Suggestion

In the face of high occurrence of turnover rate, stores positioned in service industries are struggling to recruiting applicants especially for millennial generation.

Yet, the problem of how to retain and manage this group of young employees becomes the most essential lesson for owners or managers to ponder about which is also regarded

63 

as an important issue in the field of human resources management. The proposed recommendations would be seen as academic references for follow-up researchers:

5.2.1 Suggestions for the organization

According to the research, the majority age group of employees engaging in 85℃

organization lands from 18 to 25, which the test participants are reported to take up approximately 74% amongst others. Therefore, youngsters born under millennial generation are the concentrated human resources and talents. Although the organization has spared decent mental and physical efforts in employee trainings for newcomers thoroughly, it is the enhancement of offering employee feedback as well as carrying out relevant practices that could encourage both not only the young employees’ spirits but also to boost positive atmospheres within the shops of 85℃organization.

5.2.2 Suggestions for unit managers

By acknowledging that the focused group of workers ranges from age 18 to 25, managers or shop owners should grasp the responsibility as leaders in order to enforce related activities for employee feedback. For instance, managers should arrange monthly meeting executed by well-performed or experienced full-time workers so as to lead part-time workers to cohesion within the shops through sharing experiences on both establishing relationship with colleagues and the organizational climate. By implementing this type of activity, both managers and employees especially for millennial generation would definitely feel a sense of strong organizational cohesiveness built upon connection and team effort by shop members which the unique seek-for-freedom millennial generation would better understand the “core meaning”

operating behind an organization and would further boost their work value to a more positive stage. Moreover, managers or shop owners should also set good examples with

64 

their own conducts as effective leaders since workers under millennial generation are lacking management in terms of their job performance. For examples, managers and shop owners should devote themselves into the operation of producing products like coffee, cake and so forth. Yet, they should participate in organizational activities involved with employees in order to better understand every condition employees obtained and to be involved in discussion associating with marketing approaches to pull customers in. By executing such methods, young employees would gain more confidence not only to the brand but also to the future of the promising developed organization.

5.2.3 Follow-up research & suggestions

1. Research subject

The sample target could emphasize concentration on shifting from millennial part-time employees to millennial full-time employees engaging in 85 ℃ organization in terms of specifically discussing the issue of turnover intention so as to profoundly deepen the discourse relating to research topic. Moreover, the methodology method should increase sample numbers from 30 samples to at a maximum of 60 samples while releasing questionnaire for better precision as well as accuracy.

2. Research construct

Instead of discussing the correlation between independent variable of work value, personal attributes and dependent variable of turnover intention according to this research, follow-up researchers could contain other variables relating to employees job performance influenced factors or psychological aspects for deepening the discussion and to explore more diverse results with the goal of becoming references for managers.

65 

3. Research methodology

This research utilized quantitative questionnaire to execute data collection and retrieve which the datum are statistically analyzed under quantification. By countering the validity and accuracy, the possibility of answering questionnaire with subjectivity influenced by unstable conditions or emotions from every individual is unavoidable. Therefore, I would suggest follow-up researchers to carry out qualitative method with in-depth interview in order to prevent weak responses and strengthen certification with contents.

4. Research limitation

Due to possible influenced factors like unstable emotions or dwelling in intense environment, test participants are not able to answer the questions with subjectivity. Therefore, qualitative interview is suggested for future researchers. Besides, the collection and retrieve of questionnaire are restraint to a limited amount of time which consequently are not able to gather larger amount of samples from 85℃coffee chain shops around Taiwan. Last but not least, in order to increase the diversity and depth of the research, adding relating variables or constructs could substantialize the richness of the contribution to management territory within service industries.

66 

References

Chinese part:

1. 周佳慧（2003）。《員工個人屬性、工作價值觀與工作滿意度關係之研究》，中 央大學人力資源管理研究所未出版之碩士論文。

2. 翁淑緣（1984）。〈台灣北部地區大學生的價值觀念與生活型態的研究〉，《教

育與心理研究》，6：95-116。

3. 洪瑞斌、劉兆明（2003），〈工作價值觀研究之回顧與前瞻〉。《應用心理研

究》，19：211-250。

4. 黃同圳（1993）。〈青年勞工工作價值觀與組織向心力之研究〉。《行政院青輔

會研究計劃》。

5. 劉博民（1990）。《台北地區製造業受僱員工工作價值觀與生涯發展之研究》，

台北市：中國文化大學勞工研究所未出版碩士論文。

6. 段宜廷（1999）。《員工工作價值觀與工作滿足之關係探討》，文化大學國際企

業管理研究所未出版之碩士論文。

7. 曹萃栩，（1984）。《我國企業界技術專業人員離職意願之探討》，政大企管所 碩士論文。

8. 石樸（1991），《企業界員工工作滿足、工作投入與離職意願之研究》，國 立政治大學：社會學研究所碩士論文。

9. 吳鐵雄、李坤崇、劉佑星、歐慧敏，（1995）。〈工作價值觀量表之編製初步報

告〉。《中國測驗學會測驗年刊》，42：227-244。

10. 吳政道（2003）。《兩岸中間幹部離職因素之探討-以 H 公司為例》。國立中央 大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。

11. 吳聰賢（1983）。〈農村青年職業興趣、工作價值與職業選擇之關係研究〉。《行

政院青輔會》。

12. 黃開義 ( 1984 )。工作特性、個人特質、領導型態、工作滿足與組織承諾對離

67 

職意顧之影響。私立中原大學機械工程研究所未發表之碩士論文。

English part:

1. Alsop, R. (2008). The trophy kids grow up: How the millennial generation is shaking up the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

2. Barne, J. B., & Wright, P. K. (1998). On becoming a strategic partner：The role of Human Resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 37, p. 31-46.

3. Cekada, T. L. (2012). Training a multigenerational workforce. Professional Safety, 57(3), 40-44. Retrieved from

http://www.hhs.iup.edu/cekadat/safe644tlc/Links/Mod5_Week9_Cekada_multige n.pdf

4. Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person-organization values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), p. 891-906.

5. Cuieford (1965). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education (4th ed.).

New York: McGraw-Hill.

6. Dalton, D.R., & Todor, W. D. (1979). Turnover Turned over: An Expanded and Positive Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 4, p. 225-235.

7. Dose, J. J. (1997). Work values: An integrative framework and illustrative application to organizational socialization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, p. 219 – 240.

8. Enz, C. A. (1986). Power and Shared Values in the Corporate Culture. Ann Arbor MI: UMI Research P.

9. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research

68 

(18:1), pp. 39-50.

10. Harpaz, I. (1990). The Importance of Work Goals: An International Perspective.

Journal of International Business Studies, 21(1), p. 75-93.

11. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

12. Jefferies, F. L., & Hunte, T. L. (2003). Generations and motivation: A connection worth making. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 6(1), 37-70.

13. Kanungo, R. N., 1982. Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), p. 341-349. Received from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.341

14. Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide: Who they are.

Why they clash. How to solve the generational puzzle at work. New York: Harper Collins.

15. Lawler, E. (1969). Job design and employee motivation. Personnel Psychology.

22, p. 426-435.

16. Lawler, E. E., & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(4), p. 305-312.

17. Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, p. 1-55.

18. Lincoln, J. R., & Kalleberg, A. L. (1990). Culture, control, and commitment, Cambridge. MA: Cambridge University Press.

19. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science, 1(4), p. 240-246.

20. Lodahl, T., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job

69 

involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, p. 24-33.

21. Loughlin, C., & Barling, J. (2001). Young workers’ work values, attitudes and behaviours. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, p. 543-559.

22. Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Employee Turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, p. 237-240.

23. Miller, H. E., & Katerberg, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1979). Evaluation of the Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworth model of employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, p. 509-517.

24. Mobley, W. H. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), p. 410.

25. Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Employee Turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, p. 237-240.

26. Mobley, W.H. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), p. 410.

27. Mobley, W.H. (1982). Employee Turnover, Causes, Consequences, and Control.

Addison-Wesley series on managing human resources. Managing human resources. 212 pages.

28. Rabinowitz, S. L., & Hall, D. T. (1977). Organizational Research on Job Involvement, Psychological Bulletin, 41, p. 574-599.

29. Rabinowitz, S., & Hall, D.T., 1977. Organizational Research on Job Involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 84, p. 265-288.

30. Robbins, S. P. (1992). Organizational Behavior: concepts, controversies, and Applications, (6^th ed). N.J.: Prentice Hall.

70 

31. Roe, R., & Ester, P. (1999). Values and Work: Empirical Finding and Theoretical Perspective. Applied Psychology, 48(1), p. 1-21.

32. Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Macmillan.

33. Ryan, R. (2007). Live first, work second: Getting inside the head of the next generation. Madison, WI: Next Generation Consulting.

34. Super, D.E., 1970. Manual of Work Values Inventory. Chicago: River Side.

35. Strauss, W. & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, p.1584-2069. New York, NY: William Morrow.

36. Taylor, P., & Keeter, S. (Ed.) (2010). Millennials: A portrait of generation next.

Retrieved from Pew Research Center:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/millennials-confident- connected-open-to-change.pdf

37. Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 201- 210.

38. Wollack, S., & Goodale, J., & Wijting, J., & Smith, P. (1971). Development of the survey of work values. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, p. 331- 338.

39. Yang, S., & Guy, M. E. (2006). GenXers versus boomers: Work motivators and management implications. Public Performance and Management Review, 29, p. 267–284.

40. Zemke, R., & Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at Work:

Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in your workplace. New York, NY: AMA.