Generation Z in Digitalizing Labor Processes: A Phenomenological Study Based on Private Sector Experiences
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65298/malumat.4Keywords:
Generation Z, digital labor, flexibility, work-life balance, remote workAbstract
This qualitative study investigates how members of Generation Z experience digital labor in private sector contexts in Turkey, addressing a significant gap in existing literature that has often overlooked the nuanced realities of this digital-native cohort. Given the structural transformation of work under digital capitalism, this research explores how flexibility, technological integration, and immaterial labor redefine professional life for Gen Z employees. The study was grounded in a phenomenological and critical theoretical framework, especially drawing on Marxist labor theory. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 20 participants aged 20–29, all actively working in various digital or hybrid roles, including freelance designers, content creators, and platform-based gig workers. The interviews were conducted online, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s six-phase thematic analysis via MaxQda pro 2024 software.Through this process, five overarching themes emerged: Labor, Positive Aspects of Digital Labor, Disadvantages of Digital Labor, Contributions of Digital Labor to Daily Life, and Future Expectations Regarding Digital Labor. These themes were further broken into 20 categories and 101 codes, reflecting the multifaceted nature of digital work experiences. Key findings revealed that participants highly valued flexibility, autonomy, and global connectivity but also expressed concerns regarding physical strain, psychological fatigue, and social isolation. The participants emphasized a desire for meaningful work, continuous learning, and the integration of personal values with professional roles. Notably, the blending of personal and work spaces while empowering also produced tension regarding boundaries and well-being. This study contributes to both theoretical and practical understandings of digital labor by highlighting the lived experiences of Gen Z workers and offering implications for organizational policy and workforce management.
References
Achmad, L., Noermijati, Rofiaty, & Irawanto, D. (2023). Job satisfaction and employee engagement as mediators of the relationship between talent development and intention to stay in Generation Z workers. International Journal of Professional Business Review.
Adıgüzel, O., Batur, H. Z., & Eksili, N. (2014). Kuşakların değişen yüzü ve Y kuşağı ile ortaya çıkan yeni çalışma tarzı: Mobil yakalılar. Süleyman Demirel University Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(19), 165–182.
Albrychiewicz-Słocińska, A. (2024). Knowledge exchange in the context of remote work—Generation Z perspective. European Conference on Knowledge Management, 25(1), 10–17.
Altınok, M. (2011). Üretken ve üretken olmayan emek ayırımı üzerine bir değerlendirme: Adam Smith’in “emeği” mi? Karl Marx’ın “değeri” mi? Cumhuriyet University İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 12(1).
Andersen, L. L., Mortensen, O. S., Hansen, J. V., Burr, H., & Holtermann, A. (2011). A prospective cohort study on severe pain as a risk factor for long-term sickness absence in manual and sedentary occupations. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(3), 330–342.
Andreassen, C. S., Griffiths, M. D., Gjertsen, S. R., Krossbakken, E., Kvam, S., & Pallesen, S. (2012). The relationships between behavioral addictions and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 2(2), 90–99.
Annamalai, S., Vasunandan, A., & Mehta, A. (2024). Social isolation and loneliness among Generation Z employees: Can emotional intelligence help mitigate? Cogent Business & Management, 12. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2441474
Bejtkovsky, J. (2016). The employees of baby boomers generation, Generation X, Generation Y and Generation Z in selected Czech corporations as conceivers of development and competitiveness in their corporation. Journal of Competitiveness, 8(4), 105–123.
Bencsik, A., Juhász, T., & Horváth-Csikós, G. (2016). Y and Z generations at workplaces. Journal of Competitiveness, 6, 90–106.
Betz, F. (2003). Managing technological innovation: Competitive advantage from change. John Wiley & Sons.
Chesbrough, H. (2010). Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm (pp. 1–12). Oxford University Press.
Costanza, D. P., Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2023). Are generations a useful concept? Acta Psychologica, 241, 104059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.104059
Dąbrowska, J., Almpanopoulou, A., Brem, A., Chesbrough, H., Cucino, V., Di Minin, A., Giones, F., Hakala, H., Marullo, C., Mention, A.-L., Mortara, L., Nørskov, S., Nylund, P. A., Oddo, C. M., Radziwon, A., & Ritala, P. (2022). Digital transformation, for better or worse: A critical multi-level research agenda. R&D Management, 52(5), 930–954. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12531
Davidson, E., & Vaast, E. (2010). Digital entrepreneurship and its sociomaterial enactment. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(5), 763–790.
Dorschel, R. (2022). Reconsidering digital labour: Bringing tech workers into the debate. New Technology, Work and Employment, 37(2), 288–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12225
Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2010). Students' experiences of e-learning in higher education: The ecology of sustainable innovation. Routledge.
Erdoğan, T. (2018). Sosyal bilimler: İnsan ve toplum. Akademisyen Kitabevi.
Fan, A., Shin, H. W., Shi, J. (Jade), & Wu, L. (2023). Young people share, but do so differently: An empirical comparison of peer-to-peer accommodation consumption between Millennials and Generation Z. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 64(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.1177/19389655221119463
Fuchs, C. (2013). Digital labour and Karl Marx. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315880075
Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital prosumption labour on social media in the context of the capitalist regime of time. Time & Society, 23(1), 97–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X13502117
Fuchs, C. (2015). Dallas Smythe today – The audience commodity, the digital labour debate, Marxist political economy and critical theory. In Brill Companion to Marxism and Media Studies (pp. 494–529). https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004291416_019
Fuchs, C. (2016). Digital labor and imperialism. Monthly Review, 67(8), 14–22. https://doi.org/10.14452/MR-067-08-2016-01_2
Fuchs, C., & Sandoval, M. (2014). Digital workers of the world unite! A framework for critically theorising and analysing digital labour. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 12(2), 486–563. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v12i2.549
Fuchs, C., & Sevignani, S. (2013). What is digital labour? What is digital work? What’s their difference? And why do these questions matter for understanding social media? tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 11(2), 237–293. https://doi.org/10.31269/triplec.v11i2.461
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1524–1541.
Göçer, F. (2022). Gerçekliğin içinde sanalın gölgesinde: Öznenin gayri-maddi ve dijital emeği. NOSYON: Uluslararası Toplum ve Kültür Çalışmaları Dergisi, 9, 11–23.
Güven, Ö. (2023). Dijital emek ve alışveriş: Kamusal bir deneyim ve müştereklik talebi olarak kullanıcı incelemeleri. İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi. https://doi.org/10.47998/ikad.1288753
Güzel, D., & Aydın, G. (2021). Covid-19 döneminde uzaktan çalışma sisteminde iş performansını etkileyen faktörler: Banka çalışanları üzerine bir uygulama. Ardahan University İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 3(2), 128–133.
Huws, U. (2018). Küresel dijital ekonomide emek (M. Şahin, Trans.). Yordam Kitap.
Johnson, R. D., Gueutal, H. G., & Falbe, C. M. (2016). Technology, trainees, metacognitive activity and e-learning effectiveness. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(6), 545–564.
Kayın, M. (2019). Gayri maddi emeğin görünümleri: “Freelance tasarımcılar”. ARTS: Artuklu Sanat ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi(1), 42–59. https://doi.org/10.46372/arts.570196
Kim, K., & Chon, M.-G. (2022). When work and life boundaries are blurred: The effect of after-hours work communication through communication technology on employee outcomes. Journal of Communication Management, 26. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-06-2022-0073
Konakay, G. (2018). Y kuşağı değerlerinin kariyer tercihleri açısından incelenmesi. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 13(1), 79–92.
Kossek, E. E., Lautsch, B. A., & Eaton, S. C. (2010). Telecommuting, control, and boundary management: Correlates of policy use and practice, job control, and work-family effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68(2), 347–367.
Lazar, M.-A., Zbuchea, A., & Pînzaru, F. (2023). The Emerging Generation Z Workforce in the Digital World: A Literature Review on Cooperation and Transformation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, 17(1), 1991-2001. https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2023-0175
Leslie, B., Anderson, C., Bickham, C., Horman, J., Overly, A., Gentry, C., … King, J. (2021). Generation Z perceptions of a positive workplace environment. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 33(3), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-021-09366-2
Lopez, E. N., Lopez, B., & Abadiano, M. (2023). Understanding Generation Z,The New Generation of Learners: A Technological-Motivational-Learning Theory. 44, 770-784.
Machová, R., Korcsmáros, E., Šeben, Z., Fehér, L., & Tóth, Z. (2021). Developing the competences of Generation Z with innovative teaching methods in the context of the requirement of labour market by Industry 4.0. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC), 14(2), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijac.v14i2.24993
Mahmoud, A. B., Fuxman, L., Mohr, I., Reisel, W. D., & Grigoriou, N. (2020). “We aren’t your reincarnation!” workplace motivation across X, Y and Z generations. International Journal of Manpower, 42(1), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-09-2019-0448
Mannheim, K. (1993). From Karl Mannheim. Transaction Publishers.
McCourt, D. M. (2012). The “problem of generations” revisited: Karl Mannheim and the sociology of knowledge in international relations. In B. J. Steele & J. M. Acuff (Eds.), Theory and application of the “generation” in international relations and politics (pp. 47–70). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137011565_3
McCrindle, M. (2018). The ABC of XYZ: Understanding the global generations.
McCutcheon, C., & Hitchens, M. (2020). eSport and the exploitation of digital labour. The Journal of Fandom Studies, 8(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1386/jfs_00010_1
Meret, C., Fioravanti, S., Iannotta, M., & Gatti, M. (2018). The digital employee experience: Discovering Generation Z. In C. Rossignoli, F. Virili, & S. Za (Eds.), Digital technology and organizational change (pp. 241–256). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62051-0_20
Miller, N. (2014). Workplace trends in office space: Implications for future office demand. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 16(3), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-07-2013-0016
Mude, G., & Undale, S. (2023). Social media usage: A comparison between Generation Y and Generation Z in India. International Journal of E-Business Research.
Narayanan, S. (2022). Does Generation Z value and reward corporate social responsibility practices? Journal of Marketing Management, 38(9–10), 903–937. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2022.2070654
Neves, H. D. C. (2025). The Anxious Generation Theory and Generation Z Behaviour in the Workplace: A Correlation Analysis. International Journal of Business Administration, 16(1), 74. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijba.v16n1p74
Oral, T. (2024). Dijital emek platformlarında algoritmik yönetim ve sendikalar. Sağlık Akademisyenleri Dergisi, 11(1), 170–180.
Orea-Giner, A., & Fusté-Forné, F. (2023). The way we live, the way we travel: Generation Z and sustainable consumption in food tourism experiences. British Food Journal.
Organ, İ., & Yavuz, E. (2017). Emek ve sermayenin vergilendirilmesine yönelik uygulamaların analizi. Pamukkale Journal of Eurasian Socioeconomic Studies, 4(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5505/pjess.2017.30502
Owen, N., Healy, G. N., Matthews, C. E., & Dunstan, D. W. (2010). Too much sitting: The population-health science of sedentary behavior. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 38(3), 105–113.
Saha, P., & Kiran, K. B. (2022). What insisted baby boomers adopt unified payment interface as a payment mechanism?: An exploration of drivers of behavioral intention. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 19(5), 792–809. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-01-2022-0022
Savran, S., Tonak, E. A., & Satlıgan, N. (2012). Kapital’in izinde. Yordam Kitap.
Savul, G. (2015). Gayri-maddi emeğin üretkenleşmesi: “Talihsizliğin” görünümleri. Çalışma ve Toplum, 1(44), 293–322.
Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2015). Generation Z goes to college. John Wiley & Sons.
Sidorcuka, I., & Chesnovicka, A. (2017). Methods of attraction and retention of Generation Z staff. CBU International Conference Proceedings, 5, 807–814. https://doi.org/10.12955/cbup.v5.1030
Spitznagel, E. (2020). Generation Z is bigger than millennials—and they’re out to change the world.
Törhönen, M., Hassan, L., Sjöblom, M., & Hamari, J. (2019). Play, playbour or labour? The relationships between perception of occupational activity and outcomes among streamers and YouTubers. In Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2019 (HICSS-52).
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.
Wolfinger, E., & McCrindle, M. (2014). The ABC of XYZ.
Zhou, M., & Liu, S.-D. (2021). Becoming precarious playbour: Chinese migrant youth on the Kuaishou video-sharing platform. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 32(3), 322–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/10353046211037090
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 ELCHIN SULEYMANOV
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
All articles published in Malumat are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. This license allows users to share, reproduce, distribute, adapt, and use the relevant works for commercial or non-commercial purposes.
These freedoms are valid as long as the following conditions are met:
• Attribution: The original author(s) of the work must be appropriately credited, a license link must be provided, and if any modifications have been made to the work, their existence must be clearly indicated.
• No restrictions: The license conditions cannot restrict rights in a way that hinders others from using them legally or technologically.
Articles published under this license promote the dissemination and reuse of scientific knowledge through open access. You can find detailed information about the license at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.tr.
Comprehensive details regarding the license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.tr.
