Generational differences in personality and work motivation: evidence from Sri Lanka’s banking sector

Sri Lanka, like many nations, faces the dual challenge of an ageing population and a shrinking working-age cohort. By 2030, projections suggest that the island will attain “super-aged” demographic status (Mendis, 2025). Consequently, human resource management is undergoing a paradigm shift that will reshape nearly every aspect of the employment landscape.

The contemporary workforce is increasingly multigenerational. Each cohort, born into distinctive socioeconomic, cultural and technological contexts, may develop distinct cognitive and behavioural orientations (Lyons and Kuron, 2014; Twenge, 2010). In professional settings, these cohort-associated norms are reflected in workplace behaviour, organisational commitment and motivational preferences.

Sustaining organisational motivation and long-term performance, therefore, requires a systematic understanding of generational differences in the workforce (Parry and Urwin, 2011; Costanza et al., 2012). Motivation may be intrinsic, driven by autonomy and purpose, or extrinsic, shaped by compensation and recognition (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Prior research suggests that generational cohorts differ in their motivational hierarchies, partly influenced by personality traits and formative socio-economic experiences (Lyons and Kuron, 2014). However, most empirical evidence originates from Western contexts.

In spite of extensive literature, three limitations remain. First, recent research increasingly questions whether observed generational differences reflect true cohort effects or broader age–period dynamics (Schröder, 2024; Clements, 2025). Second, evidence from collectivist and hierarchical labour markets such as those in South Asia remains limited. Third, relatively few studies integrate personality as a mediating mechanism while simultaneously examining organisational context as a moderating factor. Addressing these limitations is essential for strengthening theoretical clarity and contextual relevance in generational research.

In response, this study examines cohort-associated differences in personality and work motivation among banking professionals in Sri Lanka. It further investigates whether personality traits mediate generational differences and whether organisational context (bank type) conditions the expression of motivational preferences. By integrating psychological and institutional perspectives, the study contributes to a more contextually grounded understanding of generational dynamics in contemporary workplaces.

The contemporary workforce comprises several distinct, and sometimes overlapping, generational cohorts, creating additional organisational complexity (Lyons and Kuron, 2014). Generational cohort theory, initially proposed by Mannheim (1952), suggests that individuals born during the same socio-historical period develop enduring attitudes and behavioural patterns shaped by shared formative experiences. Subsequent research has found that generational identity is influenced by major economic, technological and cultural events experienced during adolescence and early adulthood (Parry and Urwin, 2011). However, recent literature cautions against treating generational differences as deterministic, emphasising the need to consider age and contextual influences (Schröder, 2024).

Generation X (born 1965–1980) entered the workforce during a period of economic restructuring, early globalisation and the rise of personal computing. In contrast, Millennials (born 1981–1996), also known as Generation Y, came of age amid rapid digital expansion, the growth of social media and intensified global integration (Twenge, 2010). These differing life contexts influence expectations regarding communication, autonomy, work–life balance and leadership, which, in turn, shape organisational culture and employee satisfaction (Costanza et al., 2012). Poorly managed generational diversity can therefore lead to miscommunication, conflict and reduced productivity (Parry and Urwin, 2011).

This study adopts widely recognised birth-year classifications for Generation X (1965–1980), Generation Y (1981–1996) and Generation Z (1997 onwards) to maintain comparability with international generational research. These cohort boundaries are treated as analytical categories rather than fixed sociological realities. It is acknowledged that socio-historical experiences shaping generational identity in Sri Lanka may not align perfectly with Western timelines. Accordingly, the cohort lens is used as a heuristic framework for analysis rather than as a deterministic classification of identity.

Personality traits offer a valuable lens for interpreting generational differences. The five-factor model (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism) remains one of the most influential frameworks in organisational psychology (McCrae and Costa, 1987; Robbins and Judge, 2019). Research suggests that generational context may influence how these traits are expressed in workplace behaviour. Millennials, for example, tend to score higher on openness and extraversion than older cohorts, reflecting greater exposure to collaborative learning, digital technologies and global communication environments (Twenge et al., 2012). These differences contribute to variation in work preferences: employees high in openness, for instance, are more attracted to flexible, creative and participatory work environments (Lyons and Kuron, 2014).

Motivation also varies across generations. Self-determination theory (SDT) distinguishes between intrinsic motivation, driven by autonomy, purpose and personal growth, and extrinsic motivation, shaped by rewards and instrumental outcomes, such as pay, recognition and promotion (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Some studies suggest Millennials place greater emphasis on intrinsic motivators, seeking meaningful work, professional development and rapid career progression (Lyons and Kuron, 2014; Twenge, 2010). Older cohorts, including Generation X, have traditionally valued extrinsic rewards such as job security and structured advancement opportunities. Younger employees also demonstrate a stronger need for timely recognition, shaped by their engagement with digital and social media environments (Twenge, 2010). Organisations that align reward systems with generational preferences benefit from higher motivation, productivity and retention, while misalignment increases the risk of disengagement and turnover (Costanza et al., 2012).

While generational cohort theory emphasises shared formative experiences, institutional theory suggests that behaviour is shaped not only by cohort membership but also by the structural and cultural environments in which individuals operate (Scott, 2014). Organisations differ in their normative expectations, governance structures and reward systems, which may amplify or attenuate generational tendencies. Public-sector institutions, for example, often emphasise stability, hierarchy and procedural compliance, whereas multinational corporations may promote flexibility, innovation and performance-driven cultures (Schein, 2017; Hofstede et al., 2010).

Research on person–organisation fit further indicates that employee attitudes reflect the interaction between individual dispositions and organisational value systems (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Thus, generational preferences may not manifest uniformly across institutional contexts. Instead, organisational culture may serve as a conditioning mechanism that shapes how generational dispositions are expressed.

Compared to Western contexts, scholarly work on generational dynamics in South Asia remains limited. Labour markets in the region are strongly shaped by hierarchical social structures, collectivist values and family obligations, which may significantly influence generational patterns of work behaviour (Budhwar and Debrah, 2019). In Sri Lanka, existing HRM research has primarily focused on leadership, industrial relations and public-sector management, with relatively little attention paid to generational differences in personality, motivation and workplace behaviour.

This gap is particularly significant in the Sri Lankan context, where a rapidly ageing workforce now coexists with younger cohorts entering the workforce amid ongoing economic and technological transformation. The simultaneous presence of multiple generations in organisations heightens the relevance of understanding cohort-based differences for effective human resource management and organisational performance.

In spite of a substantial body of research on generational differences, three key gaps remain.

First, most empirical evidence on generational differences originates from Western, individualistic societies, while comparatively limited attention has been paid to collectivist and emerging-economy contexts (Lyons and Kuron, 2014; Krishna and Agrawal, 2025). The extent to which these findings generalise to collectivist and hierarchical cultures such as those in South Asia, therefore, remains unclear. Given the region’s growing economic significance and evolving labour market structures, context-specific research is urgently needed.

Second, although organisational culture is increasingly recognised as shaping generational attitudes and workplace behaviour (Budhwar and Debrah, 2019; Ravid et al., 2025), it has rarely been examined as a moderating factor within generational research. Culture theory argues that strong institutional cultures can override or condition individual characteristics (Schein, 2017). Recent research further suggests that generational tendencies may be amplified, moderated or suppressed by organisational and institutional conditions rather than reflecting fixed cohort characteristics (Schröder, 2024; Ravid et al., 2025). This is particularly relevant in the banking sector, where stability-oriented cultures may conflict with younger cohorts’ preferences for flexibility and innovation. Moreover, public, private and multinational banks in Sri Lanka differ significantly in their structures and cultural orientations (Kotter and Heskett, 1992; Hofstede et al., 2010), presenting an opportunity to investigate how diverse organisational cultures shape generational dynamics.

Third, although personality and motivation have been examined extensively within organisational research (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Twenge et al., 2012), relatively little research integrates personality traits as mediating mechanisms while simultaneously examining organisational context as a conditioning influence. This limits both theoretical development and practical understanding of the psychological and institutional mechanisms through which cohort-associated differences in workplace motivation emerge. Much existing research has also relied on single-organisation or cross-sectional designs, limiting the ability to disentangle cohort, age and contextual influences (Costanza et al., 2012; Schröder, 2024). In addition, some studies use unvalidated measures, restricting insight into the mechanisms linking personality traits and work motivation.

This study integrates established theoretical perspectives to examine generational differences in workplace behaviour. Cohort theory (Mannheim, 1952) conceptualises generations as groups of individuals shaped by shared socio-economic, cultural and technological experiences during formative years. These shared experiences foster distinct values, attitudes and behavioural orientations (Parry and Urwin, 2011). Consequently, membership in a generational cohort can serve as a meaningful indicator of workplace attitudes and expectations (Lyons and Kuron, 2014).

The second theoretical lens underpinning this study is SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2000), which conceptualises motivation along a continuum ranging from intrinsic to extrinsic forms of regulation. Intrinsic motivation refers to engagement driven by inherent interest, autonomy and psychological fulfilment, whereas extrinsic motivation reflects behaviour guided by external rewards, obligations, or instrumental outcomes such as pay, security and recognition. By distinguishing between internally endorsed and externally regulated forms of motivation, SDT offers a useful framework for examining how generational cohorts may differ in the relative salience of autonomy, purpose and reward-based incentives within organisational settings (Gagné et al., 2015).

The conceptual model proposes that membership in generational cohorts influences work motivation both directly and indirectly via personality traits. The five-factor model (McCrae and Costa, 1987) conceptualises personality as five broad dimensions: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and emotional stability, which mediate the relationship between generational experiences and motivational tendencies. Cohort-specific experiences relating to economic conditions, technological change and social environments may shape personality development across generations (Twenge, 2010).

Personality traits are hypothesised to influence preferences for motivational factors. Extrinsic motivators include job security and traditional organisational commitment, while intrinsic motivators encompass meaningful work, autonomy, influence and flexibility. These correspond to SDT’s taxonomy while integrating factors relevant to contemporary organisational contexts (Gagné et al., 2015).

The conceptual framework advances three sets of hypotheses. First, personality trait profiles are expected to vary across generational cohorts. Based on prior generational and personality research, Generation X is anticipated to exhibit higher conscientiousness and agreeableness, Generation Y higher openness to experience and Generation Z higher extraversion alongside lower emotional stability (Lyons and Kuron, 2014; Twenge et al., 2012).

Second, cohorts are expected to differ in work motivation preferences. Generation X is hypothesised to prioritise extrinsic and security-oriented motives, particularly job security and traditional organisational commitment. Generation Y is expected to emphasise responsibility and influence, while Generation Z is anticipated to place stronger emphasis on intrinsic and autonomy-related aspects of work, especially meaningful work and flexibility (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Gagné et al., 2015; Kooij et al., 2011).

Third, personality traits are proposed to partially mediate these cohort differences. Conscientiousness is expected to mediate Generation X’s stronger preference for job security and traditional organisational commitment, openness to experience to mediate younger cohorts’ preference for meaningful work and extraversion to mediate Generation Z’s preference for flexible work arrangements (Barrick et al., 2013; Judge and Ilies, 2002).

The conceptual framework recognises that generational connections are embedded within broader social and economic contexts shaped by cultural differences. In South Asian countries, these differences are strongly influenced by cultural values such as hierarchy, collectivism and obligations to family, all of which affect workplace behaviours and generational dynamics (Budhwar and Varma, 2010). Organisational conditions such as sectoral orientation, institutional characteristics and organisational culture may further strengthen or weaken intergenerational patterns, suggesting moderating effects.

The model’s emphasis on both direct and mediated pathways acknowledges that variation across generational cohorts arises from multiple influences, with personality traits serving as a significant, though not exclusive, explanatory mechanism. This nuanced representation captures the complexity of generational forces while providing a coherent set of testable hypotheses that can extend theoretical understanding of workforce diversity in contemporary organisational settings.

This study used a quantitative, cross-sectional research design to examine generational differences in personality traits and work motivation among banking professionals in a developing-economy context. The theoretical framework was informed by generational cohort theory (Mannheim, 1952) and SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2000), responding to calls for empirical research on generational diversity in non-Western organisational environments (Budhwar and Debrah, 2019).

The study population comprised employees working at public, private and multinational commercial banks in Sri Lanka. A stratified sampling approach was used to ensure proportional representation across generational cohorts, bank types and hierarchical levels. This strategy improved comparability across generational groups and reduced sampling bias, consistent with methodological recommendations for generational research (Costanza et al., 2012).

A priori power analysis using G*Power 3.1.9.7 (Faul et al., 2007) with α = 0.05, power = 0.80 and a medium effect size (f = 0.25) indicated a minimum required sample of 159. To accommodate non-response and maintain statistical precision, a target sample of 300 was set. The final sample comprised 284 participants (overall response rate = 94.7%) distributed across Generation X (n = 98), Generation Y (n = 102) and Generation Z (n = 84). The sample demonstrated balanced representation across public (33.8%), private (33.1%) and multinational (33.1%) banks and across gender (51.4% male; 48.6% female), supporting the generalisability of the findings.

Personality traits were assessed using the Big Five Inventory-44 (BFI-44; John and Srivastava, 1999), a widely validated instrument measuring five core personality dimensions: conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness to experience, extraversion and emotional stability (reverse-scored neuroticism). The BFI-44 comprises 44 items rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The instrument has demonstrated strong factorial validity and cross-cultural reliability across diverse populations (Benet-Martínez and John, 1998; John et al., 2008).

In the present study, internal consistency coefficients ranged from α = 0.72 to α = 0.89 across the five dimensions, indicating acceptable to excellent reliability in line with established psychometric standards (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Composite scores were calculated as the mean of items corresponding to each personality trait, with higher scores indicating stronger trait expression.

Work motivation was assessed using a multidimensional scale measuring five job-related motivators relevant to banking work: job security, responsibility/influence, meaningful work, flexibility and traditional organisational commitment. Items were adapted from established work motivation and work values literature and refined to ensure contextual relevance for the Sri Lankan banking sector.

All motivation items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Composite scores were computed as the mean of items within each dimension, with higher scores reflecting a stronger preference for the respective motivator.

Internal consistency reliability coefficients were acceptable to excellent across the five dimensions: job security (α = 0.82), responsibility/influence (α = 0.73), meaningful work (α = 0.87), flexibility (α = 0.78) and traditional organisational commitment (α = 0.84). These values indicate satisfactory internal coherence of the motivation constructs within the Sri Lankan banking context.

A structured demographic questionnaire collected information on age (in years), biological sex, organisational tenure, hierarchical position (junior, mid-level or senior) and institutional affiliation (public, private or multinational bank). These variables were used to describe the sample and were examined as potential control variables in supplementary analyses (Field, 2018).

Data collection was conducted over eight weeks using a dual-mode approach encompassing both paper-based and electronic questionnaire administration. Distribution was facilitated through human resources departments and established organisational contacts within participating financial institutions (banks). Participation remained strictly voluntary and anonymous, with informed consent obtained from all respondents in accordance with ethical research standards. Prior to main data collection, the complete questionnaire underwent pilot testing with a convenience sample of 20 banking professionals to assess item clarity and cultural appropriateness for the Sri Lankan context. Pilot participants provided feedback on questionnaire length, item wording and administrative procedures, resulting in minor modifications to instructional clarity without altering validated scale content.

Statistical assumptions were assessed prior to analysis. Most variables satisfied normality and homogeneity requirements. Minor deviations were observed for emotional stability and traditional commitment; however, sensitivity analyses using Welch’s ANOVA (Welch, 1951) and robust procedures confirmed that the overall significance patterns remained unchanged. Intraclass correlation coefficients at the bank level ranged from 0.02 to 0.08, indicating minimal clustering effects and supporting the appropriateness of single-level analyses.

All statistical analyses were run on IBM SPSS Statistics 28.0. AI-assisted tools, including Microsoft Copilot and Grammarly, were used exclusively for language refinement, specifically to improve clarity, grammar and readability.

This study involved adult human participants and used an anonymous survey design. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all respondents prior to data collection. Participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study at any time without any consequences. No personal or identifiable information was collected, and confidentiality and anonymity were assured throughout the research process.

Prior to data collection, permission was obtained from the Human Resource departments of the relevant banks to administer the survey among employees. The study followed recognised ethical standards for research involving human participants and adhered to widely accepted principles of research ethics governing anonymous survey research (American Psychological Association, 2017). As the study involved voluntary participation, minimal risk and anonymous data collection, formal approval from an institutional ethics committee was not required.

The study sample comprised 284 respondents distributed across three generational cohorts: Generation X (n = 98, 34.5%), Generation Y (n = 102, 35.9%) and Generation Z (n = 84, 29.6%). Gender representation was relatively balanced both within and across generations, with Generation X comprising 51 males (52.0%) and 47 females (48.0%), Generation Y comprising 51 males (50.0%) and 51 females (50.0%) and Generation Z comprising 44 males (52.4%) and 40 females (47.6%), yielding a total sample of 146 males (51.4%) and 138 females (48.6%). Participants were evenly distributed across banking sectors: 96 (33.8%) from public banks, 94 (33.1%) from private banks and 94 (33.1%) from multinational banks. This distribution provided adequate representation across cohorts and institutional settings and met the minimum sample size requirements indicated by the a priori power analysis:

Assumption testing indicated that most variables satisfied the requirements for standard ANOVA. Minor violations were addressed through appropriate sensitivity analyses, with Welch’s ANOVA used for variables exhibiting heteroscedasticity and robust procedures used for variables showing slight deviations from normality.

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the five personality traits across Generation X, Generation Y and Generation Z employees. As shown in Table 1, Generation X employees reported the highest levels of conscientiousness, agreeableness and emotional stability, whereas Generation Y employees demonstrated the highest levels of openness to experience. Generation Z employees reported the highest levels of extraversion.

The one-way ANOVA results presented in Table 2 indicate statistically significant generational differences across all five personality traits. Significant differences were observed for conscientiousness, F(2, 281) = 18.76, p < 0.001, η² = 0.118; agreeableness, F(2, 281) = 8.42, p < 0.001, η² = 0.056; openness, F(2, 281) = 12.67, p < 0.001, η² = 0.083; extraversion, F(2, 281) = 24.31, p < 0.001, η² = 0.148; and emotional stability, F(2, 281) = 16.92, p < 0.001, η² = 0.107. Effect sizes ranged from moderate to relatively large, with the strongest generational differences observed for extraversion.

Prior to conducting the ANOVA analyses, assumption testing was performed. As reported in Table 3, most variables satisfied the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance. For variables showing minor violations, sensitivity analyses using Welch’s and robust ANOVA procedures yielded results consistent with the original analyses, indicating that the findings were robust to these minor violations of assumptions.

To identify specific group differences, Tukey post hoc comparisons were conducted (Table 4). Generation X employees reported significantly higher conscientiousness than both Generation Y and Generation Z employees (p < 0.001 for both comparisons). Generation Y employees reported significantly higher openness than Generation X employees (p < 0.001), although the difference between Generation Y and Generation Z was not statistically significant (p = 0.247). Generation Z employees reported significantly higher extraversion than both Generation X and Generation Y employees (p < 0.001 for both comparisons) and significantly lower emotional stability than Generation X (p < 0.001) and Generation Y (p = 0.005).

For agreeableness, generational differences were less pronounced. As shown in Table 4, Generation X employees reported significantly higher agreeableness than Generation Z employees (p = 0.012), whereas differences between Generation X and Generation Y (p = 0.268) and between Generation Y and Generation Z (p = 0.342) were not statistically significant.

Overall, the findings support H1 and indicate that personality traits vary systematically across generational cohorts within the Sri Lankan banking sector. The strongest differences were observed for extraversion, conscientiousness and emotional stability, suggesting that generational cohort membership is associated with distinct personality profiles:

Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics for the five work motivation dimensions across Generation X, Generation Y and Generation Z employees. As shown in Table 5, Generation X employees reported the highest levels of job security and traditional commitment, whereas Generation Y employees reported the highest preference for responsibility and influence. Generation Z employees reported the highest levels of meaningful work and flexibility.

Table 6 reports the ANOVA results examining generational differences in work motivation. As shown in Table 6, statistically significant generational differences were observed for all five work motivation dimensions. Significant differences were found for job security, F(2, 281) = 28.91, p < 0.001, η² = 0.171; responsibility/influence, F(2, 281) = 12.34, p < 0.001, η² = 0.081; meaningful work, F(2, 281) = 9.67, p < 0.001, η² = 0.064; flexibility, F(2, 281) = 26.84, p < 0.001, η² = 0.160; and traditional commitment, F(2, 281) = 21.73, p < 0.001, η² = 0.134. The largest effect sizes were observed for job security and flexibility, suggesting that these motivational factors differ most strongly across generational cohorts.

Table 7 presents the Tukey post hoc comparisons used to identify specific group differences between generational cohorts. As shown in Table 7, employees in the Generation X cohort reported significantly stronger preferences for job security than those in both Generation Y and Generation Z (both p < 0.001). In addition, Generation Y employees placed significantly greater importance on job security than Generation Z employees (p = 0.024).

For responsibility and influence, Table 7 indicates that Generation Y employees reported significantly stronger preferences than both Generation X (p < 0.001) and Generation Z employees (p = 0.018), while the difference between Generation X and Generation Z was not statistically significant (p = 0.105).

Regarding meaningful work, Table 7 shows significant differences only between Generation Z and Generation X employees (p < 0.001), with Generation Z reporting stronger preferences. Differences between Generation Z and Generation Y (p = 0.139) and between Generation X and Generation Y (p = 0.156) were not statistically significant.

As further illustrated in Table 7, flexibility exhibited the clearest generational gradient. Generation Z employees reported significantly stronger preferences for flexibility than both Generation X and Generation Y employees (both p < 0.001), while Generation Y employees also reported significantly stronger preferences for flexibility than Generation X employees (p < 0.001).

Table 7 also indicates that Generation X employees reported significantly higher levels of traditional commitment than both Generation Y and Generation Z employees (both p < 0.001). Furthermore, Generation Y employees reported significantly higher levels of traditional organisational commitment than Generation Z employees (p < 0.001), indicating a progressive decline in traditional organisational commitment across younger generations.

Overall, the findings provide support for H2. Tables 5–7 collectively demonstrate significant generational differences in work motivation. The strongest differences were observed for job security, flexibility and traditional commitment, suggesting that employees from different generations are motivated by distinct workplace values and expectations:

Table 8 presents the correlations between personality traits and the dimensions of work motivation. As shown in Table 8, conscientiousness was positively associated with job security (r = 0.41, p < 0.01) and traditional commitment (r = 0.39, p < 0.01), while openness demonstrated positive associations with responsibility/influence (r = 0.42, p < 0.01), meaningful work (r = 0.47, p < 0.01) and flexibility (r = 0.38, p < 0.01). Extraversion was most strongly associated with flexibility (r = 0.44, p < 0.01), whereas emotional stability was positively related to job security (r = 0.33, p < 0.01) and traditional commitment (r = 0.31, p < 0.01). These relationships provided preliminary support for examining personality traits as potential mediators of generational differences in work motivation.

Table 9 reports the mediation analyses examining whether personality traits mediate the relationship between generational cohort membership and work motivation. As shown in Table 9, conscientiousness significantly mediated the relationship between generational cohort membership and both job security and traditional commitment. Specifically, conscientiousness partially mediated the differences between Generation X and Generation Y employees in job security (indirect effect = 0.084, 95% CI [0.032, 0.149]) and traditional commitment (indirect effect = 0.071, 95% CI [0.025, 0.128]). Similar mediation effects were observed when comparing Generation X and Generation Z employees, with conscientiousness accounting for indirect effects of 0.127 for job security and 0.109 for traditional commitment. These mediation effects accounted for approximately 12%–15% of the total generational differences in these outcomes.

Table 9 further indicates that openness emerged as a significant mediator of meaningful work preferences. Significant indirect effects were observed in both the Generation Y versus Generation X and Generation Z versus Generation X comparisons. However, the proportion mediated was interpreted only for the Generation Z versus Generation X comparison because the total effect was statistically significant. In this case, openness partially mediated the relationship between generational cohort membership and meaningful work preferences, accounting for 18.1% of the total effect.

As further reported in Table 9, extraversion significantly mediated generational differences in flexibility preferences. Extraversion accounted for 15.4% of the difference between Generation Z and Generation X employees and 21.8% of the difference between Generation Z and Generation Y employees. These findings suggest that higher levels of extraversion among younger employees partially explain their stronger preference for flexible work arrangements.

Table 10 presents a decomposition of the mediation pathways into their constituent effects. As shown in Table 10, generational cohort membership significantly predicted the relevant personality traits (Path a), which, in turn, significantly predicted the corresponding motivational dimensions (Path b), thereby supporting the reported mediation pathways. Across all significant mediation models, the direct effects (c′) remained statistically significant, indicating partial rather than full mediation. This pattern suggests that personality traits explain part, but not all, of the observed generational differences in work motivation.

Overall, the findings provide partial support for H3. Tables 8–10 collectively demonstrate that personality traits serve as significant, albeit partial, mediators of generational differences in work motivation. Conscientiousness significantly mediated differences between Generation X employees and younger cohorts in job security and traditional commitment, accounting for approximately 12%–15% of the observed generational differences. Openness partially mediated generational differences in meaningful work preferences, while extraversion partially mediated generational differences in flexibility preferences, explaining between 15% and 22% of the observed effects. These findings suggest that personality traits constitute one mechanism through which generational differences in work motivation emerge. However, because the direct effects remained statistically significant across all models, substantial unexplained variance remains, indicating that additional developmental, organisational, cultural and contextual factors also contribute to generational differences in work motivation.

Table 11 presents the demographic and organisational characteristics of the sample across the three generational cohorts. As shown in Table 11, the sample was broadly balanced by gender and bank type, while expected differences were observed in position level and organisational tenure. Generation X employees were more likely to occupy senior positions and reported substantially longer organisational tenure, whereas Generation Z employees were predominantly represented in junior positions and reported shorter tenure.

To examine whether generational differences varied across organisational contexts, two-way ANOVA analyses were conducted using generation and bank type as factors. Table 12 reports the results of these analyses. As shown in Table 12, significant main effects of generation were observed for conscientiousness, job security, flexibility and traditional commitment, consistent with the primary analyses reported earlier. Bank type also demonstrated significant main effects for job security, flexibility and traditional commitment, suggesting that organisational context contributes to variations in employee attitudes and motivational preferences.

Importantly, Table 12 indicates that the Generation × Bank type interaction effects were statistically significant for job security, F(4, 275) = 2.75, p = 0.029, η² = 0.038; flexibility, F(4, 275) = 2.70, p = 0.031, η² = 0.038; and traditional commitment, F(4, 275) = 2.87, p = 0.023, η² = 0.040. However, no significant interaction effect was observed for conscientiousness, F(4, 275) = 1.71, p = 0.148. These findings indicate that although generational differences are generally robust, their magnitude varies across organisational settings.

To further explore these interaction effects, simple-effects analyses were conducted to examine generational differences within each bank type. Table 13 presents the results of these analyses. As shown in Table 13, significant generational differences were observed across public, private and multinational banks for job security, flexibility and traditional commitment. For job security, mean scores were consistently higher in public-sector banks across all generations than in private and multinational banks. Similarly, traditional commitment scores were highest in public-sector banks and lowest in multinational banks across the three generational cohorts.

Table 13 further shows that flexibility preferences increased progressively from Generation X to Generation Z across all bank types. The highest flexibility scores were observed among employees working in multinational banks across all generational cohorts. In spite of these contextual variations, the overall pattern of generational differences remained consistent across organisational settings.

Overall, Tables 12 and 13 demonstrate that organisational context influences the expression of generational work motivations. While the direction of generational differences remained largely stable across banking sectors, the strength of these differences varied according to institutional setting. Public-sector contexts were associated with higher mean levels of job security and traditional commitment, whereas multinational banks exhibited higher flexibility scores across generations.

Additional robustness checks incorporating gender, organisational tenure and position level as covariates produced substantively similar results. The significance and direction of the generational effects remained unchanged, indicating that the findings are robust and not solely attributable to demographic or career-stage differences.

This study provides strong empirical evidence of generational differences in personality traits and work motivation among banking employees in Sri Lanka, extending generational cohort theory to a developing-economy context. Generational cohort membership was associated with meaningful variation across all measured personality and motivational dimensions, with effect sizes (η² = 0.056–0.164) indicating statistically significant and practically relevant differences. While recent research increasingly questions whether observed generational differences reflect true cohort effects or broader age–period dynamics, cautioning against overly deterministic interpretations of generational categories (Schröder, 2024; Ravid et al., 2025), the present findings suggest that cohort-associated differences may extend beyond purely stereotypical interpretations within this institutional setting. In line with Cohen’s (1988) benchmarks, several observed effects ranged from small to large in magnitude, indicating that cohort membership captures substantive variance in work-related dispositions. These findings are broadly consistent with international reviews of generational research (Schröder, 2024; Ravid et al., 2025) and represent one of the first systematic empirical examinations of generational dynamics within the South Asian banking sector.

The observed generational patterns in personality largely mirror international evidence while reflecting contextual nuances. Employees in the Generation X cohort exhibited significantly higher conscientiousness, consistent with research linking older cohorts to reliability, discipline and task orientation. Extraversion increased across cohorts, peaking among Generation Z employees, consistent with studies linking younger generations’ digital immersion to heightened sociability and expressiveness. The Generation Y cohort demonstrated significantly higher openness than Generation X; however, its openness did not differ significantly from Generation Z. This pattern suggests that openness is elevated among younger cohorts relative to Generation X rather than uniquely characteristic of Generation Y. Emotional stability declined from Generation X to Generation Z, with Generation Z reporting significantly lower emotional stability than older cohorts. Together, these results suggest that while core personality trends appear broadly consistent with global research, their expression is shaped by local cultural and institutional conditions.

Generational differences in work motivation also reflected both universal patterns and contextual adaptation. The stronger aggregate preference for job security observed among the Generation X cohort may reflect life-stage considerations. The Generation Z cohort places greater emphasis on flexibility and meaningful work, consistent with global projections of younger cohorts’ values, and this emphasis is particularly salient amid rapid technological change and shifting employment expectations. The Generation Y cohort may prioritise responsibility and influence, supporting prior findings that characterise this cohort as development-oriented, although hierarchical organisational norms in South Asia may constrain the realisation of these aspirations. These findings underscore that motivational preferences are shaped by both generational experience and the broader socio-economic environment in which careers unfold.

Mediation analyses provided partial insight into the psychological mechanisms associated with generational differences in work motivation. Conscientiousness partially mediated Generation X’s stronger preference for job security and traditional commitment, accounting for approximately 12%–15% of the observed associations. Openness was associated with Generation Z’s preference for meaningful work, while extraversion partially mediated Generation Z’s preference for flexible work arrangements. Although the mediation effects were modest (12%–22%), the findings suggest that personality traits may represent one pathway through which cohort-associated differences in motivation are expressed. At the same time, the persistence of substantial direct effects indicates that broader cultural, economic, organisational and career-stage influences are also likely to shape these relationships beyond individual personality characteristics.

This study advances generational research in three ways. First, it provides empirical evidence from a South Asian, non-Western context, extending generational literature beyond its predominantly Western focus. Second, it demonstrates that personality traits partially mediate cohort-associated differences in motivation, clarifying one psychological pathway linking generational membership and work preferences. Although mediation effects were modest, they indicate that personality is one of several explanatory mechanisms.

Third, the findings show that generational differences are context-dependent rather than fixed. Significant Generation × Bank type interactions suggest that motivational patterns vary across institutional environments, challenging essentialist interpretations of generational theory and highlighting the role of organisational culture in shaping cohort expression.

From a practical perspective, the results suggest that HR strategies may benefit from being both generation-sensitive and institution-sensitive. Stability-oriented practices may resonate more strongly with Generation X, developmental roles with Generation Y and flexible, purpose-driven environments with Generation Z. However, these tendencies are shaped by organisational context, suggesting that hybrid approaches that balance continuity and adaptability are likely to be most effective.

Importantly, these findings reflect cohort-level tendencies rather than deterministic individual profiles and should not be used to stereotype employees based solely on generational membership.

A key contribution of this study is to demonstrate that generational differences are not monolithic. Significant Generation × Bank type interactions indicate that motivational patterns vary systematically across institutional environments. Even within the same generational cohort, employees in public, private and multinational banks exhibited distinct motivational orientations. These findings challenge essentialist interpretations of generational theory and suggest that cohort effects are contextually embedded rather than universally fixed. Organisational culture appears to function as a conditioning mechanism that activates or attenuates generational tendencies.

More specifically, generational differences in job security, flexibility and traditional commitment varied across bank types, reflecting differences in institutional norms, reward structures and governance systems. Public-sector environments appeared to reinforce security-oriented motivations and traditional commitment, whereas multinational banks amplified preferences for flexibility and autonomy across cohorts. These patterns indicate that generational dispositions interact with organisational context rather than operating independently of it. Consequently, effective HR strategies must be both generation-sensitive and institution-sensitive, recognising that cohort-based tendencies are shaped by the structural and cultural conditions within which employees work. This finding aligns with perspectives on institutional and organisational culture, which emphasise that employee attitudes emerge from the interaction between individual dispositions and structural environments rather than from cohort identity alone.

Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design limits causal inference and does not allow full disentanglement of age, period and cohort effects. Although cohort membership provides a useful analytical lens, some observed differences may reflect career stage or broader socio-economic conditions rather than stable generational identities. Longitudinal designs would better isolate true cohort effects from age-related change.

Second, the sector-specific focus on banking may constrain generalisability to other industries and employment contexts. While the sample included representation across public, private and multinational institutions and exceeded minimum power requirements, the findings should be interpreted within the Sri Lankan banking context and should not be assumed to represent all occupational sectors.

Third, although personality traits partially mediated cohort–motivation relationships, the mediation effects were modest (12%–22%), indicating that substantial variance remains unexplained. Other psychological, cultural and structural mechanisms, such as values, organisational socialisation and career stage, may constitute important additional pathways that this study was not designed to capture.

Fourth, both personality and work motivation were assessed through self-report measures administered in a single survey, raising the possibility of common method bias. Although the use of established, validated instruments (BFI-44) reduces this risk for personality measurement, the adapted work motivation scale, while contextually refined, has not undergone independent psychometric validation in the Sri Lankan context. Future research should use independently validated motivation instruments and, where feasible, supplementary data sources to corroborate self-report findings.

Fifth, the generational cohort boundaries applied in this study follow Western classifications (Generation X: 1965–1980; Generation Y: 1981–1996; Generation Z: 1997 onwards). As acknowledged in the literature review, the socio-historical events shaping generational identity in Sri Lanka may not align precisely with these timelines, potentially introducing measurement imprecision into the cohort classifications used.

Future research could use longitudinal and multi-sector designs to better distinguish cohort, age and contextual influences. Incorporating direct measures of organisational culture, HR practices and validated Sri Lankan-specific motivation instruments would further clarify how institutional environments condition generational expression. Additional research may also explore how generational dynamics intersect with gender, class and career stage to shape work motivation and organisational outcomes across diverse South Asian labour markets.

This study provides strong empirical evidence of cohort-associated differences in personality traits and work motivation among employees in Sri Lanka’s banking sector, a context under-represented in generational research. Moderate-to-substantial effect sizes across multiple traits and motivational dimensions indicate that cohort membership captures meaningful variation in aggregate workplace preferences within this institutional setting.

Distinct cohort-associated patterns were observed. Employees in the Generation X cohort demonstrated higher average levels of conscientiousness, emotional stability and stronger aggregate security preferences. The Generation Y cohort exhibited higher openness and stronger aggregate preferences for responsibility and influence. The Generation Z cohort reported stronger aggregate preferences for flexibility and meaningful work. Mediation analyses further indicated that personality traits partially explain these differences and highlighted the influence of broader cultural and organisational factors.

For human resource management, the findings suggest that uniform HR practices may not resonate equally across cohorts. Organisations may benefit from flexible, context-aware approaches that accommodate variation in motivational priorities across age cohorts. However, these findings reflect probabilistic group-level tendencies rather than fixed individual attributes, and HR policies should avoid rigid generational categorisation.

In spite of its contributions, the study is limited by its cross-sectional design and sector-specific sample. Future research could use longitudinal and multi-sector approaches to better disentangle cohort, age and contextual effects. Overall, the findings suggest that cohort-associated differences in personality and motivation are empirically observable within this institutional context and may carry meaningful implications for multigenerational HRM when interpreted cautiously.