Today's higher education background represents a unique sociological phenomenon: for the first time in history, academic institutions are home to three different generational cohorts: Generation Z, Millennials (Generation Y), and Generation X. Because different age groups bring a range of work ideals, technology skills, and career expectations to their professional surroundings, management faculties are a prime example of this multigenerational tapestry. In negotiating this generational variety, the idea of Quality of Work Life (QWL), which is defined as the favorable work circumstances and surroundings that foster employee satisfaction and organizational effectiveness, becomes crucial. In the face of growing competition and evolving workplace standards, management institutes in Central India, a rapidly developing educational hub, struggle to recruit and retain competent faculty.

Important insights into these dynamics can be gained from the generational outlook. According to recent studies, generational cohorts form unique employment preferences influenced by common socio-historical experiences during their formative years. According to research by (Syed, Singh, Paul, & Haider) there are notable differences in the factors that influence engagement between generations. For example, Millennials show greater organizational commitment than younger generations, and Generation Z exhibits higher cognitive engagement in gamified learning environments than Generation X (Glazer, Mahoney, & Randall, 2019). These variations have a direct effect on how QWL dimensions—from professional growth and work-life balance to autonomy and recognition—are perceived.

Academic executives who want to create institution-specific HR interventions that transcend generational expectations must have a thorough understanding of these complex viewpoints. By investigating how generational positioning affects QWL views, particularly among management faculties in Central India, this work fills a clear research vacuum and advances theoretical understanding as well as useful HR tactics in Indian higher education.

Conceptualizing Quality of Work Life (QWL) in Academia:

A multifaceted concept, quality of work life encompasses organizational structures and procedures that support workers' well-being, dignity, and career advancement. In the context of higher education, QWL goes beyond simple job satisfaction to incorporate markers of holistic well-being that together impact faculty members' work experiences. Seven fundamental features stand out as being especially pertinent to academic contexts based on empirical research conducted across professional domains:

Table 1: Key Dimensions of QWL in Higher Education

Management faculties face particular QWL considerations because they are responsible for both theoretical instruction and industry-relevant skill development. They are exposed to industry standards due to their proximity to corporate ecosystems, which elevates expectations for modern teaching strategies and technological integration elements that dynamically interact with generational positioning.

Generational Cohort Theory and Work Values:

According to the generational cohort theory, people who are influenced by common sociocultural experiences during youth form unique value systems that they carry into their professional lives. Four cohorts are commonly used in contemporary labor analyses: Millennials (1981–1996), Generation Z (1997–2012), Baby Boomers (born 1946–1964), and Generation X (1965–1980). Multinational research have shown statistically significant differences in work values and engagement drivers between these groups. Importantly, rather than being inherent traits, these variations are a result of adaptation to various technical and economic environments.

According to research  (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008) ), intrinsic values (autonomy, meaning) exhibit cohort-specific variances, whereas extrinsic rewards (pay, job security) retain their significance over generations. As they enter adulthood, Generation X demonstrates greater preferences for flexible scheduling and work-life balance, ideals developed during economic downturns and the rise of dual-career households. On the other hand, because of their experiences in unstable employment markets, Millennials and Generation Z place a higher value on quick career advancement and skill diversification. Interestingly, Generation Z's digital nativity raises expectations for smooth technological integration in educational settings, which is consistent with research showing that gamified learning environments improve cognitive engagement.

Table 2: Generational Characteristics Relevant to Academic QWL

Studies reveal notable variations in QWL characteristics among generations, with Millennials displaying unique inclinations in contrast to Gen X and Baby Boomers Boomers (Martinez-Buelvas & Jaramillo-Naranjo, 2019).

Nonetheless, a study conducted on university faculty members revealed no discernible variations in QWL amongst lecturers, associate professors, and professors (Lamichhane & Baburam, 2021). 

The survey found that age-related stereotypes were still prevalent, especially when it came to work ethic, flexibility, and technology use. Notwithstanding these preconceptions, the results highlighted the necessity of intergenerational communication and a cooperative work environment to reduce conflict and enhance organizational unity in educational environments. (Hayes, Parks, McNeilly, & Johnson, 2018)

(Banerjee & Verma, 2022) examine how teachers' work-life balance has changed as a result of digitalization and changing teaching responsibilities. In order to manage stress and preserve wellbeing in the teaching profession, the study emphasizes the need for social and policy assistance, as well as the rising workload and blurring work-home boundaries.

Generational Differences in Work Preferences and Engagement:

Work Preferences and Engagement Variations by Generation: Research continuously shows that there are differences across generations in a number of work-related areas. Research examining course feedback responses in educational contexts found "marked differences in student grit, cognitive engagement, and emotional engagement between Generations X and Z," indicating that faculty cohorts probably differ from one another. These variations show up in a number of QWL domains:

• Work Arrangement Preferences: (Ojha, June-July 2024) Different generational preferences for flexible work arrangements (FWAs) are highlighted in this study. According to data from various cohorts, the study concludes that Generation X has the highest demand for schedule autonomy, which is consistent with their emphasis on work-life balance and caregiving duties. This could lead to management faculties favoring shortened work weeks or hybrid teaching models. On the other hand, Baby Boomers and Traditionalists favor compacted or regulated workweeks, while Millennials and Gen-Z want remote and hybrid models that emphasize autonomy and purpose.
• Engagement and Retention: There is a generational pattern in employee engagement levels, with younger generations showing larger intentions to leave when QWL assessments are negative and Baby Boomers displaying higher organizational commitment. For management schools where junior Gen Z teachers may make up the future leadership pipeline, this trend poses retention issues.  According to research, there are generational differences in "student entrepreneurial intention" among cohorts, which may indicate that faculty members' motivation to innovate varies similarly.
• Technology Integration: Compared to prior cohorts, Generation Z's cognitive engagement reacts more favorably to environments enhanced by technology. This suggests that there may be generational conflict in management faculties over the use of AI-assisted pedagogy, virtual classrooms, and simulation tools—all of which are becoming more and more important in today's business education.

QWL in Higher Education: A Generational perspective:

Institutions of higher learning around the world are dealing with a generational complexity never seen before. International research cooperation, a crucial QWL element for academics, decreases with age, according to studies (Rorstad, Aksnes, & Piro, 2021). This drop is a result of both shifting receptivity to global involvement and network development patterns. Expectations for research production across faculty cohorts are directly impacted by this.

Additionally, the behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement dimensions found in gamified entrepreneurship courses (Syed, Singh, Paul, & Haider) show cohort-specific activation patterns, indicating that professional development programs need to be tailored to the needs of different generations in order to maximize their effectiveness.

These dynamics are emphasized in management education because of its applied character and industry contact. While addressing industry-academia remuneration discrepancies, faculty must strike a balance between theoretical care and practical relevance—a tension that varies depending on the generation. While junior colleagues frequently look for industry partnerships and skill-transfer possibilities that match with their career progression needs, senior faculty may place a higher priority on institutional prestige and intellectual legacy.

Central Indian Context:

More than 1.5 million faculty members from various generations work in India's higher education system, however there are still few empirical studies looking at how different generations perceive QWL. Despite the fact that work value statements are substantially mediated by culture variations, Western studies predominate in the literature. Economic liberalization (1991), the IT revolution, and the recent (Ministry of Education, 2020) implementation of the National Education Policy (2020) are some of India's unique generational markers that produce unique cohort experiences that are not adequately represented in current frameworks.

This study demonstrates the changing academic environment in Central India, including housing management schools connected to Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University. According to preliminary data, workload increases, pressures to balance research and pedagogy, and compensation differences between industry and academia are some of the QWL issues that regional management faculties face. Nevertheless, no comprehensive study looks at the ways in which these difficulties intersect with generational positioning.

Three significant knowledge gaps are identified by the reviewed literature: (1) higher education faculty members' lack of attention to the generational dimensions of QWL, especially in management education; (2) the geographical imbalance favoring Western contexts despite culturally specific expressions of work values; and (3) the lack of empirical studies examining these dynamics in emerging Indian educational hubs in the central region.

These dimensions are incorporated into the current study using the conceptual framework shown below:

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework: Quality Work Life

According to this paradigm, QWL perceptions are systematically influenced by generational identity through cohort-specific value systems, which in turn affect institutional results. The study fills important theoretical and practical gaps and advances sustainable human resource strategies in India's vibrant higher education sector by testing this approach across Central India's management faculties.

Objectives:

• To examine generational differences in job satisfaction among employees.
• To assess the importance attributed to compensation across different generational cohorts.
• To analyze the relationship between employee retention and generational affiliation.
• To identify the key features that define Quality of Work Life (QWL).
• To explore whether perceptions of QWL vary based on gender.

Hypothesis:

H0: There is no difference between the perceptions of different generations towards work life balance.

RESEARCH METHOD:

To examine how different generations, see work-life balance and QWL dimensions, the study used a descriptive research methodology. Nevertheless, it had a number of limitations, such as the possibility of bias and prejudice in respondent inputs and the inclusion of merely self-reported data. The study's generalizability was limited by its geographic confinement to Central Indian management institutes. The study's breadth was further limited by time constraints, and the validity of the statistical methods used for analysis naturally affected how accurate the results were. The primary data used in this study was gathered by administering a standardized questionnaire to faculty members at different management institutes that have received AICTE approval. Primary data was gathered through a survey, and secondary data came from books, magazines, news items, and research papers. The study follows a simple random sampling method, targeting faculty members as the sample unit, with a broader population comprising faculty from management institutes across Central India. A total of 41 responses were received. To analyse the data and test hypotheses, the ANOVA statistical technique was applied.

Data Analysis and Interpretation

HYPOTHESIS TESTING

The ANOVA one factor test has been used to examine the aforementioned hypothesis. In this case, the sense of work-life balance is the dependent variable, while the several generations- generations X, Y, and Z are the independent variables. Each of the four questions we formulated for the sense of work-life balance was regarded as a dependent variable.

All generations are independent variables and work life balance perception (I am able to balance my work responsibilities with my personal life) is dependent variable.

Interpretation:

• The p-value (0.703) > 0.05 → Fail to reject H0.
• Conclusion: No significant generational differences in perceived ability to balance work and personal life. Gen Z reported the highest mean (3.83), but variance within cohorts (especially Millennials) suggests individual variability outweighs generational trends.

All generations are independent variable and work life balance perception (My institution supports faculty in maintaining work-life balance) is dependent variable.

Interpretation:

• p-value (0.909) > 0.05 → Fail to reject H0.
• Conclusion: Generations perceive institutional support similarly. Gen X reported marginally higher satisfaction (3.50). High variance in Gen Z (3.47) indicates divergent experiences within this cohort, possibly due to small sample size (n=6).

All generations are independent variable and work life balance perception (I rarely have to take work home or work outside of official hours) is dependent variable.

Interpretation:

• p-value (0.895) > 0.05 → Fail to reject H0.

Conclusion: No generational differences in experiences of work encroachment. Millennials reported the highest mean (3.21), but Gen Z's high variance (3.37) suggests inconsistent workloads or coping mechanisms within this group.

All generations are independent variable and work life balance perception (I do not feel emotionally drained due to work-related stress) is dependent variable.

Interpretation:

• p-value (0.826) > 0.05 → Fail to reject H0.

Conclusion: Emotional drain perceptions are consistent across generations. Millennials reported the highest resilience (mean=3.47), though variances indicate stress experiences are highly individualized.

No Generational Differences:

All four ANOVA tests failed to reject H0, indicating no statistically significant differences in work-life balance perceptions across Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z.

Findings

Results show that whereas mean values in areas like emotional stress and personal satisfaction vary among age cohorts, none of the changes were statistically significant.  The null hypothesis was accepted since the p-values for each of the four investigated indicators—perceived ability to balance work and life, institutional support, overtime requirements, and emotional exhaustion—exceeded 0.05.  This implies that faculty perceptions of work-life balance may not be influenced by generational identification.  In terms of individual work-life balance, Generation Z had the highest mean score (3.83), although Millennials seemed to be the most resilient to emotional weariness.  However, given the substantial intragenerational diversity, especially among Gen Z, generational stereotypes may be overshadowed by institutional and individual factors.

The study comes to the conclusion that in the Indian academic context, QWL experiences may be similar across generations due to institutional culture, regional dynamics, and standardized HR methods.  In order to find more recent trends, the study also recommends using mixed-methods research designs, include Baby Boomers, and expanding sampling in further studies.  Additionally, it suggests that academic administrators modify interventions to accommodate faculty needs and institutional realities in addition to generational expectations.

 The study makes a substantial contribution to our understanding of faculty engagement and retention in Indian higher education by filling a major knowledge gap.  It is a useful tool for academic policymakers and human resources professionals who want to create inclusive, equitable, and future-ready institutional settings. By finding no apparent variations in the work-life balance perceptions of Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z in the Central Indian context, the study dispels common generational stereotypes and raises the possibility that institutional, cultural, and regional factors may be more important than global generational presumptions. Work encroachment and emotional tiredness are major QWL concerns for all age groups, and institutional support for work-life balance is only moderately appreciated (mean scores around 3.3–3.5/5). It's interesting to note that, while being underrepresented in the sample (n=6), Gen Z reported the most individualized experiences, with the lowest institutional trust and the highest personal work-life balance. In order to accurately represent generational differences in QWL beyond the limitations of the Likert scale, future research should use mixed-methods approaches, such as combining surveys and interviews. Representativeness will be improved by broadening the sample to include Baby Boomers and a larger Gen Z cohort. Regional or institutional differences can be revealed through comparative research between private universities and other regions of India, including Central India. Further understanding of how these characteristics affect QWL views across generations can also be gained by investigating mediating factors including gender, professional stage, and digital literacy.

1. Banerjee, S., and A. Verma. Changing Dimensions of the Work-Life Balance of Teachers: A Social Perspective. IGI Global Scientific Publishing, 2022. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-3380-5.ch021.
2. Cennamo, L., and D. Gardner. "Generational Differences in Work Values, Outcomes and Person-Organisation Values Fit." Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol. 23, 2008.
3. Glazer, Sharon, A. C. Mahoney, and D. M. Randall. "Generational Differences in Organizational Commitment: An Examination of Work Values and Affective Commitment." Industrial and Commercial Training, vol. 51, no. 1, 2019, pp. 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-07-2018-0061.
4. Hayes, J. B., C. Parks, S. McNeilly, and P. B. Johnson. "Boomers to Millennials: Generational Stereotypes at Work in Academic Librarianship." The Journal of Academic Librarianship, vol. 44, no. 6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2018.09.011.
5. Lamichhane, Baburam. "Quality of Work-Life Perception among Faculty Members of Tribhuvan University." Management Dynamics, vol. 24, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3126/md.v24i1.47537.
6. Martinez-Buelvas, L., and O. Jaramillo-Naranjo. "How to Manage Generations? An Approach Based on the Quality of Work Life." IBIMA Business Review, 2019, pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.5171/2019.493697.
7. Ministry of Education, Government of India. National Education Policy 2020. 2020.
8. Ojha, A. K. "Promoting Work-Life Balance through Flexible Work Arrangements: A Multigenerational Analysis." Journal of Multidisciplinary Cases, vol. 4, no. 4, June–July 2024. https://doi.org/10.55529/jmc.44.30.40.
9. Rorstad, K., D. W. Aksnes, and F. Piro. "Generational Differences in International Research Collaboration: A Bibliometric Study of Norwegian University Staff." PLOS ONE, vol. 16, no. 11, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260239.
10. Syed, M. A., M. Singh, J. Paul, and S. H. Haider. "Towards an Understanding of Multi-Generational Higher Education Cohorts in Gamified Entrepreneurship Education: A PLS-SEM Analysis." Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 6, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25599.