Proactive Decision-Making of Generation Z in Kazakhstan
Abstract
The objective of this research paper is to assess the proactive decision-making of Generation Z in Kazakhstan. A quantitative approach was used for data collection and analysis. Respondents were invited to participate in the survey on a voluntary basis. They were asked to indicate their level of agreement with a list of 19 statements, using a 6-point Likert-type scale. A total of 380 valid questionnaires were returned back. The results suggest that young people are low on taking initiative and not strong in systematic identification of alternatives, but are much better at systematic identification of objectives, using a decision radar, and striving for improvement. The implications of these findings are discussed in the paper.
About the Author
Yu. Frolova
KIMEP University
Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan
Yuliya Frolova - Doctor of Business Administration, Associate Professor of Management, Bang College of Business
2 Abay Prospect Almaty, 050000
References
1. Consultant Plus. Agreement About Eurasian Economic Union. Astana city. May 29, 2014. URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_ LAW_163855/ (дата обращения: 17.04.2024).
2. The Collective Security Treaty. Tashkent city. May 15, 1992. URL: https://odkb-csto.org/countries/kazakhstan/#loaded (дата обращения: 21.04.2024).
3. Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Kazakhstan. Reference information about the Republic of Kazakhstan. Embassy of the Russian Federation in the Republic of Kazakhstan. URL: https://rfembassy.ru/lm/dvustoronnie_otnosheniya/rossiya-kazakhstan/respublika_kazakhstan/ (дата обращения: 26.04.2024).
4. Frese M., Kring W., Soose A., Zempel J. Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany // Academy of Management Journal. 1996. No 39. P. 37-63. DOI: 10.2307/256630.
5. Schwarzer R. The proactive attitude scale (PA scale). URL: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/pa_scale.htm (дата обращения: 28.04.2024).
6. Keeney R.L. Value-focused thinking. A path to creative decisionmaking. 1992. Cambridge, Mass. London: Harvard University Press.
7. Frese M., Fay D. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century // Research in Organizational Behavior. 2001. No 23. P. 133-187. DOI: 10.1016/S0191-3085(01)23005-6.
8. Bateman T.S., Crant J.M. The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates // Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1993. No 14. P. 103-118. DOI: 10.1002/job.4030140202.
9. Siebert J., Kunz R. Developing and validating the multidimensional proactive decision-making scale // European Journal of Operational Research. 2016. No 249(3). P. 864-877. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.06.066.
10. Iyengar S.S., Wells R.E., Schwartz B. Doing better but feeling worse. Looking for the «best» job undermines satisfaction // Psychological Science. 2006. No 17. P. 143-150. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01677.x.
Review
For citations:
Frolova Yu. Proactive Decision-Making of Generation Z in Kazakhstan. International Business. 2024;(1 (7)):53-62.
Views:
92
Email this article 