. Theories and Applications (Saba Safdar, Natasza
Kosakowska-Berezecka (Editors) Springer, 2015)
4. H.C. Triandis, R. Bontempo, K. Leung, C.H. Hui, J. of Cross-Cultural Psychology
21(3), 302–318 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022190213003
5. H.C. Triandis, Individualism And Collectivism (1st ed.) (Routledge, 1995).
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429499845
6. K. Thompson, D.E. Chernatony, L. Arganbright, S. Khaan, J. of Marketing Manag.
15(8), 819-835 (1999)
7. G. Finck, J. Timmers, M. Mennes, Across the board 35(9), 55-56 (1998)
8. E. Chinomona, T. Mofokeng, J. of Soc. Sci. (COES&RJ-JSS) 4(1), 649-663 (2015)
9. K. Matzler, B. RenziL, Tourism Manag. 28, 1093-1103 (2007)
10. R.M. Morgan, S.D. Hunt, J. of Marketing 58, 20-38 (1994)
11. A. Panda, C.K. Sahoo, Eur. J. of Manag. Studies 26(2/3), 103–123 (2021)
12. R. Baral, S. Bhargava, J. of Managerial Psychology 25(3), 274–300 (2008)
13. L. Van Dyne, J.W. Graham, R.M. Dienesch, Academy of manag. J. 37(4), 765-802
(1994)
14. J.H. Greenhaus, K.M. Collins, J.D. Shaw, J. of Vocational Behavior 63, 510-531
(2003)
15. K.E. Howell, F. Annansingh, Int. J. of Inf. Manag. 33(1), 32-39 (2013)
16. S.P. Robbins, T.A. Judge, Organizational Behavior (17th ed.) (Pearson Education,
2017)

10
E3S Web of Conferences 381, 01034 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202338101034
AQUACULTURE 2022

17. N. Howe, W. Strauss, Business, Medicine. Harvard business review 85(7-8), 41-52
(2007)
18. V. Pishchik, E3S Web Conf. 210, 20007 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202021020007
19. V.I. Pishchik, E3S Web Conf. 258, 9, 07037 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202125807037
20. V.I. Pishchik, Psychology, Educational 2, 30-36 (2006)
21. V.I. Pishchik, The Mentality of generations in the fluid modernity (Monograph)
(Moscow: INFRA-M Academic Publishing LLC, 2019)
22. Sh. Amde, M. Thomran, Yi. Ayalew, H. Ahmed, Marketing and Management of
Innovations 13, 207-217 (2023). DOI: 10.21272/mmi.2022.4-19
23. T. Hogarth, D. Bosworth, Future Horizons for Work-life Balance (2009)
24. I. Macleod, N. Clarke, Engaging for Success: Enhancing Performance Through
Employee Engagement (2009). https://doi.org/10.1037/e576512011-001
25. K.A. Abulkhanova, et al., Russian mentality: cross-cultural and typological approach.
Russian mentality questions of psychological theory and practice (M.: IP RAN, 1997)
26. E.E. Budalina, Tolerance and identity as indicators of adaptation in the new. Socio-
cultural environment (based on the study of the Komi-Permyak and Russian ethnic
groups). Yearbook of the RPO 9(4) (2002)
27. K. Kasyanova, On the Russian national character (M.: Academic project; Ekaterinburg:
Business book, 2003)
28. K.V. Korostelina, Uchenye zapiski Taurida National University. High 12(51), 2 (2001)
29. N.M Lebedeva, Psychological j. 20(3), 430 (1999)
30. N.M. Lebedeva, Psychological j. 22(3), 26–36 (2001)
31. G.U. Soldatova, Psychology of interethnic tension (M.: Meaning, 1998)
32. G. Hofstede, Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2, 1-26 (2011).
https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014
33. E.S. Kashima, Y. Kashima, J. of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29(3), 461–486 (1998).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022198293005

11
 © 2023. This work is licensed under
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”).
Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and conditions, you
may use this content in accordance with the terms of the
License.