Corporate Support for Families and Parenthood: Expectations of Generation Z
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2026.5.3314Keywords:
future of the labor market, Generation Z, Millennials, corporate social policy, family and parenthood support, work–life integration, reproductive strategiesAbstract
The article aims at to analysing the emerging public demand for the institutionalisation of corporate support for families and parenting as an element of organisations’ social policy. The study focuses on the normative expectations and value orientations of Gen Z in comparison with Millennials. The methodological framework of the study is generational theory and the concept of the transition from the work–life balance model to work–life integration. Empirically, the study bases on the data coming from two surveys conducted in the Ural, North-Western, and Siberian federal districts of Russia at the end of 2024. First one of them is a survey of the working population of reproductive age (N = 2520), and second one — a survey of graduate-year students (N = 2550). The results demonstrate that Gen Z, to a greater extent than Millennials, is oriented towards the systemic integration of work and family roles, that is, a flexible combination of work and family with permeable boundaries, rather than their separation into different spheres. In Gen Z’s hierarchy of priorities, leave flexibility and the possibility of remote work occupy leading positions, whereas traditional compensatory measures (one-time payments, holiday practices) are losing significance for them. Gen Z do not perceive corporate support as a direct incentive to marry and have children, but they value measures that ease the everyday combination of work and parenting more highly than Millennials do. The most pronounced intergenerational differences are recorded in assessments of the employer’s role and the ability of individual measures to facilitate reproductive decisions. The authors conclude that the demand of young workers is shifting from one-time incentives to ongoing support instruments. If corporate practices do not take this shift into account, the contradiction between the professional and family strategies of younger generations may intensify.
Acknowledgments. This work is supported by the Russian Science Foundation under grant No. 24-18-00854, https://rscf.ru/project/24-18-00854/.
References
Александрова О. А. Инфантильные или ответственные: студенческая молодежь о новых тенденциях в брачно-семейной и репродуктивной сферах // Народонаселение. 2024. Т. 27. № S1. С. 107—119. https://doi.org/10.24412/1561-7785-2024-S1-107-119.
Aleksandrova O. A. (2024) Infantile or Responsible: University Students on New Trends in Marriage, Family and Reproductive Spheres. Population. Vol. 27. No. S1. P. 107—119. https://doi.org/10.24412/1561-7785-2024-S1-107-119. (In Russ.)
Багирова А. П. Корпоративная гражданственность в демографической сфере как новая тема исследований в современной России // Народонаселение. 2025а. Т. 28. № 1. С. 27—39. https://doi.org/10.24412/1561-7785-2025-1-27-39.
Bagirova A. P. (2025а) Corporate Citizenship in the Demographic Sphere as a New Research Topic in Modern Russia. Population. Vol. 28. No. 1. P. 27—39. https://doi.org/10.24412/1561-7785-2025-1-27-39. (In Russ.)
Багирова А. П. Корпоративная демография: баланс интересов государства, бизнеса и населения в регионах России // Экономика региона. 2025b. Т. 21. № 4. С. 1109—1121. https://doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2025-4-13.
Bagirova A. P. (2025b) Corporate Demography: Balancing the Interests of the State, Business and the Population in the Russian Regions. Economy of Regions. Vol. 21. No. 4. P. 1109—1121. https://doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2025-4-13. (In Russ.)
Григорьева Е. В., Хакимова Н. Р. Особенности системы семейных ценностей поколения Z // Вестник Кемеровского государственного университета. 2020. Т. 22. № 4. С. 982—991. https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2020-22-4-982-991.
Grigoryeva E. V., Khakimova N. R. (2020) Specific Features of the Family Values System of Generation Z. Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. Vol. 22. No. 4. P. 982—991. https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2020-22-4-982-991. (In Russ.)
Жилина Л. В. Япония: поколение Z готово платить за увольнения // Азия и Африка сегодня. 2025. № 8. С. 39—47.
Zhilina L. V. (2025) Japan: Generation Z Willing to Pay for Resignation. Asia and Africa Today. No. 8. P. 39—47. (In Russ.)
Камарова Т. А., Тонких Н. В., Бегичева С. В. Блогерство — хобби или профессия? Представления студенчества // Народонаселение. 2025. Т. 28. № 2. С. 145—159. https://doi.org/10.24412/1561-7785-2025-2-145-159.
Kamarova T. A., Tonkikh N. V., Begicheva S. V. (2025) Blogging — Hobby or Profession? Students’ Perspectives. Population. Vol. 28. No. 2. P. 145—159. https://doi.org/10.24412/1561-7785-2025-2-145-159. (In Russ.)
Митрофанова Е. С. (Не)время взрослеть: как меняется возраст наступления дебютных биографических событий у россиян // Демографическое обозрение. 2020. Т. 7. № 4. С. 36—61. https://doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v7i4.12043.
Mitrofanova E. S. (2020) (No)time to Grow Up: Changing Ages of Debut Biographical Events in Russia. Demographic Review. Vol. 7. No. 4. P. 36—61. https://doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v7i4.12043. (In Russ.)
Посткризисное восстановление экономики и основные направления прогноза социально-экономического развития России на период до 2035 г. / под ред. А. А. Широва. М.: Наука, 2020.
Shirov A. A. (ed.) (2020) Post-Crisis Economic Recovery and Main Directions of the Forecast of Socio-Economic Development of Russia for the Period up to 2035. Moscow: Nauka. (In Russ.)
Радаев В. В. Миллениалы: как меняется российское общество. М.: Изд. дом Высшей школы экономики, 2019.
Radaev V. V. (2019) Millennials: How the Russian Society Changes. Moscow: HSE Publishing House. (In Russ.)
Радаев В. В. Вовлеченность в использование гаджетов и новые формы зависимости: межпоколенческий анализ // Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии. 2025а. Т. 28. № 4. С. 80—126. https://doi.org/10.31119/jssa.2025.28.4.5.
Radaev V. V. (2025a) Involvement in the Use of Gadgets and New Forms of Dependence: A Cross-Generational Analysis. The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology. Vol. 28. No. 4. P. 80—126. https://doi.org/10.31119/jssa.2025.28.4.5. (In Russ.)
Радаев В. В. Откладывают ли молодые поколения свое взросление, и в чем это проявляется // Демографическое обозрение. 2025б. Т. 12. № 4. С. 4—44. https://doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v12i4.30411.
Radaev V. V. (2025b) Do Younger Generations Postpone Their Transition to Adulthood, and How Does It Manifest. Demographic Review. Vol. 12. No. 4. P. 4—44. https://doi.org/10.17323/demreview.v12i4.30411. (In Russ.)
Романович Н. А. Представления молодежи о браке и семье // Социологические исследования. 2023. № 3. С. 135—140. https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250021750-8.
Romanovich N. A. (2023) Youth’s Ideas about Marriage and Family. Sociological Studies. No. 3. P. 135—140. https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250021750-8. (In Russ.)
Россия 2035: пространство развития / под ред. А. А. Широва. М.: Динамик Принт, 2025.
Shirov A. A. (ed.) (2025) Russia 2035: Development Space. Moscow: Dinamik Print. (In Russ.)
Стрелец И. Э., Мухортов Д. С., Лепилина А. С., Паренков А. В. Самореализация vs семья: дилемма поколения Z в контексте демографической политики (на примере российского студенчества) // Контуры глобальных трансформаций: политика, экономика, право. 2025. Т. 18. № 2. С. 188—205. https://doi.org/10.31249/kgt/2025.02.11.
Strelets I. E., Mukhortov D. S., Lepilina A. S., Parenkov A. V. (2025) Self-Fulfillment vs Family: The Dilemma of Generation Z in the Context of Demographic Policy (A Case Study of Russian Students). Outlines of Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, Law. Vol. 18. No. 2. P. 188—205. https://doi.org/10.31249/kgt/2025.02.11. (In Russ.)
Шваб К. Четвертая промышленная революция. М.: Эксмо, 2016.
Schwab K. (2016) The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Moscow: Eksmo. (In Russ.)
Aggarwal A., Sadhna P., Gupta S., Mittal A., Rastogi S. (2022) Gen Z Entering the Workforce: Restructuring HR Policies and Practices for Fostering the Task Performance and Organizational Commitment. Journal of Public Affairs. Vol. 22. Art. e2535. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2535.
Bagirova A. P., Shvetsova A. V. (2026) Tertiary Sector as a Moderator for Developing Family-Friendly Policy. Civil Szemle. Vol. 23. No. 3. P. 69—84. https://doi.org/10.62560/csz.2026.03.4.
Bińczycki B., Łukasiński W., Dorocki S. (2023) Determinants of Motivation to Work in Terms of Industry 4.0 — The Gen Z Perspective. Sustainability. Vol. 15. No. 15. Art. 12069. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151512069.
Chauhan P., Rai S. (2024) Conceptualizing Work-Life Integration: A Review and Research Agenda. Asia Pacific Management Review. Vol. 29. No. 4. P. 415—426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2024.10.002.
Dimock M. (2019) Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins. Pew Research Center. URL: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/ (accessed: 21.05.2026).
Fuchs O., Lorenz E., Fuchs L. (2024) Generational Differences in Attitudes Towards Work and Career: A Systematic Literature Review on the Preferences of Generations X, Y and Z. International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies. Vol. 11. No. 7. P 54—71.
Grenčiková A., Habánik J., Španková J., Húževka M., Šramka M. (2022) Current Labour Market Challenges in the Light of Future Economic and Demographic Developments. European Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. Vol. 14. P. 100—112. https://doi.org/10.24818/ejis.2022.07.
Grzywacz J. G., Carlson D. S. (2007) Conceptualizing Work—Family Balance: Implications for Practice and Research. Advances in Developing Human Resources. Vol. 9. No. 4. P. 455—471. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422307305487.
Ivanov D. (2023) The Industry 5.0 Framework: Viability-Based Integration of the Resilience, Sustainability, and Human-Centricity Perspectives. International Journal of Production Research. Vol. 61. No. 5. P. 1683—1695. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2022.2118892.
Jayatissa D., Dissanayake K. (2025) A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Career Outcome Expectations and Career Decision-Making Intentions of Generation Z. Colombo Business Journal. Vol. 16. No. 2. P. 1—37. https://doi.org/10.4038/cbj.v16i2.210.
Kamińska W., Mularczyk M. (2025) Attitudes of Generation Z Students Towards Partnerships in Light of the Second Demographic Transition Theory: An Example of Students from Kielce. Miscellanea Geographica. Vol. 29. No. 4. P. 247—256. https://doi.org/10.2478/mgrsd-2025-0035.
Kanter R. M. (1977) Work and Family in the United States: A Critical Review and Agenda for Research and Policy. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7758/9781610443265 (accessed: 12.02.2026).
Kuzior A., Kettler K., Rąb Ł. (2022) Great Resignation — Ethical, Cultural, Relational, and Personal Dimensions of Generation Y and Z Employees’ Engagement. Sustainability. Vol. 14. No. 11. 6764. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116764.
Lee S.-T., Jung S.-M. (2024) The Interactive Effect of Maternity Leaves and Child Care Enrollment on Maternal Employment. Economic Analysis and Policy. Vol. 84. P. 344—353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2024.08.034.
Lewis S., Gambles R., Rapoport R. (2007) The Constraints of a ‘Work—Life Balance’ Approach: An International Perspective. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. Vol. 18. No. 3. P. 360—373. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190601165577.
Miller R. (ed.) (2018) Transforming the Future: Anticipation in the 21st Century. 1st ed. London; New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351048002.
Narkhede G., Pasi B., Rajhans N., Kulkarni A. (2023) Industry 5.0 and the Future of Sustainable Manufacturing: A Systematic Literature Review. Business Strategy & Development. Vol. 6. No. 4. P. 704—723. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.272.
Pelealu D. R. (2025) An Exploration of Work-Life Balance in Generation Z Who Have Just Entered the Workforce. International Journal of Enterprise Modelling. Vol. 19. No. 2. P. 131—138.
Rashmi, Kataria A. (2021) Work—Life Balance: A Systematic Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. Vol. 41. No. 11/12. P. 1028—1065. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-06-2021-0145.
Řehoř P., Vrchota J., Maříková M., Klarner L. (2025) Work Motivation of Generation Z in the Czech Republic. Zbornik radova Ekonomskog fakulteta u Rijeci. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 443—464. https://doi.org/10.18045/zbefri.2025.2.4.
Salvadorinho J., Hines P., Kumar M., Ferreira C., Teixeira L. (2026) From Gen Z to Boomers: Motivational Drivers Shaping Industry 5.0 and the Future of Work. Futures. Vol. 175. 103731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2025.103731.
Strauss W., Howe N. (1991) Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069. New York, NY: Quill.
Utomo H., Putra Ya. S., Purwanti E. (2025) Generation Z Quiet Quitting: The Role of Learning Agility and Work Engagement. Organizational Psychology. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 68—85. https://doi.org/10.17323/2312-5942-2025-15-1-68-85.
Weber J. (2024) Assessing the Value Orientation Preferences and the Importance Given to Principled Moral Reasoning of Generation Zs: A Cross-Generational Comparison. Business and Society Review. Vol. 129. No. 1. P. 26—49. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12348.
Yan Y., Bai W., Geng Y. et al. (2025) Can Decent Work Promote Fertility Intention? The Mediating Role of Work-Family Conflict. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. Vol. 12. 361. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04693-3.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Анна Петровна Багирова, Анастасия Владимировна Швецова
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
