Mechanisms of Job Satisfaction Among Gen Z in Vietnam's Sports Industry Using an Integrated Framework

Mechanisms of Job Satisfaction Among Gen Z in Vietnam's Sports Industry Using an Integrated Framework | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Mechanisms of Job Satisfaction Among Gen Z in Vietnam's Sports Industry Using an Integrated Framework Van Kien Pham, Ai Van Huynh, Minh Hieu Vo, Nhut Tan Nguyen This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6703127/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The rise of Generation Z in the global workforce, coupled with a post-pandemic shift toward purpose-driven employment, demands a reevaluation of classical job satisfaction theories. This study introduces the Transformational-Equity Work Experience Model, an integrated framework that reconceptualizes job satisfaction among Gen Z employees in collectivist, team-based industries. By extending Herzberg’s and Hackman’s models, this research argues that social equity and transformational leadership act as amplifiers of intrinsic motivators, rather than external moderators. Drawing on Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, the Job Characteristics Model, Equity Theory, Social Exchange Theory, and Transformational Leadership Theory, we explore how Opportunities for Promotion (OP), Colleague Relations (CO), Nature of Work (WO), Salary and Benefits (SA), and Leadership (LE) influence Job Satisfaction (JS). Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) on data from 480 respondents in Vietnam’s sports sector, the study reveals that SA and LE are dominant predictors of satisfaction. The findings offer theoretical contributions by advancing a culturally contextualized, generation-specific framework that integrates intrinsic, extrinsic, and relational dynamics. Practically, the study offers actionable strategies for engaging Gen Z in emerging markets such as Vietnam through equity-focused leadership, meaningful work design, and developmental support initiatives. Job Satisfaction Generation Z Work Design Leadership Equity Vietnam Sports Management Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction The rise of Generation Z in the workforce—combined with a post-COVID emphasis on purpose, equity, and flexibility—demands a new understanding of how job satisfaction is shaped in dynamic, team-based industries such as sport. Gen Z employees, born between the mid-1990s and early 2010s, represent the most digitally fluent, socially conscious, and feedback-oriented generation to date. They prioritize meaningful work, demand inclusive and transparent leadership, and expect continuous opportunities for personal and professional growth (Botezat et al., 2024; Aquino & Galvez, 2024 ). These expectations challenge traditional employment models and necessitate a rethinking of how satisfaction is generated and sustained within modern organizations. In Vietnam, a country balancing rapid economic development with strong cultural collectivism, these generational shifts are especially salient. The Vietnamese sports sector, in particular, is undergoing institutional transformation marked by professionalization, commercialization, and internationalization (Nguyen & Tran, 2022; Rodrigo et al., 2022). As the industry evolves, it must also adapt to the workforce driving its future. Gen Z professionals are increasingly occupying roles in coaching, event management, sports marketing, and administration. However, many of these roles remain governed by hierarchical leadership styles, limited career progression, and uneven compensation practices that may not align with Gen Z’s expectations for equity, autonomy, and developmental support. This generational–cultural–industrial intersection reveals both an urgent challenge and a compelling theoretical opportunity. While the literature offers well-established models of job satisfaction—Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg et al., 2011 ), the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Lawler, 1971 ), Equity Theory (Al-Zawahreh & Al-Madi, 2012), and Social Exchange Theory (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005 )—these theories have predominantly been validated in Western, individualist contexts. Their application in collectivist cultures such as Vietnam remains limited, particularly concerning how young employees experience motivation, fairness, leadership, and team dynamics. Moreover, these models are typically applied in isolation, offering limited insight into the complex interplay of intrinsic motivators, relational influences, and perceptions of equity that shape job satisfaction in today’s workforce. Even fewer studies explicitly consider how these dynamics are mediated by generational identity—especially for Gen Z employees whose work values differ significantly from previous cohorts. This study addresses two key gaps in the literature: (1) the lack of integrated, generationally responsive frameworks for understanding job satisfaction in collectivist and team-intensive industries, and (2) the underutilization of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in examining these relationships in Southeast Asia’s rapidly evolving sports sector. By focusing on Vietnam, the study offers insights from an emerging market context that remains underrepresented in global workforce research. To address these gaps, we propose the Transformational-Equity Work Experience Model, a culturally contextualized and generation-specific framework that synthesizes multiple motivational and relational theories. We argue that constructs such as Nature of Work (WO), Salary and Benefits (SA), and Leadership (LE) do not merely operate as individual predictors of satisfaction, but also act as critical mediators linking key relational (e.g., Colleague Relations, CO) and developmental (e.g., Opportunities for Promotion, OP) antecedents to overall Job Satisfaction (JS). For instance, we hypothesize that effective leadership can amplify the fairness and motivational power of compensation, while positive coworker dynamics can enhance how employees perceive their daily work experiences as meaningful and socially valued. This paper aims to make both theoretical and empirical contributions. Theoretically, we extend classical models of job satisfaction to account for generational identity and cultural context. Empirically, we test the proposed framework using data from 480 Gen Z employees in Vietnam’s sports industry, applying Structural Equation Modeling to uncover both direct and mediated pathways to job satisfaction. The findings offer valuable insights for workforce strategy in emerging markets and provide a foundation for developing engagement practices tailored to younger generations in collectivist environments. 2. Literature Reviews 2.1 Theoretical Foundations Job satisfaction has been extensively examined through multiple theoretical lenses, each emphasizing different aspects of the work experience. This study draws from five core frameworks—Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, the Job Characteristics Model, Equity Theory, Social Exchange Theory, and Transformational Leadership Theory—to build an integrated understanding tailored to Generation Z employees operating in collectivist, team-intensive environments like Vietnam’s sports industry. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg, Mausner et al., 2011) divides workplace factors into intrinsic motivators (e.g., achievement, recognition, personal growth) and extrinsic hygiene factors (e.g., salary, supervision, conditions). While extrinsic factors prevent dissatisfaction, only motivators generate lasting satisfaction. However, in collectivist cultures, salary is not just a baseline necessity but a symbolic expression of social recognition and fairness, particularly for Gen Z employees who interpret compensation in relational and identity-based terms (AlKhalifa, Nawaz et al., 2024). The Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Lawler, 1971) outlines five core job elements—skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback—that contribute to psychological states fostering internal motivation and satisfaction. For Gen Z, autonomy and meaningfulness are especially critical, as they seek purpose-aligned roles and flexible, personalized career paths (Judge, Klinger et al., 2023). Importantly, this model connects with Herzberg’s theory by identifying work design as a key source of intrinsic motivation, but it also intersects with Social Exchange Theory by highlighting how feedback and social context influence perceptions of task significance. Equity Theory (Adams; Al-Zawahreh & Al-Madi, 2012) argues that employees assess fairness by comparing their input-output ratios with those of peers. However, fairness judgments are not purely rational; they are filtered through social comparison and relational dynamics. This is where Social Exchange Theory and Equity Theory align: trust and peer relationships shape how individuals interpret the fairness of salary and promotion decisions (Quader, 2024; Paudel, Kunwar et al., 2024). Gen Z employees, who are highly attuned to peer validation and transparency, are particularly sensitive to perceived inequities in recognition and reward. Social Exchange Theory (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) frames job satisfaction as emerging from reciprocal relationships grounded in trust, support, and perceived fairness. In collectivist cultures, where team harmony and mutual support are cultural norms, workplace relationships are central to motivation. This aligns with Herzberg's hygiene factors, in that supportive peer and leadership dynamics mitigate dissatisfaction, but also with the Job Characteristics Model, in which feedback from others enhances task significance and identity (Khairy, Liu et al., 2023; March, Aplin-Houtz et al., 2023). Transformational Leadership Theory (Walumbwa, Orwa et al., 2005; Bakker, Hetland et al., 2023) emphasizes leaders’ role in shaping meaning, vision, and individual development. Leaders who offer intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration help create purpose-aligned environments. Here, theory integration becomes especially evident: transformational leadership acts as a catalyst across models. For instance, it enhances Herzberg’s motivators by reinforcing recognition, aligns with the Job Characteristics Model by fostering autonomy and feedback, and amplifies fairness perceptions in Equity Theory by transparently linking effort with reward (Chi, Vu et al., 2023; Eduzor, 2024). In summary, these theories are not mutually exclusive; rather, they intersect in critical ways. Transformational leadership mediates and amplifies the motivational and fairness signals embedded in job design and compensation, while peer relationships shape how intrinsic motivators are perceived. This study proposes a model where job satisfaction arises from the synergistic interaction of structure, equity, and relational dynamics, offering a more holistic explanation than any single framework alone can provide (see Table 1). Table 1. Summary of Theoretical Foundations and Relevance to Gen Z Job Satisfaction Theory Key Constructs Classical Assumption Gen Z Extension (This Study) Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory Motivators (growth, recognition); Hygiene factors (pay, supervision) Satisfaction arises from motivators; hygiene prevents dissatisfaction Pay is both extrinsic and symbolic; recognition is shaped by leadership and peer validation Job Characteristics Model Task variety, autonomy, significance, feedback Job design directly influences intrinsic motivation Job meaning co-constructed through social feedback and team context Equity Theory Input-output fairness; social comparisons Fairness is judged against peer benchmarks Fairness is relationally interpreted via trust in leadership and peer-based equity norms Social Exchange Theory Trust, reciprocity, perceived support Satisfaction built through reciprocal interpersonal dynamics Peer and leader interactions filter perceptions of work quality and fairness Transformational Leadership Theory Vision, intellectual stimulation, individual support Leaders inspire motivation and goal alignment Leaders amplify the effects of rewards, fairness, and task meaning through relational signaling 2.2 Theoretical Contribution This study introduces the Transformational-Equity Work Experience Model, a novel integration of Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg, Mausner et al., 2011), the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Lawler, 1971), Equity Theory (Al-Zawahreh & Al-Madi, 2012), Social Exchange Theory (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005), and Transformational Leadership Theory (Walumbwa, Orwa et al., 2005; Bakker, Hetland et al., 2023). While these frameworks offer foundational insights into job satisfaction, they often conceptualize key variables—such as compensation, work design, or leadership—as fixed or unidirectional influences. This study extends the theoretical landscape by reconceptualizing job satisfaction as a relationally constructed, generationally responsive, and culturally contextual process, especially among Gen Z employees in collectivist, team-based environments (Nguyen & Tran, 2022; Rodrigo et al., 2022). Unlike traditional models that treat constructs such as pay or leadership as static inputs, our framework emphasizes relational mediating mechanisms. For example, we demonstrate how leadership amplifies the motivational value of fair compensation, or how colleague interactions shape perceptions of job meaningfulness—dynamics often underexplored in prior work. While Herzberg’s model positions salary as a non-motivating hygiene factor, our findings reveal that salary serves as a social signal of fairness and inclusion, especially when interpreted through relational trust and leadership framing (Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl et al., 2017; Greenberg, 2017). Similarly, the Job Characteristics Model traditionally views work design as an intrinsic driver; here, work meaning is shown to emerge through peer support and team dynamics (Judge, Klinger et al., 2023; Cai, 2023). The following table illustrates how this study revises and extends each classical framework: Table 2. Theoretical Extension of Prior Job Satisfaction Models Theory Traditional View This Study’s Extension Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory Salary = hygiene factor (prevents dissatisfaction but not motivating) Salary is relationally interpreted; leadership and peer context shape its impact on satisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017) Job Characteristics Model Work design = intrinsic motivator via task attributes Work meaning co-constructed through social dynamics, especially among Gen Z (Judge et al., 2023; Cai, 2023) Equity Theory Fairness judged by input-output ratio comparisons Fairness shaped by peer norms and trust in leadership in collectivist cultures (Quader, 2024; Greenberg, 2017) Social Exchange Theory Reciprocity and support foster satisfaction Team cohesion and relational trust elevate perceived fairness and motivation (Khairy, Liu et al., 2023) Transformational Leadership Theory Leaders drive satisfaction through vision, support, and inspiration Leaders also reframe compensation and promote relational equity, reinforcing satisfaction (Bakker et al., 2023; Eduzor, 2024) In summary, this model does not merely aggregate prior theories; it challenges and extends them by demonstrating that job satisfaction emerges from the interaction between structural resources and social context, particularly for a generation that values equity, flexibility, and inclusion (Aquino & Galvez, 2024; Botezat, Fotea et al., 2024). The study introduces the concept of relational amplification, wherein leadership and peer dynamics recontextualize the motivational value of extrinsic and intrinsic factors. By embedding established frameworks in a generational and cultural context, this research offers a more nuanced and responsive model for understanding and improving job satisfaction in modern organizations. 2.3. Hypotheses and Conceptual Framework Opportunities for Training and Promotion and Nature of Work In the sports industry, opportunities for training and career development are pivotal in enhancing employees’ perceptions of their work. Training programs serve as intrinsic motivators under Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, fostering a sense of growth and enrichment (Aquino & Galvez, 2024). The Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1971) further posits that such opportunities enhance task autonomy and significance, contributing to meaningful work. Studies have shown that structured training programs not only improve skillsets but also elevate perceptions of autonomy and task ownership (Yadav et al., 2022; Mampuru et al., 2024). However, in collectivist cultures like Vietnam, where deference to hierarchy and team consensus may overshadow individual agency, the motivational link between promotion opportunities and perceived work autonomy may be attenuated. This could help explain the relatively weak empirical support for this path in our analysis (see Section 4.3). We revisit this possible cultural disconnect in the Discussion section and suggest implications for practice. H1: Opportunities for Training and Promotion positively influence Nature of Work. Opportunities for Training and Promotion and Colleague Relations Training initiatives foster collaboration among employees, creating opportunities for interaction and teamwork (Bourgault and Goforth 2021). According to Social Exchange Theory, shared training experiences build trust and reciprocity, which are foundational for positive workplace relationships (Lai, Chuang et al. 2020). Haryono, Supardi et al. (2020) noted that collaborative training improves communication and peer dynamics. In the sports industry, where teamwork is central, training enhances cohesion among athletes, coaches, and administrative staff. In addition, professional development organizations improves team dynamics, mutual trust, and collaboration, aligning with Herzberg’s hygiene factors that mitigate dissatisfaction. Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis: H2: Opportunities for Training and Promotion positively influence Colleague Relations. Opportunities for Training and Promotion positively influence Salary and Benefits: Career development is often linked to higher compensation, promotions, and performance-based rewards (Gerhart and Rynes 2003). This aligns with Herzberg’s hygiene factors, which address employees’ extrinsic needs, and Equity Theory, which emphasizes perceptions of fairness in rewards. Frenkel and Bednall (2016) highlighted that training and promotion opportunities enhance perceptions of reward fairness. In Vietnam’s sports sector, where salary disparities exist across roles, structured promotions provide equitable recognition, improving satisfaction and engagement. Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis: H3 : Opportunities for Training and Promotion positively influence Salary and Benefits. Opportunities for Training and Promotion positively influence Job Satisfaction Career growth opportunities enhance employees' sense of achievement and intrinsic motivation, aligning with Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, which identifies growth as a key driver of satisfaction (Moon, Youn et al. 2020). In the sports industry, employees often seek opportunities for skill enhancement, such as coaching certifications or management training (Chelladurai and Kim 2022). Access to career development boosts perceptions of achievement and commitment, as supported by the Job Characteristics Model’s focus on skill variety and task significance (Kraimer, Seibert et al. 2011). Organizations that offer clear promotion pathways report lower turnover and higher employee engagement (Lu, Lu et al. 2016). Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis: H4 : Opportunities for Training and Promotion positively influence Job Satisfaction. Colleague Relations positively influence Nature of Work: Positive relationships at work contribute to a supportive and meaningful work environment. According to Hackman and Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model, social interactions enhance perceptions of task significance (Taylor 2015), while Social Exchange Theory emphasizes trust and cooperation as key factors in fostering workplace engagement (Cook, Cheshire et al. 2013). In sports organizations, effective collaboration among colleagues—such as coaches, players, and support staff—creates a cohesive environment where tasks feel significant and aligned with shared goals (Patel, Pettitt et al. 2012). This connection enhances employees’ intrinsic motivation and engagement with their work. Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis: H5 : Colleague Relations positively influence Nature of Work. Nature of Work and Job Satisfaction Work that is meaningful, autonomous, and skill-enriching significantly enhances satisfaction (Raziq and Maulabakhsh 2015). According to Hackman and Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model, task variety, autonomy, and feedback foster intrinsic motivation, which directly contributes to satisfaction (Ali, Said et al. 2014). Rich, Lepine et al. (2010) demonstrated that employees engaged in diverse and impactful tasks report higher satisfaction. In the sport sector, employees often perform meaningful work, such as training athletes or organizing competitions, which fosters satisfaction by allowing them to contribute to team success. Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis: H6 : Nature of Work positively influences Job Satisfaction. Colleague Relations and Salary and Benefits Strong workplace relationships enhance perceptions of fairness in rewards, aligning with Equity Theory (Bettencourt and Brown 1997). Adams argued that employees assess the equity of their compensation based on input-output comparisons, which are influenced by workplace dynamics (Greenberg 2017). Miidom, Ojo et al. (2022) found that positive relationships foster trust and cooperation, reinforcing perceptions of fair rewards. In sports organizations, supportive teams amplify satisfaction with salaries, as rewards are perceived as reflective of collective success. Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis: H7 : Colleague Relations positively influence Salary and Benefits. Colleague Relations and Job Satisfaction: Supportive workplace relationships enhance morale, reduce stress, and contribute to job satisfaction (Lopes Morrison 2005, Retnowati and Darmawan 2023). Social Exchange Theory highlights the reciprocal nature of positive relationships, which foster collaboration and reduce workplace conflicts (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005). Guinot, Chiva et al. (2014) demonstrated that strong interpersonal bonds improve team dynamics, leading to increased satisfaction. In the sports sector, where teamwork among administrative staff, coaches, and trainers is critical, strong coworker relationships improve well-being and job satisfaction (Ertekin and Avunduk 2021). Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis: H8 : Colleague Relations positively influence Job Satisfaction. Salary and Benefits and Job Satisfaction Fair compensation directly satisfies employees’ extrinsic needs, improving overall satisfaction (Mardanov 2021). Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory identifies salary as a hygiene factor, critical for preventing dissatisfaction, while Equity Theory emphasizes perceptions of fairness in pay (Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl et al. 2017). Rasheed, Jamad et al. (2020) highlighted that perceived equity in compensation reduces dissatisfaction and turnover intentions. In the sports industry, where pay discrepancies exist, equitable salary structures are crucial for retaining. Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis: H9 : Salary and Benefits positively influence Job Satisfaction. Opportunities for Training Promotion and Leadership: Leaders who facilitate growth opportunities are perceived as supportive and effective, aligning with Transformational Leadership Theory, which emphasizes employee development (Akdere and Egan 2020). Gachira and Ntara (2024) highlighted that transformational leaders prioritize training to foster trust and admiration. In the sports industry, leaders who provide certifications or professional workshops are seen as enablers of success, enhancing employee trust and satisfaction (SEONG 2021) . Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis: H10 : Opportunities for Training and Promotion positively influence Leadership. Leadership and Job Satisfaction: Transformational leaders inspire employees by creating a supportive and empowering environment (Akdere and Egan 2020, Almas, Chacón-Fuertes et al. 2020, Alwali and Alwali 2022). According to Social Exchange Theory, leaders who recognize and support employees foster trust and loyalty, which drives satisfaction (Zhou, Rasool et al. 2021). Long, Yusof et al. (2014) found that transformational leadership improves satisfaction through individualized support. In sports organizations, visionary leaders—such as coaches or managers—directly impact morale and satisfaction, reinforcing employees’ commitment to the organization (Choi and Leopkey 2024). Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis: H11 : Leadership positively influences Job Satisfaction. Nature of Work as Mediators The nature of work plays a critical mediating role in the relationships between opportunities for training and promotion and job satisfaction, as well as between colleague relations and job satisfaction. Understanding how the nature of work influences these relationships can provide valuable insights for organizations aiming to enhance employee satisfaction and engagement. Mediator between Opportunities for Training and Promotion and Job Satisfaction Opportunities for training and promotion serve as motivators under Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, enhancing employees' intrinsic motivation by offering growth and career advancement opportunities (Herzberg, Mausner et al. 2011, Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl et al. 2017). However, the extent to which these opportunities lead to job satisfaction is contingent on the nature of work, which shapes how employees perceive and experience these developmental initiatives. According to the Job Characteristics Model, task variety, autonomy, and significance are key attributes that enhance the meaningfulness of work, thereby amplifying the positive effects of training and promotion on satisfaction Hackman (Hackman and Lawler 1971, Judge, Klinger et al. 2023). For instance, Aquino and Galvez (2024) emphasize that work designs incorporating skill variety and social dimensions foster a sense of purpose, further enhancing the impact of training on job satisfaction. Similarly, when training aligns with tasks that offer autonomy and relevance to employees’ aspirations, they experience greater fulfillment and engagement. However, in monotonous or misaligned work environments, even robust training programs may fail to yield meaningful improvements in satisfaction. This highlights the mediating role of Nature of Work in linking training opportunities to job satisfaction by ensuring that employees’ roles are enriched and intrinsically rewarding. Mediator Between Colleague Relations and Job Satisfaction Colleague relations, as a hygiene factor under Herzberg’s framework, address employees’ extrinsic needs by creating a supportive and harmonious work environment (AlKhalifa (AlKhalifa, Nawaz et al. 2024). However, their ability to enhance job satisfaction is significantly influenced by the nature of work. When the work environment fosters inclusivity, collaboration, and mutual respect, positive colleague relations contribute to greater task significance and intrinsic motivation (Taylor 2015). For example, in the sports industry, teamwork among colleagues such as coaches and administrative staff amplifies the meaningfulness of tasks, fostering a cohesive and satisfying workplace (Patel, Pettitt et al. 2012). The Social Exchange Theory also underscores the importance of reciprocity in workplace interactions, where supportive colleague relations lead to mutual trust and collaboration, thereby enhancing satisfaction (Khairy, Liu et al. 2023). However, when work dynamics are isolating or overly competitive, the benefits of positive colleague interactions may not translate into increased satisfaction. As suggested by Wood, Van Veldhoven et al. (2012), inclusivity and equitable treatment in work design amplify the positive effects of colleague relations on satisfaction, making the Nature of Work a pivotal mediator in this relationship. Based on the above discussion, we propose the following hypotheses: H12: Nature of Work mediates the relationship between Opportunities for Training and Promotion and Job Satisfaction. H13: Nature of Work mediates the relationship between Colleague Relations and Job Satisfaction. Salary and Benefits as a Mediator The mediation of salary and benefits in the relationships between opportunities for training and promotion and job satisfaction, as well as between colleague relations and job satisfaction, is a critical area of study in organizational behavior. This mediation highlights how financial compensation and benefits can enhance or diminish the effects of training, promotion opportunities, and interpersonal relationships on overall job satisfaction. Mediator Between Opportunities for Training and Promotion and Job Satisfaction Opportunities for training and promotion not only provide pathways for skill development but also influence Salary and Benefits, which are critical hygiene factors addressing employees’ extrinsic needs (Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl et al. 2017). According to Equity Theory, employees assess their satisfaction by comparing their input-output ratios to peers. Training that leads to promotions and pay increases signals equitable recognition of contributions, thereby enhancing satisfaction (Gerhart and Rynes 2003, Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl et al. 2017). In the sports sector, structured training programs have been shown to reduce salary disparities by creating transparent career advancement opportunities, thus improving perceptions of fairness (Dixon and Warner 2010, Chelladurai and Kim 2022). However, Salary and Benefits mediate this relationship by ensuring that the financial rewards resulting from training align with employee expectations of equity and effort. Without such alignment, even extensive training opportunities may fail to enhance satisfaction, underscoring the role of Salary and Benefits as a critical link between professional development and job satisfaction (Kumari, Barkat Ali et al. 2021). Mediator between Colleague Relations and Job Satisfaction Positive colleague relations enhance perceptions of fairness and equity in Salary and Benefits, which subsequently improve job satisfaction. Equity Theory posits that perceptions of fairness in compensation are shaped by workplace dynamics, including the quality of interactions with colleagues (Greenberg 2017). Supportive and collaborative work environments, as emphasized by Miidom, Ojo et al. (2022) foster trust and collective success, making rewards such as salaries and benefits feel more equitable. For example, in the sports industry, strong team cohesion often results in shared success, which reinforces employees’ satisfaction with their compensation. However, when colleague relations are strained or competitive, the positive impact on perceptions of fairness may diminish, reducing the potential for satisfaction. Therefore, Salary and Benefits serve as a mediating factor by translating supportive workplace dynamics into tangible rewards that address employees’ extrinsic needs, ultimately enhancing job satisfaction (Rasheed, Jamad et al. 2020). Based on these discussions, we propose the following hypotheses: H14: Salary and Benefits mediate the relationship between Opportunities for Training and Promotion and Job Satisfaction. H15: Salary and Benefits mediate the relationship between Colleague Relations and Job Satisfaction. Leadership (LE) as a Mediator Leadership mediates the relationship between salary and benefits and job satisfaction by enhancing the perceived fairness, meaning, and impact of financial rewards. While salary and benefits address extrinsic needs as hygiene factors (Herzberg, Mausner et al. 2011), transformational leadership amplifies their effects by fostering trust, recognition, and alignment with organizational goals (Bakker, Hetland et al. 2023). Through behaviors such as individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation, leaders create an environment where employees view compensation as equitable and tied to personal and team achievements (Khairy, Liu et al. 2023). Additionally, leadership buffers dissatisfaction by addressing grievances and ensuring employees feel valued beyond monetary rewards (Akdere and Egan 2020). Thus, leadership bridges extrinsic rewards and intrinsic satisfaction, solidifying their collective impact on job satisfaction. Based on this discussion, we propose the hypothesis 16 as follows: H16: Leadership mediates the relationship between Salary and Benefits and Job Satisfaction. 2.4. Generation Z in the Workplace: Focus on Vietnam’s Sporting Industry Generation Z, individuals born between 1997 and 2012, has increasingly become a significant part of the workforce (Ademi and Zeqiri 2024). Unlike previous generations, Gen Zers are characterized by their digital fluency, demand for flexibility, and emphasis on meaningful work, making them a unique challenge for organizations, including those in the sporting industry in Vietnam (Hidayat 2024). Understanding their preferences and job satisfaction factors is crucial for attracting, retaining, and motivating this generation in a dynamic and evolving work environment. 3. Research methodology 3.1. Instrument Development To measure job satisfaction and its antecedents, we adapted and expanded the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) framework, integrating constructs from Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, the Job Characteristics Model, and Transformational Leadership Theory. Recognizing that traditional JDI scales were designed for earlier generations in Western contexts, we conducted a multi-stage refinement process to ensure generational alignment with Gen Z employees in Vietnam. First, the original JDI items were reviewed for cultural and generational relevance. For example, standard JDI items measuring satisfaction with “supervision” were reconceptualized to reflect transformational leadership traits, such as mentorship and feedback responsiveness (e.g., “My manager gives constructive feedback that helps me grow”). Similarly, the salary and benefits dimension was expanded to reflect Gen Z’s expectations of equity and performance-based recognition, incorporating items like “I believe my salary reflects the effort I put into my work” (SA1). In terms of the nature of work, the original focus on general satisfaction with tasks was expanded to include purpose-driven engagement and autonomy, with items such as “My work allows me to use my skills in meaningful ways” (WO2). This shift aligns with Gen Z’s demand for meaningful, skill-aligned tasks (Judge, Klinger et al., 2023; Aquino & Galvez, 2024 ). Colleague relations were measured not just by interpersonal comfort but also by the extent to which peer support and collaboration contribute to performance, consistent with Gen Z’s team-oriented values. New items reflected this shift, such as “I perform better when I collaborate closely with colleagues” (CO3). The final instrument consisted of six constructs: Opportunities for Training and Promotion (OP), Colleague Relations (CO), Nature of Work (WO), Salary and Benefits (SA), Leadership (LE), and Job Satisfaction (JS). Each construct was measured using 3–5 items on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). A full comparison of original vs. adapted items is provided in Appendix A to clarify generational alignment and measurement 3.2 Pilot Test The reliability of the measurement instrument used to assess factors affecting job satisfaction of Generation Z employees was evaluated with a pilot sample of 50 respondents. Table 3 presents the results of the Cronbach's Alpha reliability assessment for each construct in the study. The findings indicate that all constructs achieved a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient greater than 0.7, which is considered acceptable for reliability (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994 , Kennedy 2022 ). Furthermore, the Corrected Item-Total Correlation values for all observed variables were above 0.3, demonstrating adequate item consistency. Additionally, the Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted coefficients for each observed variable were lower than the overall Cronbach’s Alpha, confirming the appropriateness of retaining all items in their respective constructs. These results suggest that the measurement instrument is reliable and suitable for use in the main study. Table 3 Cronbach’s Alpha (Pilot Sample of 50 Respondents) Items Cronbach’s Alpha Opportunities of Training and Promotion (OP) 0.852 Salary and Benefit (SA) 0.833 Colleague (CO) 0.864 Leadership (LE) 0.822 Nature of Work (WO) 0.835 Job Satisfaction (JS) 0.814 3.3 Sampling and Data Collection Vietnam, as one of the rapidly growing economies in Southeast Asia, is home to a diverse range of businesses, both domestic and international. The study focused on Generation Z employees working in the sports business sector, as this industry represents an emerging field for employment and youth engagement. Data collection was carried out between January and April 2024. A convenience sampling method was utilized for this research due to its efficiency in accessing a large number of respondents within a short timeframe (Valerio, Rodriguez et al. 2016). Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling technique that relies on the availability and accessibility of participants. While it offers practical advantages, such as simplicity and cost-effectiveness, it may introduce limitations related to the generalizability of findings (Etikan, Musa et al. 2016). To address this limitation, efforts were made to ensure the sample reflected the diversity of the sports business workforce in Vietnam. The survey was conducted across 24 administrative regions, ensuring a wide geographical coverage to capture varying perspectives. A quota of 20 respondents per region was targeted to enhance representation within the sample. The final dataset consisted of 480 valid responses. The demographic composition of the sample was as follows: Approximately 75.6% of respondents were born between 1995 and 2009, categorizing them as Generation Z employees. Over 90% of the respondents were engaged in full-time employment, reflecting the stable professional engagement of the sample group. To facilitate data collection, a structured questionnaire was distributed electronically and in person. The questionnaire was designed with clear instructions to ensure comprehension and reduce response bias. A Likert scale was employed for the quantitative items to measure the variables, while demographic data were gathered using categorical questions. Efforts were made to address potential biases during the data collection process. For instance, the research team ensured that responses were evenly distributed across various districts and business types within the sports industry to avoid over-representation of specific sectors or locations. Additionally, a pilot test was conducted prior to the main survey to validate the clarity and reliability of the questionnaire items. Overall, the sampling and data collection strategy provided a robust dataset to examine factors influencing job satisfaction among Generation Z employees in Vietnam’s sports business sector. The use of a diverse sample and rigorous methodology ensures that the findings are relevant and actionable for stakeholders within this industry. 3.4 Data Analysis Techniques The study utilized Smart PLS, a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) tool, to analyze the measurement and structural models. SEM was chosen for its ability to assess multiple variable relationships and evaluate model fit simultaneously, offering a detailed understanding of the hypotheses tested (Hair Jr, Hult et al. 2021). To confirm the validity and reliability of the constructs, the measurement model was examined through three key criteria. First, internal consistency was verified using Cronbach’s Alpha and Composite Reliability (CR), with all constructs exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.7 (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994 ). Second, convergent validity was assessed using Average Variance Extracted (AVE), with values surpassing 0.5, indicating that observed indicators effectively captured their respective latent constructs (Fornell and Larcker 1981 ). Third, discriminant validity was evaluated via the Fornell-Larcker Criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT). The square root of AVE for each construct was higher than its correlations with other constructs, and HTMT values remained below 0.85, confirming distinctiveness between constructs (Henseler, Ringle et al. 2015). The structural model analysis focused on testing relationships between independent variables and job satisfaction as the dependent variable. Path coefficients (β values) were estimated, and their significance was determined using bootstrapping with 5000 resamples. Relationships with p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant (Hair Jr, Matthews et al. 2017). The model's explanatory power was assessed through R² values, reflecting the proportion of variance in job satisfaction explained by the predictors. A good model fit was further supported by the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), with values below 0.08 (Marsh, Hau et al. 2004). Finally, mediation analysis evaluated how independent variables indirectly influenced job satisfaction via mediators, classifying effects into full, partial, or no mediation (Baron and Kenny 1986 ). Full mediation occurred when indirect effects were significant, but the direct effect was not. Partial mediation was identified when both direct and mediated effects were significant, categorized as complementary or competitive depending on their direction. No mediation was confirmed when neither the direct nor indirect effects were significant (Nitzl, Roldan et al. 2016) (See Fig. 2). 4. Results and findings 4.1. Demographic Statistics Table 4 presents the demographic profile of the survey respondents, highlighting the diverse characteristics of Gen Z employees participating in the study. Among the respondents, gender distribution is fairly balanced, with 44.3% male, 45.5% female , and 10.2% identifying as other. As expected, Gen Z (ages 13–27 years) dominates the survey population. The educational background of the respondents shows that the majority (over 90%) hold a bachelor’s or master’s degree, with 8.6% having completed high school education. In terms of job tenure, 75.2% of the respondents have been employed in their current positions for more than three years, suggesting a relatively experienced workforce. Regarding job roles, most participants occupy staff-level positions (53.7%), reflecting the entry-level and early career nature of Gen Z employees. Table 4. Profile of Respondents Variables Category Frequency (%) Gender Male 44.3 Female 45.5 Other 10.2 Educational Level High School 8.6 Bachelor/Master’s 91.4 Job Tenure Less than 3 years 24.8 3 years or more 75.2 Job Position Staff 53.7 Other 46.3 4.2. Construct reliability and validity Construct Reliability and Validity The reliability and validity analysis as shown in Table 5 confirm that all constructs in the model meet established thresholds, ensuring robustness for further analysis. All constructs exhibit high internal consistency with Cronbach's Alpha and Composite Reliability (rho_a and rho_c) values exceeding 0.8. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values are greater than 0.5, demonstrating strong convergent validity. Table 5: Construct Reliability and Validity Construct Cronbach's Alpha Composite Reliability (rho_a) Composite Reliability (rho_c) AVE CO 0.864 0.867 0.908 0.711 JS 0.814 0.814 0.890 0.729 LE 0.851 0.854 0.900 0.692 OP 0.852 0.853 0.900 0.693 SA 0.834 0.836 0.900 0.750 WO 0.835 0.842 0.901 0.752 Discriminant Validity Discriminant validity is confirmed through both the HTMT and Fornell-Larcker criteria as indicated in Table 6 and Table 7. The HTMT values for all construct pairs are below the conservative threshold of 0.85, indicating distinctiveness among constructs, while the Fornell-Larcker analysis shows that the square root of AVE for each construct exceeds its correlations with other constructs. Table 6: Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) Construct CO JS LE OP SA WO CO — 0.532 0.512 0.246 0.317 0.326 JS 0.532 — 0.788 0.487 0.716 0.625 LE 0.512 0.788 — 0.302 0.348 0.518 OP 0.246 0.487 0.302 — 0.453 0.182 SA 0.317 0.716 0.348 0.453 — 0.249 WO 0.326 0.625 0.518 0.182 0.249 — Table 7: Fornell-Larcker Matrix Construct CO JS LE OP SA WO CO 0.843 0.446 0.439 0.212 0.270 0.279 JS 0.446 0.854 0.656 0.406 0.591 0.518 LE 0.439 0.656 0.832 0.258 0.296 0.438 OP 0.212 0.406 0.258 0.832 0.384 0.155 SA 0.270 0.591 0.296 0.384 0.866 0.210 WO 0.279 0.518 0.438 0.155 0.210 0.867 Collinearity Statistics (VIF) and Model Collinearity analysis reveals no multicollinearity issues, as all VIF values are below the threshold of 3.0 (Table 8). In addition, Model fit indices as presented in Table 9 suggest that the saturated model demonstrates excellent fit (e.g., SRMR = 0.045), while the estimated model shows moderate fit, with SRMR slightly above the ideal threshold and NFI slightly below the recommended cutoff of 0.9. Overall, the measurement model is robust, reliable, and valid, providing a strong foundation for structural model evaluation and hypothesis testing. Table 8: VIF Summary Indicator VIF Range Interpretation CO1 - CO4 1.996 - 2.163 No multicollinearity JS1 - JS3 1.748 - 1.859 LE1 - LE4 1.791 - 2.068 OP1 - OP4 1.822 - 2.089 SA1 - SA3 1.898 - 2.000 WO1 - WO3 1.768 - 2.120 Table 9: Model Fit Indices Metric Saturated Model Estimated Model Threshold/Ideal Value Interpretation SRMR 0.045 0.119 SRMR ≤ 0.08 (Good Fit) Saturated model: Excellent fit. d_ULS 0.465 3.281 Lower values are better Estimated model shows discrepancies. d_G 0.247 0.305 Lower values are better Reasonable fit for both models. Chi-square 726.569 813.582 Lower is better Slightly higher for estimated model. NFI 0.861 0.845 NFI ≥ 0.9 (Good Fit) Acceptable fit but below ideal value. 4.3. Hypotheses Testing Direct effects The study examines the factors influencing job satisfaction among Generation Z (Gen Z) employees in sport businesses in Vietnam. As shown in Table 10 and Figure 3, hypotheses (H1–H11) were tested, with all paths showing statistical significance (p-values ≤ 0.05). The strongest relationships in the analysis reveal that leadership (H11: LE -> JS, Effect Value = 0.376, T-statistics = 13.408) and salary and benefits (H10: SA -> JS, Effect Value = 0.361, T-statistics = 11.782) are the primary drivers of Gen Z job satisfaction. Leadership emerged as the most significant factor, highlighting the importance of transformational leadership styles that offer mentorship, constructive feedback, and role modeling. This aligns with Gen Z's preference for transparent communication and motivational leadership. Similarly, salary and benefits were found to play a pivotal role, as fair compensation and non-monetary benefits are critical to Gen Z's perception of recognition and value within an organization. Businesses must adopt transparent, competitive salary structures and performance-based rewards to retain this workforce. The weakest relationship was observed in opportunities for promotion and their influence on perceptions of work opportunities (H1: OP -> WO, Effect Value = 0.100, T-statistics = 2.157). This suggests that promotion opportunities in Vietnamese sport businesses are not strongly perceived as translating into improved work opportunities, potentially reflecting limited upward mobility in these organizations. Employers must work on enhancing career development pathways and clearly communicating promotion opportunities to strengthen this linkage. Moderate relationships were found in colleague relationships and nature of work. Positive colleague relationships (H2: CO -> WO, Effect Value = 0.258; H7: CO -> SA, Effect Value = 0.198) enhance perceptions of work opportunities and salary fairness. Gen Z values teamwork and collaborative environments, where their contributions are recognized. Businesses should therefore promote team-building activities and foster collaboration. The nature of work (H6: WO -> JS, Effect Value = 0.233, T-statistics = 8.774) also showed a strong influence on job satisfaction. Gen Z seeks meaningful, flexible work that aligns with their skills and values. Managers should design roles offering autonomy, creative freedom, and alignment with employees' personal goals. The findings underscore the significance of leadership and compensation as the primary drivers of job satisfaction, supported by meaningful work, career development, and a collaborative team environment. For sport businesses in Vietnam, focusing on these areas will enhance satisfaction and retention among Gen Z employees. Table 10: Hypotheses Testing Results - Path Coefficients Hypothesis Path Original Sample (O) Sample Mean (M) Standard Deviation (STDEV) T-statistics P-values H1 OP -> WO 0.100 0.101 0.046 2.157 0.031 H2 OP -> CO 0.212 0.215 0.044 4.800 0.000 H3 OP -> SA 0.342 0.342 0.042 8.168 0.000 H4 OP -> JS 0.115 0.115 0.031 3.650 0.000 H5 CO -> WO 0.258 0.260 0.041 6.238 0.000 H6 WO -> JS 0.233 0.232 0.027 8.774 0.000 H7 CO -> SA 0.198 0.199 0.047 4.209 0.000 H8 CO -> JS 0.095 0.095 0.030 3.109 0.002 H9 SA -> LE 0.296 0.297 0.042 6.980 0.000 H10 SA -> JS 0.361 0.360 0.031 11.782 0.000 H11 LE -> JS 0.376 0.377 0.028 13.408 0.000 Mediation effects The mediation analysis results (H12 to H16) as shown in Table 11 provide critical insights into how various factors impact job satisfaction for Gen Z employees in sport businesses in Vietnam. Each hypothesis exhibits partial mediation , specifically complementary mediation , where both the direct effects and indirect paths are significant, and the effects move in the same direction. Below is a detailed discussion of the mediation outcomes within the context of this study: H12: OP -> WO -> JS Opportunities for Promotion (OP) have both direct and indirect effects on Job Satisfaction (JS) via Work Opportunities (WO). Partial mediation indicates that while OP directly influences WO, it also contributes to higher job satisfaction through the improved work opportunities provided. This aligns with Gen Z's strong desire for professional growth and the ability to exploit their skills. Vietnamese sport businesses should implement robust training programs and career progression pathways to retain Gen Z employees. H13: CO -> WO -> JS Colleague relations (CO) directly affect WO and indirectly contribute to JS through WO. For Gen Z, positive team dynamics and a collaborative environment enhance their perception of work opportunities, which in turn improves job satisfaction. The findings suggest that sport businesses should focus on building team-oriented cultures with supportive co-workers to optimize both WO and JS. H14: CO -> SA -> JS Colleague relations (CO) influence Job Satisfaction (JS) indirectly via Salary and Benefits (SA). For Gen Z, workplace relationships are intertwined with the perception of fairness in salary and benefits. If co-worker dynamics support performance, employees feel recognized and fairly compensated, driving job satisfaction. Businesses should create fair compensation systems while fostering healthy competition among teams. H15: OP -> SA -> JS Opportunities for Promotion (OP) affect Job Satisfaction (JS) both directly and indirectly through Salary and Benefits (SA). Gen Z values clear career advancement paired with competitive compensation for their efforts. The study highlights the importance of transparent promotion policies and equitable salary structures to retain and motivate Gen Z employees. H16: SA -> LE -> JS Salary and Benefits (SA) positively influence Leadership (LE), which in turn enhances Job Satisfaction (JS). For Gen Z, competitive compensation fosters trust and confidence in leadership, ultimately boosting job satisfaction. Managers should focus on transformational leadership approaches that recognize achievements and provide meaningful feedback to motivate young employees. Table 11: Mediation Effects Table (a, b, c) Hypothesis Path Effect Type Effect Value T-statistics P-values Interpretation H12 OP -> WO Direct (a) 0.100 2.157 0.031 Partial mediation exists as both direct (a, b) and indirect paths are significant. Complementary mediation applies (a × b × c > 0). WO -> JS Direct (b) 0.233 8.774 0.000 OP -> WO -> JS Indirect (c) 0.023 2.126 0.034 H13 CO -> WO Direct (a) 0.258 6.238 0.000 Partial mediation exists as all paths are significant. Complementary mediation applies (a × b × c > 0). WO -> JS Direct (b) 0.233 8.774 0.000 CO -> WO -> JS Indirect (c) 0.060 5.145 0.000 H14 CO -> SA Direct (a) 0.198 4.209 0.000 Partial mediation exists as all paths are significant. Complementary mediation applies (a × b × c > 0). SA -> JS Direct (b) 0.361 11.782 0.000 CO -> SA -> JS Indirect (c) 0.071 3.848 0.000 H15 OP -> SA Direct (a) 0.342 8.168 0.000 Partial mediation exists as all paths are significant. Complementary mediation applies (a × b × c > 0). SA -> JS Direct (b) 0.361 11.782 0.000 OP -> SA -> JS Indirect (c) 0.123 6.883 0.000 H16 SA -> LE Direct (a) 0.296 6.980 0.000 Partial mediation exists as all paths are significant. Complementary mediation applies (a × b × c > 0). LE -> JS Direct (b) 0.376 13.408 0.000 SA -> LE -> JS Indirect (c) 0.111 6.552 0.000 5. Discussion and Implications 5.1. Discussion This study offers a comprehensive view of job satisfaction among Generation Z employees in Vietnam’s sports businesses, revealing a multilayered structure of direct and mediated influences. The findings confirm that leadership and salary and benefits are the strongest predictors of satisfaction, with transformational leadership emerging as the most influential factor. Gen Z employees are highly responsive to leadership styles that provide mentorship, constructive feedback, and personal support—hallmarks of transformational leadership. These results align with existing literature, which emphasizes that leaders who communicate transparently, inspire a shared vision, and act as role models are more effective in fostering satisfaction (Akdere & Egan, 2020; Almas, Chacón-Fuertes et al., 2020; Alwali & Alwali, 2022; Bakker, Hetland et al., 2023). The strong effect of salary and benefits reinforces the need for transparent and equitable compensation systems. For Gen Z, competitive pay and performance-based rewards serve not only as economic incentives but also as signals of fairness, recognition, and alignment with organizational values (Butt, Wen et al., 2020). This underscores the importance of developing clear, fair, and communicative performance evaluation frameworks that reflect both individual contributions and team-based achievements. Moderate effects were observed for colleague relationships and the nature of work, both of which also play important indirect roles. Team dynamics and supportive peer relationships enhance perceptions of fairness in compensation and job design. These social connections are particularly valued by Gen Z, who prefer collaborative, inclusive work cultures (Bourgault & Goforth, 2021; Liao, Wu et al., 2023; Liqiang, Zang et al., 2024; Paredes-Saavedra, Vallejos et al., 2024). Organizations should therefore encourage team-building initiatives and provide channels for peer recognition and shared success. Additionally, the nature of work emerged as a meaningful factor contributing to job satisfaction. Gen Z seeks autonomy, task variety, and purposeful roles aligned with personal aspirations. This suggests that managers should design roles offering flexibility, creativity, and alignment with personal development goals to better engage this cohort. However, one particularly noteworthy finding is the weaker-than-expected relationship between Opportunities for Promotion (OP) and Nature of Work (WO) (H1). While career development is traditionally associated with enhanced perceptions of job autonomy and significance (Hackman & Oldham, 1971; Aquino & Galvez, 2024), this link was relatively weak in our Vietnamese Gen Z sample. A likely explanation lies in the cultural context of collectivist and hierarchical societies, where structural barriers such as rigid seniority systems and limited transparency in advancement processes may dampen the motivational effects of promotion. In such environments, Gen Z employees may not view promotions as directly impacting their day-to-day work experience or autonomy. Even when training is offered, it may not translate into meaningful role enrichment unless actively facilitated by leadership. This result points to a disconnect between development opportunities and the realization of enriched work roles, which may hinder Gen Z engagement. To address this, Vietnamese sports organizations must not only invest in training but also clearly communicate the career implications of such initiatives and restructure work content to reflect progression. Transformational leaders are especially vital in bridging this gap by offering vision, autonomy, and growth-oriented feedback that make role enhancement tangible. The mediation analysis further supports a relationally interconnected view of job satisfaction. Leadership was shown to mediate the relationship between salary and satisfaction, indicating that the perceived value of compensation is not solely economic, but also interpreted through the relational and cultural lens provided by leadership. In the Vietnamese context, where respect for authority and hierarchical leadership structures remain prevalent, leaders play a key role in shaping how rewards are perceived. When transformational leaders provide transparent feedback, articulate the rationale behind compensation decisions, and align financial rewards with individual and team contributions, they reinforce a sense of procedural fairness. This strengthens employees’ belief that salary reflects both effort and equity—key dimensions of satisfaction under Equity Theory. Moreover, leadership amplifies the symbolic dimension of compensation. Gen Z employees are particularly attuned to fairness and recognition, and they rely on leadership to validate that rewards are not just deserved but also socially acknowledged. In this sense, leadership acts as a relational filter—transforming salary from a static hygiene factor into a meaningful signal of value, inclusion, and growth potential. Thus, the mediation of salary effects through leadership reflects both cultural norms of deference to authority and modern expectations of transparent, fair, and supportive management. This finding underscores the importance of training leaders in relational communication, equity signaling, and development-oriented feedback—especially in emerging markets navigating generational shifts in workforce values. Overall, the findings support a shift away from linear models of satisfaction and toward systems-level approaches that consider the interplay of leadership, compensation, job design, and workplace relationships. This relational model aligns with Gen Z’s preferences for fairness, feedback, and meaning—offering organizations a roadmap for building engaging, resilient work environments in a rapidly evolving sports sector. 5.2. Theoretical Implications This study provides a significant theoretical advancement by reframing classical job satisfaction models through the dual lenses of generation and culture. The introduction of the Transformational-Equity Work Experience Model offers a relational, dynamic, and context-sensitive view of job satisfaction, particularly suited to understanding Gen Z employees operating in collectivist, team-based work environments. First, the findings reaffirm Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg, Mausner et al., 2011) by demonstrating that leadership acts as a relational motivator, fulfilling intrinsic needs such as mentorship, purpose, and recognition, while compensation continues to serve as a core hygiene factor. However, unlike Herzberg’s original formulation—which treats salary as a passive, extrinsic condition—this study positions compensation as a socially interpreted signal of fairness and inclusion, amplified by leadership quality and peer validation (Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl et al., 2017). Second, the study extends Social Exchange Theory (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) by showing that peer and leader relationships not only build trust but also redefine how structural inputs like pay and work design are experienced. Satisfaction is not merely a response to rewards or tasks, but to the relational context in which these are embedded. Gen Z employees are especially sensitive to these social cues, seeking environments that offer authentic engagement and collaborative reciprocity (Khairy, Liu et al., 2023; Cai, 2023). Third, the results deepen Equity Theory (Greenberg, 2017; Quader, 2024), highlighting that fairness perceptions are not purely transactional but socially constructed through comparisons with peers and judgments of leadership integrity. In collectivist cultures, perceptions of fairness are shaped not only by individual effort but also by shared norms, peer dynamics, and leadership communication—factors that traditional equity models have underemphasized. Fourth, this study advances the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Lawler, 1971) by demonstrating that autonomy, task significance, and skill alignment continue to influence satisfaction—but these attributes are socially mediated. For Gen Z, job meaning is enhanced when roles are perceived as not just well-designed but also collaborative, purposeful, and valued by peers and leaders (Judge, Klinger et al., 2023). Finally, the study contributes to generational workforce theory by articulating how Gen Z’s unique expectations—purpose-driven work, transparent leadership, equity, and feedback—reconfigure traditional motivational hierarchies (Botezat, Fotea et al., 2024; Aquino & Galvez, 2024). These generational attributes require organizations to adopt adaptive, employee-centric HR strategies that recognize satisfaction as a dynamic and relationally shaped outcome. The confirmation of multiple mediating pathways further validates the need for multidimensional models of job satisfaction. By showing that leadership, compensation, and work design are not isolated drivers—but part of a relational network of perceptions—this study supports a shift toward system-level frameworks that better reflect the complexity of modern organizational life.This study makes significant contributions to theory by extending classic job satisfaction models within a generational and cultural context. Our findings reinforce Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, showing that leadership (as an intrinsic motivator) and compensation (as a hygiene factor) remain central to Gen Z satisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner et al., 2011). Transformational leadership satisfies intrinsic needs for mentorship, recognition, and engagement, while fair compensation addresses external expectations for equity and reward. The results also support Social Exchange Theory, emphasizing how trust-based relationships—whether with leaders or peers—create a climate of fairness and belonging that fosters satisfaction (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Khairy, Liu et al., 2023). In particular, transformational leaders create positive reciprocity by recognizing individual contributions and fostering collaboration. In alignment with Equity Theory, our findings validate that perceptions of fairness—especially in compensation—are central to Gen Z employees’ satisfaction (Greenberg, 2017; Quader, 2024). Fair pay not only motivates but also legitimizes professional growth and organizational loyalty. Moreover, we contribute to the Job Characteristics Model by showing that autonomy, task variety, and job meaningfulness significantly influence satisfaction. When employees perceive their roles as aligned with their skills and aspirations, their engagement deepens (Judge, Klinger et al., 2023). Finally, this study advances generational workforce theory by identifying Gen Z’s specific expectations: purpose-driven leadership, equitable rewards, feedback-rich cultures, and meaningful work. These preferences reshape the traditional satisfaction framework and demand adaptive HR practices. The confirmed mediation effects highlight the interconnectedness of satisfaction drivers, reinforcing the need for holistic, system-level models of employee motivation and retention. 5.3. Practical Implications Leadership Development: Leadership is the most critical driver of Gen Z satisfaction. Items like LE1 (comfort with the direct manager), LE2 (helpful feedback), and LE4 (fair evaluations) highlight the need for transformational leadership training. Managers should develop coaching skills, provide regular feedback, and engage with employees through digital communication tools familiar to Gen Z. Transparent and Competitive Compensation Systems: Items such as SA1 (fair salary for effort) and SA3 (salary increase based on performance) reflect Gen Z’s demand for fairness and clarity in rewards. Adopting 3P systems (Pay for Position, Person, and Performance) ensures equity and transparency. HR systems should incorporate clear benchmarks, open communication, and real-time performance tracking. Colleague Relationships: Positive peer dynamics enhance both work satisfaction and compensation perceptions (CO1, CO3). Team-building initiatives, collaborative projects, and peer feedback mechanisms are vital. Organizations should foster cultures of mutual support and shared purpose. Nature of Work Design: Items like WO1 (meaningful work) and WO2 (skill application) demonstrate Gen Z’s desire for purposeful roles. Managers should design tasks that offer autonomy, variety, and clear social impact. Job rotation, special projects, and employee-driven innovation programs can further enhance engagement. Career Development: The weak link between promotion and satisfaction suggests Gen Z perceives limited growth opportunities. Addressing this requires robust training aligned with visible promotion pathways. Items OP2 (technical skill development), OP3 (soft skill development), and OP4 (desire for higher roles) underscore the need for structured advancement frameworks. Integrated HR Strategy: Leadership mediates the salary-satisfaction link, while salary mediates the training-satisfaction link. These findings highlight the need for integrated HR systems that link compensation, performance, and development . Colleague dynamics also amplify the impact of work design and fairness perceptions, requiring inclusive, team-based work environments. A holistic approach that aligns leadership, compensation, teamwork, and work design will most effectively drive satisfaction in Gen Z employees. 5.4. Conclusion This study deepens our understanding of job satisfaction among Generation Z employees in Vietnam’s sports sector. It confirms that transformational leadership and equitable compensation are the strongest predictors of satisfaction, while also highlighting the indirect roles of work design, colleague relationships, and career development. These factors are intricately linked, suggesting that satisfaction is not driven by individual elements but by an ecosystem of interdependent experiences. The implications for practice are clear: organizations must invest in leadership development, adopt transparent compensation models, build collaborative cultures, and offer clear career pathways. Roles should be designed to be meaningful, flexible, and aligned with personal goals. By doing so, sports businesses—and potentially other industries—can meet the evolving expectations of Gen Z, improving retention, satisfaction, and performance in the process. 5.5. Limitations and Future Research This study offers important insights into Gen Z job satisfaction in Vietnam’s sports sector, yet several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the sample is limited to early-career employees aged 22–25, which may not reflect the full generational spectrum. Second, findings are industry-specific and may not generalize to other sectors or cultural contexts. Third, the focus on five variables excludes other potential influences such as work-life balance, job security, or organizational culture. Additionally, the use of self-reported survey data introduces possible response bias, and the absence of qualitative insights may limit the depth of interpretation. From a reflexive standpoint, the research team’s embeddedness in Vietnam’s academic and sports networks facilitated access to respondents but may have influenced how participants responded, particularly on items related to leadership or organizational critique. To mitigate this, anonymity was emphasized, and data collection was conducted via independent, online channels without institutional branding. Future research should broaden demographic and industry coverage, incorporate additional constructs like employer branding and hybrid work dynamics, and apply longitudinal or mixed-method approaches. Comparative studies across sectors and countries could further validate and expand the model, supporting more tailored HR strategies for diverse Gen Z populations. Declarations Ethics Approval This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of FPT University, Vietnam. Compliance with Ethical Standards All research procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the FPT University Ethics Committee and the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki. Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. For participants under 18, consent was also obtained from a parent or legal guardian. Data Availability Statement The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Conflict of Interest The author declares that there is no conflict of interest. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Author Contribution V.K.P. (Van Kien Pham) conceived the research idea, led the study design, and wrote the main manuscript text. A.V.H. (Huynh Ai Van) contributed to theoretical framework development and manuscript editing. M.H.V. (Vo Minh Hieu) supported data analysis and results interpretation. N.T.N. (Nhut Tan Nguyen) managed data collection and prepared all tables and figures. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript. References Ademi, L. and J. Zeqiri (2024). "Predictive Marketing Regarding Brand Awareness of Gen Z: Brand Equity, Digital Media Content or Emotions Lead to Purchase?" ENTRENOVA-ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion 10 (1): 176-190. Akdere, M. and T. Egan (2020). "Transformational leadership and human resource development: Linking employee learning, job satisfaction, and organizational performance." Human resource development quarterly 31 (4): 393-421. Ali, S. A. M., et al. (2014). "Hackman and Oldham's job characteristics model to job satisfaction." Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 129 : 46-52. AlKhalifa, J., et al. (2024). Optimizing Organizational Performance: Employee Motivation and Performance Theories. Achieving Sustainable Business through AI, Technology Education and Computer Science: Volume 1: Computer Science, Business Sustainability, and Competitive Advantage , Springer : 609-618. Almas, S., et al. (2020). "Direct and indirect effects of transformational leadership on volunteers’ intention to remain at non-profit organizations." Psychosocial Intervention 29 (3): 125-132. Alshmemri, M., et al. (2017). "Herzberg’s two-factor theory." Life Science Journal 14 (5): 12-16. Alwali, J. and W. Alwali (2022). "The relationship between emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, and performance: A test of the mediating role of job satisfaction." Leadership & Organization Development Journal 43 (6): 928-952. Aquino, N. and D. Galvez (2024). "Two-Factor Theory Model Testing: A Case of the Department of Foreign Affairs Employees." Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal 17 (6): 565-586. Bakker, A. B., et al. (2023). "Daily transformational leadership: A source of inspiration for follower performance?" European Management Journal 41 (5): 700-708. Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny (1986). "The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations." Journal of personality and social psychology 51 (6): 1173. Bettencourt, L. A. and S. W. Brown (1997). "Contact employees: Relationships among workplace fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors." Journal of retailing 73 (1): 39-61. Bourgault, A. M. and C. Goforth (2021). Embrace teamwork to create and maintain a positive workplace culture, AACN. 41: 8-10. Chelladurai, P. and A. C. H. Kim (2022). Human resource management in sport and recreation , Human Kinetics. Choi, K. H. and B. Leopkey (2024). "THE EFFECTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ON INNOVATIONAL CLIMATES IN NATIONAL SPORT ORGANIZATIONS." International Journal of Sport Management 25 (2). Cook, K. S., et al. (2013). "Social exchange theory." Handbook of social psychology : 61-88. Cropanzano, R. and M. S. Mitchell (2005). "Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review." Journal of management 31 (6): 874-900. Dixon, M. A. and S. Warner (2010). "Employee satisfaction in sport: Development of a multi-dimensional model in coaching." Journal of Sport Management 24 (2): 139-168. Ertekin, A. B. and Y. Avunduk (2021). "The Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Study on Sports Industry." Journal of Educational Issues 7 (2): 133-145. Etikan, I., et al. (2016). "Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling." American journal of theoretical and applied statistics 5 (1): 1-4. Fornell, C. and D. F. Larcker (1981). "Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error." Journal of marketing research 18 (1): 39-50. Frenkel, S. J. and T. Bednall (2016). "How training and promotion opportunities, career expectations, and two dimensions of organizational justice explain discretionary work effort." Human Performance 29 (1): 16-32. Gachira, J. N. and C. Ntara (2024). "Effect of Transformational Leadership on Organisational Performance of Top 100 SMEs in Nairobi, Kenya." Journal of Human Resource & Leadership 8 (2): 82-99. Gerhart, B. and S. Rynes (2003). Compensation: Theory, evidence, and strategic implications , Sage. Greenberg, J. (2017). Equity theory. The SAGE Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd edition , SAGE Publications, Inc : 418-420. Guinot, J., et al. (2014). "Interpersonal trust, stress and satisfaction at work: An empirical study." Personnel Review 43 (1): 96-115. Hackman, J. R. and E. E. Lawler (1971). "Employee reactions to job characteristics." Journal of applied psychology 55 (3): 259. Hair Jr, J. F., et al. (2021). "An introduction to structural equation modeling." Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: a workbook : 1-29. Hair Jr, J. F., et al. (2017). "PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use." International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis 1 (2): 107-123. Haryono, S., et al. (2020). "The effect of training and job promotion on work motivation and its implications on job performance: Evidence from Indonesia." Management Science Letters 10 (9): 2107-2112. Henseler, J., et al. (2015). "A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling." Journal of the academy of marketing science 43 : 115-135. Herzberg, F., et al. (2011). The motivation to work , Transaction publishers. Hidayat, A. I. (2024). "The future of employment: How Generation Z is reshaping entrepreneurship through education?" Edu Spectrum: Journal of Multidimensional Education 1 (1): 28-37. Judge, T. A., et al. (2023). "Promote job satisfaction through mental challenge." Principles of Organizational Behavior: The Handbook of Evidence‐Based Management 3rd Edition : 161-178. Kennedy, I. (2022). "Sample size determination in test-retest and Cronbach alpha reliability estimates." British Journal of Contemporary Education 2 (1): 17-29. Khairy, H. A., et al. (2023). "The Effect of benevolent leadership on job engagement through psychological safety and workplace friendship prevalence in the tourism and hospitality industry." Sustainability 15 (17): 13245. Kraimer, M. L., et al. (2011). "Antecedents and outcomes of organizational support for development: the critical role of career opportunities." Journal of applied psychology 96 (3): 485. Kumari, K., et al. (2021). "Examining the role of motivation and reward in employees’ job performance through mediating effect of job satisfaction: An empirical evidence." International Journal of Organizational Leadership 10 (4): 401-420. Lai, P.-H., et al. (2020). "The non-profit sharing economy from a social exchange theory perspective: A case from World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms in Taiwan." Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28 (12): 1970-1987. Long, C. S., et al. (2014). "The impact of transformational leadership style on job satisfaction." World Applied Sciences Journal 29 (1): 117-124. Lopes Morrison, R. (2005). Informal relationships in the workplace: Associations with job satisfaction, organisational commitment and turnover intentions, Massey University. Lu, L., et al. (2016). "Work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: A comparison between supervisors and line-level employees." International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28 (4): 737-761. Mardanov, I. (2021). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, organizational context, employee contentment, job satisfaction, performance and intention to stay . Evidence-based HRM: a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, Emerald Publishing Limited. Marsh, H. W., et al. (2004). "In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings." Structural equation modeling 11 (3): 320-341. Miidom, D. F., et al. (2022). "The effect of perceived organizational support on workplace harmony in telecommunications companies in Nigeria." International Journal of Advanced Academic Research 8 (3): 27-52. Moon, T.-W., et al. (2020). "Does employees’ spirituality enhance job performance? The mediating roles of intrinsic motivation and job crafting." Current Psychology 39 (5): 1618-1634. Nitzl, C., et al. (2016). "Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models." Industrial management & data systems 116 (9): 1849-1864. Nunnally, J. and I. Bernstein (1994). Psychometric Theory 3rd edition (MacGraw-Hill, New York). Patel, H., et al. (2012). "Factors of collaborative working: A framework for a collaboration model." Applied ergonomics 43 (1): 1-26. Rasheed, M. I., et al. (2020). "Perceived compensation fairness, job design, and employee motivation: The mediating role of working environment." South Asian Journal of Management 14 (2): 229-246. Raziq, A. and R. Maulabakhsh (2015). "Impact of working environment on job satisfaction." Procedia economics and finance 23 : 717-725. Retnowati, E. and D. Darmawan (2023). "Optimizing Employee Morale in The Workplace Through The Integration of Career Development, Job Satisfaction, and Work Environment Factors." International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology 3 (1): 37-42. Rich, B. L., et al. (2010). "Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance." Academy of management journal 53 (3): 617-635. SEONG, D.-H. (2021). "Sports leadership theories for improving retail service quality on customer value." Journal of Distribution Science 19 (5): 13-21. Taylor, G. (2015). "Hackman and Oldham's job characteristics model." Teaching Business & Economics 19 (2): 7. Valerio, M. A., et al. (2016). "Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting." BMC medical research methodology 16 : 1-11. Wood, S., et al. (2012). "Enriched job design, high involvement management and organizational performance: The mediating roles of job satisfaction and well-being." Human relations 65 (4): 419-445. Zhou, X., et al. (2021). "Exploring the relationship between despotic leadership and job satisfaction: the role of self efficacy and leader–member exchange." International journal of environmental research and public health 18 (10): 5307. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files AppendixA.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6703127","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":480148438,"identity":"d64ca67c-5985-484c-81ac-48c4f04f38e0","order_by":0,"name":"Van Kien Pham","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"FPT University, Greenwich Vietnam – Ho Chi Minh Campus","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Van","middleName":"Kien","lastName":"Pham","suffix":""},{"id":480148439,"identity":"3375aa05-f6b4-4bb7-a4f3-bdd0725af803","order_by":1,"name":"Ai Van Huynh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"FPT University, Greenwich Vietnam – Ho Chi Minh Campus","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ai","middleName":"Van","lastName":"Huynh","suffix":""},{"id":480148440,"identity":"5445cbbd-8684-45ca-ae6b-eddfc09ac83e","order_by":2,"name":"Minh Hieu Vo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"FPT University, Greenwich Vietnam – Ho Chi Minh Campus","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Minh","middleName":"Hieu","lastName":"Vo","suffix":""},{"id":480148441,"identity":"72dc0bd7-aad9-40c1-b8f2-6f1d1ed2d8fc","order_by":3,"name":"Nhut Tan Nguyen","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"FPT University, Greenwich Vietnam – Ho Chi Minh Campus","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nhut","middleName":"Tan","lastName":"Nguyen","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-20 03:08:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6703127/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6703127/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":86233753,"identity":"ef98210e-9638-4a82-9b50-80e33c00a1f0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-08 09:17:32","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":106236,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConceptual Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: * indicating the mediating hypotheses\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6703127/v1/5fc944e74e987dc0bd5c4dba.png"},{"id":86233755,"identity":"7b00f1a8-58ac-41e6-b12a-85752acc64f2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-08 09:17:32","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":34083,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMediation Effects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6703127/v1/68942b4515805e80da261c9a.png"},{"id":86233758,"identity":"c95b6c86-9a1d-45bf-9891-4904206b9926","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-08 09:17:32","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":85503,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Results of Path Coefficients\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote: All path coefficients are statistically significant, with p-values ≤ 0.05.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6703127/v1/2d5cd9550795b1ff8ef9bb8d.png"},{"id":90968023,"identity":"56491b6d-1808-498a-89f2-6812e273ed38","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-10 07:02:12","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2711719,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6703127/v1/ddb971a1-67ef-4fcf-af32-204a295f1f1d.pdf"},{"id":86233752,"identity":"7917b6c3-4ae2-4d5f-adaf-a4349318fdd1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-07-08 09:17:32","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":18453,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AppendixA.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6703127/v1/6bfb37c6482f3ce6da3a7efa.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eMechanisms of Job Satisfaction Among Gen Z in Vietnam's Sports Industry Using an Integrated Framework\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe rise of Generation Z in the workforce\u0026mdash;combined with a post-COVID emphasis on purpose, equity, and flexibility\u0026mdash;demands a new understanding of how job satisfaction is shaped in dynamic, team-based industries such as sport. Gen Z employees, born between the mid-1990s and early 2010s, represent the most digitally fluent, socially conscious, and feedback-oriented generation to date. They prioritize meaningful work, demand inclusive and transparent leadership, and expect continuous opportunities for personal and professional growth (Botezat et al., 2024; Aquino \u0026amp; Galvez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). These expectations challenge traditional employment models and necessitate a rethinking of how satisfaction is generated and sustained within modern organizations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn Vietnam, a country balancing rapid economic development with strong cultural collectivism, these generational shifts are especially salient. The Vietnamese sports sector, in particular, is undergoing institutional transformation marked by professionalization, commercialization, and internationalization (Nguyen \u0026amp; Tran, 2022; Rodrigo et al., 2022). As the industry evolves, it must also adapt to the workforce driving its future. Gen Z professionals are increasingly occupying roles in coaching, event management, sports marketing, and administration. However, many of these roles remain governed by hierarchical leadership styles, limited career progression, and uneven compensation practices that may not align with Gen Z\u0026rsquo;s expectations for equity, autonomy, and developmental support.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis generational\u0026ndash;cultural\u0026ndash;industrial intersection reveals both an urgent challenge and a compelling theoretical opportunity. While the literature offers well-established models of job satisfaction\u0026mdash;Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman \u0026amp; Lawler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1971\u003c/span\u003e), Equity Theory (Al-Zawahreh \u0026amp; Al-Madi, 2012), and Social Exchange Theory (Cropanzano \u0026amp; Mitchell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;these theories have predominantly been validated in Western, individualist contexts. Their application in collectivist cultures such as Vietnam remains limited, particularly concerning how young employees experience motivation, fairness, leadership, and team dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, these models are typically applied in isolation, offering limited insight into the complex interplay of intrinsic motivators, relational influences, and perceptions of equity that shape job satisfaction in today\u0026rsquo;s workforce. Even fewer studies explicitly consider how these dynamics are mediated by generational identity\u0026mdash;especially for Gen Z employees whose work values differ significantly from previous cohorts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study addresses two key gaps in the literature: (1) the lack of integrated, generationally responsive frameworks for understanding job satisfaction in collectivist and team-intensive industries, and (2) the underutilization of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in examining these relationships in Southeast Asia\u0026rsquo;s rapidly evolving sports sector. By focusing on Vietnam, the study offers insights from an emerging market context that remains underrepresented in global workforce research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address these gaps, we propose the Transformational-Equity Work Experience Model, a culturally contextualized and generation-specific framework that synthesizes multiple motivational and relational theories. We argue that constructs such as Nature of Work (WO), Salary and Benefits (SA), and Leadership (LE) do not merely operate as individual predictors of satisfaction, but also act as critical mediators linking key relational (e.g., Colleague Relations, CO) and developmental (e.g., Opportunities for Promotion, OP) antecedents to overall Job Satisfaction (JS). For instance, we hypothesize that effective leadership can amplify the fairness and motivational power of compensation, while positive coworker dynamics can enhance how employees perceive their daily work experiences as meaningful and socially valued.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper aims to make both theoretical and empirical contributions. Theoretically, we extend classical models of job satisfaction to account for generational identity and cultural context. Empirically, we test the proposed framework using data from 480 Gen Z employees in Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s sports industry, applying Structural Equation Modeling to uncover both direct and mediated pathways to job satisfaction. The findings offer valuable insights for workforce strategy in emerging markets and provide a foundation for developing engagement practices tailored to younger generations in collectivist environments.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature Reviews","content":"\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1 Theoretical Foundations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJob satisfaction has been extensively examined through multiple theoretical lenses, each emphasizing different aspects of the work experience. This study draws from five core frameworks\u0026mdash;Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s Two-Factor Theory, the Job Characteristics Model, Equity Theory, Social Exchange Theory, and Transformational Leadership Theory\u0026mdash;to build an integrated understanding tailored to Generation Z employees operating in collectivist, team-intensive environments like Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s sports industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHerzberg\u0026rsquo;s Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg, Mausner et al., 2011) divides workplace factors into intrinsic motivators (e.g., achievement, recognition, personal growth) and extrinsic hygiene factors (e.g., salary, supervision, conditions). While extrinsic factors prevent dissatisfaction, only motivators generate lasting satisfaction. However, in collectivist cultures, salary is not just a baseline necessity but a symbolic expression of social recognition and fairness, particularly for Gen Z employees who interpret compensation in relational and identity-based terms (AlKhalifa, Nawaz et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Job Characteristics Model (Hackman \u0026amp; Lawler, 1971) outlines five core job elements\u0026mdash;skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback\u0026mdash;that contribute to psychological states fostering internal motivation and satisfaction. For Gen Z, autonomy and meaningfulness are especially critical, as they seek purpose-aligned roles and flexible, personalized career paths (Judge, Klinger et al., 2023). Importantly, this model connects with Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s theory by identifying work design as a key source of intrinsic motivation, but it also intersects with Social Exchange Theory by highlighting how feedback and social context influence perceptions of task significance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEquity Theory (Adams; Al-Zawahreh \u0026amp; Al-Madi, 2012) argues that employees assess fairness by comparing their input-output ratios with those of peers. However, fairness judgments are not purely rational; they are filtered through social comparison and relational dynamics. This is where Social Exchange Theory and Equity Theory align: trust and peer relationships shape how individuals interpret the fairness of salary and promotion decisions (Quader, 2024; Paudel, Kunwar et al., 2024). Gen Z employees, who are highly attuned to peer validation and transparency, are particularly sensitive to perceived inequities in recognition and reward.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSocial Exchange Theory (Cropanzano \u0026amp; Mitchell, 2005) frames job satisfaction as emerging from reciprocal relationships grounded in trust, support, and perceived fairness. In collectivist cultures, where team harmony and mutual support are cultural norms, workplace relationships are central to motivation. This aligns with Herzberg\u0026apos;s hygiene factors, in that supportive peer and leadership dynamics mitigate dissatisfaction, but also with the Job Characteristics Model, in which feedback from others enhances task significance and identity (Khairy, Liu et al., 2023; March, Aplin-Houtz et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTransformational Leadership Theory (Walumbwa, Orwa et al., 2005; Bakker, Hetland et al., 2023) emphasizes leaders\u0026rsquo; role in shaping meaning, vision, and individual development. Leaders who offer intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and individualized consideration help create purpose-aligned environments. Here, theory integration becomes especially evident: transformational leadership acts as a catalyst across models. For instance, it enhances Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s motivators by reinforcing recognition, aligns with the Job Characteristics Model by fostering autonomy and feedback, and amplifies fairness perceptions in Equity Theory by transparently linking effort with reward (Chi, Vu et al., 2023; Eduzor, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, these theories are not mutually exclusive; rather, they intersect in critical ways. Transformational leadership mediates and amplifies the motivational and fairness signals embedded in job design and compensation, while peer relationships shape how intrinsic motivators are perceived. This study proposes a model where job satisfaction arises from the synergistic interaction of structure, equity, and relational dynamics, offering a more holistic explanation than any single framework alone can provide (see Table 1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1. Summary of Theoretical Foundations and Relevance to Gen Z Job Satisfaction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey Constructs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClassical Assumption\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGen Z Extension (This Study)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHerzberg\u0026rsquo;s Two-Factor Theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMotivators (growth, recognition); Hygiene factors (pay, supervision)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSatisfaction arises from motivators; hygiene prevents dissatisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePay is both extrinsic and symbolic; recognition is shaped by leadership and peer validation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob Characteristics Model\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTask variety, autonomy, significance, feedback\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob design directly influences intrinsic motivation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob meaning co-constructed through social feedback and team context\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEquity Theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInput-output fairness; social comparisons\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFairness is judged against peer benchmarks\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFairness is relationally interpreted via trust in leadership and peer-based equity norms\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Exchange Theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTrust, reciprocity, perceived support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSatisfaction built through reciprocal interpersonal dynamics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePeer and leader interactions filter perceptions of work quality and fairness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTransformational Leadership Theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVision, intellectual stimulation, individual support\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeaders inspire motivation and goal alignment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeaders amplify the effects of rewards, fairness, and task meaning through relational signaling\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.2 Theoretical Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study introduces the Transformational-Equity Work Experience Model, a novel integration of Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg, Mausner et al., 2011), the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman \u0026amp; Lawler, 1971), Equity Theory (Al-Zawahreh \u0026amp; Al-Madi, 2012), Social Exchange Theory (Cropanzano \u0026amp; Mitchell, 2005), and Transformational Leadership Theory (Walumbwa, Orwa et al., 2005; Bakker, Hetland et al., 2023). While these frameworks offer foundational insights into job satisfaction, they often conceptualize key variables\u0026mdash;such as compensation, work design, or leadership\u0026mdash;as fixed or unidirectional influences. This study extends the theoretical landscape by reconceptualizing job satisfaction as a relationally constructed, generationally responsive, and culturally contextual process, especially among Gen Z employees in collectivist, team-based environments (Nguyen \u0026amp; Tran, 2022; Rodrigo et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnlike traditional models that treat constructs such as pay or leadership as static inputs, our framework emphasizes relational mediating mechanisms. For example, we demonstrate how leadership amplifies the motivational value of fair compensation, or how colleague interactions shape perceptions of job meaningfulness\u0026mdash;dynamics often underexplored in prior work. While Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s model positions salary as a non-motivating hygiene factor, our findings reveal that salary serves as a social signal of fairness and inclusion, especially when interpreted through relational trust and leadership framing (Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl et al., 2017; Greenberg, 2017). Similarly, the Job Characteristics Model traditionally views work design as an intrinsic driver; here, work meaning is shown to emerge through peer support and team dynamics (Judge, Klinger et al., 2023; Cai, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe following table illustrates how this study revises and extends each classical framework:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2. Theoretical Extension of Prior Job Satisfaction Models\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTraditional View\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThis Study\u0026rsquo;s Extension\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHerzberg\u0026rsquo;s Two-Factor Theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSalary = hygiene factor (prevents dissatisfaction but not motivating)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSalary is relationally interpreted; leadership and peer context shape its impact on satisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJob Characteristics Model\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWork design = intrinsic motivator via task attributes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWork meaning co-constructed through social dynamics, especially among Gen Z (Judge et al., 2023; Cai, 2023)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEquity Theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFairness judged by input-output ratio comparisons\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFairness shaped by peer norms and trust in leadership in collectivist cultures (Quader, 2024; Greenberg, 2017)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSocial Exchange Theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReciprocity and support foster satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTeam cohesion and relational trust elevate perceived fairness and motivation (Khairy, Liu et al., 2023)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTransformational Leadership Theory\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeaders drive satisfaction through vision, support, and inspiration\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeaders also reframe compensation and promote relational equity, reinforcing satisfaction (Bakker et al., 2023; Eduzor, 2024)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn summary, this model does not merely aggregate prior theories; it challenges and extends them by demonstrating that job satisfaction emerges from the interaction between structural resources and social context, particularly for a generation that values equity, flexibility, and inclusion (Aquino \u0026amp; Galvez, 2024; Botezat, Fotea et al., 2024). The study introduces the concept of relational amplification, wherein leadership and peer dynamics recontextualize the motivational value of extrinsic and intrinsic factors. By embedding established frameworks in a generational and cultural context, this research offers a more nuanced and responsive model for understanding and improving job satisfaction in modern organizations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.3. Hypotheses and Conceptual Framework\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOpportunities for Training and Promotion and\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNature of Work\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the sports industry, opportunities for training and career development are pivotal in enhancing employees\u0026rsquo; perceptions of their work. Training programs serve as intrinsic motivators under Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s Two-Factor Theory, fostering a sense of growth and enrichment (Aquino \u0026amp; Galvez, 2024). The Job Characteristics Model (Hackman \u0026amp; Oldham, 1971) further posits that such opportunities enhance task autonomy and significance, contributing to meaningful work. Studies have shown that structured training programs not only improve skillsets but also elevate perceptions of autonomy and task ownership (Yadav et al., 2022; Mampuru et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, in collectivist cultures like Vietnam, where deference to hierarchy and team consensus may overshadow individual agency, the motivational link between promotion opportunities and perceived work autonomy may be attenuated. This could help explain the relatively weak empirical support for this path in our analysis (see Section 4.3). We revisit this possible cultural disconnect in the Discussion section and suggest implications for practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH1:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eOpportunities for Training and Promotion positively influence Nature of Work.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOpportunities for Training and Promotion and Colleague Relations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTraining initiatives foster collaboration among employees, creating opportunities for interaction and teamwork (Bourgault and Goforth 2021). According to Social Exchange Theory, shared training experiences build trust and reciprocity, which are foundational for positive workplace relationships (Lai, Chuang et al. 2020). Haryono, Supardi et al. (2020) noted that collaborative training improves communication and peer dynamics. In the sports industry, where teamwork is central, training enhances cohesion among athletes, coaches, and administrative staff. In addition, professional development organizations improves team dynamics, mutual trust, and collaboration, aligning with Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s hygiene factors that mitigate dissatisfaction. Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH2:\u003c/strong\u003e Opportunities for Training and Promotion positively influence Colleague Relations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOpportunities for Training and Promotion positively influence Salary and Benefits:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCareer development is often linked to higher compensation, promotions, and performance-based rewards (Gerhart and Rynes 2003). This aligns with Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s hygiene factors, which address employees\u0026rsquo; extrinsic needs, and Equity Theory, which emphasizes perceptions of fairness in rewards. Frenkel and Bednall (2016) highlighted that training and promotion opportunities enhance perceptions of reward fairness. In Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s sports sector, where salary disparities exist across roles, structured promotions provide equitable recognition, improving satisfaction and engagement. \u003cstrong\u003eBased on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eH3\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e: Opportunities for Training and Promotion positively influence Salary and Benefits.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOpportunities for Training and Promotion positively influence Job Satisfaction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCareer growth opportunities enhance employees\u0026apos; sense of achievement and intrinsic motivation, aligning with Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s Two-Factor Theory, which identifies growth as a key driver of satisfaction (Moon, Youn et al. 2020). In the sports industry, employees often seek opportunities for skill enhancement, such as coaching certifications or management training (Chelladurai and Kim 2022). Access to career development boosts perceptions of achievement and commitment, as supported by the Job Characteristics Model\u0026rsquo;s focus on skill variety and task significance (Kraimer, Seibert et al. 2011). Organizations that offer clear promotion pathways report lower turnover and higher employee engagement (Lu, Lu et al. 2016). \u003cstrong\u003eBased on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eH4\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e: Opportunities for Training and Promotion positively influence Job Satisfaction.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eColleague Relations positively influence Nature of Work:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePositive relationships at work contribute to a supportive and meaningful work environment. According to Hackman and Oldham\u0026rsquo;s Job Characteristics Model, social interactions enhance perceptions of task significance (Taylor 2015), while Social Exchange Theory emphasizes trust and cooperation as key factors in fostering workplace engagement (Cook, Cheshire et al. 2013). In sports organizations, effective collaboration among colleagues\u0026mdash;such as coaches, players, and support staff\u0026mdash;creates a cohesive environment where tasks feel significant and aligned with shared goals (Patel, Pettitt et al. 2012). This connection enhances employees\u0026rsquo; intrinsic motivation and engagement with their work. \u003cstrong\u003eBased on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eH5\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e: Colleague Relations positively influence Nature of Work.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNature of Work and Job Satisfaction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWork that is meaningful, autonomous, and skill-enriching significantly enhances satisfaction (Raziq and Maulabakhsh 2015). According to Hackman and Oldham\u0026rsquo;s Job Characteristics Model, task variety, autonomy, and feedback foster intrinsic motivation, which directly contributes to satisfaction (Ali, Said et al. 2014). Rich, Lepine et al. (2010) demonstrated that employees engaged in diverse and impactful tasks report higher satisfaction. In the sport sector, employees often perform meaningful work, such as training athletes or organizing competitions, which fosters satisfaction by allowing them to contribute to team success. \u003cstrong\u003eBased on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eH6\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e: Nature of Work positively influences Job Satisfaction.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eColleague Relations and Salary and Benefits\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStrong workplace relationships enhance perceptions of fairness in rewards, aligning with Equity Theory (Bettencourt and Brown 1997). Adams argued that employees assess the equity of their compensation based on input-output comparisons, which are influenced by workplace dynamics (Greenberg 2017). Miidom, Ojo et al. (2022) found that positive relationships foster trust and cooperation, reinforcing perceptions of fair rewards. In sports organizations, supportive teams amplify satisfaction with salaries, as rewards are perceived as reflective of collective success. \u003cstrong\u003eBased on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eH7\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e: Colleague Relations positively influence Salary and Benefits.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eColleague Relations and Job Satisfaction:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupportive workplace relationships enhance morale, reduce stress, and contribute to job satisfaction (Lopes Morrison 2005, Retnowati and Darmawan 2023). Social Exchange Theory highlights the reciprocal nature of positive relationships, which foster collaboration and reduce workplace conflicts (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005). Guinot, Chiva et al. (2014) demonstrated that strong interpersonal bonds improve team dynamics, leading to increased satisfaction. In the sports sector, where teamwork among administrative staff, coaches, and trainers is critical, strong coworker relationships improve well-being and job satisfaction (Ertekin and Avunduk 2021). \u003cstrong\u003eBased on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eH8\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e: Colleague Relations positively influence Job Satisfaction.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSalary and Benefits and Job Satisfaction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFair compensation directly satisfies employees\u0026rsquo; extrinsic needs, improving overall satisfaction (Mardanov 2021). Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s Two-Factor Theory identifies salary as a hygiene factor, critical for preventing dissatisfaction, while Equity Theory emphasizes perceptions of fairness in pay (Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl et al. 2017). Rasheed, Jamad et al. (2020) highlighted that perceived equity in compensation reduces dissatisfaction and turnover intentions. In the sports industry, where pay discrepancies exist, equitable salary structures are crucial for retaining. \u003cstrong\u003eBased on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eH9\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e: Salary and Benefits positively influence Job Satisfaction.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOpportunities for Training Promotion and Leadership:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeaders who facilitate growth opportunities are perceived as supportive and effective, aligning with Transformational Leadership Theory, which emphasizes employee development (Akdere and Egan 2020). Gachira and Ntara (2024) highlighted that transformational leaders prioritize training to foster trust and admiration. In the sports industry, leaders who provide certifications or professional workshops are seen as enablers of success, enhancing employee trust and satisfaction (SEONG 2021) .\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eH10\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e: Opportunities for Training and Promotion positively influence Leadership.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLeadership and Job Satisfaction:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTransformational leaders inspire employees by creating a supportive and empowering environment (Akdere and Egan 2020, Almas, Chac\u0026oacute;n-Fuertes et al. 2020, Alwali and Alwali 2022). According to Social Exchange Theory, leaders who recognize and support employees foster trust and loyalty, which drives satisfaction (Zhou, Rasool et al. 2021). Long, Yusof et al. (2014) found that transformational leadership improves satisfaction through individualized support. In sports organizations, visionary leaders\u0026mdash;such as coaches or managers\u0026mdash;directly impact morale and satisfaction, reinforcing employees\u0026rsquo; commitment to the organization (Choi and Leopkey 2024). Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eH11\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e: Leadership positively influences Job Satisfaction.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNature of Work as Mediators\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe nature of work plays a critical mediating role in the relationships between opportunities for training and promotion and job satisfaction, as well as between colleague relations and job satisfaction. Understanding how the nature of work influences these relationships can provide valuable insights for organizations aiming to enhance employee satisfaction and engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMediator between Opportunities for Training and Promotion and Job Satisfaction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOpportunities for training and promotion serve as motivators under Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s Two-Factor Theory, enhancing employees\u0026apos; intrinsic motivation by offering growth and career advancement opportunities (Herzberg, Mausner et al. 2011, Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl et al. 2017). However, the extent to which these opportunities lead to job satisfaction is contingent on the nature of work, which shapes how employees perceive and experience these developmental initiatives. According to the Job Characteristics Model, task variety, autonomy, and significance are key attributes that enhance the meaningfulness of work, thereby amplifying the positive effects of training and promotion on satisfaction Hackman (Hackman and Lawler 1971, Judge, Klinger et al. 2023). For instance, Aquino and Galvez (2024) emphasize that work designs incorporating skill variety and social dimensions foster a sense of purpose, further enhancing the impact of training on job satisfaction. Similarly, when training aligns with tasks that offer autonomy and relevance to employees\u0026rsquo; aspirations, they experience greater fulfillment and engagement. However, in monotonous or misaligned work environments, even robust training programs may fail to yield meaningful improvements in satisfaction. This highlights the mediating role of Nature of Work in linking training opportunities to job satisfaction by ensuring that employees\u0026rsquo; roles are enriched and intrinsically rewarding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMediator Between Colleague Relations and Job Satisfaction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eColleague relations, as a hygiene factor under Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s framework, address employees\u0026rsquo; extrinsic needs by creating a supportive and harmonious work environment (AlKhalifa (AlKhalifa, Nawaz et al. 2024). However, their ability to enhance job satisfaction is significantly influenced by the nature of work. When the work environment fosters inclusivity, collaboration, and mutual respect, positive colleague relations contribute to greater task significance and intrinsic motivation (Taylor 2015). For example, in the sports industry, teamwork among colleagues such as coaches and administrative staff amplifies the meaningfulness of tasks, fostering a cohesive and satisfying workplace (Patel, Pettitt et al. 2012). The Social Exchange Theory also underscores the importance of reciprocity in workplace interactions, where supportive colleague relations lead to mutual trust and collaboration, thereby enhancing satisfaction (Khairy, Liu et al. 2023). However, when work dynamics are isolating or overly competitive, the benefits of positive colleague interactions may not translate into increased satisfaction. As suggested by Wood, Van Veldhoven et al. (2012), inclusivity and equitable treatment in work design amplify the positive effects of colleague relations on satisfaction, making the Nature of Work a pivotal mediator in this relationship.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the above discussion, we propose the following hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH12: Nature of Work mediates the relationship between Opportunities for Training and Promotion and Job Satisfaction.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH13: Nature of Work mediates the relationship between Colleague Relations and Job Satisfaction.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSalary and Benefits as a Mediator\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mediation of salary and benefits in the relationships between opportunities for training and promotion and job satisfaction, as well as between colleague relations and job satisfaction, is a critical area of study in organizational behavior. This mediation highlights how financial compensation and benefits can enhance or diminish the effects of training, promotion opportunities, and interpersonal relationships on overall job satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMediator Between Opportunities for Training and Promotion and Job Satisfaction\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOpportunities for training and promotion not only provide pathways for skill development but also influence Salary and Benefits, which are critical hygiene factors addressing employees\u0026rsquo; extrinsic needs (Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl et al. 2017). According to Equity Theory, employees assess their satisfaction by comparing their input-output ratios to peers. Training that leads to promotions and pay increases signals equitable recognition of contributions, thereby enhancing satisfaction (Gerhart and Rynes 2003, Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl et al. 2017). In the sports sector, structured training programs have been shown to reduce salary disparities by creating transparent career advancement opportunities, thus improving perceptions of fairness (Dixon and Warner 2010, Chelladurai and Kim 2022). However, Salary and Benefits mediate this relationship by ensuring that the financial rewards resulting from training align with employee expectations of equity and effort. Without such alignment, even extensive training opportunities may fail to enhance satisfaction, underscoring the role of Salary and Benefits as a critical link between professional development and job satisfaction (Kumari, Barkat Ali et al. 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMediator between Colleague Relations and Job Satisfaction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePositive colleague relations enhance perceptions of fairness and equity in Salary and Benefits, which subsequently improve job satisfaction. Equity Theory posits that perceptions of fairness in compensation are shaped by workplace dynamics, including the quality of interactions with colleagues (Greenberg 2017). Supportive and collaborative work environments, as emphasized by Miidom, Ojo et al. (2022) foster trust and collective success, making rewards such as salaries and benefits feel more equitable. For example, in the sports industry, strong team cohesion often results in shared success, which reinforces employees\u0026rsquo; satisfaction with their compensation. However, when colleague relations are strained or competitive, the positive impact on perceptions of fairness may diminish, reducing the potential for satisfaction. Therefore, Salary and Benefits serve as a mediating factor by translating supportive workplace dynamics into tangible rewards that address employees\u0026rsquo; extrinsic needs, ultimately enhancing job satisfaction (Rasheed, Jamad et al. 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on these discussions, we propose the following hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH14: Salary and Benefits mediate the relationship between Opportunities for Training and Promotion and Job Satisfaction.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH15: Salary and Benefits mediate the relationship between Colleague Relations and Job Satisfaction.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLeadership (LE) as a Mediator\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeadership mediates the relationship between salary and benefits and job satisfaction by enhancing the perceived fairness, meaning, and impact of financial rewards. While salary and benefits address extrinsic needs as hygiene factors (Herzberg, Mausner et al. 2011), transformational leadership amplifies their effects by fostering trust, recognition, and alignment with organizational goals (Bakker, Hetland et al. 2023). Through behaviors such as individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation, leaders create an environment where employees view compensation as equitable and tied to personal and team achievements (Khairy, Liu et al. 2023). Additionally, leadership buffers dissatisfaction by addressing grievances and ensuring employees feel valued beyond monetary rewards (Akdere and Egan 2020). Thus, leadership bridges extrinsic rewards and intrinsic satisfaction, solidifying their collective impact on job satisfaction. Based on this discussion, we propose the hypothesis 16 as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eH16: Leadership mediates the relationship between Salary and Benefits and Job Satisfaction.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.4. Generation Z in the Workplace: Focus on Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s Sporting Industry\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGeneration Z, individuals born between 1997 and 2012, has increasingly become a significant part of the workforce (Ademi and Zeqiri 2024). Unlike previous generations, Gen Zers are characterized by their digital fluency, demand for flexibility, and emphasis on meaningful work, making them a unique challenge for organizations, including those in the sporting industry in Vietnam (Hidayat 2024). Understanding their preferences and job satisfaction factors is crucial for attracting, retaining, and motivating this generation in a dynamic and evolving work environment.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Research methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Instrument Development\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo measure job satisfaction and its antecedents, we adapted and expanded the Job Descriptive Index (JDI) framework, integrating constructs from Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s Two-Factor Theory, the Job Characteristics Model, and Transformational Leadership Theory. Recognizing that traditional JDI scales were designed for earlier generations in Western contexts, we conducted a multi-stage refinement process to ensure generational alignment with Gen Z employees in Vietnam.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, the original JDI items were reviewed for cultural and generational relevance. For example, standard JDI items measuring satisfaction with \u0026ldquo;supervision\u0026rdquo; were reconceptualized to reflect transformational leadership traits, such as mentorship and feedback responsiveness (e.g., \u0026ldquo;My manager gives constructive feedback that helps me grow\u0026rdquo;). Similarly, the salary and benefits dimension was expanded to reflect Gen Z\u0026rsquo;s expectations of equity and performance-based recognition, incorporating items like \u0026ldquo;I believe my salary reflects the effort I put into my work\u0026rdquo; (SA1).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn terms of the nature of work, the original focus on general satisfaction with tasks was expanded to include purpose-driven engagement and autonomy, with items such as \u0026ldquo;My work allows me to use my skills in meaningful ways\u0026rdquo; (WO2). This shift aligns with Gen Z\u0026rsquo;s demand for meaningful, skill-aligned tasks (Judge, Klinger et al., 2023; Aquino \u0026amp; Galvez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eColleague relations were measured not just by interpersonal comfort but also by the extent to which peer support and collaboration contribute to performance, consistent with Gen Z\u0026rsquo;s team-oriented values. New items reflected this shift, such as \u0026ldquo;I perform better when I collaborate closely with colleagues\u0026rdquo; (CO3).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe final instrument consisted of six constructs: Opportunities for Training and Promotion (OP), Colleague Relations (CO), Nature of Work (WO), Salary and Benefits (SA), Leadership (LE), and Job Satisfaction (JS). Each construct was measured using 3\u0026ndash;5 items on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). A full comparison of original vs. adapted items is provided in Appendix A to clarify generational alignment and measurement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Pilot Test\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe reliability of the measurement instrument used to assess factors affecting job satisfaction of Generation Z employees was evaluated with a pilot sample of 50 respondents. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents the results of the Cronbach's Alpha reliability assessment for each construct in the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings indicate that all constructs achieved a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha coefficient greater than 0.7, which is considered acceptable for reliability (Nunnally and Bernstein \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e, Kennedy \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the Corrected Item-Total Correlation values for all observed variables were above 0.3, demonstrating adequate item consistency. Additionally, the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha if Item Deleted coefficients for each observed variable were lower than the overall Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha, confirming the appropriateness of retaining all items in their respective constructs. These results suggest that the measurement instrument is reliable and suitable for use in the main study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha (Pilot Sample of 50 Respondents)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eItems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOpportunities of Training and Promotion (OP)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.852\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSalary and Benefit (SA)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.833\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eColleague (CO)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.864\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeadership (LE)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.822\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNature of Work (WO)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.835\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJob Satisfaction (JS)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.814\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Sampling and Data Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eVietnam, as one of the rapidly growing economies in Southeast Asia, is home to a diverse range of businesses, both domestic and international. The study focused on Generation Z employees working in the sports business sector, as this industry represents an emerging field for employment and youth engagement. Data collection was carried out between January and April 2024.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA convenience sampling method was utilized for this research due to its efficiency in accessing a large number of respondents within a short timeframe (Valerio, Rodriguez et al. 2016). Convenience sampling is a non-probability sampling technique that relies on the availability and accessibility of participants. While it offers practical advantages, such as simplicity and cost-effectiveness, it may introduce limitations related to the generalizability of findings (Etikan, Musa et al. 2016). To address this limitation, efforts were made to ensure the sample reflected the diversity of the sports business workforce in Vietnam.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe survey was conducted across 24 administrative regions, ensuring a wide geographical coverage to capture varying perspectives. A quota of 20 respondents per region was targeted to enhance representation within the sample. The final dataset consisted of 480 valid responses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe demographic composition of the sample was as follows:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eApproximately 75.6% of respondents were born between 1995 and 2009, categorizing them as Generation Z employees.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eOver 90% of the respondents were engaged in full-time employment, reflecting the stable professional engagement of the sample group.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo facilitate data collection, a structured questionnaire was distributed electronically and in person. The questionnaire was designed with clear instructions to ensure comprehension and reduce response bias. A Likert scale was employed for the quantitative items to measure the variables, while demographic data were gathered using categorical questions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEfforts were made to address potential biases during the data collection process. For instance, the research team ensured that responses were evenly distributed across various districts and business types within the sports industry to avoid over-representation of specific sectors or locations. Additionally, a pilot test was conducted prior to the main survey to validate the clarity and reliability of the questionnaire items.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the sampling and data collection strategy provided a robust dataset to examine factors influencing job satisfaction among Generation Z employees in Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s sports business sector. The use of a diverse sample and rigorous methodology ensures that the findings are relevant and actionable for stakeholders within this industry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Data Analysis Techniques\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study utilized Smart PLS, a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) tool, to analyze the measurement and structural models. SEM was chosen for its ability to assess multiple variable relationships and evaluate model fit simultaneously, offering a detailed understanding of the hypotheses tested (Hair Jr, Hult et al. 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo confirm the validity and reliability of the constructs, the measurement model was examined through three key criteria. First, internal consistency was verified using Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s Alpha and Composite Reliability (CR), with all constructs exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.7 (Nunnally and Bernstein \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). Second, convergent validity was assessed using Average Variance Extracted (AVE), with values surpassing 0.5, indicating that observed indicators effectively captured their respective latent constructs (Fornell and Larcker \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1981\u003c/span\u003e). Third, discriminant validity was evaluated via the Fornell-Larcker Criterion and the Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT). The square root of AVE for each construct was higher than its correlations with other constructs, and HTMT values remained below 0.85, confirming distinctiveness between constructs (Henseler, Ringle et al. 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe structural model analysis focused on testing relationships between independent variables and job satisfaction as the dependent variable. Path coefficients (β values) were estimated, and their significance was determined using bootstrapping with 5000 resamples. Relationships with p-values\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 were considered statistically significant (Hair Jr, Matthews et al. 2017). The model's explanatory power was assessed through R\u0026sup2; values, reflecting the proportion of variance in job satisfaction explained by the predictors. A good model fit was further supported by the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), with values below 0.08 (Marsh, Hau et al. 2004).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, mediation analysis evaluated how independent variables indirectly influenced job satisfaction via mediators, classifying effects into full, partial, or no mediation (Baron and Kenny \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). Full mediation occurred when indirect effects were significant, but the direct effect was not. Partial mediation was identified when both direct and mediated effects were significant, categorized as complementary or competitive depending on their direction. No mediation was confirmed when neither the direct nor indirect effects were significant (Nitzl, Roldan et al. 2016) (See Fig.\u0026nbsp;2).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results and findings","content":"\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.1. Demographic Statistics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 4 presents the demographic profile of the survey respondents, highlighting the diverse characteristics of Gen Z employees participating in the study. Among the respondents, gender distribution is fairly balanced, with \u003cstrong\u003e44.3% male, 45.5% female\u003c/strong\u003e, and \u003cstrong\u003e10.2% identifying as other. As expected, Gen Z (ages 13\u0026ndash;27 years) dominates the survey population.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe educational background of the respondents shows that the majority (over 90%) hold a bachelor\u0026rsquo;s or master\u0026rsquo;s degree, with 8.6% having completed high school education. In terms of job tenure, 75.2% of the respondents have been employed in their current positions for more than three years, suggesting a relatively experienced workforce. Regarding job roles, most participants occupy staff-level positions (53.7%), reflecting the entry-level and early career nature of Gen Z employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 4. Profile of Respondents\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariables\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCategory\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 183px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrequency (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGender\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 183px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 183px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 183px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEducational Level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh School\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 183px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBachelor/Master\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 183px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e91.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJob Tenure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLess than 3 years\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 183px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3 years or more\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 183px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJob Position\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStaff\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 183px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 208px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 183px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e46.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.2. Construct reliability and validity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruct Reliability and Validity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe reliability and validity analysis as shown in Table 5 confirm that all constructs in the model meet established thresholds, ensuring robustness for further analysis. All constructs exhibit high internal consistency with Cronbach\u0026apos;s Alpha and Composite Reliability (rho_a and rho_c) values exceeding 0.8. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values are greater than 0.5, demonstrating strong convergent validity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 5: Construct Reliability and Validity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruct\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCronbach\u0026apos;s Alpha\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComposite Reliability (rho_a)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComposite Reliability (rho_c)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAVE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.864\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.867\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.908\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.711\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.814\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.814\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.890\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.729\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.851\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.854\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.900\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.692\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.852\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.853\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.900\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.693\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.834\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.836\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.900\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.750\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.835\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.842\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.901\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.752\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDiscriminant Validity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDiscriminant validity is confirmed through both the HTMT and Fornell-Larcker criteria as indicated in Table 6 and Table 7. The HTMT values for all construct pairs are below the conservative threshold of 0.85, indicating distinctiveness among constructs, while the Fornell-Larcker analysis shows that the square root of AVE for each construct exceeds its correlations with other constructs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 6: Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruct\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCO\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWO\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.532\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.512\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.246\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.317\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.326\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.532\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.788\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.487\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.716\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.625\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.512\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.788\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.302\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.348\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.518\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.246\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.487\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.302\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.453\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.182\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.317\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.716\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.348\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.453\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.249\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.326\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.625\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.518\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.182\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.249\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026mdash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 7: Fornell-Larcker Matrix\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruct\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCO\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSA\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWO\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.843\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.446\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.439\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.212\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.270\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.279\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.446\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.854\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.656\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.406\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.591\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.518\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.439\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.656\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.832\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.258\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.296\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.438\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.212\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.406\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.258\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.832\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.384\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.270\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.591\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.296\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.384\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.866\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.210\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.279\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.518\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.438\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.155\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.210\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.867\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCollinearity Statistics (VIF) and Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCollinearity analysis reveals no multicollinearity issues, as all VIF values are below the threshold of 3.0 (Table 8). In addition, Model fit indices as presented in Table 9 suggest that the saturated model demonstrates excellent fit (e.g., SRMR = 0.045), while the estimated model shows moderate fit, with SRMR slightly above the ideal threshold and NFI slightly below the recommended cutoff of 0.9. Overall, the measurement model is robust, reliable, and valid, providing a strong foundation for structural model evaluation and hypothesis testing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 8: VIF Summary\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndicator\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVIF Range\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInterpretation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO1 - CO4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.996 - 2.163\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo multicollinearity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJS1 - JS3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.748 - 1.859\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLE1 - LE4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.791 - 2.068\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOP1 - OP4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.822 - 2.089\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSA1 - SA3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.898 - 2.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWO1 - WO3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.768 - 2.120\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 9: Model Fit Indices\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMetric\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSaturated Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEstimated Model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThreshold/Ideal Value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInterpretation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSRMR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.045\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.119\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSRMR \u0026le; 0.08 (Good Fit)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSaturated model: Excellent fit.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ed_ULS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.465\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.281\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLower values are better\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEstimated model shows discrepancies.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ed_G\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.247\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.305\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLower values are better\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eReasonable fit for both models.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChi-square\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e726.569\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e813.582\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLower is better\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSlightly higher for estimated model.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.861\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.845\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNFI \u0026ge; 0.9 (Good Fit)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAcceptable fit but below ideal value.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.3. Hypotheses Testing\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDirect effects\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study examines the factors influencing job satisfaction among Generation Z (Gen Z) employees in sport businesses in Vietnam. As shown in Table 10 and Figure 3, hypotheses (H1\u0026ndash;H11) were tested, with all paths showing statistical significance (p-values \u0026le; 0.05).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe strongest relationships in the analysis reveal that leadership (H11: LE -\u0026gt; JS, Effect Value = 0.376, T-statistics = 13.408) and salary and benefits (H10: SA -\u0026gt; JS, Effect Value = 0.361, T-statistics = 11.782) are the primary drivers of Gen Z job satisfaction. Leadership emerged as the most significant factor, highlighting the importance of transformational leadership styles that offer mentorship, constructive feedback, and role modeling. This aligns with Gen Z\u0026apos;s preference for transparent communication and motivational leadership. Similarly, salary and benefits were found to play a pivotal role, as fair compensation and non-monetary benefits are critical to Gen Z\u0026apos;s perception of recognition and value within an organization. Businesses must adopt transparent, competitive salary structures and performance-based rewards to retain this workforce.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe weakest relationship was observed in opportunities for promotion and their influence on perceptions of work opportunities (H1: OP -\u0026gt; WO, Effect Value = 0.100, T-statistics = 2.157). This suggests that promotion opportunities in Vietnamese sport businesses are not strongly perceived as translating into improved work opportunities, potentially reflecting limited upward mobility in these organizations. Employers must work on enhancing career development pathways and clearly communicating promotion opportunities to strengthen this linkage.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModerate relationships were found in colleague relationships and nature of work. Positive colleague relationships (H2: CO -\u0026gt; WO, Effect Value = 0.258; H7: CO -\u0026gt; SA, Effect Value = 0.198) enhance perceptions of work opportunities and salary fairness. Gen Z values teamwork and collaborative environments, where their contributions are recognized. Businesses should therefore promote team-building activities and foster collaboration. The nature of work (H6: WO -\u0026gt; JS, Effect Value = 0.233, T-statistics = 8.774) also showed a strong influence on job satisfaction. Gen Z seeks meaningful, flexible work that aligns with their skills and values. Managers should design roles offering autonomy, creative freedom, and alignment with employees\u0026apos; personal goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings underscore the significance of leadership and compensation as the primary drivers of job satisfaction, supported by meaningful work, career development, and a collaborative team environment. For sport businesses in Vietnam, focusing on these areas will enhance satisfaction and retention among Gen Z employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 10: Hypotheses Testing Results - Path Coefficients\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePath\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOriginal Sample (O)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSample Mean (M)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStandard Deviation (STDEV)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eT-statistics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eP-values\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOP -\u0026gt; WO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.101\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.046\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.157\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOP -\u0026gt; CO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.212\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.215\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.044\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.800\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOP -\u0026gt; SA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.342\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.342\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.042\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.168\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOP -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.115\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.115\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.650\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO -\u0026gt; WO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.258\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.260\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.041\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.238\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWO -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.233\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.232\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.027\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.774\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO -\u0026gt; SA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.198\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.199\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.047\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.209\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.095\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.095\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.030\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.109\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.002\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSA -\u0026gt; LE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.296\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.297\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.042\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.980\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSA -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.361\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.360\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.782\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLE -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.376\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.377\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.028\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.408\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMediation effects\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mediation analysis results (H12 to H16) as shown in Table 11 provide critical insights into how various factors impact \u003cstrong\u003ejob satisfaction\u003c/strong\u003e for Gen Z employees in sport businesses in Vietnam. Each hypothesis exhibits \u003cstrong\u003epartial mediation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e specifically \u003cstrong\u003ecomplementary mediation\u003c/strong\u003e, where both the direct effects and indirect paths are significant, and the effects move in the same direction. Below is a detailed discussion of the mediation outcomes within the context of this study:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH12: OP -\u0026gt; WO -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOpportunities for Promotion (OP) have both direct and indirect effects on Job Satisfaction (JS) via Work Opportunities (WO). Partial mediation indicates that while OP directly influences WO, it also contributes to higher job satisfaction through the improved work opportunities provided. This aligns with Gen Z\u0026apos;s \u003cstrong\u003estrong desire for professional growth\u003c/strong\u003e and the ability to exploit their skills. Vietnamese sport businesses should implement robust \u003cstrong\u003etraining programs and career progression pathways to retain Gen Z employees.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH13: CO -\u0026gt; WO -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eColleague relations (CO) directly affect WO and indirectly contribute to JS through WO. For Gen Z, positive \u003cstrong\u003eteam dynamics\u003c/strong\u003e and a collaborative environment enhance their perception of work opportunities, which in turn improves job satisfaction. The findings suggest that sport businesses should focus on building \u003cstrong\u003eteam-oriented cultures\u003c/strong\u003e with supportive co-workers to optimize both WO and JS.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH14: CO -\u0026gt; SA -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eColleague relations (CO) influence Job Satisfaction (JS) indirectly via Salary and Benefits (SA). For Gen Z, workplace relationships are intertwined with the perception of fairness in salary and benefits. If co-worker dynamics support performance, employees feel recognized and fairly compensated, driving job satisfaction. Businesses should create fair compensation systems while fostering \u003cstrong\u003ehealthy competition\u003c/strong\u003e among teams.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH15: OP -\u0026gt; SA -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOpportunities for Promotion (OP) affect Job Satisfaction (JS) both directly and indirectly through Salary and Benefits (SA). Gen Z values clear career advancement paired with competitive compensation for their efforts. The study highlights the importance of transparent \u003cstrong\u003epromotion policies\u003c/strong\u003e and equitable salary structures to retain and motivate Gen Z employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH16: SA -\u0026gt; LE -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSalary and Benefits (SA) positively influence Leadership (LE), which in turn enhances Job Satisfaction (JS). For Gen Z, competitive compensation fosters trust and confidence in leadership, ultimately boosting job satisfaction. Managers should focus on \u003cstrong\u003etransformational leadership\u003c/strong\u003e approaches that recognize achievements and provide meaningful feedback to motivate young employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 11: Mediation Effects Table (a, b, c)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHypothesis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePath\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect Type\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEffect Value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eT-statistics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eP-values\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInterpretation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH12\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOP -\u0026gt; WO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirect (a)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.157\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.031\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartial mediation exists as both direct (a, b) and indirect paths are significant. Complementary mediation applies (a \u0026times; b \u0026times; c \u0026gt; 0).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWO -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirect (b)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.233\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.774\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOP -\u0026gt; WO -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect (c)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.126\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.034\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH13\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO -\u0026gt; WO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirect (a)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.258\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.238\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartial mediation exists as all paths are significant. Complementary mediation applies (a \u0026times; b \u0026times; c \u0026gt; 0).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWO -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirect (b)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.233\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.774\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO -\u0026gt; WO -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect (c)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.060\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.145\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH14\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO -\u0026gt; SA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirect (a)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.198\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.209\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartial mediation exists as all paths are significant. Complementary mediation applies (a \u0026times; b \u0026times; c \u0026gt; 0).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSA -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirect (b)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.361\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.782\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCO -\u0026gt; SA -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect (c)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.071\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.848\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH15\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOP -\u0026gt; SA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirect (a)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.342\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.168\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartial mediation exists as all paths are significant. Complementary mediation applies (a \u0026times; b \u0026times; c \u0026gt; 0).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSA -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirect (b)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.361\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.782\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOP -\u0026gt; SA -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect (c)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.123\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.883\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eH16\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSA -\u0026gt; LE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirect (a)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.296\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.980\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartial mediation exists as all paths are significant. Complementary mediation applies (a \u0026times; b \u0026times; c \u0026gt; 0).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLE -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDirect (b)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.376\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.408\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 126px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSA -\u0026gt; LE -\u0026gt; JS\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndirect (c)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 60px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.111\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.552\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.000\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion and Implications","content":"\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.1. Discussion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study offers a comprehensive view of job satisfaction among Generation Z employees in Vietnam’s sports businesses, revealing a multilayered structure of direct and mediated influences. The findings confirm that leadership and salary and benefits are the strongest predictors of satisfaction, with transformational leadership emerging as the most influential factor. Gen Z employees are highly responsive to leadership styles that provide mentorship, constructive feedback, and personal support—hallmarks of transformational leadership. These results align with existing literature, which emphasizes that leaders who communicate transparently, inspire a shared vision, and act as role models are more effective in fostering satisfaction (Akdere \u0026amp; Egan, 2020; Almas, Chacón-Fuertes et al., 2020; Alwali \u0026amp; Alwali, 2022; Bakker, Hetland et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe strong effect of salary and benefits reinforces the need for transparent and equitable compensation systems. For Gen Z, competitive pay and performance-based rewards serve not only as economic incentives but also as signals of fairness, recognition, and alignment with organizational values (Butt, Wen et al., 2020). This underscores the importance of developing clear, fair, and communicative performance evaluation frameworks that reflect both individual contributions and team-based achievements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModerate effects were observed for colleague relationships and the nature of work, both of which also play important indirect roles. Team dynamics and supportive peer relationships enhance perceptions of fairness in compensation and job design. These social connections are particularly valued by Gen Z, who prefer collaborative, inclusive work cultures (Bourgault \u0026amp; Goforth, 2021; Liao, Wu et al., 2023; Liqiang, Zang et al., 2024; Paredes-Saavedra, Vallejos et al., 2024). Organizations should therefore encourage team-building initiatives and provide channels for peer recognition and shared success.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, the nature of work emerged as a meaningful factor contributing to job satisfaction. Gen Z seeks autonomy, task variety, and purposeful roles aligned with personal aspirations. This suggests that managers should design roles offering flexibility, creativity, and alignment with personal development goals to better engage this cohort.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, one particularly noteworthy finding is the weaker-than-expected relationship between Opportunities for Promotion (OP) and Nature of Work (WO) (H1). While career development is traditionally associated with enhanced perceptions of job autonomy and significance (Hackman \u0026amp; Oldham, 1971; Aquino \u0026amp; Galvez, 2024), this link was relatively weak in our Vietnamese Gen Z sample.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA likely explanation lies in the cultural context of collectivist and hierarchical societies, where structural barriers such as rigid seniority systems and limited transparency in advancement processes may dampen the motivational effects of promotion. In such environments, Gen Z employees may not view promotions as directly impacting their day-to-day work experience or autonomy. Even when training is offered, it may not translate into meaningful role enrichment unless actively facilitated by leadership.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis result points to a disconnect between development opportunities and the realization of enriched work roles, which may hinder Gen Z engagement. To address this, Vietnamese sports organizations must not only invest in training but also clearly communicate the career implications of such initiatives and restructure work content to reflect progression. Transformational leaders are especially vital in bridging this gap by offering vision, autonomy, and growth-oriented feedback that make role enhancement tangible.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mediation analysis further supports a relationally interconnected view of job satisfaction. Leadership was shown to mediate the relationship between salary and satisfaction, indicating that the perceived value of compensation is not solely economic, but also interpreted through the relational and cultural lens provided by leadership.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the Vietnamese context, where respect for authority and hierarchical leadership structures remain prevalent, leaders play a key role in shaping how rewards are perceived. When transformational leaders provide transparent feedback, articulate the rationale behind compensation decisions, and align financial rewards with individual and team contributions, they reinforce a sense of procedural fairness. This strengthens employees’ belief that salary reflects both effort and equity—key dimensions of satisfaction under Equity Theory.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, leadership amplifies the symbolic dimension of compensation. Gen Z employees are particularly attuned to fairness and recognition, and they rely on leadership to validate that rewards are not just deserved but also socially acknowledged. In this sense, leadership acts as a relational filter—transforming salary from a static hygiene factor into a meaningful signal of value, inclusion, and growth potential.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThus, the mediation of salary effects through leadership reflects both cultural norms of deference to authority and modern expectations of transparent, fair, and supportive management. This finding underscores the importance of training leaders in relational communication, equity signaling, and development-oriented feedback—especially in emerging markets navigating generational shifts in workforce values.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, the findings support a shift away from linear models of satisfaction and toward systems-level approaches that consider the interplay of leadership, compensation, job design, and workplace relationships. This relational model aligns with Gen Z’s preferences for fairness, feedback, and meaning—offering organizations a roadmap for building engaging, resilient work environments in a rapidly evolving sports sector.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.2. Theoretical Implications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study provides a significant theoretical advancement by reframing classical job satisfaction models through the dual lenses of generation and culture. The introduction of the Transformational-Equity Work Experience Model offers a relational, dynamic, and context-sensitive view of job satisfaction, particularly suited to understanding Gen Z employees operating in collectivist, team-based work environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, the findings reaffirm Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory (Herzberg, Mausner et al., 2011) by demonstrating that leadership acts as a relational motivator, fulfilling intrinsic needs such as mentorship, purpose, and recognition, while compensation continues to serve as a core hygiene factor. However, unlike Herzberg’s original formulation—which treats salary as a passive, extrinsic condition—this study positions compensation as a socially interpreted signal of fairness and inclusion, amplified by leadership quality and peer validation (Alshmemri, Shahwan-Akl et al., 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, the study extends Social Exchange Theory (Cropanzano \u0026amp; Mitchell, 2005) by showing that peer and leader relationships not only build trust but also redefine how structural inputs like pay and work design are experienced. Satisfaction is not merely a response to rewards or tasks, but to the relational context in which these are embedded. Gen Z employees are especially sensitive to these social cues, seeking environments that offer authentic engagement and collaborative reciprocity (Khairy, Liu et al., 2023; Cai, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, the results deepen Equity Theory (Greenberg, 2017; Quader, 2024), highlighting that fairness perceptions are not purely transactional but socially constructed through comparisons with peers and judgments of leadership integrity. In collectivist cultures, perceptions of fairness are shaped not only by individual effort but also by shared norms, peer dynamics, and leadership communication—factors that traditional equity models have underemphasized.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFourth, this study advances the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman \u0026amp; Lawler, 1971) by demonstrating that autonomy, task significance, and skill alignment continue to influence satisfaction—but these attributes are socially mediated. For Gen Z, job meaning is enhanced when roles are perceived as not just well-designed but also collaborative, purposeful, and valued by peers and leaders (Judge, Klinger et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the study contributes to generational workforce theory by articulating how Gen Z’s unique expectations—purpose-driven work, transparent leadership, equity, and feedback—reconfigure traditional motivational hierarchies (Botezat, Fotea et al., 2024; Aquino \u0026amp; Galvez, 2024). These generational attributes require organizations to adopt adaptive, employee-centric HR strategies that recognize satisfaction as a dynamic and relationally shaped outcome.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe confirmation of multiple mediating pathways further validates the need for multidimensional models of job satisfaction. By showing that leadership, compensation, and work design are not isolated drivers—but part of a relational network of perceptions—this study supports a shift toward system-level frameworks that better reflect the complexity of modern organizational life.This study makes significant contributions to theory by extending classic job satisfaction models within a generational and cultural context. Our findings reinforce Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, showing that leadership (as an intrinsic motivator) and compensation (as a hygiene factor) remain central to Gen Z satisfaction (Herzberg, Mausner et al., 2011). Transformational leadership satisfies intrinsic needs for mentorship, recognition, and engagement, while fair compensation addresses external expectations for equity and reward.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results also support Social Exchange Theory, emphasizing how trust-based relationships—whether with leaders or peers—create a climate of fairness and belonging that fosters satisfaction (Cropanzano \u0026amp; Mitchell, 2005; Khairy, Liu et al., 2023). In particular, transformational leaders create positive reciprocity by recognizing individual contributions and fostering collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn alignment with Equity Theory, our findings validate that perceptions of fairness—especially in compensation—are central to Gen Z employees’ satisfaction (Greenberg, 2017; Quader, 2024). Fair pay not only motivates but also legitimizes professional growth and organizational loyalty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, we contribute to the Job Characteristics Model by showing that autonomy, task variety, and job meaningfulness significantly influence satisfaction. When employees perceive their roles as aligned with their skills and aspirations, their engagement deepens (Judge, Klinger et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, this study advances generational workforce theory by identifying Gen Z’s specific expectations: purpose-driven leadership, equitable rewards, feedback-rich cultures, and meaningful work. These preferences reshape the traditional satisfaction framework and demand adaptive HR practices. The confirmed mediation effects highlight the interconnectedness of satisfaction drivers, reinforcing the need for holistic, system-level models of employee motivation and retention.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.3. Practical Implications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLeadership Development:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeadership is the most critical driver of Gen Z satisfaction. Items like LE1 (comfort with the direct manager), LE2 (helpful feedback), and LE4 (fair evaluations) highlight the need for transformational leadership training. Managers should develop coaching skills, provide regular feedback, and engage with employees through digital communication tools familiar to Gen Z.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTransparent and Competitive Compensation Systems:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eItems such as SA1 (fair salary for effort) and SA3 (salary increase based on performance) reflect Gen Z’s demand for fairness and clarity in rewards. Adopting 3P systems (Pay for Position, Person, and Performance) ensures equity and transparency. HR systems should incorporate clear benchmarks, open communication, and real-time performance tracking.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eColleague Relationships:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePositive peer dynamics enhance both work satisfaction and compensation perceptions (CO1, CO3). Team-building initiatives, collaborative projects, and peer feedback mechanisms are vital. Organizations should foster cultures of mutual support and shared purpose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNature of Work Design:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eItems like WO1 (meaningful work) and WO2 (skill application) demonstrate Gen Z’s desire for purposeful roles. Managers should design tasks that offer autonomy, variety, and clear social impact. Job rotation, special projects, and employee-driven innovation programs can further enhance engagement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCareer Development:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe weak link between promotion and satisfaction suggests Gen Z perceives limited growth opportunities. Addressing this requires robust training aligned with visible promotion pathways. Items OP2 (technical skill development), OP3 (soft skill development), and OP4 (desire for higher roles) underscore the need for structured advancement frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIntegrated HR Strategy:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeadership mediates the salary-satisfaction link, while salary mediates the training-satisfaction link. These findings highlight the need for integrated HR systems that link \u003cstrong\u003ecompensation, performance, and development\u003c/strong\u003e. Colleague dynamics also amplify the impact of work design and fairness perceptions, requiring inclusive, team-based work environments. A holistic approach that aligns leadership, compensation, teamwork, and work design will most effectively drive satisfaction in Gen Z employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.4. Conclusion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study deepens our understanding of job satisfaction among Generation Z employees in Vietnam’s sports sector. It confirms that transformational leadership and equitable compensation are the strongest predictors of satisfaction, while also highlighting the indirect roles of work design, colleague relationships, and career development. These factors are intricately linked, suggesting that satisfaction is not driven by individual elements but by an ecosystem of interdependent experiences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe implications for practice are clear: organizations must invest in leadership development, adopt transparent compensation models, build collaborative cultures, and offer clear career pathways. Roles should be designed to be meaningful, flexible, and aligned with personal goals. By doing so, sports businesses—and potentially other industries—can meet the evolving expectations of Gen Z, improving retention, satisfaction, and performance in the process.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.5. Limitations and Future Research\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study offers important insights into Gen Z job satisfaction in Vietnam’s sports sector, yet several limitations must be acknowledged. First, the sample is limited to early-career employees aged 22–25, which may not reflect the full generational spectrum. Second, findings are industry-specific and may not generalize to other sectors or cultural contexts. Third, the focus on five variables excludes other potential influences such as work-life balance, job security, or organizational culture. Additionally, the use of self-reported survey data introduces possible response bias, and the absence of qualitative insights may limit the depth of interpretation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFrom a reflexive standpoint, the research team’s embeddedness in Vietnam’s academic and sports networks facilitated access to respondents but may have influenced how participants responded, particularly on items related to leadership or organizational critique. To mitigate this, anonymity was emphasized, and data collection was conducted via independent, online channels without institutional branding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture research should broaden demographic and industry coverage, incorporate additional constructs like employer branding and hybrid work dynamics, and apply longitudinal or mixed-method approaches. Comparative studies across sectors and countries could further validate and expand the model, supporting more tailored HR strategies for diverse Gen Z populations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the Ethics Committee of FPT University, Vietnam.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompliance with Ethical Standards\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll research procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the FPT University Ethics Committee and the 2013 Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. For participants under 18, consent was also obtained from a parent or legal guardian.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author declares that there is no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eV.K.P. (Van Kien Pham) conceived the research idea, led the study design, and wrote the main manuscript text. A.V.H. (Huynh Ai Van) contributed to theoretical framework development and manuscript editing. M.H.V. (Vo Minh Hieu) supported data analysis and results interpretation. N.T.N. (Nhut Tan Nguyen) managed data collection and prepared all tables and figures. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdemi, L. and J. Zeqiri (2024). \u0026quot;Predictive Marketing Regarding Brand Awareness of Gen Z: Brand Equity, Digital Media Content or Emotions Lead to Purchase?\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eENTRENOVA-ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e(1): 176-190.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkdere, M. and T. Egan (2020). \u0026quot;Transformational leadership and human resource development: Linking employee learning, job satisfaction, and organizational performance.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eHuman resource development quarterly\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e(4): 393-421.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAli, S. A. M., et al. (2014). \u0026quot;Hackman and Oldham\u0026apos;s job characteristics model to job satisfaction.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eProcedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e129\u003c/strong\u003e: 46-52.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlKhalifa, J., et al. (2024). Optimizing Organizational Performance: Employee Motivation and Performance Theories. \u003cu\u003eAchieving Sustainable Business through AI, Technology Education and Computer Science: Volume 1: Computer Science, Business Sustainability, and Competitive Advantage\u003c/u\u003e, Springer\u003cstrong\u003e: \u003c/strong\u003e609-618.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlmas, S., et al. (2020). \u0026quot;Direct and indirect effects of transformational leadership on volunteers\u0026rsquo; intention to remain at non-profit organizations.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003ePsychosocial Intervention\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e29\u003c/strong\u003e(3): 125-132.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlshmemri, M., et al. (2017). \u0026quot;Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s two-factor theory.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eLife Science Journal\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e(5): 12-16.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlwali, J. and W. Alwali (2022). \u0026quot;The relationship between emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, and performance: A test of the mediating role of job satisfaction.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eLeadership \u0026amp; Organization Development Journal\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e43\u003c/strong\u003e(6): 928-952.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAquino, N. and D. Galvez (2024). \u0026quot;Two-Factor Theory Model Testing: A Case of the Department of Foreign Affairs Employees.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003ePsychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e(6): 565-586.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBakker, A. B., et al. (2023). \u0026quot;Daily transformational leadership: A source of inspiration for follower performance?\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eEuropean Management Journal\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e41\u003c/strong\u003e(5): 700-708.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny (1986). \u0026quot;The moderator\u0026ndash;mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eJournal of personality and social psychology\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e51\u003c/strong\u003e(6): 1173.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBettencourt, L. A. and S. W. Brown (1997). \u0026quot;Contact employees: Relationships among workplace fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eJournal of retailing\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e73\u003c/strong\u003e(1): 39-61.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBourgault, A. M. and C. Goforth (2021). Embrace teamwork to create and maintain a positive workplace culture, AACN. \u003cstrong\u003e41: \u003c/strong\u003e8-10.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChelladurai, P. and A. C. H. Kim (2022). \u003cu\u003eHuman resource management in sport and recreation\u003c/u\u003e, Human Kinetics.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChoi, K. H. and B. Leopkey (2024). \u0026quot;THE EFFECTS OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ON INNOVATIONAL CLIMATES IN NATIONAL SPORT ORGANIZATIONS.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eInternational Journal of Sport Management\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e25\u003c/strong\u003e(2).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCook, K. S., et al. (2013). \u0026quot;Social exchange theory.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eHandbook of social psychology\u003c/u\u003e: 61-88.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCropanzano, R. and M. S. Mitchell (2005). \u0026quot;Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eJournal of management\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e31\u003c/strong\u003e(6): 874-900.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDixon, M. A. and S. Warner (2010). \u0026quot;Employee satisfaction in sport: Development of a multi-dimensional model in coaching.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eJournal of Sport Management\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e24\u003c/strong\u003e(2): 139-168.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErtekin, A. B. and Y. Avunduk (2021). \u0026quot;The Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Study on Sports Industry.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eJournal of Educational Issues\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e(2): 133-145.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEtikan, I., et al. (2016). \u0026quot;Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eAmerican journal of theoretical and applied statistics\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e(1): 1-4.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFornell, C. and D. F. Larcker (1981). \u0026quot;Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eJournal of marketing research\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e18\u003c/strong\u003e(1): 39-50.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrenkel, S. J. and T. Bednall (2016). \u0026quot;How training and promotion opportunities, career expectations, and two dimensions of organizational justice explain discretionary work effort.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eHuman Performance\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e29\u003c/strong\u003e(1): 16-32.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGachira, J. N. and C. Ntara (2024). \u0026quot;Effect of Transformational Leadership on Organisational Performance of Top 100 SMEs in Nairobi, Kenya.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eJournal of Human Resource \u0026amp; Leadership\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e(2): 82-99.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGerhart, B. and S. Rynes (2003). \u003cu\u003eCompensation: Theory, evidence, and strategic implications\u003c/u\u003e, Sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenberg, J. (2017). Equity theory. \u003cu\u003eThe SAGE Encyclopedia of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd edition\u003c/u\u003e, SAGE Publications, Inc\u003cstrong\u003e: \u003c/strong\u003e418-420.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuinot, J., et al. (2014). \u0026quot;Interpersonal trust, stress and satisfaction at work: An empirical study.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003ePersonnel Review\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e43\u003c/strong\u003e(1): 96-115.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHackman, J. R. and E. E. Lawler (1971). \u0026quot;Employee reactions to job characteristics.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eJournal of applied psychology\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e55\u003c/strong\u003e(3): 259.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair Jr, J. F., et al. (2021). \u0026quot;An introduction to structural equation modeling.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003ePartial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) using R: a workbook\u003c/u\u003e: 1-29.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair Jr, J. F., et al. (2017). \u0026quot;PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated guidelines on which method to use.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eInternational Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e(2): 107-123.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaryono, S., et al. (2020). \u0026quot;The effect of training and job promotion on work motivation and its implications on job performance: Evidence from Indonesia.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eManagement Science Letters\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e(9): 2107-2112.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHenseler, J., et al. (2015). \u0026quot;A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eJournal of the academy of marketing science\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e43\u003c/strong\u003e: 115-135.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerzberg, F., et al. (2011). \u003cu\u003eThe motivation to work\u003c/u\u003e, Transaction publishers.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHidayat, A. I. (2024). \u0026quot;The future of employment: How Generation Z is reshaping entrepreneurship through education?\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eEdu Spectrum: Journal of Multidimensional Education\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e(1): 28-37.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJudge, T. A., et al. (2023). \u0026quot;Promote job satisfaction through mental challenge.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003ePrinciples of Organizational Behavior: The Handbook of Evidence‐Based Management 3rd Edition\u003c/u\u003e: 161-178.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKennedy, I. (2022). \u0026quot;Sample size determination in test-retest and Cronbach alpha reliability estimates.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eBritish Journal of Contemporary Education\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e(1): 17-29.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhairy, H. A., et al. (2023). \u0026quot;The Effect of benevolent leadership on job engagement through psychological safety and workplace friendship prevalence in the tourism and hospitality industry.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eSustainability\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e15\u003c/strong\u003e(17): 13245.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKraimer, M. L., et al. (2011). \u0026quot;Antecedents and outcomes of organizational support for development: the critical role of career opportunities.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eJournal of applied psychology\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e96\u003c/strong\u003e(3): 485.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumari, K., et al. (2021). \u0026quot;Examining the role of motivation and reward in employees\u0026rsquo; job performance through mediating effect of job satisfaction: An empirical evidence.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eInternational Journal of Organizational Leadership\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e(4): 401-420.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLai, P.-H., et al. (2020). \u0026quot;The non-profit sharing economy from a social exchange theory perspective: A case from World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms in Taiwan.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eJournal of Sustainable Tourism\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e28\u003c/strong\u003e(12): 1970-1987.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLong, C. S., et al. (2014). \u0026quot;The impact of transformational leadership style on job satisfaction.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eWorld Applied Sciences Journal\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e29\u003c/strong\u003e(1): 117-124.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLopes Morrison, R. (2005). Informal relationships in the workplace: Associations with job satisfaction, organisational commitment and turnover intentions, Massey University.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLu, L., et al. (2016). \u0026quot;Work engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions: A comparison between supervisors and line-level employees.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eInternational Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e28\u003c/strong\u003e(4): 737-761.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMardanov, I. (2021). \u003cu\u003eIntrinsic and extrinsic motivation, organizational context, employee contentment, job satisfaction, performance and intention to stay\u003c/u\u003e. Evidence-based HRM: a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship, Emerald Publishing Limited.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarsh, H. W., et al. (2004). \u0026quot;In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler\u0026apos;s (1999) findings.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eStructural equation modeling\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e(3): 320-341.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiidom, D. F., et al. (2022). \u0026quot;The effect of perceived organizational support on workplace harmony in telecommunications companies in Nigeria.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eInternational Journal of Advanced Academic Research\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e(3): 27-52.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoon, T.-W., et al. (2020). \u0026quot;Does employees\u0026rsquo; spirituality enhance job performance? The mediating roles of intrinsic motivation and job crafting.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eCurrent Psychology\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e39\u003c/strong\u003e(5): 1618-1634.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNitzl, C., et al. (2016). \u0026quot;Mediation analysis in partial least squares path modeling: Helping researchers discuss more sophisticated models.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eIndustrial management \u0026amp; data systems\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e116\u003c/strong\u003e(9): 1849-1864.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNunnally, J. and I. Bernstein (1994). Psychometric Theory 3rd edition (MacGraw-Hill, New York).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePatel, H., et al. (2012). \u0026quot;Factors of collaborative working: A framework for a collaboration model.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eApplied ergonomics\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e43\u003c/strong\u003e(1): 1-26.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRasheed, M. I., et al. (2020). \u0026quot;Perceived compensation fairness, job design, and employee motivation: The mediating role of working environment.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eSouth Asian Journal of Management\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e(2): 229-246.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRaziq, A. and R. Maulabakhsh (2015). \u0026quot;Impact of working environment on job satisfaction.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eProcedia economics and finance\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e23\u003c/strong\u003e: 717-725.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRetnowati, E. and D. Darmawan (2023). \u0026quot;Optimizing Employee Morale in The Workplace Through The Integration of Career Development, Job Satisfaction, and Work Environment Factors.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eInternational Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e(1): 37-42.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRich, B. L., et al. (2010). \u0026quot;Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eAcademy of management journal\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e53\u003c/strong\u003e(3): 617-635.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSEONG, D.-H. (2021). \u0026quot;Sports leadership theories for improving retail service quality on customer value.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eJournal of Distribution Science\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e(5): 13-21.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaylor, G. (2015). \u0026quot;Hackman and Oldham\u0026apos;s job characteristics model.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eTeaching Business \u0026amp; Economics\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e(2): 7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eValerio, M. A., et al. (2016). \u0026quot;Comparing two sampling methods to engage hard-to-reach communities in research priority setting.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eBMC medical research methodology\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e16\u003c/strong\u003e: 1-11.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWood, S., et al. (2012). \u0026quot;Enriched job design, high involvement management and organizational performance: The mediating roles of job satisfaction and well-being.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eHuman relations\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e65\u003c/strong\u003e(4): 419-445.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhou, X., et al. (2021). \u0026quot;Exploring the relationship between despotic leadership and job satisfaction: the role of self efficacy and leader\u0026ndash;member exchange.\u0026quot; \u003cu\u003eInternational journal of environmental research and public health\u003c/u\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e18\u003c/strong\u003e(10): 5307.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Job Satisfaction, Generation Z, Work Design, Leadership, Equity, Vietnam, Sports Management","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6703127/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6703127/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe rise of Generation Z in the global workforce, coupled with a post-pandemic shift toward purpose-driven employment, demands a reevaluation of classical job satisfaction theories. This study introduces the Transformational-Equity Work Experience Model, an integrated framework that reconceptualizes job satisfaction among Gen Z employees in collectivist, team-based industries. By extending Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s and Hackman\u0026rsquo;s models, this research argues that social equity and transformational leadership act as amplifiers of intrinsic motivators, rather than external moderators. Drawing on Herzberg\u0026rsquo;s Two-Factor Theory, the Job Characteristics Model, Equity Theory, Social Exchange Theory, and Transformational Leadership Theory, we explore how Opportunities for Promotion (OP), Colleague Relations (CO), Nature of Work (WO), Salary and Benefits (SA), and Leadership (LE) influence Job Satisfaction (JS). Using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) on data from 480 respondents in Vietnam\u0026rsquo;s sports sector, the study reveals that SA and LE are dominant predictors of satisfaction. The findings offer theoretical contributions by advancing a culturally contextualized, generation-specific framework that integrates intrinsic, extrinsic, and relational dynamics. Practically, the study offers actionable strategies for engaging Gen Z in emerging markets such as Vietnam through equity-focused leadership, meaningful work design, and developmental support initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Mechanisms of Job Satisfaction Among Gen Z in Vietnam's Sports Industry Using an Integrated Framework","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-07-08 09:17:28","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6703127/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"096be61d-5741-4e83-9e82-b8d490fe9bcd","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 8th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-09-10T06:53:57+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-07-08 09:17:28","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6703127","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6703127","identity":"rs-6703127","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}