Brace yourself, Gen Z is coming! : A qualitative study about Swedish Generation Z’s leadership preferences in entry-level jobs.

Brace yourself, Gen Z

is coming!

A qualitative study about Swedish Generation Z’s leadership

preferences in entry-level jobs.

BACHELOR DEGREE PROJECT THESIS WITHIN: Business and Administration NUMBER OF CREDITS: 15 ECTS

PROGRAMME OF STUDY: International Management AUTHORS: William Elias, Daniel Johansson, Oscar van de Voort TUTOR: Nadia Arshad

Acknowledgements

Before reading this bachelor thesis, the research team would like to acknowledge all the involved parties throughout the development of this thesis.

Firstly, we would like to thank our tutor Nadia Arshad for her guidance and valuable input in the process of writing the thesis.

Secondly, we would like to thank all the interviewed participants for giving us their time and providing us with experiences and thoughts to help us provide an answer to the research questions.

Lastly, we would like to thank you for taking your time to read our thesis, hopefully this can provide some guidance on our most recent addition to the workforce, for yourself or the organization you work within.

__________________ _____________________ ___________________

Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration

Title: Brace yourself, Gen Z is coming! A qualitative study regarding generation Z leadership preferences in entry-level jobs.

Authors: William Elias, Daniel Johansson, Oscar van de Voort Tutor: Nadia Arshad

Date: 2021-05-22

Key terms: Generation Z, Gen Z, Entry-level jobs, Workforce, Full-range leadership theory, Transformational leadership, Transactional leadership, Laissez-Faire leadership

Abstract

Background: In recent years, a new generation has rapidly entered the workforce and when this happens it is assumed that some level of disruption will come along. Since Generation Z have only been in the workforce for short amount of time, there is a lack of crucial research regarding their perceived experiences. Because different generations are assumed to have different values, a prominent challenge for organizations is how to correctly lead them. In other words, leadership preferences may differ when a new generation comes into play.

Problem: As of today, there is a substantial knowledge gap regarding Generation Z preferred leadership styles among entry-level jobs. This knowledge gap can cause devastating effects for future organizations. Generation Z is a force to be reckoned with and shall soon become a prevailing member of the labor market in the near future.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the Swedish Generation Z preferred leadership styles, based on lived experiences in an entry-level job and to what extent they prefer transformational, transactional or laissez-faire leadership. The findings are expected to contribute to existing and new theoretical insights regarding Gen Z leadership preferences.

Method: The research was conducted through seven qualitative semi-structured, open-ended interviews, which were analyzed using interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA).

Results: The findings described Generation Z ideal leader based on their thoughts and lived experiences. Gen Z prefers a leader that displays individual consideration, inspires followers and acts as a role model. These characteristics traits bare close resemblance of a transformational leader compared to transactional or laissez-fair leader. Acknowledging these results could contribute to a competitive advantage for organizations during their recruitment and development phase of Gen Z employees.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ... 1

2. Frame of Reference ... 6

2.1 Method for Frame of Reference ... 6

2.2 Literature Review ... 8

2.2.1 Entry-level Jobs ... 8

2.2.3 Definition of the Concept “Generations” ... 13

2.2.4 Different Generations in the Workforce ... 14

2.2.5 Generation Z ... 14

2.3 Gaps in Previous Research ... 17

3. Methodology and Method ... 19

3.1. Methodology... 19

3.1.1 Research Paradigm ... 19

3.1.2. Research Approach ... 20

3.1.3. Research Design ... 20

3.2 Method... 21

3.2.1 Primary Data Collection ... 21

3.2.2 Sampling Approach ... 21

3.2.2 Semi-structured Interviews ... 22

3.2.3 Question Design ... 23

3.2.4 Data Analysis ... 25

3.2.5 Challenges with IPA ... 26

3.3 Ethical Considerations ... 27

3.3.1 Anonymity and Confidentiality ... 27

3.3.2 Credibility ... 28

3.3.3 Transferability ... 28

3.3.4 Dependability ... 29

3.3.5 Confirmability ... 29

4. Findings & Analysis ... 31

4.1 Background ... 31

4.1.1 Significant Statements and Formulating Meanings ... 31

4.1.2 Categorizing into themes ... 34

4.2 Analysis of the Themes ... 36

4.2.1 Leadership Attributes ... 36

4.2.2 Communication ... 37

4.2.3 Reward, Motivation & Purpose ... 39

4.2.4 Leader-Follower Relationship ... 40

4.2.5 Workplace Environment ... 42

4.3.1 R1: What specific leadership characteristics does Swedish Gen Z’s prefer in leaders within entry-level jobs? ... 44

4.3.2 R.2 To what degree do Swedish Gen Z leadership preferences fit the full range leadership theory? ... 46

5. Conclusion ... 51

6. Discussion ... 53

Reference list ... 56

Appendences ... 64

Figure 1: Generation Z and the FRLT model ... 64

Figure 2: Connecting preferred leadership characteristics with the FRLT model... 64

Table 1: Interview Overview ... 65

Table 2: Significant Statements ... 66

Table 3: Formulated Meanings ... 67

Table 4: Examples of Emergent Themes... 68

1. Introduction

Initially, the researchers introduce the topic of Generation Z with a background on previous research followed by the problem and purpose. Further, the research intertwines into two different research questions. At last, a section with definitions of terms the researchers commonly reiterate in the text that akin to the topic will be presented.

1.1 Background

Recently a new generation has emerged in the workforce, namely Generation Z. A generation that grew up in a world full of technology, constantly connected through their various devices (Statista, 2021). While the previous Millennial generation has been extensively researched, less can be stated about Generation Z (Seemiller & Grace, 2018). The labor force will see a continuous inflow of individuals available to the workforce as the majority of Generation Z are expected to graduate high school and college in the upcoming years. Hence, there will be a continuous stream of new individuals from a younger generation, ready to replace the older generations. When a new employee is eligible and actively seeks a formal job, the individual commonly starts within an entry-level job, due to lack of experience. Thus, today Generation Z are more likely to begin with an entry-level job. However, many of the first jobs are more informal e.g., lawn mowing, babysitting or selling lemonade, these are jobs that one does not associates to entry-level jobs. When the individual is younger the formal work sector applies to regular and regulated jobs that we include in the workforce. As a new generation enters the workforce, researchers and businesses commonly compares the generations characteristics and preferences against previous generations. The conclusions of these comparisons often end up in how the generation will disrupt the workforce (Deloitte & Network of Executive Women, 2019). As research evolves, new predictions and conclusions about the generational cohort are expected. Leadership is one of the more interesting factors of a workplace that could be affected by a generational change. Or more precisely, what type of leadership the new generation might prefer. Leadership plays a central part in any organization and with a lack of research regarding the phenomena, new generations preferences remain unclear.

Generation Z or commonly referred to as Gen Z, accounts for roughly 2 billion of the habitants on earth today, hence, they represent approximately 30% of the world’s population (McCrindle,

2019; Pischler et al., 2021). The oldest Gen Z'ers are born in 1995 and the youngest in 2012 (McGaha, 2018; Seemiller & Grace, 2018; Bako, 2018; Berkup, 2014), researchers considered the cohort as the first true global generation (McCrindle, 2019). While the majority of the cohort are still in school, the oldest, are now the latest addition to the workforce. In 2025, McCrindle (n.d) expects the aggregated amount of Gen Z in the workforce to consist of 27% globally, however, these numbers will fluctuate as these are predictions made onto the future.

The term generation can be described as the people that were born and experienced the same distinctive circumstances, thus creating shared values among the cohort. These circumstances can be politics, war, culture, technology and economics (Seemiller & Grace, 2018; Pischler et al., 2021). Today there are six generations that accounts for the majority of the habitants on our planet. The oldest, Traditionalists (1925-1942), followed by Baby boomers (1943-1960), Generation X (1960-1980), Generation Y or Millennials (1980-1995) and finally Generation Z (1995-2012) and the youngest Generation Alpha (2010-Present) (Berkup, 2014; Bako, 2018; McGaha, 2018; Seemiller & Grace, 2018; McCrindle 2019). At the moment there are five generations working in the labor force: Traditionalist, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z (Fry, 2018).

If there is a lack of research regarding Generation Z, then the opposite can be stated about leadership. Throughout history, leadership has been a popular topic studied by plenty of researchers ever since the 20th _{century. Nevertheless, academics have failed to come to a} consensus defining the term leadership, as it is versatile in different contexts (Bass, 1981; King, 1990; Van Seters & Field, 1990). In the absence of a unified definition, this bachelor thesis elects Bryman’s (1992) definition for leadership:” An individuals’ ability to influence and guide followers towards a shared goal”. Predominantly considering the intended outcome of synthesizing Generation Z, entry-level jobs and leadership intends to serve as a guide for employers, managers or organizations working with Generation Z.

1.2. Problem Discussion

The following research aims to explore Generation Z, in particular what type of leadership Swedish Gen Z'ers prefer within entry-level jobs. Exploring this phenomenon might help employers and managers to understand what type of leadership fits the new generation, which may lead to competitive advantages (Pischler et al., 2021).

Pischler et al. (2021) discusses that Generation Z is expected to become the largest demographic entry-level job workers in the years to come. However, he argues that there is limited research within the field. General research has been made on Australian and American Gen Z’ers to help employers prepare for Generation Z (McCrindle n.d; Deloitte, 2017; Sodexo 2018; Deliotte & Network of Executive Women, 2019). However, when it comes to Generation Z in Sweden, there is a lack of research, which means that their leadership preferences remain unclear. The importance of studying the generation only in Sweden comes down to both the broadness of the topic, but also cultural, demographic and social differences between countries. What leadership preferences Generation Z in Australia have might not have any implications for leaders in Sweden, as their employees might value other characteristics. Hence, this study may contribute existing literature and hopefully enable leaders and organizations in Sweden to manage Generation Z more efficiently. With each new generation, new traits and characteristics emerge, this can entail opportunities and challenges for businesses. By utilizing the competencies of the generation, businesses can achieve a competitive advantage against their competitors. As of today, employers might not be prepared to meet this new generation. (Pichler et al., 2021)

As Seemiller and Grace (2018) elaborated, that it is hard to distinguish people born towards the end of a generation as they may have more in common with the subsequent generation. The same applies for people born at an early stage in the generation cycle, therefore they might have more in common with their predecessors. The people born towards an end, or a beginning of a new cycle are referred to as cuspers (Seemille & Grace 2018). As aforementioned by previous scholars, numerous cuspers is causing dissension among scholars. Henceforth, Generation Z in this study shall be defined as people born between 1995 and 2012. In order to address this error, researchers will selectively elude cuspers as participants for the interviews. Consequently, the qualitative interviews will consist of participants born between 2000 and 2001.

1.3 Research Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine what leadership preferences Generation Z have in the workplace. In an ocean of research regarding leadership in organizations, the nature of the topic directs the study to explore leadership as well as the precinct that this would occur in. In this case, Generation Zed’s preferred leadership characteristics will be explored within entry-levels jobs. To make the findings more comprehendible, they will be compared with the full range leadership theory (FRLT). The literature has shown that there is a knowledge gap regarding the newest generation in the workforce. Therefore, the conducted research in this thesis seeks out to provide valuable insights for leaders, organizations or anyone with an interest in organizational leadership and generational cohort theory.

1.4 Research Question

R.1 What specific leadership characteristics does Swedish Gen Z’s prefer in leaders within entry-level jobs?

R.2 To what degree do Swedish Gen Z leadership preferences fit the full-range leadership theory?

1.5 Delimitations

In order to be able to provide an answer to the research questions, the authors effectively narrowed the scope of the study down. Firstly, the research questions focus solely on Sweden and Swedish Gen Z’s. Due to lack of consensus among scholars when different generations begin and ends, the researchers elected 1995-2012 as Generation Z birth cycle. Additionally, to further narrow the scope of the study, cuspers and individuals who had not yet graduate high school and did not have enough formal working experience were also delimited as eligible for the primary source of data. Hence, Swedish young adults born 2000-2001 were elected to provide more accurate data related to the research questions. Secondly, in accordance with the interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) a non-probabilistic sampling method was used instead of a probability sampling method in order to achieve a fairly homogeneous sample. Since the generation just started to enter the workforce and lacks prior experience, entry-level jobs are where one might find the majority of Generation Z workers. Thus, older individuals within Generation Z who already started to climb the corporate ladder and has jobs that require more experience were not investigated at all.

1.6 Definitions

Entry-level job: A job in which the expectation on the employees´ are lower and requires less than 1 year experience within the field, industry or post high school education (Johnson & Lahey, 2011).

Cuspers: The individuals born towards the end of a generational shift or at the beginning of a new one i.e., the youngest in generation X and the oldest generation Z. The individuals have more in common with their own generation, however, they are still very much influenced by their predecessors or successors. (Seemiller & Grace, 2018)

Cohorts: Groups of people who were born, grew up and maintained their life in a certain period of time, and are supposed to have common characteristics and viewpoints as they are affected from the events that occurred during the aforementioned period. (Berkup, 2014).

IPA: The Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is a qualitative approach with idiographic focus. IPA focuses on collecting detailed information regarding personal lived experiences. The aim is to provide insights on how a person makes sense of a given phenomenon through their terms. It is especially suited when examining emotional, ambiguous and complex topics (Smith et al., 2009).

Leadership: An individuals’ ability to influence and guide followers towards a shared goal (Bryman, 1992).

2. Frame of Reference

In the frame of reference, the researchers describe the method for reviewing previous literature. Moreover, the researchers introduce previous research in the Literature Review with the three core elements of this thesis, entry-level jobs, leadership and Generation Z. Additionally, the selected theory is presented in the Theoretical Framework. In the last part, the gap from previous research is presented.

2.1 Method for Frame of Reference

In order to create a broad and explanatory frame of reference that could serve as the basis for this research, a systemic and straightforward approach was used in the process of doing the literature review. This eventually led to important and profound observations regarding all three main topics relating to the research topic.

To find the corresponding literature to gain a deeper understanding of the topic, Jönköpings university´s online search engine, Primo, was primarily used, but Google Scholar was also utilized to find relevant literature. Not only does these two search engines provide a vast amount of recognized literature, but they also provide filters and keyword search features that makes the search process more efficient and convenient. The keywords were used to narrow down the majority of literature to only the sources that were more closely related to the three fields, entry-level jobs, leadership and Generation Z. Among the searched keywords the terms generational theory, Generation Z, Gen Z, entry-level jobs, leadership theory and full-range leadership theory were used to locate relevant previous research. Furthermore, while using Primo, all articles that were not peer-reviewed were filtered out and the sources from Google scholar were thoroughly examined to find out if they had been peer-reviewed or not. This was to ensure the quality of the related literature. Moreover, another method of ensuring reliability that was utilized in this research process were to use articles from journals listed in the ABS-list to the utmost extent. However, due to the nature of the research topic, some subjects relate more to social science rather than business and management. Therefore, some of the publishing journals regarding these topics might be mentioned in the ABS-list at a lower rate. The articles from journals that were not listed on the ABS-list were still peer-reviewed, furthermore another round of examination regarding the journal’s credibility was conducted. Factors such as the journals peer-review process, listed in any other credible table or if the journal used

double-blind peer review among other factors was taken into consideration for the article to be deemed as credible.

Besides peer-reviewed articles, one dissertation, seven books and two company research studies were used in the literature review. All of these were mainly used to create more valuable insights regarding Generation Z in the workforce as it is a relatively new topic. Since it is a emerging topic, the academic literature regarding it is scarce and to fully provide a basis for this research it was deemed that additional material would be needed. The sources used were however thoroughly reviewed before being used. Both company research studies are recent and were conducted by distinguished organizations within their industry, such as Sodexo which is on Fortunes 500 list. The PhD thesis was deemed credible as it is an extensive dissertation that has been published. Even if it is uncertain to what extent it has been peer-reviewed it can still be regarded as a scholarly source since it was accepted by an academic audience. Furthermore, the thesis is considered up to date and consists of an extensive bibliography with several referred sources being academic.

Finally, the books used in the literature review were all related to the topic of generations and leadership, either general or in the workplace. The credibility of these books was confirmed by mainly looking at the publisher and what reputation they had. Among the publishers all were reputable, Edward Edgar publishing and Routledge are two leading academic publishers within social sciences. The third is HarperCollins which is regarded as one of the world largest publishing companies. Besides the reputation of the publishers, the content of the books was also examined to make sure that they were up to date and that the content was accurate with what had been published before. The books that were not recently published did not relate to Generation Z but were instead used gain a deeper understanding of previous generations as well as leadership.

2.2 Literature Review

2.2.1 Entry-level Jobs

Entry-level jobs are most commonly associated with an individual's first job or jobs that require little to no previous experience. Entry-level jobs are typically found in the service sector (Johnson & Lahey, 2011). Jin et al. (2014) examined job-related attributes for the initial job selection for students who just graduated college. As stated by Jin et al. (2014, p.305), “Although the first job choice does not determine a career, the first job has significant impacts on one’s personal and career development.” (p, 305).

Commonly, teenagers and young adults have worked beside their compulsory education, based on findings from Jin et al. (2014), teenagers start in more informal jobs including babysitting or lawn mowing. Subsequently as they grow older it is more common that they take on more formal jobs, such as restaurants cafés, retail stores or supermarkets (Jin et. al., 2014). Further, Raby et al. (2018), conducted a qualitative study on children in Canada between the age of 11-17 and their lived experience from their first jobs. While some had a formal job such as a restaurant or a store job, others had informal jobs including babysitting or lawn mowing. While the primary reason for working was to receive money to either buy items for themselves or to help out their family. Most teenagers also discussed the long-term benefits of developing skills and experiences that they later could apply throughout their careers. On the other hand, some experienced that their employers exploited them, due to their low wages and lack of experience. McKechnie et al. (2014), conducted a quantitative study on school students in Britain, between the age of 14-18, and concluded that the majority of the students who had a part-time job felt that it brought value to them. Two issues that employers have seen when recruiting new workers is the lack of experience in customer service and teamwork. In the study, the majority of the respondents answered that they both worked in a team and their job included customer meetings which in that case definitely would be beneficial when applying for a job (McKechine et al., 2014).

2.2.2 Leadership Theory

The concept of leadership covers a wide range of aspects which has resulted in various definitions. As mentioned by Bass (1981), there is almost an equal distribution of people who have attempted to define leadership, as there are actual definitions of leadership. Fiedler (1967) chose to define leadership as an individual who is given the task to delegate and coordinate the

activities of a group, while simultaneously bearing the sole responsibility for the execution. On the other hand, Bryman (1992) defined leadership as an individual’s ability to influence and guide followers towards a shared goal. Stogdill (1950) defined leadership as the active process of influencing groups towards a set goal. The aftereffect of noble attempts to define leadership led scholars to create leadership styles. This was done to better define the relationship between leaders and followers, as well as the width of decision-making (Ismail & Ford, 2010). However, as could be expected, there exists no ‘’one size-fit all’’ definitions of leadership styles either, which makes leadership styles an inherently difficult concept to define (Aga, 2016).

This thesis chooses to analyze Generation Z preferred leadership attributes through the FRLT constructed by Bass and Avolio in 1991. The theory is derived from Burns and Bass original work; transactional and transformational leadership (Jensen et al., 2019). The FRLT consist out of three components: transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership. The transactional leadership style can loosely be described as a leadership style that is based on control and processes, which in return requires a stricter management style. On the other hand, transformational leadership focuses more on inspiring others to follow and is more linked towards team orientation, thus requires a great deal of coordination and communication skills. Lastly, laissez-faire leadership can be seen as the direct opposite of transactional and transformational leadership, whereas instead of having one leader making most of the decision, laissez-faire leadership is a more hands-off approach. Employees are initially encouraged to do most of the problem solving and decision making, while the leader undertakes a passive role. (Bass & Avolio, 1998)

The reasoning behind adopting FRLT to analyze Generation Z preferred leadership style was based on its popularity, global interest and the extensive research made on the topic (Bush, 2018; Gardner et al., 2010; Antonakis et al., 2014). Furthermore, it is assessed as today's evolution of Letwin’s theory of leadership styles and leadership trait theory (Chou, 2012; Bass, 1990; Bass & Avolio, 1993). Thus, making the FRLT one of the most accepted models within leadership, backed up with strong empirical data. The goal was never to define a new type of leadership style, nor was it to test every type of leadership theory in comparison with generation Z, rather the aim with this paper was to analyze what type of leadership trait best suited generation Z based on an acknowledged leadership theory. However, despite the significant empirical support surrounding the FRLT, there still exists some criticism regarding the theory. More specifically, transactional and transformational leadership is being criticized by a number

of scholars, due to it is one-size-fits-all approach, disregarding some situational and contextual factors (McCleskey, 2014). While this might be true to some extent, the purpose with adopting FRLT for this thesis is solely to use the different leadership theories as guidelines for generation Z. There will always exist some critique regardless of leadership style or contextual situation it is portrayed in.

2.2.2.1 Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership can be described as leaders who ‘’transforms’’ their followers. They emphasize development and growth by inspiring and motivating their subordinates to achieve results beyond what was first thought possible. The founder of transformational leadership, Burns (1978), described the leadership theory as "one who raises the followers' level of consciousness about the importance and value of desired outcomes and the methods of reaching those outcomes" (p. 141). This means that transformational leaders actively work with motivation and inspiration to achieve organizational objectives. There is a big emphasis on creating a creative environment and meeting the needs and wants of the employees. In contrast to transactional leadership, which is mainly based on exchange relationships, transformational leadership maintains an ongoing relationship between leaders and followers. Consequently, a leader must establish themself as a role model, gaining the trust and confidence of his/her followers by conforming to their personal and social needs, while at the same time meeting the organization's goals and values. In return, the transformational leader aims to offer followers a feeling of purpose that transcends the follower’s self-interest by appealing to their values and ideas (Prasad & Junni, 2016). The transformational leadership style consists of four dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration (Prasad & Junni, 2016):

Idealized influence

The first dimensions represent the degree of trust, respect and identification that followers have towards their leader. This is achieved by identifying with the follower’s values, emotions and ideas. Furthermore, the leader needs to act as a role model, displaying desirable behaviors which in return is taken on by the followers. For example, the leader must conform his/her behavior to the values and purposes of the organization. The leader should also go beyond one’s self-interest to achieve organizational goals.

Inspirational motivation

The second dimensions represent the leader’s ability to create a shared vision that is compelling enough for his/her followers to undertake. Leaders that display inspirational motivation should exhibit enthusiasm and optimism regarding the goals and plans of the organization. In return, this would create a drive among the followers, motivate them to exceed expectations and strive for excellence.

Intellectual stimulation

The third dimension is all about risk encouragement and innovative thinking. The leader should encourage followers to rethink the old ways of doing things and instead focus on problem solving to come up with new innovative ideas. This is done by creating a working environment that encourages risk taking and helps followers to challenge basic assumptions. The purpose is to stimulate the employees creative thinking and innovativeness to see the bigger picture.

Individual consideration

The last dimension regards the leader’s ability to act as a coach or mentor towards its followers. This means that the leader needs to treat and respect each follower as the unique individual that they are, providing individualized attention. Furthermore, the leader should offer continuous feedback and involve the followers in learning opportunities.

2.2.2.2 Transactional Leadership

Before the transformational leadership theory was initially introduced, transactional leadership was considered to be the superior form of leadership (Bass et al., 2013). In contrast to transformational leadership, which is mainly built around relationships, transactional leadership is more exchange focused. Transactional leaders focus on the extrinsic needs of its subordinates, rewarding desirable performance by exchanging tangible rewards. Due to their exchange nature, it is believed that relationships between leaders and followers are rather short-term and shallow (Bass, 1978). Martin (2015) argues that transactional leadership is more of a traditional type of leadership style, where the leader carefully measures and observes any missteps and deviations made by the employees. Furthermore, the leader needs to establish clear norms and tasks in order for their employees to meet organizational goals. For example, followers meeting organizational objectives get rewarded, while failing to do so leads to disciplinary actions. In return this leads to employees fulfilling their own self-interest, reducing workplace anxiety and maximizing focus on organizational goals. Consequently, Prasad and

Junni (2016) believed that transactional leadership suits the skills needed to become an effective leader but lacks the ability to create change and inspire followers to achieve higher levels. The three dimension of transactional leadership consists of (Judge & Piccolo, 2004):

Contingent reward

The first dimensions refer to the leader’s ability to set clear goals and expectations and establish rewards for followers who meet these expectations. As a result, upon completion, individuals will meet expected levels of performance.

Active management by expectation

The second dimensions relate to the leader’s ability to actively manage its subordinates. The leader closely observers its followers’ errors and failures to meet organizational standards. Any deviances or mistakes that might occur gets corrected by the leader as soon as possible in order to avoid any serious damage.

Passive management by expectation

The last dimension shares the same criteria as active management. The sole difference is that a passive leader does not intervene until the followers have made some actual damage. On the other hand, an active leader continuously works with preventing and anticipating problems before they manage to occur.

2.2.2.3 Laissez-faire Leadership

Laissez-faire is the last leadership theory in the FRLT and is commonly referred to as the hands-off or absence leadership theory (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Laissez-faire leaders are seen as absent decision makers, escaping responsibilities and holding a generally passive leadership role (Ryan & Tipu, 2013). It is viewed as the direct opposite of transformational and to some extent differ from transactional leadership (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008). While the laissez-faire leadership and transactional leadership, does bear some resemblance, such as both theories can utilize a passive management style. Several researchers have argued that laissez-faire leadership should be treated separately, due to its absence of any type of leadership style, transactional or transformational (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). The effects of a passive and avoidance behavior tend to contribute a lower level of self-esteem and frustration among followers (McColl-Kennedy & Anderson, 2005). Yang (2015) states that the dominant view of laissez-faire leadership is widely considered negative, which in return has created a somewhat

biased view regarding the theory. Yang (2015) argues that this predetermined mindset can be partly negative, as laissez-faire leadership actually can create a sense of autonomy and self-control among followers. Furthermore, empirical research made by Ryan and Tipu (2013) suggests that there are some positive outcomes from laissez-faire leadership, such as increased creativity. Ultimately the effectiveness of a certain type of leadership style depends solely on how it is perceived by its followers (Yang, 2015).

2.2.3 Definition of the Concept “Generations”

The idea of generations is not new, and it can be traced back to the early 20th _{century (Twenge} & Campbell, 2012). Since it is an older concept, there already exists extensive literature regarding the topic. However, there seem to be different opinions regarding what defines a generation. Seemiller and Grace (2018), state that a generation can be defined as “the entire body of individuals born and living at about the same time” (p,xviii). These generations may stretch between 14 and 20 years until the next generation appears. During these years the cohort´s characteristics are more clearly unveiled (Seemiller & Grace, 2018). However, this is a strictly chronological definition, but what shapes a generation may have more defining factors than only being born in the same cluster of birthdays. On top of sharing birth years, Kirschmayer and Fratričová (2018), mention that people in one generation also share location and significant life events. It is argued that these distinctive experiences a generation commonly encounter may lead people to develop a similar mindset. Therefore, individuals in one cohort, exhibit similar beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and values. Since each generation throughout time experience different critical events, implies that the values between generations should differ.

In the dissertation conducted by McGaha (2018), she acknowledges how the previous mentioned scholars choose to define generations. However, she adds on how historical events also influence a generation. Besides chronological classification and being influenced by life events, important changing historical events also defines a generation. For example, how the cohort from 1943 to 1960 called “baby boomers” was influenced by the historical aftermath of the civil rights movement and the JFK administration (McGaha, 2018). The last-mentioned definition combines all elements into one more refined version. Berkup (2014) suggests a definition of the concept generation that resembles the refined definition, and it goes as the following, “The groups of people who were born, grew and maintained their life in a certain period of time, and are supposed to have common characteristics and viewpoints as they are affected from the events that occurred during the aforementioned period” (p.219).

2.2.4 Different Generations in the Workforce

Researchers have been able to trace generations far back in time, however, in recent years even more studies regarding the topic have appeared. As a result of this, Generations Z predecessors have been more thoroughly explained (McGaha, 2018). This means that the generations currently active in the workforce before Generation Z have been well explored, which is important when bridging generation cohort theory with leadership theory. These generations include the Veterans or Traditionalists, Baby boomers, Generation X, Generation Y or Millennials and finally Generation Z (Berkup, 2014; Bako, 2018; McGaha, 2018; Seemiller & Grace, 2018). Never before has there been this many generations working together, which most likely will have some implication on the future workplace dynamic (Berkup, 2014).

In a workplace situation, generational diversity may bring more perspectives, however, it can also create misunderstanding and confusion. As previously mentioned, different generations have different characteristics and viewpoints. Therefore, organizations and leaders must try to understand how each generation functions. To get the most out of their employees, managers need to understand the different needs, values and attitudes of the generations in their workforce (Twenge & Campbell, 2012). Lyons and Kuron (2014) concluded that there is a generational difference in many important workplace factors. These include personality, work values, attitudes and the most important for this thesis, leadership. However, the authors state that there needs to be further research on the dynamic between leadership and different generations (Lyons & Kuron, 2014).

2.2.5 Generation Z

Generation Z is the newest addition to the workforce and because of that, researchers have flocked trying to describe the characteristics of the cohort (Kirchmayer & Fratričová, 2018). Magano et al. (2020), states that there is no general consensus in the literature regarding the time span of Generation Z. For example, in the book, Generation Z: A Century in the making written by Seemiller and Grace (2018) use 1995-2010 as the time period for Generation Z. The reasoning behind this is mainly based on observations of what others have used, as well as significant life events that occurred during that time (Seemiller & Grace, 2018). On the other hand, Bako (2018) claims that the commonly referred start date for Generation Z is after 1996. Moreover, Pew Research Center (2019) put the time span of Generation Z between 1997-2012. However, it is mentioned that it is not easy to exactly define a generation start and end date. In any case of trying to figure out the birth year range, there will be some variance in the literature,

hence, it is recommended that this should not be the focus. Instead, the years should mainly be used as a tool to analyze what important factors and events that could define a new generation. This does not indicate that generational discontinuance may be randomly defined. Typically, there is some agreement in the literature of what important events are critical for defining a generation (Pew Research Center. 2019). Magano et al. (2020) add that there are more important things to focus on than figuring out exact dates, such as comprehending the factors that could explain a generation´s characteristics.

In literature, the term Generation Z seems to be the most prominent name for the cohort that comes after Generation Y. Nevertheless, Generation Z has been referred as numerous other titles, some examples include, Digital natives, iGen, Digital generation and media generation (Berkup, 2014). As can be assumed, these specific names relate to the notion that Generation Z has never seen a world without technology and therefore have been heavily influenced by it (Magano et al., 2020; Beck & Wright, 2019). On top of this, McGaha (2018) mentions that Homelanders is a term used for the generation. The reasoning behind this name is connected to the founding of homeland security after the 9/11 attacks (McGaha, 2018; Seemiller & Grace, 2018). Another common name for Generation Z is “Generation C”, whereas the C stands for communicating, computerized, community-oriented and connected. This term is based on that the individuals in Generation Z are the first ones to be born in a completely connected and global world (Kirchmayer & Fratričová, 2018). Even if these names all relate to important defining events and factors for the cohort, the name Generation Z is still the one that has stuck in most dictionaries and research papers (Pew Research Center, 2019). Seemiller and Grace (2018), argues that the rationale behind using Generation Z in their book is because of the alphabetical simplicity. After Generation X came Generation Y, which would logically be followed by Generation Z. Moreover, studies done by Stillman, D and Stillman, J (2017) have shown that a large majority of Gen Z members either enjoyed their name, Generation Z, or simply did not have an opinion.

Compared with previous generations, the majority of the cohort, seeks higher education and they are expected to be the most educated generation yet (Pichler et al., 2021). Further, Pew Research Center (2019) conducted a quantitative study on Gen Z in 2018, which also indicated the same findings. Of the sample selection 57% was enrolled in a two-year or four-year college program, in comparison to 52% of Generation Y and 43% of Generation X. (Parker & Igielnik, 2020). Perhaps this does not come as a surprise since the requirements and the skills has

changed over the last decades. In 1973, less than one third of the jobs required a post-high school education (29%). Furthermore, the entry-level requirements for a job in 2020 with post-secondary education is set to be nearly three out of four jobs (74%) (Carnvale et al., 2012). 2.2.5.1 Characteristics of Generation Z

As mentioned previously, each generation has different attributes and characteristics that are shaped by different factors. In the literature, several characteristics of Generation Z can be found. Chillakuri and Mahanandia (2018) state that Generation Z'ers are more critical thinking. Because of technological advancements in both the education system and in other parts of their life, people are earlier exposed to more knowledge from a younger age. This, in combination with them being encouraged to debate and join discussions in school, has led them to later be able to question conventional ways of doing things. Therefore, this cohort is still described as the most formally educated generation throughout the times, with their learning preferences leaning towards interactive education. This might also be a factor why some characterize them as pragmatics and analytics (Kirchmayer & Fratričová, 2018; Magano, et al., 2020).

Furthermore, another prominent characteristic of Generation Z can be summarized in the term, open-mindedness. Schroth (2019) mentions the vast majority of Gen Z believe that everyone is equal and should therefore be treated accordingly. Issues regarding diversity are more important for them than any previous generation (Schroth 2019). This would come as no surprise as Generation Z is regarded as the most racially diverse generation so far. They also have high levels of non-hetero sexual orientations and a general acceptance for gender fluidity. It is more common for them to be accepting and comfortable around those who might be different from themselves (Seemiller & Grace, 2018; Bako, 2018). This topic is also touched upon by Chillakuri and Mahanandia (2018), who mentions that global exposure is a defining characteristic of Generation Z. Since they are more willing to embrace diversity, it is no problem for them to work in a global context.

Finally, it would not be right to discuss the characteristics of Gen Z without talking about the major impact that technology have had. Within the literature, almost all sources that discusses Generation Z attributes mentions technology. Generation Z is the first generation that is complete digital natives. Since birth, they have been connected and younger people in Gen Z might not even remember the time before the internet or social media. This has led the generation to be able to consume information quicker than any previous cohort (Lanier, 2017).

Further, Berkup (2014) argues that the advancement of technology is the most distinguishing trait of Gen Z. It is something that is integrated into almost all aspects of their lives (Berkup, 2014; Kirchmayer & Fratričová, 2018). Technology such as smartphones and social media have led people to expect things to be fast and instant (Chillakuri & Mahanandia, 2018). Whilst technology does not solely define Generation Z, it cannot be understated how big of an impact it has had on how the generation communicates, gain knowledge and work (Seemiller & Grace, 2018).

Even if there have been many researchers trying to figure out the defining attributes of Generation Z, the literature is still at an emerging phase when it comes to many elements of the generation (Chillakuri, 2020). Research from Sodexo emphasizes the urgent need for organizations to understand the expectations Generation Z have of a workplace (Sodexo, 2018). McGaha (2018) argues that the problem with the lack of research is that Generation Z is flooding the workforce and even though it is inevitable, many organizations around the world are still not prepared for it (McGaha, 2018). Lainer (2017) agrees on this by noting that millions of Generation Z'ers are joining the workforce every year and it remains a challenge for leaders to figure out how to manage a different generation.

2.3 Gaps in Previous Research

After elaborating and reviewing previous research in the area of Generation Z and leadership in working environments, a comprehensive understanding of the themes has been compiled. Even though leadership has seen extensive research for decades (Bass, 1981; King, 1990; Van Seters & Field, 1990), research on Generation Z in working environments remains relatively unexplored (Seemiller & Grace, 2018; Pischler, 2021). Primarily due to the fact that the generation has just started to graduate school and is now becoming a part of the workforce. Hence, today's scholars have suitable subjects to research within the field of management in working environments. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of leadership preferences it is also deemed that it would be better explore to which extent they fit into different leadership styles. In this case, the FRLT model was chosen to represent leadership. This is visualized in Figure 1 in the second research question of the thesis. Furthermore, through neglect spotting, a gap has been found, the generation is a notably contemporary under-researched area. Thus, the researchers can contribute to the existing literature by providing insights and guide managers when working with the generation and hopefully attain a more efficient organization.

Moreover, as the majority of the previous research was conducted by private recruitment and employment corporations in the US and Australia (Deloitte, 2017; Sedoxo, 2017; Deloitte & Network of Executive Women, 2019; McCrindle, 2020) the market for Swedish Gen Z'ers have not seen extensive research. Given that Generation Z accounts for 17% of the Swedish population (SCB, 2021). Previous scholars have stated that further research is necessary to understand the generation that is set to become the largest socio demographic cohort entering the workforce in the upcoming years (Pischler et al., 2021). The relevance for Swedish employers should not be neglected. Consequently, when amalgamating the topics, two research questions emerged:

R.1 What specific leadership characteristics does Swedish Gen Z’s prefer in leaders within entry-level jobs?

R.2 To what degree do Swedish Gen Z leadership preferences fit the full range leadership theory?

3. Methodology and Method

This part aims to cover all the various aspects in the methodology and method for the thesis, initially, the research paradigm, approach and design are thoroughly elaborated under methodology. Subsequently, the method part in which the researchers describe the different aspects of what type and why a certain method is used in the thesis. Lastly, the researchers cover different aspects in ethics that the researchers encountered and purposely tried to avoid during the process.

3.1. Methodology

3.1.1 Research Paradigm

A research philosophy or paradigm can be defined as what the researchers perceive to be the truth, reality and knowledge. It is the underlying core values that will be the basis of vital parts in the research process, such as the design, data collection and analysis (Ryan, 2018). Therefore, the importance of choosing and developing a coherent and fitting research philosophy cannot be understated. During the extensive period of conducting research, Dougherty et al. (2019) state that a clear research philosophy helps the researcher to state their values and research goals. Furthermore, it also enables further reflection on what the researchers are doing well, and also which parts of the research approach might need more attention (Dougherty et al., 2019). Within the framework of research theory, Collins and Hussey (2014) argues that there are two common research paradigms, positivism and interpretivism.

Since the beginning of this research, it was quite clear that the interpretative research paradigm best resonated with the scope of the study. One of the main ideas of interpretivism is that the truth and knowledge of the real world are subjective. Therefore, it must be derived from peoples own experiences. In other words, there exist not only one consensual reality, but instead reality is one’s own perceptions and feelings. Similarly, it also takes on the relativist perspective of ontology where it is argued that reality can only be understood by the human mind and socially constructed meanings. This is the opposite of positivism where it is argued that there only exists one version of what is real (Ryan, 2018).

The element of subjectivism and relativism encourages researchers to try and understand subjective meanings that already exist in the world, reconstruct them, and eventually use them

to formulate theories (Goldkhul, 2012). Since the research purpose of this study is to investigate the leadership preferences among Gen Z, there is already a commitment to examining peoples lived experiences and preferences. The term “preference” is subjective in nature as it is up to the person in question to make a choice. Therefore, it is hard to imagine this study having any research paradigm with an objective perspective. Hence, because of the strong alignment with the research goals, interpretivism will be the research paradigm undertaken in this study.

3.1.2. Research Approach

In this study, the relationship between data, theories and conclusions will be explored through an inductive approach. The inductive approach is based on moving from the particular to the general, compared to a deductive approach where one would go from the general to particular. In other terms, the inductive method begins with empirical observations about a phenomenon which the researcher later builds theories around (Woiceshyn & Daellenbach, 2018). In the case of this study, the empirical observation of generational leadership preferences was the basis that would lead to data collection through interviews with the intent of finding patterns that could build into theories. Azungah (2018) explains that within the inductive approach to data analysis, findings arise directly from the raw data and not from any other preconceptions regarding the results. To successfully be able to derive themes, further explained in 3.2.4 Data Analysis, the researchers must go through the data line by line to find common themes that relate to the research questions (Azungah, 2018). Finally, this study aims to develop and contribute to existing literature with new theories and generalizations regarding Gen Z´s leaderships which is the goal of any work with an inductive research approach (Collins & Hussey, 2014).

3.1.3. Research Design

Generally, there exist two research approaches for data collection, qualitative and quantitative. This study will take on the qualitative data collection design together with an interpretative phenomenological analysis method. Firstly, the benefits of a qualitative method need to be discussed. The qualitative approach focuses on contextual understanding. This means that the researchers actively try to understand the behaviors, values and beliefs within the context that the research is conducted through (Azungah, 2018).

It can be argued that in many topics, the world is more complex and dynamic than quantitative methods could describe. Therefore, qualitative methods might be needed to provide those

in-depth insights that are based on the perspective of people in the real world. Because the approach is more open-ended the participants in the data collection are better able to explain their perspective without any imposing opinions (Azungah, 2018). Based on this, one would understand why qualitative research typically is associated with interpretivism (Goldkhul, 2012). In the case of this research, it was argued that qualitative research methods are needed because of the complexity of the phenomenon under investigation. Leadership preferences may be based on many different variables and factors which would be very hard to fit into a survey or similar form. Woiceshyn and Daellenbach (2018) mentions that deductive reasoning does not sufficiently capture how people actually think. By using an inductive approach, the goal is to discover underlying assumptions, ideas and perspectives that a deductive approach could not unveil.

3.2 Method

3.2.1 Primary Data Collection

Primary data can be defined as data that has been generated through original sources, such as interviews, focus groups or personal observations (Collins & Hussey, 2014). By collecting primary data, the researcher attempts to provide new insights regarding the research question with the help of new data (Farquhar, 2012). This study collected its primary data through semi-structured interviews, which was later analyzed and semi-structured into themes to answer our research questions regarding Generation Z in entry-level jobs. The purpose of using semi-structured interviews was to avert any presumptions and stances the researchers potentially could have. Additionally, to give the respondent more time to explore and develop their answers without any guidance from the researchers, thus, providing a richer and deeper understanding about the phenomena.

3.2.2 Sampling Approach

The population for this study included members from generation Z born between 1995-2012 in Sweden. The total population amounted to roughly 1.8 million individuals (SCB, 2021). As previously mentioned in the introduction, Gen Z is the youngest generation entering the Swedish workforce. They can be characterized by their communicational, global and technical skills. This study aims at gathering different perspectives regarding a mutual phenomenon, which were lived experiences in an entry-level job. Members of Generation Z contributed to

the findings by providing personal reflections regarding their leadership’s characteristics and preferred leadership attributes.

In order to avoid having to collect primary data from an entire population, researchers can implement various sampling techniques. De facto is that researchers rarely have the time nor resources to analyze an entire population and therefore chooses sampling techniques to reduce the number of cases. Sampling techniques are generally divided into two subtypes, probability sampling and non-probability sampling. Probability sampling refers to items being picked within a sample is random, meaning, every item inside the sample has an equal chance of being included. Non-probability sampling tends to be associated with smaller samples and is based on theresearcher's subjective judgment rather than relying on chance. When considering the interpretive research, Collins and Hussey (2014) argue that the need for unbiased samples is nonessential and should instead focus on gaining in-depth insights from the samples. Furthermore, it is believed that IPA does not benefit from random sampling and should therefore rather focus on homogenous samples, sacrificing breadth for depth as explained in 3.2.4 Data Analysis. This is mainly because the research question should be of significance for the interviewee (Smith et al., 2009). As a result, a purposive sampling technique was adopted for this particular study. Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling technique where the researcher intentionally selects cases that together make up a sample based on certain criteria’s (Collins & Hussey, 2014).

The procedure for collecting participants required each researcher to contact people within their network. Every participant had to be carefully selected based on two criteria’s, be a part of the eligible age of Generation Z and the required amount of formal working experience within an entry-level job. No exceptions were tolerated, as it could disrupt the final outcome.

3.2.2 Semi-structured Interviews

Interviews that focus on interpretive paradigm are concerned with understanding participants' opinions, underlying thoughts, feelings and attitudes. These types of interviews will either take the form of structured, semi-structured or unstructured setup (Collins & Hussey, 2014). In regard to semi-structured interviews, the researcher utilizes some premade questions as a foundation to foster a conversation regarding the main topic while developing further questions under the course of the interview. In contrast, unstructured interviews do not develop any questions beforehand, instead they rely solely on developing questions during the span of the interview (Collins & Hussey, 2014). This study has conducted seven semi-constructed

interviews (as seen in Table 1). The reasoning behind this decision was based upon its flexible characteristics and popularity among previous IPA researchers. According to Smith et al. (2009), researchers interested in analyzing how participants make sense of lived phenomena are highly encouraged to construct semi-constructed interviews. This type of structure allows the researcher to engage in free dialogue and spontaneously ask follow-up questions, depending on the given response. By doing so, one can obtain more detailed information and rather than having to conform to strictly structured or too unregulated interview.

The initial thought was to conduct all of the seven interviews face-to-face, in order to analyze body language and other types of non-verbal communication. However, with regards to the current COVID-19 pandemic, all interviews were forced to take place at an online platform called Microsoft Teams. This was to make sure that no violations against the public health authority recommendations were violated. The online interviews provided very similar outcomes in regard to face-to-face interviews, thanks to the programs video and audio functions. This enabled every session to be video and audio recorded. Furthermore, the online platform provided both parties with the freedom to conduct the interviews anywhere they felt suitable, thus enabling participants to find a comfortable and familiar environment to answer their questions. The interviews lasted around 40 - 50 minutes, with an average length of approximately 45 minutes.

3.2.3 Question Design

Qualitative interviews are often divided into four sections: warm-up, main body, cool down and closure (Gibbs, 2018). The warm-up questions are used to gradually introduce the ‘’heavier’’ parts of the interview. During the warm-up session, respondents were informed about the general purpose of the research without conflicting with the data collection. Most of the warm-up questions consisted of closed questions that would provide succinct answers to establish that respondents were qualified for the interview. These questions were simple, mostly closed ended questions such as “How old are you?” and “What is your current occupation?”.

The first part of the interviews had a more formal tone with close ended questions it was as mentioned mainly there to gather general information. However, the main body part was where the tone changed to more informal, with an open-ended style of questioning. These questions were also aimed to get the participants to become more comfortable in talking as well as sustain

the rapport building. DiCicco-Bloom and Crabtree (2006) explains that it is important to quickly develop rapport in an in-depth interview. This involves that the interviewee feels respected and that there is some level of trust between interviewers. By doing so, a safer and sounder environment may be created where the participant feels free to share his or her ideas and experiences. The Main body of the interview is where most of the primary data collection took place. Questions such as “Could you describe your optimal leader” in combination with probing were together utilized to collect information regarding the responder lived experiences. Probing is a strategy that involves asking follow-up questions to yield a more detailed answer or to understand underlying meanings (Guest, et al., 2013).

When arriving at the cooldown phase of the interview, the goal was that a sufficient rapport had been established in order for the participants to feel comfortable enough to answer questions that might have been too sensitive to ask in the beginning. Furthermore, questions that might require them to reflect back on what had been discussed before was brought up. An example of this would be when they were asked if they could provide an example of a positive and negative experience with a leader. During their descriptions, follow up questions were asked to recall back to what the interviewee had said before. In-depth descriptions are often accompanied by a sense of bonding and sharing between the interviewer and interviewee (Dicicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006). Finally, the intention of the closure phase was mainly there to wrap up the interview and give applications for the interviewee’s participation. It can be regarded as impolite to drag over the time of the interview. The intention of the closure phase was to naturally bring the interview to an end.

3.2.3.1 Interview Technique

When constructing interview questions within the IPA format it is seen as encouraging to develop questions that are informative enough for the person to answer it, without affecting their judgment. More specifically, the questions should only guide the interviewees in the right direction and not alter their opinion. Thus, a common interviewer technique is to offer a gentler push, when needed, without being too explicit. However, this also means that the interview questions cannot be too leading as it has a tendency to affect the outcome (Smith et al., 2009). When the interview question doesn't provide enough information to be sufficient on its own, it can be due to several reasons. The questions could be seen as too broad or too specific. In order to minimize these risks, the researcher can construct prompts that frame the questions more precisely (Smith et al., 2009). In this research, prompts were only used when the initial question

could not provide adequate answers on its own. For example, if the respondent had difficulties understanding the initial question or only provided a brief answer, then the researcher could nudge the respondent towards the right direction.

Guest et al. (2013) believed that that the key to a successful interview is learning how to probe efficiently. This could however be done in two ways, either indirect or direct. Indirect nudges are ways to encourage the interviewee to keep talking without asking any questions. This may come in the form of bodily signs that affirm that the interviewer is listening, such as a smile or a simple “I understand”. The direct form is what has been mentioned before which is more explicit follow up questions. Because of the importance of effective probing, both the indirect and direct style were used during the interviews. However, there were some concerns before the interviews regarding the potential lag caused by unstable internet connection. An important aspect of effective probing is that the questions should not interrupt the interviewee (Guest et al., 2013).

3.2.4 Data Analysis

Interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) is a qualitative research method grounded in phenomenology, hermeneutics and idiographic. IPA is most commonly associated with Jonathan Smith, although plenty of scholars have contributed to the development of the phenomenological approach (Miller et al., 2018). IPA is fundamentally concerned with the researcher having some interest regarding the respondent’s psychological world. Without it, the researcher will have a hard time understanding the content and complexity of the data. In order to analyze the data through IPA, Smith et al. (2009) argued that ‘’while one is attempting to capture and do justice to the meaning of the respondents to learn about their mental and social world, those meaning are not transparently available - they must be obtained through a sustained engagement with the text and a process of interpretation’’ (p.66). The IPA consists of a set of flexible guidelines that can be adapted or altered to meet the needs of the researcher’s objective (Smith et al., 2009).

The initial stage of IPA required the research team to read the transcripts repeatedly and thoroughly. Materials like video and audio recordings were re-examined to ensure that nothing was missed. This is all done to immerse the researcher in the available data and to reconceptualize the atmosphere of the interview. Furthermore, additional readings increase the probability of finding new and important insight that could have been missed during the initial observation. During the re-reads, the researchers took notes of any reflections or observations

that could provide valuable insights. This could include the language used, context, content, et cetera. The second stage involved the researcher reviewing their notes and transform that information into emerging themes. The goal was to formulate concise phrases that are well-grounded from the answers given by the participants during the interview. The third step involved linking emerging themes towards their characteristics. Later, each theme was grouped in a cluster with a descriptive label and the themes were be composed of multiple subthemes. Purposely to examine whether some themes lack evidential significance. Any themes that did not fit into a cluster or provided significant information were eliminated. The final step involved a detailed description of the themes in combination with extracts from the interviews. This provided a clearer result from the participant’s perspective as well as an interpretive analysis from the researchers.

3.2.5 Challenges with IPA

IPA as a qualitative research approach has recently risen in popularity and has experienced exponential utilization among published studies (Brocki & Wearden, 2006). However, even though IPA has gained popularity, there are those who question its trustworthiness. More specifically, it has received criticism regarding its ambiguous structure and lack of standardization. Smith describes the IPA method as, ‘’there is no clear right or wrong way of conducting this sort of analysis’’ (Smith et al., 2009, p.80). According to (Rodham et al., 2015) this kind of freedom and flexibility can cause some uncertainty regarding the quality assessment. While some could argue that the simplicity of IPA methodology is negative, others argue that it is one of its core strengths. The straightforward guidelines and comprehensible language help to provide clear instructions and increased accessibility, rather than utilizing difficult language that obscures the meaning (Brocki & Wearden, 2006). The straightforwardness and clarity made IPA a good fit for the scope of this study.

Another challenge that is associated with IPA according to Miller et al. (2018) is time. It takes a lot of time to learn and conduct an IPA study. Smith et al. (2009) argues that the researchers need to put aside an extensive amount of time to plan, reflect, execute and engage in dialogues throughout the process. The researcher must also be able to find participants who are able to provide detailed explanations of their lived experiences. Thus, making it a very time-consuming task, however, Reid et al. (2005) strongly argues that less is more when it comes to IPA. He believes that fewer participants leads to greater depth and larger samples are more likely to contribute to shallow and limited analyzes. In this thesis the goal was to gain an equal