Reimagining Career Growth for Gen Z and Millennials: Role of Career Lattices in Enhancing Employee Engagement

Abstract

Problem

Widespread disengagement among the working professionals and changing career expectations of Generation Z and Millennials pose a risk to talent management, retention, and performance in the IT sector.

Solution

This quantitative study examines how employees’ perceived competence translates into engagement via multi-directional career development pathways (career lattice, career-goal progress, professional ability improvement, and promotion) using a survey of 304 IT professionals and PLS-SEM. Results show that employees who felt more competent reported higher engagement, and this relationship was strengthened when organisations provided career lattice pathways such as skill development, lateral mobility, and goal progress.

Stakeholders

The findings identify actionable levers for organizational leaders, HRD practitioners, and talent managers to design adaptive career frameworks that increase engagement among Gen Z and Millennial employees.

Implication

HRD leaders and talent managers should prioritise flexible, skills-based mobility and career-goal supports to boost Gen Z and Millennials’ engagement.

Keywords

career lattice employee engagement Generation Z Millennials competence career development self-determination theory

Introduction

In today’s rapidly evolving business landscape, organisations are increasingly recognising the critical role that employee engagement plays in driving sustainable success and achieving competitive advantage (Gede & Huluka, 2024; Sakthimala & Deepalakshmi, 2023). Employee engagement, a multi-dimensional construct encompassing cognitive, emotional, and behavioural commitment to work, has become a central focus for organisations aiming to enhance productivity and retain talent (Kossyva et al., 2023). As per the findings of Primeast, while 23% of the employees are engaged at work, 62% are disengaged, and this low engagement is costing $8.9 trillion to the global economy due to loss of productivity and higher turnover. While the United States and Canada deal with only 33% of an engaged workforce, South Asia reported 26% engaged, and Australia reported 25% engagement (Primeast, 2025). Gallup further highlights the key trends for decline in employee engagement, suggesting that only 46% of employees clearly understand what is expected of them at work, and merely 30% agree that someone at work encourages their development (Harter, 2025). Such findings indicate systemic failures in meeting employees’ psychological needs and fostering clarity, growth, and purpose. Furthermore, these challenges are particularly amplified in the context of many Gen Z employees entering the workforce in addition to the existing Millennial workforce. Pew Research Center (Geiger, 2019) and related demographic sources in define Generation Z as those born 1997–2012 (aged 13–28 in 2025) and Millennials as those born 1981–1996 (aged 29–44 in 2025). Gen Z is characterised by its demand for autonomy, rapid career growth opportunities, working in feedback-rich environments, and meaningful work experiences. Their expectations are reshaping the traditional talent management practices and creating pressure for organisations to rethink their approach to talent management, particularly how careers can be designed and supported. Amidst this shift, career lattices are gaining traction as an alternative to hierarchical career leaders.

This study is situated within Human Resource Development (HRD) scholarship on career development. Mcdonald & Hite (2023) provide a comprehensive HRD framework for organisational career development that emphasises the joint responsibility of organisations and individuals for career outcomes; our model extends this perspective by empirically examining how competence and HRD-relevant career structures (career lattice components) jointly shape engagement outcomes among Gen Z and Millennials employees.

The career lattice, a concept, was introduced by Benko & Anderson (2010), is a form of career development structure that allows employees to move laterally, vertically, and diagonally across different roles and functions within the organisation, offering diverse experiences and skills rather than linear upward promotions. In contrast to traditional career ladders emphasising job title-based promotions, career lattice focuses on skill building, lateral growth and cross-functional exposure. This is a critical structural distinction where the career lattice is not viewed just as a flexible career development plan; rather, it is a systematic organisational framework that is explicitly designed to reflect the interconnection between roles, departments, and skills. While Benko & Weisberg (2010) consider it a dynamic approach to talent development that values breadth of experience alongside depth, Newberry (2024) deems it a flexible, employee-centric career development model, and Gartner (2023) terms it to be a strategy for increasing internal mobility and key to fostering long-term engagement. Drawing from the given explanation, career lattice can be defined as the non-linear, experience-based structure that supports diverse career trajectories by enabling employees to move across projects, roles, and functions based on the evolving skills, needs and business needs. The lattice model organises and advances the existing incremental efforts of the organisations into a comprehensive, strategic response to the altered corporate landscape, recognising that career and life are no longer separate spheres and are now interdependent.

While 94% of employees state they would stay longer at companies investing in their development (Newberry, 2024), many organisations offer career lattice opportunities only in response to budgetary constraints, positioning them as alternatives rather than complements to traditional advancement. Despite its significant potential in boosting employee engagement, the practical implementation of the career lattice model often falls short. This misuse can create employee scepticism, especially among Gen Z, who may interpret such lateral moves as cost-cutting tactics rather than meaningful development opportunities.

Problem Statement

Considering widespread employee disengagement, particularly among Gen Z and Millennials workers who value career growth, autonomy, and purpose, it is imperative to explore developmental models that align with their expectations. Career lattices offer a promising alternative to traditional linear promotion models by supporting competence development, lateral mobility, and skill diversification. However, the evidence remains limited on how effectively these lattices foster engagement, especially for Gen Z employees navigating early career phases.

This study, therefore, explores the relationship between career lattice and employee engagement among Gen Z and Millennials employees, examining whether and how these are interconnected. It seeks to understand how competence, one of the core psychological needs identified in Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), translates into engagement when supported by varied career development pathways. Specifically, the research examines the relative contribution of four developmental avenues: career lattice opportunities, career goal progress, professional skill enhancement, and traditional promotion, in mediating the competence–engagement link. By identifying the most impactful mechanisms, this study aims to guide HR practitioners and organisational leaders in building inclusive and adaptive career development frameworks that effectively engage both Gen Z and Millennials talent.

Theoretical Framework

This study integrates Self-Determination Theory (competence as a basic psychological need), the Job Demands-Resources model (personal resources → engagement), and Social Exchange Theory (organisational developmental investments → reciprocal engagement). We also link these frameworks to HRD scholarship on career development (Mcdonald & Hite, 2023), positioning the career lattice as an HRD mechanism for translating competence needs into tangible career advancement opportunities that foster sustained engagement.

Hypotheses Development

Competence and Employee Engagement

Employee competence refers to the necessary skills, knowledge, and abilities that enable individuals to perform tasks effectively. It is increasingly recognised as a foundational resource contributing to employee motivation and engagement. The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model posits that personal resources such as competence can directly predict work engagement, particularly when employees feel capable of handling their tasks and achieving valued goals (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009).

Engagement, which encompasses emotional, cognitive, and behavioural dimensions (Kahn, 1990; Schaufeli et al., 2002), tends to be higher in employees who perceive themselves as competent. Such individuals are more likely to show vigor, invest mental energy, and persist in their tasks, reflecting greater alignment with their roles. Moreover, competence enhances the psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability prerequisites for engagement (Kahn, 1990). However, this relationship may not be linear or direct; the work environment and perceived career development pathways play an essential mediating role.

There is a positive association between employee competence and employee engagement.

The Mediating Role of Career Lattice

A career lattice represents a non-traditional, multi-directional career path involving lateral moves, cross-functional exposure, and skill development rather than upward promotion (Benko & Anderson, 2010). Career lattices are vital for fostering sustainable careers in the contemporary workplace, especially in flatter organisational structures. Competent employees may seek environments that provide opportunities for lateral development, project-based work, and skill diversification. From the lens of Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964), when organisations provide career lattice opportunities, employees are likely to reciprocate through higher levels of engagement. Career lattices help individuals align their competencies with developmental experiences, thus reinforcing a sense of contribution and psychological growth (De Vos & Cambré, 2017). Empirical studies show that perceived career mobility positively influences psychological empowerment and intrinsic motivation (Briscoe et al., 2006), which are antecedents of engagement.

H2a

Employee competence is positively associated with perceived career lattice development.

H2b

Perceived career lattice development is positively associated with employee engagement.

H2c

Career lattice mediates the association between employee competence and employee engagement.

The Mediating Role of Career Goal Progress

Career goal progress refers to the perception of advancement toward personally significant career objectives. Drawing from Goal-Setting Theory (Locke & Latham, 2002), competent individuals are more likely to set challenging career goals and possess the capability to achieve them. When employees perceive progression towards the goals, it leads to an increased sense of purpose and accomplishment, thereby boosting engagement (Van Yperen et al., 2014). Additionally, career goal progression boosts cognitive and emotional engagement with work, as employees derive meaning and satisfaction from their career trajectory. As Deci & Ryan (2000) note, this addresses the need for competence and growth, underpinned by self-determination theory. This mediating pathway underscores the significance of aligning career development with personal goals and competence.

H3a

Employee competence is positively associated with perceived career goal progress.

H3b

Perceived career goal progress is positively associated with employee engagement.

H3c

Career goal progress mediates the association between employee competence and engagement.

The Mediating Role of Professional Ability Improvement

Professional ability improvement refers to enhancing one’s skills, knowledge, and overall capability in the workplace. It aligns closely with mastery orientation, which has been linked to deep engagement and long-term employability (Hall & Chandler, 2005). When competent employees experience growth in their abilities, they are more likely to feel energised, focused, and emotionally invested in their work (Saks & Gruman, 2014). This mediator also corresponds with the Competence Need from Self-Determination Theory, which posits that people are intrinsically motivated when they feel they are developing and mastering tasks (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Empirical studies confirm that learning opportunities and perceptions of skill development positively predict work engagement, particularly among knowledge workers and professionals (Albrecht, 2010; Bakker, 2011).

H4a

Employee competence is positively associated with professional ability improvement.

H4b

Professional ability improvement is positively associated with employee engagement.

H4c

Professional ability improvement mediates the association between employee competence and engagement.

The Mediating Role of Career Promotion

While traditional, career promotion remains a powerful motivator and symbol of recognition. It often reflects both individual merit (competence) and organisational reward structures. From the perspective of Expectancy Theory (Vroom, 1964), employees who perceive a high likelihood of promotion due to their competence are more motivated and engaged in their roles. Additionally, career promotion fulfils extrinsic goals that often enhance intrinsic satisfaction, especially when promotions are perceived as fair and based on merit (Kuvaas & Dysvik, 2010). Several studies link promotion prospects with increased affective commitment and proactive work behaviours, which align with employee engagement (Seibert et al., 2001).

H5a

Employee competence is positively associated with perceived career promotion opportunities.

H5b

Perceived career promotion opportunities are positively associated with employee engagement.

H5c

Career promotion mediates the association between employee competence and employee engagement.

Gaps and Contribution

While prior HRD and engagement scholarship has clarified antecedents and measurement (e.g., Shuck et al.; Saks & Gruman), recent work rarely integrates generational expectations (Gen Z) with organisational career design. Specifically, there is limited empirical evidence linking competence (as a basic psychological need) to engagement via multi-directional career mechanisms (career lattice components). This study addresses that gap by empirically testing a competence → (career lattice subcomponents) → engagement model in an understudied context (India’s IT sector), thereby extending HRD career development theory to non-linear career structures and contemporary generational cohorts.

Methods

Participants

A total of 304 valid responses were obtained from IT professionals working in various Special Economic Zones (SEZs) across Bengaluru, Karnataka (see Table 1). We follow Pew Research Center (Geiger, 2019) and related demographic sources in defining Generation Z and Millennials. In the present sample we operationalised these groups as Gen Z = participants aged 18–28 and Millennials = participants aged 29–45 (the upper bound reflects the small number of surveyed participants aged 45). The sample predominantly comprised of employees, with 62.8% aged between 18 and 28 years and the remaining 37.2% between 29 and 45 years, consistent with the workforce composition in India’s IT sector (Beresford Research, 2025). Of the participants, 53% identified as male, 39.8% as female, and 7.2% preferred not to disclose their gender identity. Regarding professional experience, nearly half of the respondents (49%) reported 1 to 5 years of experience, while 40.1% had 6 to 10 years. Most respondents (74.3%) worked on-site, with a smaller proportion working in hybrid (15.1%) or remote (10.5%) arrangements. The diversity in age, experience, and work setting enhances the representativeness of the sample in reflecting the current generational workforce trends in India’s IT industry (Figures 1 and 2).

Table 1.

Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Demographic attributes	Category	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	161	53
	Female	121	39.8
	Prefer not to say	22	7.2
Age group	18–23 years	73	24
	24–28 years	118	38.8
	29–34 years	70	23
	35–39 years	31	10.2
	40–45 years	12	3.9
Years of work experience	1–5 years	149	49
	6–10 years	122	40.1
	11–15 years	23	7.6
	16–20 years	7	2.3
	Over 20 years	3	1
Work arrangement	On-site	226	74.3
	Remote	32	10.5
	Hybrid	46	15.1

Source: Author’s work.

Study context and justification- India’s IT sector is among the largest and fastest-growing knowledge workforces globally, with unique career structures that make it an ideal context to study career lattice mechanisms. The sector also has a high proportion of early-career Gen Z employees entering large cohorts, providing an opportunity to examine generational expectations for career development in a non-Western setting. We selected Bengaluru SEZs to capture a concentrated sample of IT professionals and to address a geographic gap in HRD career development literature.

Procedures

Data collection was conducted over a 2-month period in early 2025, targeting Gen Z and Millennial employees employed in the IT sector across Bengaluru. The research employed a combination of convenience and snowball sampling techniques to reach participants across multiple SEZs, given the challenges in accessing a comprehensive sampling frame for a population exceeding 5 million IT professionals (Statista, 2025). The survey was disseminated both physically and digitally and was administered in English. Printed forms were distributed at selected SEZs, and responses were later transcribed into an online database. Concurrently, the survey link was also shared among the professional networks to reach the targeted workforce. Prior to full-scale distribution, the questionnaire was pretested with 45 IT professionals from the target demographic to assess clarity, flow, and time taken to complete the survey. These samples were closely matched to the demographic of the final sample in terms of age, gender, experience, and industry. Feedback from the 45-participant pre-test resulted in no substantive modifications to the questionnaire, indicating that items were clear and appropriately structured.

Participants were informed about the research purpose and assured of confidentiality and anonymity. Participation was voluntary, and no personally identifying information was collected. Since the physical and digital versions of the questionnaire were identical in terms of content, no systematic differences between the two groups were anticipated as both versions were carefully aligned in terms of question wording, format, and structure. Given that there was no variance in the questionnaire itself, we believe that any potential differences in the data are unlikely to be influenced by the mode of administration. Of the total responses received, 304 complete and valid entries were retained after data cleaning, which involved removing cases with missing values and straight-lining responses. This sample was considered adequate for Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM), consistent with guidelines recommending a minimum of 200 observations for robust model testing (Kline, 2015).

Instrumentation

Competence

Competence was measured using the Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale (BPNS; Deci & Ryan, 2000), comprising six items, which assesses individuals perceived effectiveness and mastery in their work environment. The scale includes items related to feelings of capability and skillfulness in task performance. Responses were collected on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The overall reliability for the competence was acceptable (α = .86). A sample item is: “I feel confident in my ability to do things well.”

Career Lattice

Career lattice in this study as measured using the Career Growth Scale (Ni et al., 2023), comprising 14 items, focusing on measuring the employees’ perception of career development, mobility, and personal growth within the organisation. The overall reliability of the scale was high (α = .96), with individual constructs’ reliability ranging between 0.91 and 0.96. One of the sample questions includes “My organisation provides various pathways for my career development beyond traditional promotions.”

Prior to full-scale administration, three HRD experts (two industry HR leaders and one academic) reviewed the items for clarity and cultural relevance to the Indian IT context. The questionnaire was pretested with n = 45 IT professionals from Bengaluru. As the scale has undergone rigorous validation in previous studies, including assessments of construct validity and reliability, the Internal consistency was measured using Cronbach’s Alpha, which yielded a high Cronbach’s alpha (α = .96).

Employee Engagement

This study measured employee engagement using the Employee Engagement Scale, comprising 15 items (EES) (Shuck et al., 2017). The reliability of the overall scale exceeded .90, with individual dimensions showing internal consistency values of α = .88 (EE), .91 (BE), and .94 (CE). A sample item includes: “I am enthusiastic about my work and find it meaningful.” The Employee Engagement Scale (EES) has been widely discussed within HRD scholarship, particularly considering its role in driving organisational success and one of the key outcomes of the HRD practices of an organisation (Shuck et al., 2017; Shuck & Wollard, 2010). Seminal works from Shuck & Wollard (2010) and Nimon & Shuck (2012) call for HRD professionals to create environments that foster engagement and ensure that employees’ motivation and expectations are aligned with the organisational goals.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Based on Table 2, the means show moderate levels across variables, with career lattice having the highest mean (2.4030). The correlations between variables were statistically significant (p < .05), indicating preliminary support for the relationships. The strongest correlations were between competence and career lattice (0.922**), followed by employee engagement and career lattice (0.923**) and between employee engagement and competence (0.881**). Gender showed weak but significant correlations with engagement (0.158**), competence (0.136*), and career lattice (0.142*), while age showed no significant relationships with other variables.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation

	Mean	Std. Deviation	G	A	E_E	Comp	C_Lat
Gender	1.54	0.628		0.120	0.158**	0.136*	0.142*
Age	2.31	1.068	0.120		−0.073	−0.050	−0.038
Employee engagement	2.3511	0.80404	.158^**	−0.073		.881^**	.923^**
Competence	2.3843	0.81428	.136^*	−0.050	.881^**		.922^**
Career lattice	2.4030	0.80138	.142^*	−0.038	.923^**	.922^**

Note. n = 304, *p < .05, **p < .01.

Reliability and Validity

For reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha (α) and the composite reliability (CR) were examined. The Cronbach’s coefficients ranged from 0.909 to 0.967. In addition, the CR of the latent variables was between 0.910 and 0.970, which was higher than 0.70, the minimum critical value required for good internal consistency (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

For validity, the average variance extracted (AVE) and discriminant validity were analysed. The AVE values were between 0.715 and 0.785, which was higher than 0.50, the minimum cutoff value for convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell-Larcker criterion, where all inter-construct correlations ranged from 0.846 to 0.887, remaining below the 0.90 threshold established by Gold & Malhotra (2001), confirming that the constructs are sufficiently distinct from one another.

Common method variance (CMV) was assessed following Podsakoff et al., (2003) recommendations using two complementary approaches. First, Harman’s single-factor exploratory factor analysis was conducted to examine whether a single factor could account for the majority of variance in the data. The results showed that the largest factor extracted less than 50% of the total variance, indicating that no single factor dominated the dataset. Second, a common latent factor approach was implemented in PLS-SEM by adding a common method factor connected to all observed indicators. The comparison between models with and without the common latent factor revealed no substantial changes in the pattern or significance of path coefficients, with maximum changes being minimal. The dramatic difference in fit indices between the independence model (CFI = .000, RMSEA = .251) and the saturated model (CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = .000) further confirms that common method variance does not significantly impact the observed relationships. These comprehensive checks provide strong evidence that CMV is unlikely to account for the relationships found in this study, supporting the validity of the structural model results.

Structural Equation Modelling

Choice of PLS-SEM. Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was chosen because the study’s primary aim was prediction and the testing of mediation paths in a complex model. In addition, PLS-SEM is robust with moderately sized samples (here n = 304) and allows for modelling when variables may depart from multivariate normality. For these reasons PLS-SEM (versus covariance-based SEM) was judged most appropriate for hypothesis testing in this study.

To assess construct validity, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to evaluate the convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement model. Convergent validity was established with all constructs demonstrating strong internal consistency, as evidenced by Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.909 to 0.967, composite reliability scores between 0.910 and 0.970, and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values from 0.715 to 0.785, all exceeding recommended thresholds of 0.7, 0.7, and 0.5, respectively. Discriminant validity was confirmed using the Fornell-Larcker criterion, where all inter-construct correlations (ranging from 0.846 to 0.887) remained below the 0.90 threshold established by Gold & Malhotra (2001), indicating that the three constructs (C, CL, EE) are sufficiently distinct from one another while maintaining strong internal coherence within each construct (Table 3).

Table 3.

Direct and Indirect Paths

			Estimate	S.E.	C.R.	P
C_Lat	<---	Comp	0.907	0.02	41.44	***
E_E	<---	Comp	0.2	0.06	3.634	***
E_E	<---	C_Lat	0.738	0.06	13.18	***
E_E	<---	Comp	0.199	0.08	2.507	0.01
E_E	<---	C_Goal	0.278	0.05	5.922	***
E_E	<---	Prof_Imp	0.284	0.05	5.59	***
E_E	<---	C_Pro	0.177	0.05	3.701	***

Direct Effects Analysis

Hypothesis 1: Employee Competence and Employee Engagement

The direct relationship between employee competence and employee engagement was statistically significant (β = 0.200, C.R. = 3.634, p < .001), providing strong support for H1. This indicates that higher levels of perceived competence are positively associated with increased employee engagement among Gen Z IT professionals.

Hypothesis 2a: Employee Competence and Career Lattice

The path from employee competence to career lattice development demonstrated a highly significant positive relationship (β = 0.907, C.R. = 41.44, p < .001), strongly supporting H2a. The large standardised coefficient suggests that competent employees are substantially more likely to perceive career lattice opportunities within their organisations.

Hypothesis 2b: Career Lattice and Employee Engagement

Career lattice development showed a significant positive association with employee engagement (β = 0.738, C.R. = 13.18, p < .001), confirming H2b. This substantial effect size indicates that perceived career lattice opportunities are a strong predictor of engagement levels.

Mediation Effects Analysis

Hypothesis 2c: Career Lattice Mediation

The mediation analysis reveals that career lattice significantly mediates the relationship between employee competence and engagement. With the mediator included in the model, the direct effect of competence on engagement remains significant but reduced (β = 0.199, C.R. = 2.507, p = .01), while the indirect effect through career lattice is substantial (β = 0.907 × 0.738 = 0.669). This pattern indicates partial mediation, supporting H2c. Partial mediation indicates that competence still has a direct effect on the engagement even after career lattice accounting for the indirect effect. If the direct effect becomes insignificant, it would indicate full mediation.

Hypothesis 3c: Career Goal Progress Mediation

Career goal progress demonstrated a significant positive relationship with employee engagement (β = 0.278, C.R. = 5.922, p < .001), providing evidence for the mediating role of career goal progress in the competence-engagement relationship, supporting H3c.

Hypothesis 4c: Professional Ability Improvement Mediation

Professional ability improvement showed a significant positive association with employee engagement (β = 0.284, C.R. = 5.59, p < .001), indicating that skill development mediates the competence-engagement relationship, thus supporting H4c.

Hypothesis 5c: Career Promotion Mediation

Career promotion opportunities demonstrated a significant but relatively smaller effect on employee engagement (β = 0.177, C.R. = 3.701, p < .001), providing support for H5c, though with a weaker magnitude compared to other mediators.

The total effect of competence on engagement (direct + indirect effects) substantially exceeds the direct effect alone, confirming that career development pathways serve as crucial amplifying mechanisms. The predominance of indirect effects over the direct effect suggests that competence primarily influences engagement through these developmental opportunities rather than through direct perception of capability alone. This pattern supports the theoretical proposition that Gen Z employees’ engagement is more strongly driven by perceived career development opportunities than by competence perceptions in isolation, with non-linear career lattice structures serving as the primary conduit for translating competence into engagement.

Discussion

This study examined how perceived employee competence is associated with engagement among Gen Z and Millennials professionals in the Indian IT sector, with a particular focus on the mediating roles of career development mechanisms such as career lattice (career goal progress, professional ability improvement, and promotion). Guided by Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and the Job Demands-Resources model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007), the findings reinforce the pivotal role of competence as a psychological resource that enhances engagement when supported by appropriate career pathways.

The direct association between competence and employee engagement aligns with previous studies indicating that competent individuals tend to experience higher levels of work engagement due to greater self-confidence and perceived task mastery (Kahn, 1990; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). The high correlation between competence and engagement in this study supports the argument that the fulfilment of the competence need plays a foundational role in driving employees’ emotional, cognitive, and behavioural investment in work (Schaufeli et al., 2002).

The key mediator, career lattice, emerged as very influential. This supports the view that Gen Z and millennial professionals value flexibility, skill development, and lateral mobility, key components of the career lattice model (Benko & Anderson, 2010; Newberry, 2024). When organisations support diverse career trajectories, employees are more likely to perceive alignment between their competence and the organisation’s developmental infrastructure, which in turn fosters greater engagement (Briscoe et al., 2006; De Vos & Cambré, 2017). Career goal progress and professional ability improvement also served as significant mediators. These pathways reflect the need for competence and growth as described in Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and underscore the motivational value of perceiving advancement and skill enhancement (Albrecht, 2010; Saks & Gruman, 2014; Van Yperen et al., 2014). When employees feel they are progressing in meaningful goals and improving professionally, they are more likely to remain energised and emotionally connected to their work. While traditional promotion was also a significant mediator, its effect was weaker compared to the other mechanisms. This may suggest a generational shift in how career success is defined. For Gen Z, promotions are no longer the sole indicator of progress; instead, diverse and self-directed career experiences are increasingly valued (Gartner, 2023; Newberry, 2024).

These findings contribute to a growing understanding that employee engagement is driven not just by job roles or extrinsic rewards, but by how organisations’ structure and support career development in ways that meet psychological needs. The study reinforces that integrating flexible, developmental models like the career lattice is essential to sustaining engagement in the modern, evolving workforce.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

This study provides several key theoretical contributions to the literature on employee engagement and career development within the framework of Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000). First, it reaffirms the critical role of competence as a foundational psychological need influencing employee engagement. Competence, conceptualised as the perception of one’s ability to effectively perform tasks, is shown to directly enhance engagement among Gen Z IT professionals. This supports prior findings that competence strengthens the psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability, which are prerequisites for engagement (Kahn, 1990; Schaufeli et al., 2002).

Second, the study expands theoretical understanding by demonstrating that the link between competence and engagement is not merely direct but is significantly mediated by career development mechanisms such as career lattice. This layered model highlights that perceived competence translates into engagement more effectively when accompanied by perceived pathways for development. Such findings extend the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, which proposes that personal resources like competence predict engagement, especially when embedded within enabling job resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009).

Third, by introducing the career lattice as a central mediator, the study provides theoretical support for non-linear career models as psychologically significant constructs. The findings build on and extend the work of Benko & Anderson (2010) and Newberry (2024), showing that lateral mobility, project-based growth, and cross-functional development are more than organisational strategies—they are psychological enablers of employee engagement. As De Vos & Cambré (2017) note, such structures foster alignment between employee competencies and developmental experiences, enhancing internal motivation.

Fourth, the study contributes to the ongoing discourse about the career expectations of Gen Z, with Gen Z increasingly preferring autonomy, feedback, and meaningful development experiences (Gartner, 2023; Newberry, 2024). The model calls for reflecting on exploring alternative career development frameworks for driving engagement for this generational cohort.

Finally, this study enriches our understanding of employee engagement as a multidimensional construct encompassing cognitive, emotional, and behavioural dimensions (Schaufeli et al., 2002) and showcasing how each of these dimensions can be achieved through different career development pathways. The study attempts to move beyond the static view of engagements and offers a dynamic framework grounded in competence needs and perceived career development opportunities.

Beyond these theoretical contributions, the findings also have strong practical implications for organisations and HRD practitioners. The results suggest that engagement is significantly strengthened when employees perceive career developmental mobility, lateral exposure, and structured opportunities to grow their skills. Organisations should therefore prioritise building formalised career-lattice systems that incorporate cross-functional rotations, skill-based internal mobility, mentoring, and transparent career-goal conversations. Such practices signal to Gen Z and Millennial employees that their competence is recognised and their long-term growth is valued. Additionally, aligning talent development systems with employees’ evolving career expectations such as autonomy, continuous learning, and meaningful progression can help organisations enhance engagement, reduce turnover intentions, and improve retention of high-potential early-career professionals. In doing so, organisations not only support employees’ psychological needs but also create a more agile, future-ready workforce capable of adapting to dynamic business demands.

Limitations

This study, while robust in design and analysis, has several limitations. First, the use of self-reported data may introduce common method bias, although procedural remedies (e.g., anonymity and item randomization) were applied. Second, the sample was limited to IT professionals in Bengaluru SEZs, which may limit the generalisability of findings to other industries and geographies. Third, while Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) was effective for testing the proposed model, future research could benefit from longitudinal or experimental designs to establish causal pathways. Lastly, other demographic variables beyond gender and age, such as education level or job role, were not explored in detail.

Contextual Consideration: India’s IT sector differs in labour market dynamics, career progression norms, and organisational structures from many Western workplaces. For example, Indian IT firms often hire large cohorts of early-career professionals and emphasise team-based project rotations and technical upskilling; a strong supply of technically skilled entrants can shape perceptions of mobility and promotion. These contextual differences may affect how career lattice mechanisms operate and limit direct generalisability; we therefore advise caution in extrapolating the findings to Western or non-IT contexts and recommend replication in contrasting labour markets (Ni et al., 2023).

Future Research Directions

Future research can be built on these findings in several ways. Longitudinal study would be valuable, particularly A two-wave panel study tracking early-career employees for 12 months to test causal ordering of competence → career pathways → engagement. The model can be extended to other sectors especially in retail and hospitality sector would help in identifying additional boundary conditions and also help in determining whether career lattice mechanisms operate similarly outside the IT contexts. Cross-country comparisons across regions such as India, America, United Kingdom, and Australia could further clarify how cultural contexts moderate the effects of career development structures on engagement. Experimental or field-based interventions, such as introducing a formal career-lattice pilot within an organisation and assessing engagement before and after implementation, would offer stronger causal evidence. Qualitative approaches, including semi-structured interviews with Gen Z and Millennial employees, could deepen understanding of how these groups interpret lateral moves and whether they perceive career-lattice opportunities as genuine development or as cost-cutting measures. Finally, mixed-methods research that combines qualitative item refinement with large-scale surveys could examine measurement invariance of the Employee Engagement Scale and Career Growth Scale across generational groups, strengthening the psychometric robustness of future studies.

Conclusion

Employee psychological needs have become a significant focus for companies owing to the need to prioritise well-being to boost productivity and engagement. This study explored how competence is associated with employee engagement among Gen Z professionals in the Indian IT sector and how various sub-dimensions of the career lattice mechanism mediate this relationship. The study established that competence is strongly associated with engagement, and career lattice opportunities significantly mediate this relationship through career goal progress, promotions, and professional ability improvement. The insights of the study underscore the need for a more multidirectional and adaptive career development framework aligned with Gen Z and Millennials’ values. As organisations continue to strive to enhance employee engagement in an evolving workforce, adopting a career lattice approach along with the traditional career approaches offers a strategic and evidence-based pathway for building a meaningful and sustainable work experience. Organizational leaders, HRD practitioners, and talent managers should implement formal career-lattice processes (skill passports, cross-functional rotations, and career-goal coaching) to translate competence into sustained engagement among Gen Z and Millennial employees.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Evangelina Rekha Joseph

Ethical Considerations

This study was reviewed and approved by the Research Conduct and Ethics Committee, Center for Research, under approval number RCEC/00452/04/25. All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Participants were provided with information regarding the purpose of the study, their rights, and measures taken to ensure confidentiality.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data are accessible on request from the corresponding author.*

Author Biographies

Evangelina Rekha Joseph is a research scholar in Human Resource Management at CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru. She holds an MBA in HRM, and her research interests span Human Resource Development, Organizational Behaviour, and Organizational Psychology. Her work explores the empirical links across these domains to develop actionable strategies for enhancing workforce performance and organizational effectiveness. She actively contributes to academic discourse as a reviewer for peer‑reviewed journals and book chapters, underscoring her commitment to scholarly rigor and advancing knowledge in Management and Industrial‑Organizational Psychology.

Dr. Vinita Seshadri is an Associate Professor at the School of Business and Management, Christ University, Bengaluru. She holds an MBA and Ph.D., and her expertise lies in business management and human resources. With years of teaching experience, she has contributed extensively through research publications, case studies, and conference presentations. Her scholarly work includes studies on performance measurement, distributed team management, and organizational strategy, with publications in international journals. Dr. Seshadri has guided research scholars, participated in numerous faculty development programs, and delivered invited talks, reflecting her commitment to advancing management education and practice.

Dr. Arti Arun Kumar is an Associate Professor at Christ University, Bengaluru. She holds a Master ’s and Ph.D. from the University of Delhi and specializes in Human Resource Management. Her research interests include neuroscience, talent management, organizational behavior, and women’s leadership. Dr. Arti has published widely, presented at national and international conferences, and actively guides research scholars, reflecting her commitment to advancing knowledge and practice in management.

Dr. Jimmy Thankachan is an Associate Professor at the School of Business and Management, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), India. She specializes in emotional and spiritual intelligence and their impact on the quality of work life, with her doctoral research focusing on the mediating roles of organizational trust and self‑efficacy. Her work extends to human resource management in multicultural contexts, and she has published in journals such as the Asian Case Research Journal and the International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research. She holds postgraduate diplomas in HRD and Labour Laws from Maharaja Sayajirao University, is NET qualified, and a certified Neuro‑Linguistic Programming trainer. Dr. Thankachan has presented widely at national and international conferences, addressing topics including emotional distress, consumer behavior, and neuromarketing, and has organized workshops on Whole Person Education and learner‑centered approaches, reflecting her commitment to advancing workplace well‑being and educational excellence.

References

Albrecht

S. L.

(2010). Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bakker

A. B.

(2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411414534

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

Benko

Anderson

(2010). The corporate lattice: Achieving high performance in the changing world of work: Harvard Business Review Press.

Benko

Weisberg

A. C.

(2010). The corporate lattice: Achieving high performance in the changing world of work. Harvard Business Review Press.

Beresford Research . (2025). Age range by generation. https://www.beresfordresearch.com/age-range-by-generation/

Blau

P. M.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.

Briscoe

J. P.

Hall

D. T.

DeMuth

R. L. F.

(2006). Protean and boundaryless careers: An empirical exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.09.003

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

10.

De Vos

Cambré

(2017). Career management in high-performing organizations: A set-theoretic approach. Human Resource Management, 56(3), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21783

11.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980

12.

Gartner . (2023). Internal talent mobility: The future of career development. Gartner, Inc. Retrieved from. https://www.gartner.com

13.

Gede

D. U.

Huluka

A. T.

(2024). Effects of employee engagement on organizational performance: Case of public universities in Ethiopia. Future Business Journal, 10(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00315-7

14.

Geiger

(2019). Defining generations: Where millennials end and generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. Available at. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

15.

Gold

A. H.

Malhotra

A. H.

(2001). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 185–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2001.11045669

16.

Hall

D. T.

Chandler

D. E.

(2005). Psychological success: When the career is a calling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(2), 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.301

17.

Harter

(2025). U.S. employee engagement sinks to 10-Year low. Gallup.com; Gallup. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/654911/employee-engagement-sinks-year-low.aspx

18.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.2307/256287

19.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

20.

Kossyva

Theriou

Aggelidis

Sarigiannidis

(2023). Outcomes of engagement: A systematic literature review and future research directions. Heliyon, 9(6), Article e17565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17565

21.

Kuvaas

Dysvik

(2010). Exploring alternative relationships between perceived investment in employee development, perceived supervisor support and employee outcomes. Human Resource Management Journal, 20(2), 138–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2009.00120.x

22.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

23.

Mcdonald

Hite

(2023). Career development: A human resource development perspective. Routledge. Cop.

24.

Newberry

(2024). Council post: To retain employees, help them grow and develop. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescoachescouncil/2023/03/28/to-retain-employees-help-them-grow-and-develop/

25.

(2023). Development and psychometric evaluation of the career growth scale for nurses. Asian Nursing Research, 17(4), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2023.08.001

26.

Nimon

Shuck

(2012). The role of employee engagement in HRD: A critical review and future directions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21124

27.

Podsakoff

M MacKenzie

B Lee

Y Podsakoff

P (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

28.

Primeast . (2025). 59 Employee engagement statistics for 2025 | primeast. Primeast. https://primeast.com/insights/employee-engagement-statistics/

29.

Saks

A. M.

Gruman

J. A.

(2014). What do we really know about employee engagement? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 155–182. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21187

30.

Sakthimala

Deepalakshmi

(2023). Employment engagement a review of current research and its implications. In: A theoretical framework (p. 126). Multidisciplinary handbook of social exclusion research.

31.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Salanova

González-Romá

Bakker

A. B.

(2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326

32.

Seibert

S. E.

Kraimer

M. L.

Liden

R. C.

(2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069452

33.

Shuck

Adelson

J. L.

Reio

T. G.

(2017). The employee engagement scale: Initial evidence for construct validity and implications for theory and practice. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 953–977. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21811

34.

Shuck

Wollard

K. K.

(2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309353560

35.

Statista . (2025). Employment of the IT-BPM industry in India from 2009 to 2024, with an estimate for 2025. https://www.statista.com

36.

Van Yperen

N. W.

Elliot

A. J.

Anseel

(2014). The influence of mastery–avoidance goals on performance improvement. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 724–729. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2057

37.

Vroom

V. H.

(1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.

38.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003