Navigating Talent Management Exploring Attraction and Retention Among Recent Graduates in Swedish Management Consulting Firms Master Thesis, Innovation and Industrial Management Spring 2025 Hanna Nilsson Ida Svensson Supervisor: Daniel Ljungberg Graduate School, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Sweden Abstract This study explores how leadership styles and motivational factors influence talent attraction and retention among recent graduates in Swedish management consulting firms. In the context of dynamic labor markets with constant transformation and changing preferences among generations, the study investigates the roles of Transformational and Transactional Leadership, combined with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, with Self-Determination Theory and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory as theoretical framework. This is done with a qualitative method, using semi-structured interviews with recent graduates employed in consulting firms of various sizes. The study revealed that meaningful work, flexible conditions, and supportive leadership are central components to retaining talent. The findings also show that transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation foster an environment of long-term engagement, while transactional approaches may lead to short-term performance, not suitable for effective talent attraction and retention. The study contributes to a deeper understanding of generational expectations and offers practical insights for firms aiming to adapt their talent management strategies to changing demands. Key Words: Labor Market Transformation, Generational Changes, Management Consulting Industry, Talent Management, Leadership Styles, Employee Motivation, Career Expectations Acknowledgments We would like to sincerely thank our supervisor, Daniel Ljungberg, for his guidance, thoughtful feedback, and support throughout the thesis process. Your input challenged us to think critically and helped shape the direction of our work. We are also grateful to all the participants who generously shared their time and insights during the interviews. Your contributions were central to our study and deeply appreciated. Finally, thank you to those around us who encouraged and supported us during this journey, both academically and personally. Thank you! Table of Content 1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background..................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Problem Discussion..................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Purpose and Research Question.................................................................................................. 6 1.4 Delimitations............................................................................................................................... 6 2. Theoretical Framework..................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Leadership Styles.........................................................................................................................7 2.1.1 Transformational Leadership............................................................................................. 8 2.1.2 Transactional Leadership................................................................................................... 9 2.1.3 Critical Evaluation of Transformational and Transactional Leadership.......................... 11 2.2 Motivation................................................................................................................................. 12 2.2.1 Self-Determination Theory (SDT)................................................................................... 12 2.2.2 Critical Evaluation of the Self-Determination Theory.....................................................14 2.2.3 Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory........................................................................................ 15 2.2.4 Critical Evaluation of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory and..............................................19 2.3 Theoretical Integration and Application....................................................................................20 2.3.1 Transformational and Transactional Leadership in Connection to Self-Determination Theory....................................................................................................................................... 20 2.3.2 Transformational and Transactional Leadership in Connection to Herzberg’ Two-Factor Theory....................................................................................................................................... 20 2.3.3 Self-Determination Theory in Connection to Herzberg’ Two-Factor Theory................. 22 2.3.4 Theory Application.......................................................................................................... 22 3. Methodology..................................................................................................................................... 25 3.1 Research Strategy...................................................................................................................... 25 3.2 Research Design........................................................................................................................ 27 3.3 Research Methods......................................................................................................................28 3.3.1 Data collection: Semi-Structured Interviews................................................................... 28 3.3.2 Selection Process..............................................................................................................29 3.3.3 Participants.......................................................................................................................31 3.3.4 Interview Process............................................................................................................. 32 3.4 Thematic Analysis..................................................................................................................... 33 3.5 Considerations........................................................................................................................... 35 3.5.1 Ethics & Responsibility................................................................................................... 35 3.5.2 Research Quality.............................................................................................................. 36 3.6 Limitations.................................................................................................................................37 4. Empirical Findings...........................................................................................................................38 4.1 Leadership Styles.......................................................................................................................38 4.2 Motivation & Job Satisfaction...................................................................................................41 4.3 Work Environment & Organizational Culture...........................................................................43 4.4 Work-Life Balance & Flexibility...............................................................................................45 4.5 Attraction Factors...................................................................................................................... 46 4.6 Retention Factors.......................................................................................................................48 4.7 Generational Differences in Talent Expectations...................................................................... 50 4.8 Top Three Important Aspects.................................................................................................... 51 5. Analysis............................................................................................................................................. 53 5.1 The Inspirational Leader in Practice - A Reflection of Transformational Leadership.............. 55 5.2 Intrinsic Motivation as the Key Driver of Talent Retention......................................................57 5.3 The Strict Leader in Practice - A Reflection of Transactional Leadership................................59 5.4 Extrinsic Motivation: A Useful Tool, But Not the Whole Answer........................................... 62 5.5 Attraction and Retention Dynamics: The Role of Leadership and Employee Motivation........64 5.5.1 Company Size as a Determinant of Motivational Climate.............................................. 66 5.5.2 From Security to Purpose: A Generational Shift in Workplace Motivation.................... 67 6. Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................69 6.1 Managerial Implications and Recommendations...................................................................... 72 6.2 Further Research........................................................................................................................73 References............................................................................................................................................. 74 Appendix............................................................................................................................................... 78 1. Introduction Rapid transformations are constantly changing today’s global labor market, transformations which employers need to adapt to in order to stay accurate in the competitive landscape. These transformations can take various shapes, and stem from various places, such as changes in economic conditions, technological advancements, as well as evolving societal expectations. The Covid-19 pandemic is one concrete example of a force accelerating such shifts, which shed light to structural vulnerabilities within organization as well as employee priorities. The pandemic led the way to new realities for organizations, and employees suddenly had new demands, such as the demand for remote work, greater flexibility, as well as an emphasis on work-life balance. This new organizational landscape has questioned traditional employment models, and also redefined how employees perceive job satisfaction, career progression as well as organizational loyalty (Battisti, et al., 2022). The consequences of these transformations are widespread, and affect various industries, one being the management consulting industry. What makes this industry even more interesting is its fast pace of growth, where figures from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics show that management consultant jobs will see an increase of 11% in a span of 10 years, which started in 2021. These figures shed light on the importance of understanding the wants and needs of new employees, especially with transformations such as the Covid-19 pandemic (Coquin, 2023). 1.1 Background For many years, there has been a great amount of research on the topic of talent management, Employer-to-Employer (EE) flows (Bjelland, et al., 2011), the Great Resignation (Tessema et al., 2022) and the Great Attrition (Clark, 1995) being some of them. All highlighting different interesting aspects and challenges, which ultimately shape the labor market. To start off, as organizations navigate the shifts mentioned above and adapt to evolving employee expectations, one key aspect of labor market dynamics becomes particularly relevant, the movement of employees between jobs. In this context, a frequently observed phenomenon is employer-to-employer (EE) flows, which refers to the transition of workers from one employer to another without experiencing unemployment. This flow shows that the workers do not experience unemployment in the transition, they just change employers. This can be due to various reasons, such as seeking better opportunities, higher wages or better working 1 conditions. In order to understand labor market efficiency, these EE flows are crucial, due to the fact that they suggest that workers continuously evaluate their employment options, making it important for organizations to provide beneficial working conditions. At the same time, EE flows highlight the importance of not just retention, but also attraction. In a competitive job market, especially in fast-growing industries like management consulting, organizations that manage to meet or exceed employee expectations have a greater opportunity to attract talent from other companies (Bjelland, et al., 2011). Due to the often recurring EE-flows, transformation of global labor markets, and the statistics of an increase of 11% on new jobs in the management consulting market, organizations need to make an effort to keep their talent (Coquin, 2023). To further build on the EE-flows, Tessema et al. (2022) analyze the global labor market and focus on the phenomenon of the Great Resignation. This phenomenon was first noticed in the United States during the Covid-19 pandemic, when the rate of resignations increased significantly starting in 2021. It has since created extensive discussions about the future of the labor market and how it may influence the employer preferences of future generations. As markets have become increasingly dynamic, organizations have been forced to deepen their understanding of the factors that drive individual motivation in the workplace, and over time, these challenges have expanded and evolved into global trends (Tessema et al., 2022). The growing number of resignations is driven by changing priorities, with people seeking more flexibility, purpose, and a healthier work-life balance. These changing expectations are often caused by dissatisfaction with traditional work structures, including low motivation, limited job satisfaction, insufficient salary and unrealistic demands. At the same time, factors such as stress, digitalization, and the rise of remote work are contributing to a more dynamic and mobile labor market. These changing priorities are also directly linked to leadership, as they set the tone to the work environment and affect the wellbeing of employees (Tessema et al., 2022). Figures from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that 71.6 million Americans left their jobs between April 2021 and April 2022 (Penn & Nezamis, 2022). A survey by the Pew Research Center found that in 2021, many workers walked away from their jobs for three main reasons, that pay was too low (63%), lack of advancement opportunities (63%) and feeling disrespected at work (57%). Another interesting aspect of resignation was that young adults are more likely than older adults to voluntarily leave their jobs. According to the statistics, 37% of people under 30 reported that they had voluntarily resigned in 2021, 2 compared with 17% in the 30-49 age group, 9% between 50-64 years olds and only 5% that were over 65 years old. This suggests that younger employees are more likely to search for new opportunities (Parker & Horowitz, 2022). One industry where the Great Resignation can be applied is the management consulting industry. Ghose and Mukherjee (2023) describe consulting firms' challenges in both retaining and attracting talent to the businesses. Retaining talent not only ensures continuity and stability but also preserves valuable expertise, enhances client relationships, and strengthens the firm's competitive edge in the industry. The challenges regarding this consist of offering attractive career opportunities, flexible working conditions and creating a work environment that balances work performance with private life. Furthermore, the Great Resignation has shifted the job market where recent graduates have greater influence and higher expectations. As a result, forcing management consulting firms to reevaluate their strategies to remain attractive (Ghose and Mukherjee, 2023). While the Great Resignation points out individuals’ active decisions to leave their jobs (Tessema et al., 2022), a complementary concept that introduces the organizational perspective is the Great Attrition (Clark, 1995). The Great Attrition is a well-known phenomenon that refers to the widespread and ongoing loss of talent from organizations. This places significant pressure on employers to rethink how they attract, engage and retain employees. Unlike voluntary resignations seen from the individual’s point of view, the concept of attrition emphasizes systematic issues within organizations, such as lack of career development, poor leadership or insufficient workplace flexibility, which drive employees away. As a result, the Great Attrition serves as a critical lens for understanding the long-term implications of workforce dissatisfaction on organizational stability and performance (Clark, 1995). Hiltorp (1999) was one of the first researchers to link the labor market's increased competition for skills to the need for strategic personnel management, hence offering organizational solutions to the Great Attrition. The author discusses talent management and explores specific methods of attracting skilled labor. Recruitment should be seen as a strategic function rather than an operational process. Successful organizations use clear communication to convey their values, career opportunities and benefits. In addition, the importance of continuous skills development is emphasized as a necessity in rapidly changing 3 markets. Companies can offer training, mentoring and internal mobility to both fulfill employee aspirations and strengthen their brand to attract new talent. Challenges with Hiltorp’s strategies include the significant costs and resources needed to implement comprehensive training programs and offer flexibility, as well as potential internal resistance from established workplace cultures and practices when new strategies are introduced. Finally, it is difficult to measure softer values s uch as meaningfulness and work-life balance, making it challenging to integrate these into practice (Hiltorp, 1999). One industry where employee turnover is particularly relevant is as mentioned the management consulting industry. Ghose and Mukherjee (2023) describe the industry’s challenges in both attracting and retaining talent, two closely connected components that are essential for long-term organizational success. Kraus et al. (2024) describe how retention ensures stability, preserves expertise and strengthens client relationships, while attraction brings in new skills and perspectives needed for continued growth. Recent research emphasizes that attraction and retention cannot be treated as separate processes, but rather as integrated pillars of effective talent management. Organizations that manage to align these strategies are better equipped to respond to shifting employee expectations, build commitment, and maintain a competitive edge in dynamic labor markets (Kraus et al., 2024). In response to these developments, recent research highlight the growing importance of leadership and motivational conditions in shaping how organizations attract and retain talent, particularly in dynamic and demanding industries, such as management consulting (Ghose & Mukherjee, 2023; Kraus et al., 2024; Tessema et al., 2022). 1.2 Problem Discussion As discussed in the background, previous research has explored several key themes related to talent management, labor market dynamics, and overall population. This research, such as the EE-flows (Bjelland et al., 2011) and mass resignations in the context of the Great Resignation (Tesseman et al., 2022) and the Great Attrition (Clark, 1995) is primarily based on global trends, often with limited consideration for generational differences. As highlighted by the survey from the Pew Research Center, 37% of people under 30 reported that they had voluntarily resigned in 2021, and 17% in the 30-49 age group which further decreases as we move to the older ages (Parker & Horowitz, 2022). This suggests that younger generations more frequently leave their jobs voluntarily, something that also Kostanek and Khoreva 4 (2018) highlight. Baby Boomers (people born 1946-1964) and Generation X (people born 1965-1980), are people who traditionally have experienced higher degree of job stability, formed by hierarchical career development and financial incentives. This can be attributed to a less dynamic labor market, where long-term employment, clear career ladders, and financial security were prioritized over flexibility and frequent job changes. Furthermore, the authors point out that we still have a lot to learn about the new generations and what truly drives them at work. As the workforce changes, younger generations, such as Millennials (people born 1981-1996) and Generation Z (people born 1997-2012), influence the dynamics of the labor market by placing increasingly high demands on employers. These younger workers are looking for jobs that feel meaningful, offer flexibility, encourage continuous growth and support a healthy work-life balance. Generational preferences have changed in line with the rise of digitization and an ever-increasing element of remote work, which has led to research increasingly focusing on which factors are decisive for employee adaptability and inclusion linked to talent supply (Kostanek & Khoreva, 2018). One industry where these generational shifts are seen is in management consulting, a global sector that offers professional advisory services to organizations in various industries. Management consulting firms help both private organizations and public institutions solve complex problems, improve performance and implement strategic initiatives. The industry is characterized by its fast-moving and dynamic nature, which requires consultants to constantly adapt to market changes, client needs and new business challenges (Kubr, 2002). Furthermore, this industry plays a critical role in guiding companies through changing market conditions, with the goal of achieving long-term growth and stability (Tessema et al., 2022). This highly demanding and dynamic work environment places increased pressure on consulting firms to attract and retain competent talent, especially among young professionals. Given the generational shifts outlined above, understanding how recent graduates perceive leadership and motivation in such a fast-paced context become increasingly important. Despite the growing number of research on talent management and labor market dynamics, many studies to date have focused on broad, global trends, often with a strong emphasis on the United States. They have not sufficiently examined how generational preferences interact with organizational practices in specific industries or national contexts. There is also a lack of research on how motivational factors and leadership styles influence younger professionals’ decisions to join and stay within firms, especially in dynamic industries such as management 5 consulting. The Swedish labor market presents a unique context for this, given its strong focus on equality, work-life balance and social sustainability (Numhauser-Henning, 2015), all of which may interact differently with generational expectations compared to other countries. At the same time, recent graduates, primarily from late-stage Millennials and Generation Z, represent a critical demographic for organizations searching to ensure future competitiveness. These individuals are entering the workforce with new expectations around leadership, motivation, flexibility, purpose, and understanding their perspectives is key for firms navigating ongoing labor market transformations. By focusing on recent graduates (graduated in the last 0-3 years) within Sweden’s management consulting sector, this study addresses a gap in the literature and provides insights into how organizations can align their talent attraction and retention strategies with the values and motivations of the next generation of professionals. 1.3 Purpose and Research Question The purpose of this study is to investigate how leadership styles and motivational factors influence recent graduates’ perceptions of talent attraction and retention in Swedish management consulting firms. Focusing on individuals from late-stage Millennials and Generation Z who have graduated within the past three years, from different companies of various sizes, the study explores what draws these individuals to an employer, as well as what makes them stay. Particular attention is given to how they experience and evaluate different leadership styles and motivational drivers in the workplace. In addition, the study considers how related aspects such as flexibility, work-life balance, and organizational culture may contribute to shaping these perceptions, especially in the context of a dynamic labor market and shifting generational expectations. This leads to the research question: - How do leadership styles and motivational factors influence recent graduates’ perceptions of talent attraction and retention in Swedish management consulting firms? 1.4 Delimitations Delimitations are introduced to clarify the focus of the study as well as ensure relevant results and enable a deeper analysis in the area. The study focuses solely on management consulting companies in Sweden, where the interview participants are based in Stockholm, Gothenburg 6 and Malmö. Furthermore, the report is limited to recent graduates who have completed their education within the last 0-3 years. The scope of the delimitations, based on industry, geography and participant demographics, thus enables a more focused analysis of talent attraction within a dynamic market. 2. Theoretical Framework To understand the factors influencing attraction and retention in management consulting firms operating in dynamic labor markets, it is essential to base the study on established theoretical perspectives. Therefore, this chapter presents a theoretical framework that explores leadership models and motivational theories relevant to attraction and retention. First of all the perspective of leadership is presented, an essential component in shaping workplace experience, that in turn affects how motivation arises and is experienced. The chapter outlines Transformational and Transactional Leadership styles, highlighting their distinct approaches to motivation, organizational culture and employee commitment. The discussion then shifts to motivation where the Self-Determination Theory and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory provides insights into what drives employee’s satisfaction and performance. These theories offer a foundation for understanding the intrinsic and extrinsic factors that influence workplace engagement. Finally, the theories are integrated to offer a comprehensive view of talent management strategies, which establishes the foundation for analyzing how management consulting firms can attract and retain talent in a competitive labor market. Therefore a conceptual model is created to illustrate the connection between the theories, which acts as a visual representation on how leadership styles influence motivation, and in turn, impact talent attraction and retention. 2.1 Leadership Styles Leadership is a central component in shaping work environments. It involves the ability to inspire, guide, and influence a group toward achieving a common goal. Effective leadership not only impacts individual performance but also shapes group dynamics, making it a crucial factor in the development and success of organizations. Research suggests that leadership decisions influence not only individual performance but also the broader organizational climate, affecting job satisfaction, engagement, and ultimately, talent attraction and retention (Gebert et al., 2016). Burns (1978) introduced a concept of leadership styles, namely 7 Transformational and Transactional Leadership. The theory was later developed by Bass (1985), who developed models that encompass a spectrum of leadership styles, ranging from more structured and rule-based approaches to more inspirational and visionary forms of leadership (Bass, 1985). This theory has had a large impact in understanding and applying effective leadership strategies in organizations (Lee et al., 2023). 2.1.1 Transformational Leadership The first of the two leadership styles is transformational leadership. This type of leadership is often used by leaders across the globe as it is effective when it comes to inspiration and motivation. A typical characteristic of this leadership style is its emphasis on long-term results and its holistic approach, including multiple layers of the organizations that are often forgotten (Bass, 1999). The transformational leader differentiates itself from many other leaders as it lifts followers beyond mere self-interests and creates environments which foster creativity, high performance, engagement, commitment and much more, which tends to increase job satisfaction (Lee et al., 2023). Lee et al. (2023) describe how the transformational leadership style is characterized by four core dimensions, namely idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. The first dimension, idealized influence, lifts the aspect of how the leaders can act as role models, where they demonstrate ethical behaviour, confidence and an image that followers seek to replicate. The second dimension, inspirational motivation, refers to how the leaders create clear and attractive visions that are in line with the individual and organizational goals. This activity will foster environments of enthusiasm and commitment. The third dimension, intellectual stimulation, refers to the leaders’ ability to encourage creativity and innovation by challenging established assumptions and promoting independent thinking. And the last dimension, individualized consideration makes sure that leaders offer personalized support, mentorship, and coaching, which is shaped by unique needs of each follower, which facilitates their personal growth (Lee et al., 2023). Bass (1999) emphasizes that these characteristics are not merely an innate trait, but a skillset that can be developed through training and experience (Bass, 1999). Empirical studies demonstrate the wide-ranging benefits of transformational leadership across various industries, including business, healthcare, education, and the military. 8 Employees that work under the circumstances of transformational leadership tend to exhibit higher motivation and engagement, develop stronger attachments to organizational goals, and contribute to a culture of creativity and innovation. Furthermore, the leadership style has shown to reduce workplace stress and enhance jobs satisfaction by fostering a supportive and empowering environment. This empirical evidence makes it clear that transformational leadership takes a holistic approach and includes multiple layers of the organizations that are often forgotten with other types of leaderships (Bass, 1999). 2.1.2 Transactional Leadership The second leadership style is transactional leadership which is a leadership style based on the principle of exchange between leaders and employees, where performance is rewarded and deviance is managed. Unlike transformational leadership, which focuses more on inspiration and vision, transactional leadership is more about structure, monitoring and reward systems (Gebert et al., 2016). Transactional leadership aims to maintain existing structures and to ensure that employees perform according to expected standards. It is based on three core elements. The first one is contingent reward, where the leader clearly defines goals, and rewards employees when these are met. The second one is passive management of deviations, where the leader only intervenes when problems arise or goals are not met. The third core element is active management of deviations, where the leader continuously monitors employee performance and takes action to correct deviations. These core elements have a central function in creating a work environment characterized by clarity, where motivation is primarily controlled by external rewards and consequences (Yukl, 2013). Masa’deh et al. (2016) describe the advantages and disadvantages of the transactional leadership style in organizational research. The transactional leadership style is shown to be effective in environments where structure, rules and goals are clearly defined. The leadership style uses contingent reward, which means that employees know exactly what is required of them and what reward they will receive in exchange. This is described as creating a sense of fairness and predictability that is often sought in more hierarchical or rule-driven organizations. Other advantages are that leadership can lead to short-term efficiency. Despite these advantages, Masa’deh et al. (2016) emphasize the clear limitations of the leadership style, especially in organizations that strive for innovation, learning and long-term adaptability. One of the most criticized aspects is its limiting effect on creativity and 9 motivation, which often creates a passivity, which is expressed in terms of monitoring, correcting and rewarding. A lack of creativity can occur if employees feel they are only being rewarded for following instructions, which reduces their creativity and innovativeness. When employees experience a lack of motivation, a consequence may be that they experience a lack of non-material rewards, especially in organizations where creativity and personal drive are important. Short-term thinking can become a problem if specific goals make the organization prioritize short-term profits over long-term development. This can ultimately cause the organization to focus more on performance and thereby create a stressful work environment, where employees are constantly pressured to avoid negative consequences (Masa’deh et al., 2016). The main points from the leadership theory of transformational and transactional leadership, gathered from the authors in the previous sections are presented in the table 1 below. Aspect Transformational Transactional Leadership Leadership Focus Long-term vision, Short-term efficiency, innovation, and personal stability, and task development. completion. Leader-Follower Built on mutual trust, Based on rewards, Relationship respect, and inspiration. performance agreement, and compliance. Motivation Approach Intrinsic motivation through Extrinsic motivation through vision and empowerment. rewards and punishment. Effect on Performance Leads to high engagement, Ensures efficiency, creativity, and growth. consistency, and adherence to rules. Table 1: Transformational and Transactional Leadership Comparison 10 2.1.3 Critical Evaluation of Transformational and Transactional Leadership Transactional and transformational leadership has played a central role in research and its practical application. The two leadership styles are often presented under the same theory, just as here, due to their complement of each other. Despite the prominence of the theory, both models have certain limitations that should be considered in order to create a more nuanced understanding of their use. Transactional leadership has been criticized for its specific focus on external rewards and punishments. The theory risks creating a work environment that lacks creativity and long-term commitment, because the focus is on short-term goals. This short-term view tends to be problematic in complex and changing environments where flexibility and innovation are essential. In addition, there can be an imbalance between leaders and employees, where the relationship becomes more mechanical and transactional rather than dynamic and interactive. In some cases, transactional leadership can reinforce hierarchical and authoritarian structures, where clear rules and strict control dominate (Masa’deh et al., 2016). From a cultural perspective, both transformational and transactional leadership can be limited depending on the organizational and cultural context. Therefore, it is important to emphasize that none of these leadership strategies are universal, as different organizations have different structures and contexts. Cultural factors play a crucial role in organizations where group harmony and cooperation are highly valued, which can make transformational leadership more effective. In individualistic cultures, where independence and specific rewards are emphasized, transactional leadership may work better. The need to consider cultural factors is therefore crucial for the leadership style to maximize the effectiveness of the business in different contexts (Lee et al., 2023). Furthermore, the researcher Hofstede et al. (2010) criticized the separation of transactional and transformational leadership, as it is considered to create a dichotomy that does not always reflect reality. Leaders in practice often need to combine elements from both strategies depending on the situation and goals. For example, leaders may need to use transformational strategies to motivate employees in the long-term. A hybrid strategy can potentially provide greater flexibility and create more efficient and dynamic organizations (Hofstede et al., 2010). 11 2.2 Motivation Leadership is closely linked to motivation, as it sets the foundation for which leadership style is applied, thereby influencing the specific motivational factors that come into play. The way leaders guide, support, and interact with employees shapes the motivational climate within an organization, hence affecting job satisfaction, engagement, and retention. Understanding this connection is essential for analyzing how different leadership approaches drive motivation and, in turn, impact employees' decisions to stay or leave. Motivation is the internal or external drive that compels a person to take action toward achieving a goal or fulfilling a need (Gebert et al., 2016). There are various theories in the field of motivation, one of them being the Self-Determination Theory and another one being Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory. To capture both the individual's psychological needs and the structural factors that influence job satisfaction, Self-Determination Theory is complemented with Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, as they capture different aspects. These theories have been incorporated in many studies and have been developed throughout the years. 2.2.1 Self-Determination Theory (SDT) The Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is a theory, exploring human motivation in multiple fields, such as parenting, education, healthcare, as well as workplace management (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Due to the focus of this study, the theory will be explained in the light of workplace management and motivation types connected to that field. Deci et al. (2017) describe how motivation has a strong impact on organizational performance as well as well-being, and fostering motivation in the right way will lead to beneficial results. In terms of motivation, the authors describe two types of motivation, namely autonomous and controlled motivation, which lays the foundation of the whole theory (Deci et al., 2017). Autonomous motivation is often rooted in intrinsic motivation and internalized extrinsic motivation, including matters such as employee engagement in activities which are rooted in willingness and a sense of choice. These activities should inherently be seen as enjoyable and rewarding. When achieving autonomous motivation, employees are more likely to both perform and learn better (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). Controlled motivation on the other hand is driven by external pressures, often external motivation, with strong connections to rewards and threats. This type of motivation may achieve short-term results, but in the long run might lead to diminishing engagement and well-being from the employees. Table 2 below 12 highlights the key points of autonomous motivation and controlled motivation, which is based on the findings of Deci et al. (2017). Aspect Autonomous Motivation Controlled Motivation Source Genuine interest or personal External pressures or endorsement. internal guild. Experience Feels like willingly Feels like being pushed or engaging. compelled. Outcome Persistence, creativity, Compliance, short-term high-quality performance. results. Psychological Impact Satisfaction, fulfillment, and Stress, guilt, or obligation. well-being. Table 2: Self-Determination Theory (SDT) Controlled and Autonomous Motivation To fully understand the SDT, an understanding of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is also important, as they are closely connected to the autonomous and controlled motivation types. Intrinsic motivation is motivation that is strongly connected to personal growth and personal meaning. This type of motivation arises when people engage in activities they find inherently interesting and enjoyable and the reward is often the activity itself. Extrinsic motivation on the other hand involves doing an activity to achieve a separate outcome, such as earning money or receiving recognition, but it could also be connected to avoiding punishment (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Although extrinsic motivation may seem inherently negative at first Gagné and Deci et al. (2017) point out that it is not. The SDT clearly differentiate between scales of autonomy in extrinsic motivation, ranging from externally controlled to fully internalized. Fully internalized extrinsic motivation refers to a situation where external goals, tasks, or rewards are integrated into the individual's sense of self and personal values. Therefore the individual engages in the activity willingly and sees the real value, meaning that they do not feel externally pressured to do it, even if there is a reward at the end (Deci et al., 2017). 13 Moving on, another important aspect of the Self-Determination Theory is the three psychological needs of humans, namely autonomy, competence and relatedness. These needs may influence the perceptions of motivation and performance and should therefore be taken into account when focusing on workplace management. Fulfillment of these needs can improve autonomous motivation and therefore lead to higher well-being as well as better performance (Van den Broeck et al., 2008). The first psychological need, autonomy, is connected to the feeling of being in control and being able to make meaningful and impactful choices. The second psychological need, competence, is on the other hand rooted in the need of feeling effective and capable of one’s task, while being faced with optimal challenges. And the last psychological need, relatedness, is connected to the need of feeling connected and valued by others, which in the workplace context can include other employees or leaders (Deci et al., 2017). According to the SDT, implementing managerial support for the three psychological needs is critical for organizations in order to foster motivation and satisfaction among employees (Van den Broeck et al., 2008). For example, autonomous motivation can be promoted through providing employees with more self-determination in work tasks (autonomy), opportunities to develop their skills (competence) and an inclusive work environment where they feel valued (relatedness) (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Research shows that companies that implement such strategies have more engaged and productive employees. These strategies should also include the aspect of individual differences, such as personal aspirations, as these strategies play a crucial role in shaping work experiences and outcomes, and they should vary depending on the employee at hand (Deci et al., 2017). Hence, autonomous motivation is more suitable in order to gain positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, reduced burnout, as well as higher quality on the work performed (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). Controlled motivation on the other hand might lead to short-term gains but in the long run result in higher turnover, emotional exhaustion, as well as lower engagement (Deci et al., 2017). 2.2.2 Critical Evaluation of the Self-Determination Theory There are critiques to the Self-Determination Theory, some presented by Gerhart and Fang (2015). The authors examine the role of compensation, namely pay-for-performance (PFP), a type of extrinsic motivation, and its impact on workplace motivation, creativity, as well as performance. They argue that there is empirical evidence that PFP can have a positive impact 14 on performance, especially in workplace settings and therefore extrinsic and intrinsic motivation can be seen to complement each other. PFP is shown to focus on quantity over quality of performance, which can make it suitable for simple and repetitive tasks, which might not be seen as enjoyable for workers and therefore PFP can be seen as a motivational factor to meet the demand of this work. For example, employees may feel more valued or competent when their performance is recognized with financial incentives (Gerhart & Fang, 2015). Furthermore, Gerhart and Fang (2015) argue that much evidence to the SDT is conducted from laboratory studies and might not fully capture the complexities of real-world organizational settings, one complexity being cultural differences. SDT has been criticized for being too western-centric due to its set focus on autonomy, which might be less relevant in collectivist cultures. For example, more transactional or performance-oriented cultures might view PFP as fair and motivating rather than controlling or manipulative (Gerhart & Fang, 2015). 2.2.3 Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory The second theory regarding motivation for this study is Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory that helps to understand what affects employee well-being, motivation and why some workplaces are more attractive than others. The theory divides these factors into two groups, which the theory refers to as the two-factors, motivational factors and hygiene factors. According to Herzberg, some factors lead to satisfaction (motivation factors), while others have the ability to eliminate dissatisfaction (hygiene factors) (Ibrahim et al., 2023). Motivational factors deal with intrinsic motivation and are linked to the content of the work and the individual’s need for development. Examples of these factors include responsibility, recognition, personal achievements and career development. Firstly, responsibility means the ability to make decisions and influence one's tasks, which contributes to a sense of control and commitment. Secondly, recognition is about the individual being noticed and appreciated for their work, which strengthens self-esteem. Thirdly, personal achievements can be successes or goals that provide a sense of satisfaction. Whereas career development offers the individual opportunities for growth and stimulates creativity and motivation. Hygiene factors on the other hand focus on external conditions and include pay, working conditions, workplace relations, company policies. Salary serves as a basic compensation for work and aims to 15 prevent dissatisfaction. For example working conditions include physical conditions such as working space, safety and a pleasant working environment. Relationships in the workplace are important for maintaining harmony and creating a sense of community and autonomy. Company policies offer guidelines that reduce frustration and prevent miscommunication (Herzberg, 1982). Below in table 3, the main points and a comparison between the two factors are presented, which is based on the findings of Herzberg (1982). Aspect Motivational Factors Hygiene Factors Impact Create engagement and job Prevent dissatisfaction but do satisfaction. Examples: not increase motivation. Responsibility, recognition, career Examples: Salary, work development. conditions, job security. Responsibility Ability to influence and make Basic requirement but not decisions. motivating. Recognition Appreciation strengthens Not directly linked to engagement. motivation. Career Growth Stimulates creativity and Limited opportunities can long-term motivation. cause dissatisfaction. Table 3: Hygiene Factors and Motivational Factors Comparison Alshmemri et al. (2017) also explain the logic and structure of the theory by contrasting motivation and hygiene factors. The conclusion is that these factors are independent of each other. Motivational factors increase job satisfaction when they are present, but their absence does not necessarily lead to dissatisfaction. Hygiene factors, on the other hand, eliminate dissatisfaction when they are satisfactory, but they do not directly create satisfaction or motivation. This results in four different states, namely High satisfaction and low dissatisfaction, High satisfaction and high dissatisfaction, Low satisfaction and low dissatisfaction and Low satisfaction and high dissatisfaction, are presented in the table 4 below. 16 Satisfaction & Dissatisfaction Description Examples from working life 1. High satisfaction and low Both types of factors An employee with good pay, dissatisfaction (Optimal are at optimal levels. supportive leadership and level). development opportunities. 2. High satisfaction and high Motivation factors are An employee with inspiring dissatisfaction (Motivated strong, but hygiene tasks but low salary and but frustrated). factors are lacking. poor working environment. 3. Low satisfaction and low Hygiene factors are A safe but monotonous dissatisfaction (Passive adequate, but service without development work environment). motivational factors opportunities. are missing. 4. Low satisfaction and high Both hygiene and A low paid employee with dissatisfaction (Bad work motivational factors no security or recognition. environment). are inefficient. Table 4: Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory The Four States of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction 1. High satisfaction and low dissatisfaction, this state occurs when both motivation factors and hygiene factors are at an optimal level. When Individuals in the organization feel engaged and meaningful, this creates a supportive and positive work environment. This leads to highly motivated and loyal employees and increased productivity. For example, interesting tasks (motivation) can be combined with a fair salary (hygiene) to achieve this state. 2. High satisfaction and high dissatisfaction, in this state, the motivational factors are strong, while the hygiene factors are deficient. The result is that individuals feel satisfaction and commitment in their work tasks but at the same time frustration over negative working conditions. For example, an individual in the organization may be passionate about the work (motivation) but experience irritation due to poor pay or working conditions (hygiene). 17 3. Low satisfaction and low dissatisfaction, this state occurs when the hygiene factors are at an acceptable level, which prevents dissatisfaction, but the motivational factors are lacking. The work can then be experienced as monotonous and uninteresting despite a good working environment. An example is an individual who has a stable salary (hygiene) but lacks challenging tasks and development opportunities (motivation). 4. Low satisfaction and high dissatisfaction, happens when both hygiene and motivation factors are insufficient, the individual for example, experiences a negative state marked by dissatisfaction and lack of motivation. This can lead to apathy and low performance. This can illustrate a workplace with poor pay conditions (hygiene) and a lack of development opportunities or responsibility (motivation). These four states, as described by Alshmemri et al. (2017), are important for understanding which factors motivate individuals and reduce their dissatisfaction. To ensure high satisfaction and low dissatisfaction, organizations should continuously work to improve both work content and working conditions and actively support a positive work environment. Bohm (2012) describes that Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory is also linked to different contexts, which is important to highlight. The theory was developed in the 1950s and is still relevant today, despite the significant changes that have taken place in working life since then. This because of the basic division between motivation factors and hygiene factors continues to explain what influences employee satisfaction and dissatisfaction. However, the way these factors express themselves has changed because of globalization, digitalization and changing in generational preferences. This means that areas such as flexibility in work, the possibility of remote work, values and social responsibility are valuable to integrate into the model. Another interesting aspect linked to Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory is the individual's subjective experiences of working life and how these affect the importance of various factors. This opens the door to further developing the theory by including situation-specific perspectives, where the needs of the individual and the circumstances of working life are taken into account (Bohm, 2012). A cultural context linked to the theory highlights how different labor markets and societies prioritize factors in different ways. This can be illustrated by differences between collectivist and individualist cultures. Within collectivist 18 cultures, cooperation and group harmony are prioritized, which means that relationships can be seen as both hygiene and motivation factors. In individualistic cultures, instead, individual performance and recognition are valued more highly. Factors such as gender, age and professional role are also central to analysis in cultural contexts, as these can influence how different aspects of working life are perceived and prioritized (Herzberg, 1982). 2.2.4 Critical Evaluation of Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory and Fredrik Herzberg has been both influential and controversial within organizational psychology in connection with Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory. The theory has provided a framework for understanding motivation and job satisfaction, but it has also faced criticism from other researchers. Vroom (1964) criticizes Herzberg's method of data collection. The method meant that the participants were asked to describe specific occasions when they felt satisfied or dissatisfied with their work. However, the author believes that this method has certain limitations and can easily lead to a self-defense mechanism. Furthermore, he believes that negative experiences are often blamed on external circumstances, while positive experiences are attributed to one's own performance as well as ability and this natural tendency to protect one's ego raises questions about the reliability of the results (Vroom, 1964). Bassett-Jones and Lloyd (2005) criticize the theory's generalizability and robustness. Studies using Herzberg's methodology sometimes produce similar results, but other studies, especially those using survey-based methods, often show divergent results. The authors argue that survey-based research works best in contexts where change occurs gradually rather than through specific factors, as Herzberg suggested (Bassett-Jones and Lloyd, 2005). Furthermore, Robbins and Judge (2013) point out that the criticism is not only about Herzberg's methodology, but also about the theory's theoretical assumptions. A central problem is the theory's division of hygiene factors and motivational factors as completely separate categories. The authors argue that if both categories of factors are important, then both hygiene factors and motivational factors should be able to function as drivers of motivation. This points to the complex interaction between different factors and how their effect can vary depending on the individual and the situation (Robbins & Judge, 2013). 19 2.3 Theoretical Integration and Application In the previous sections a theoretical framework has been presented, including Transformational and Transactional Leadership as well as the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory. These theories can be integrated in order to highlight their intersections and differences. By integrating them, a broader understanding of workplace motivation and leadership emerges. This integration provides a clearer perspective on how these theories complement each other in shaping employee engagement and satisfaction. The following sections explore these connections in detail. 2.3.1 Transformational and Transactional Leadership in Connection to Self-Determination Theory One actor that can affect motivation at workplaces is the leader, where SDT can act as a valuable framework for understanding how different leadership styles can affect the employees in different directions, in areas such as motivation, engagement, and performance. Leaders who support the basic psychological needs of the employees foster autonomous motivation, hence leading the organization to better workplace conditions (Deci et al., 2017). The authors further describe how transformational and transactional leadership styles can be linked to the SDT principles. Transformational leadership is the leadership style that is most closely connected to the SDT principles as it puts a lot of weight to inspiration, encouragement, and empowerment, just as the autonomous motivation (Deci et al., 2017). These leaders set positive examples for the employees, communicate an inspiring vision and support the employees’ growth with personal adjustments (Lee et al., 2023), which leads to greater autonomous motivation which increases the long-term benefits (Deci et al., 2017). Whereas transactional leadership, in contrast, focuses on rewards and punishments and monitoring of the employees to a greater extent (Yukl, 2013), which is more aligned with controlled motivation (Deci et al., 2017). 2.3.2 Transformational and Transactional Leadership in Connection to Herzberg’ Two-Factor Theory Leadership plays a crucial role in shaping employees' job satisfaction and motivation. Through transformational leadership, the organization gets a clearer connection to Herzberg's motivational factors, which creates the right conditions for increasing commitment and job 20 satisfaction. Furthermore, transformational leadership strives to create an inspiring work environment and motivate employees through its focus on long-term visions, personal development and creativity (Bass,1999). The motivational factors described by Herzberg directly correlate with the transformational leadership through factors such as responsibility, recognition and personal development. When leaders encourage employees to take responsibility for their tasks and contribute to both personal and professional development, the needs that Herzberg believes are central to creating job satisfaction are met. Furthermore, leaders who combine this with opportunities for career development and personal growth reflect Herzberg's view of how motivation is fostered through challenges, recognition and the opportunity to grow at work (Herzberg, 1982). In contrast, transactional leadership, which emphasizes structure and short-term results, is more linked to Herzberg's hygiene factors (Herzberg, 1982). Transactional leadership is governed by external rewards, such as pay, working conditions and organizational structure (Yukl, 2013). According to Herzberg, these factors are necessary to eliminate dissatisfaction, but they do not contribute to creating long-term satisfaction. Rather, the focus is on creating a predictable and fair environment where employees follow specific goals to achieve external rewards. Examples of such rewards are bonuses, salary increases or other benefits, which are classified as hygiene factors. These do not in themselves lead to increased satisfaction, but prevent dissatisfaction at a sufficient level (Alshmemri et al., 2017). In an environment characterized by transactional leadership, there is a risk that the more long-term and developmental aspects of the work are not considered sufficiently (Yukl, 2013). A clear difference in the view of collaboration and commitment between the two leadership styles also emerges here. Transformational leadership focuses on building long-term commitment, while transactional leadership builds on expectations to meet specific demands (Yukl, 2013). Herzberg's theory provides a valuable context for understanding why transactional leadership can help reduce dissatisfaction, but not necessarily create long-term job satisfaction. Transformational leadership, on the other hand, strives both to eliminate dissatisfaction and to create meaningful work experiences (Herzberg, 1982). 21 2.3.3 Self-Determination Theory in Connection to Herzberg’ Two-Factor Theory Motivation is as earlier described a broadly studied topic, and the Self-Determination Theory and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory are two of those theories that have taken shape. Integrating those theories provides a comprehensive approach to workplace motivation by addressing both structural stability and psychological fulfillment. Herzberg's theory ensures that hygiene factors (such as salary, job security, and workplace policies) prevent dissatisfaction, which creates a stable environment where motivation can thrive (Herzberg, 1982). These hygiene factors are a matter that the SDT misses out on to a large extent. However, true engagement requires motivational factors (such as responsibility, recognition, and personal growth) (Herzberg, 1982), which is closely connected with SDT’s three psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) (Deci et al., 2017). SDT gives a more detailed view on these factors and fills in gaps that Herzberg’s theory misses out on. By putting effort into fostering autonomy through meaningful work, enhancing competence through skill development, and strengthening relatedness through workplace relationships, organizations can help employees internalize extrinsic motivators and move towards autonomous motivation. Combining the theories as such, not only reduces dissatisfaction but also fosters deep engagement, higher performance, and long-term job satisfaction, which creates a workplace where employees feel both valued and intrinsically motivated to contribute to organizational success (Deci et al., 2017). 2.3.4 Theory Application As previously discussed, leadership style plays a crucial role in shaping workplace motivation. The connection between transformational and transactional leadership and their impact on employee motivation has been evident throughout the theoretical discussion. To further illustrate these dynamics, the following model visualizes how these leadership styles influence intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, ultimately affecting talent attraction and retention. Kraus et al. (2024) emphasize that talent attraction and retention are closely linked, which is why they are presented together in the models. The solid arrows in the model indicate dominant pathways, whereas the dashed arrows represent weaker but possible influences. 22 Figure 1: Transformational Leadership and Motivation Transformational leaders inspire and empower employees, which foster an environment where motivation comes from within. This motivation is driven by personal growth, purpose, as well as engagement. This type of leadership tends to create long-term commitment and job satisfaction, as employees feel intrinsically motivated by their work. Therefore, transformational leadership is dominated by intrinsic motivation. Figure 2: Transactional Leadership and Motivation In contrast to transformational leadership, transactional leadership relies on structured rewards, performance based incentives, and clear expectations. This makes extrinsic motivators such as salary, promotions, and benefits more central. While this can enhance 23 short-term performance and retention, it may not sustain deep engagement over time. Therefore, the transactional leadership is dominated by extrinsic motivation. By the illustrated connections as presented above, it is clear that there are dominant pathways, as well as weaker pathways. While some overlap exists, the general tendency is that transformational leadership nurtures intrinsic motivation, whereas transactional leadership reinforces extrinsic motivation, ultimately shaping talent attraction and retention in different ways. To further build on these connections and to analyze the factors influencing talent attraction and retention in management consulting firms, and answer the question: How do recent graduates perceive the main factors influencing talent attraction and retention in Swedish management consulting firms? A conceptual model is created to illustrate the connection between the theories, which acts as a visual representation on how leadership styles influence motivation, and in turn, impact talent attraction and retention. Additionally, the tables developed earlier in the theoretical chapters provide a structured overview of relationships between leadership, motivation, and employee engagement. By applying this framework, a systematic approach is used to analyze how different leadership styles shape workplace motivation and therefore influence employees’ decisions to remain or leave an organization. Our conceptual model is presented in the figure 3 below. Figure 3: Conceptual Model on Leadership and Motivation effects on Attraction & Retention The first step in the model is to examine leadership styles within the organizations. By identifying whether transformational or transactional leadership is predominant provides 24 insights into the motivational factors that emerge in the workplace. When identifying which motivational factors that are present, these will be connected to either intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, or both. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are important components in both the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory, where these two frameworks will serve as key frameworks for distinguishing between the two types of motivation. Figure 1 and 2 are included in order to show the typical pathways for the two leadership styles and motivation, whereas figure 3 is more a general model for understanding that leadership styles impact motivation, which later impact talent attraction and retention. 3. Methodology In this chapter, we outline the methodological approach used in this study to ensure transparency and credibility in our research process. By clearly describing the choices taken, regarding matters such as research design, data collection, and analysis, we aim to provide a structured and replicable framework for understanding how we have approached the study. The chapter begins with an overview of our research strategy, followed by a description of the research design and the reasoning behind our methodological choices. We then follow up by presenting our approach to data collection, including the selection process, how we conducted the interviews as well as information regarding how we analyzed the collected data. Finally, we discuss ethical considerations and highlight the potential limitations of the study. By presenting this methodological foundation, we enable critical evaluation of our study and contribute to reliability and validity of our conclusions. 3.1 Research Strategy A qualitative research approach has been chosen to investigate the studied area. This decision is based on the method’s suitability for capturing depth and complexity of human experiences (Bell et al., 2022; Creswell & Poth, 2018), central to the purpose of this study which is to explore the main factors influencing attraction and retention of talent in management consulting firms. We aim to understand how recent graduates’ perception of areas such as leadership, motivation, work-life balance, flexibility, and organizational culture influence their decision to join and remain with employers, reflecting the multifaceted nature of human experiences in professional settings. And to answer our research question: How do leadership 25 styles and motivational factors influence recent graduates’ perceptions of talent attraction and retention in Swedish management consulting firms? Qualitative research provides a framework for exploring subjective perspectives, meaning, and interpretations. It also offers methodological flexibility, which is particularly valuable in studies where context and individual experiences are crucial for generating meaningful insights (Bell et al., 2022; Creswell & Poth, 2018). By using data gathering techniques such as semi-structured interviews, this approach enhances the collection of rich, descriptive data that highlights the dynamics between individuals and organizations. The flexibility of this kind of method allows the research process to adapt to emerging themes and insights (Bell et al., 2022; Creswell & Poth, 2018), which is vital in understanding rapidly changing environments such as labor markets. As management consulting firms operate in dynamic labor markets, where factors such as organizational culture, leadership, and individual motivation interact in complex ways, this methodology is well suited. This approach prioritizes depth over breadth which is particularly suited for capturing these interactions and the subjective experiences of individuals involved. An abductive approach was also chosen for this study to bridge the gap between empirical finding and existing theoretical frameworks, as outlined by Dubois and Gadde (2002). Following the principle of abductive reasoning, the research employs an iterative process of ‘dialectical shuttling’, which involves moving back and forth between the interview data and the literature. More specifically, our approach consisted of three phases. Firstly, a deductive phase, where we initially applied deductive logic when constructing our theoretical framework and interview guide. This phase was guided by established theories, including Transformational and Transactional Leadership, Self-Determination Theory, and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, which helped shape our expectations and structure the interviews. Secondly, an inductive phase, where we during our data collection and thematic analysis adopted an inductive mindset. We let the empirical data speak for itself, identifying emergent patterns, nuances, and perspectives not fully captured by our initial theoretical lens. Thirdly, we applied abductive reasoning in the analysis, where we moved back and forth between the empirical material and theoretical concepts, refining our understanding and reinterpreting the relevance of certain theoretical elements. This allows for the development of a deeper understanding of the interplay between the studied areas. Abduction also allows us as researchers to remain open to unexpected findings and adapt theoretical perspectives 26 accordingly (Dubois & Gadde, 2002), ensuring that the analysis captures the complexities of talent management in management consulting firms. The abductive approach led us to also using a structured literature review to gather the secondary data, as this method supports an iterative process of moving between theory and empirical findings. A structured review enabled us to systematically identify existing theoretical concepts, which could then deepen our understanding of the empirical context and vice versa, in line with the abductive logic. We conducted a structured search on databases, such as Scopus, Google Scholar, and “Supersök”, Gothenburg university’s literature database. These databases were chosen due to their broad base of material, and academically accurate material. The search strategy included predefined search words connected to the study’s topic. After collecting the initial set of materials, we organized the data in an Excel spreadsheet, categorizing the articles and books based on relevance, publication year, and thematic alignment with our research question. This structured approach allowed us to get a better overview on the data, and to filter out less relevant studies in order to focus on high quality sources that contribute to the theoretical base of our work. Additionally, we assessed the credibility of sources by considering citation counts, journal ranking, and author expertise to ensure reliability of our selected literature. 3.2 Research Design For research design, this study employed a multiple case study as the primary research approach, which is particularly suitable when aiming for an in-depth understanding of complex phenomena in real-life settings. A case study is defined by its focus on investigating a ‘bounded system’ (Bell et al., 2022), which in this context refers to individuals and their respective organizations. In this approach, individuals are treated as the primary cases, with organizations serving as secondary influences that help explain the context of individual perspectives. By including several individuals from various organizations, the study captured a broad range of viewpoints and contextual factors. Bell et al. (2022) explain that studying multiple cases allows for the identification of both recurring patterns and context-specific differences, contributing to theoretical insights. This also enhances the generalizability and validity of the findings through cross-case comparison and the triangulation of data sources (Bell et al., 2022). 27 3.3 Research Methods This section outlines the specific methods used to collect and generate the primary data in this study. It includes the design of the semi-structured interviews, the selection of participants, the sampling techniques used, and how the interview process was conducted. Together, these components form the empirical basis of the research. 3.3.1 Data collection: Semi-Structured Interviews The study has used semi-structured interviews for data collection, which works as our primary data. This method is used to balance flexibility and structure as it follows a predefined interview guide while still allowing the interviewer to adapt questions and explore emerging themes based on participants’ responses. This adaptive use of the interview guide reflects our abductive logic, where theoretical assumptions were constantly revisited inlight of new empirical insights. Semi-structured interviews are particularly suitable for exploring complex and subjective issues, and an interview guide is beneficial to ensure a basic structure that enables comparisons between the participants' reasoning. This method is ideal for the study because complex phenomena such as attraction and retention linked to workplaces are investigated. The method gives the participants the opportunity to develop their reasoning and highlight new perspectives that the researchers may not have foreseen. An advantage of semi-structured interviews is that they create a balance between standardization and individualization in data collection (Bell et al., 2022). The interview guide (see appendix 1) is designed to contribute with open questions that cover central themes linked to the study's question: How do leadership styles and motivational factors influence recent graduates’ perceptions of talent attraction and retention in Swedish management consulting firms? As the interviews were semi-structured, we had a clear structure with predetermined themes and questions. Topics included Leadership, Motivation, Organizational Culture, Flexibility, Attraction factors, Retention Factors and Talent Expectations. These themes were derived from previous studies, existing theory and our conceptual model, which illustrates the relationship between leadership styles, motivation, and talent attraction and retention. By grounding the interview guide in both existing theory and our conceptual framework, we ensured a structured approach that aligns with our theoretical perspective. At the same time, we kept the flexibility of the interview by asking follow-up questions based on the respondents' answers, which made it possible to highlight 28 their relevant experiences in the research area. After the initial interviews we also reformulated some of the questions and added a few new ones in order to gather more relevant information. The interviews ended with the respondent having the opportunity to highlight their own themes that could contribute to broadening the study's perspective. This method enabled the collection of nuanced insights, comparable results and in-depth reflections. A perspective that has been taken into account when choosing semi-structured interviews is the risk of the participants being influenced by predetermined formulations (Bell et al., 2022). To minimize this risk, neutral interview techniques were used, where the interviewer avoided directing the conversation. The interview guide has been designed with open-ended questions that encourage participants to express their own thoughts and connect to their own topics and categories. This reduced the risk of the interviews being limited by the predetermined guide. 3.3.2 Selection Process The selection criteria for this study is management consultants who graduated in the last 0-3 years. The time span was chosen because trainee programs are usually between 1 and 3 years, which is a common career path for recent graduates. In order to reach this target group the selection process started by targeting management consulting companies of varying sizes, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as well as large international companies in Sweden. The choice of size aims to create a deeper understanding and variety to capture a broader perspective within the management consulting industry and talent management. By including both SMEs and large international companies, an analysis of differences and similarities is possible, as well as a broader insight into how the participants' thoughts and experiences differ depending on the size of the company. The selection is focused on management consulting companies in Sweden's larger cities, namely Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö, which function as important business hubs with a high concentration of companies in the management consulting industry. This geographic concentration offers a diversity of potential participants for the empirical collection. The size categorization of the companies is done based on directions from the European Union (2015), and is depending on the number of employees in the companies. Other factors are sometimes included in the categorization such as turnover or balance sheet numbers, but 29 we have decided to only focus on the number of employees. In table 5 below we present the size categorization of the companies we have included in the study. Company Categorization Number of Employees Small <50 Medium 50-249 Large >250 Table 5: Company Size Categorization The selection of SMEs in the study is based on their organizational structures and resources. SMEs are often characterized by greater flexibility and informal structures, which enable faster decision-making and closer relationships between management and employees. At the same time, limited resources is a challenge for SMEs, which can make it difficult to offer competitive benefits and career opportunities. The large international companies were included in the study because of their extensive capacity and resources to develop advanced HR strategies. Despite this, obstacles such as bureaucracy and less personal work environments can affect their effectiveness. By studying different types of organizations, the report offers a holistic view of which factors are critical to attracting and retaining talent (Brozović et al., 2023). The selection process for companies and respondents is based on a combination of strategic selection and snowball sampling (Bell et al., 2022). The strategic selection is focused on the selection of companies, where criteria such as company size (SME or large companies), area of operation (management consulting industry) and geographical location (Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö) were used. The companies were selected by ranking the consulting firms by size using a database from public company registers. The four largest consulting companies were then identified within the categories of large international companies and SMEs, two companies per category. This approach provided a diverse base of potential respondents. The choice of four companies was made to ensure a balance between meaningful comparisons between different organizational contexts, while keeping the scope of the study manageable for an in-depth qualitative analysis. 30 Once the companies were chosen we contacted them by email through a general company address from their website. When receiving an answer from one of the companies and the approval of participation, they referred us to a suitable candidate within the organization, per say recently graduated management consultant (graduated in the last 0-3 years) which is the selection criteria for this study. This strategic sampling method later evolved into snowball sampling, meaning that the first respondents suggested relevant participants and referred us to contacts in their professional network. This approach offers breadth and ensures that relevant respondents are selected in relation to the purpose of the study (Bell et al., 2022). Personal networks were a central part of the snowball sampling, where the initial participants enabled contact with new companies and participants who would otherwise have been difficult to reach. Snowball sampling contributed to a trust-based selection process where relevant participants recommended potential respondents who were willing to give their consent. The combination of strategic sampling and snowball sampling ensured reliable data collection. The selection process continued until data saturation was reached, meaning that additional interviews no longer contributed substantial new insights. 3.3.3 Participants The result of the selection process ended with eight participants in the study, all from different companies. All participants are management consultants who have graduated in the last 0-3 years and are either late-stage Millennials or Generation Z. The respondents are noted with the letter E (for employee), followed by a number depending on the person, see table 6 below. In the table we also present what size the corresponding company has, as well as gender and time of employment, referring to how long they have worked at the company. When later presenting the data, these respondent notations are used in order to create a clear structure and being able to derive the findings to a specific person. Respondent Company Size Gender Time of Employment E1 Large Man 1,5 years E2 Small Man 1 year 31 E3 Large Man 2,5 years E4 Medium Man 1,5 years E5 Large Woman 1,5 years E6 Small Woman 0,5 year E7 Large Woman 3 years E8 Large Woman 2 years Table 6: Chosen Respondents 3.3.4 Interview Process The interview process began with the participants being contacted via e-mail with relevant information. The information included practical details, the selection criteria, an overview of the research question and an explanation of how the collected data would be used. It was emphasized that participation was voluntary and that respondents had the right to withdraw their participation at any time during the process. A consent form was attached to be completed and returned by the participants. Once the participants had confirmed their interest, the time and place of the interview was discussed individually with each respondent. To increase flexibility and make it easier for the participants, the opportunity was offered for both physical and digital interviews. For those who preferred personal meetings, the interviews were arranged at an agreed location. For participants who for practical reasons could not participate physically, digital interviews were offered via Teams. This flexibility made it possible to include participants regardless of geographic location and facilitated wider participation. All interviews were conducted jointly by both researchers. In cases where one researcher had a prior connection to the interviewee, the other took a more active role during the interview to reduce potential bias and maintain neutrality. All of the interviews began with the respondent being asked for consent to the recording of the conversation. The purpose of recording the interviews was to facilitate transcription and ensure that no relevant information was lost. Respondents who did not consent to recording were informed that notes would be taken manually instead. The dialogue at the beginning of 32 the interviews was important to create a safe and relaxed atmosphere, which further contributed to open and honest communication. The participants also had the opportunity to choose whether the interview would be conducted in Swedish or English, to ensure that language barriers did not limit their ability to express themselves. All of the respondents chose to conduct their interviews in Swedish. After the interviews, the recordings were transcribed to document the participants' views and insights. The transcription process was initiated using Good Tape software, which automatically converted speech to text. The transcribed material was manually reviewed to correct any errors and ensure that the nuances of the conversation were accurately reproduced. Finally, participants were offered the opportunity to review the transcription to verify that their statements and intentions had been accurately represented. The transcripts were emailed to each participant for approval before analysis proceeded. After the transcripts were reviewed by the participants, they were translated to English and further reviewed by us to ensure that the meanings were accurately reproduced. 3.4 Thematic Analysis When analyzing the collected data, a thematic analysis was used. Thematic analysis is a commonly used method in qualitative research for identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns (themes) within data (Bell et al., 2022; Braun & Clarke, 2006). This method also aligns closely with an abductive research strategy, as it allows for both theory-driven and data-driven coding, enabling us to iteratively refine and adjust our understanding as patterns emerge from the data. Our approach was based on predetermined main themes, gathered from the literature, which set the base to our interview guide. When later conducting the thematic analysis, new sub-themes emerged under each main theme. These sub-themes were formed based on codes from the transcripts. The codes consisted of two layers, starting with first-order codes, which later got clustered into second-order codes. Based on these second-order codes, themes were formed that captured the breadth of the codes and the relevant aspects of that topic. The coding was done separately by us, meaning that both of us coded all of the interviews, and later compared in order to achieve accuracy and similar interpretations of the data. This generated two sets of coding, which was later integrated as one. By organizing and describing the data in detail like this, the thematic analysis facilitated deeper understanding of the underlying factors and dynamics that influence individuals’ 33 experiences within the organizations. This helped the study to be structured and achieve the quality criteria that are aimed for. To illustrate our coding process, the following example is presented from the broader main theme of motivation, which was predetermined in our interview guide. Under this main theme, three sub-themes emerged, in this illustration we specifically focus on the sub-theme growth and challenge. This theme reflects participants’ desires to continuously develop and be challenged in their professional roles. In this example, we coded sections from one participant, identifying several first-order codes such as “need for challenge”, “desire to learn” and “need for recognition”. These were then grouped into second-order codes like “learning through challenge” and “performance-driven motivation”. Together, these codes supported the general theme of growth and challenge, highlighting how motivation is closely tied to personal and professional development opportunities. This was done with all the transcripts of the interviews, which revealed several codes with similar findings which were later formed into themes. Braun and Clarke (2006) emphasize that thematic analysis is a flexible and accessible method that can be applied to multiple qualitative data sources, including interview transcripts which is used in this specific study. Hence, enhancing the findings of recurring patterns and categorizing the data into meaningful themes that reflect the key issues discussed by the participants. This process allows for an in-depth exploration of the subjective experiences of employees within different organizational settings, providing insights into how different factors interact with each other to shape talent management strategies (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Furthermore, thematic analysis supports the abductive approach by allowing for the interactive process of moving back and forth between the data and theoretical frameworks. As the analysis progresses emerging themes are compared with existing theories, facilitating the development of rich understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. This approach allows for flexibility, which makes it well-suited for capturing the complexity of the data and ensuring that the analysis remains open to unexpected findings and new insights (Braun & Clarke, 2006). 34 3.5 Considerations This section addresses important considerations related to the ethical responsibility of us as researchers and the quality of the study. It discusses how ethical standards were maintained throughout the research process and how the trustworthiness and validity of the findings are ensured. 3.5.1 Ethics & Responsibility Ethical consideration has been a main priority throughout the study in order to ensure respect and integrity for the participants along the process. First of all the study took anonymity and confidentiality into account. In order to ensure these matters, all the information in the study has been anonymized to the extent that the participants are noted with the letter E (for employee), followed by a number depending on the person, this is done for the sake of the participants’ privacy. This contributed to the comfortness of the participants and made sure that they feel safe to share all of their experiences and thoughts. Furthermore, the aspect of confidentiality is upheld by secure data storage, where the collected data was only available to the researchers. After the study was conducted, further steps were taken into account, such as deleting all available data, including transcripts and recorded interviews. As highlighted by Bell et al. (2022), these measures create a safe environment for the participants, making sure that they can share their experiences without the fear of repercussions. The second ethical consideration that is taken into account is informed consent and voluntary participation. Before the study, the participants were provided with detailed information about the study, such as the scope, purpose and the methods used. Furthermore the participants were provided with their rights, including the option to withdraw at any time without any consequences. These rights were summarized in a consent form that they were given before conducting any interviews. After the interviews were conducted, the transcripts or notes of the interviews were also provided to the participants, in order for them to consent that the information is correct, and also give them an opportunity to withdraw from the study if they are not comfortable sharing the collected data. If the participants wanted to correct any information or give additional statements, this was added to the collected data. This measure aligns with Bell et al.’s (2022) guidelines for showing respect for autonomy and promoting transparency in the qualitative research that was conducted. 35 3.5.2 Research Quality To ensure important quality criteria, the study has focused on four main dimensions: transferability, reliability, confirmability and authenticity. These criteria have been reviewed with the aim of ensuring credible and relevant research (Bell et al., 2022). Each criteria is addressed in the following subsections to clarify how methodological choices contribute to trustworthy results. To ensure transferability, this study highlights the specific context of the management consulting industry to create a deeper understanding of how factors linked to the attraction and retention of talent interact with the environment. By accurately describing this context, strategic insights and inspiration for changes in other sectors are made possible. Furthermore, other organizations can assess whether the study's results are applicable to their internal talent management strategies (Bell et al., 2022). Reliability is a central component of building credibility. Therefore, the study includes a clear research process based on transparency to ensure a systematic working method. During the process of identifying underlying factors in talent management, accuracy is crucial, as this area is complex and requires an understanding of both individual and organizational drivers (Bell et al., 2022). To achieve confirmability, methodological triangulation has been used, which means the use of several different data sources to increase the validity and credibility of the research (Bell et al., 2022). Interviews with consultants from various companies have been conducted to create a broader understanding of the factors that influence the attraction and retention of talent. These insights can help consulting firms improve their strategies to better meet talent needs and expectations. To ensure authenticity, the study has presented different perspectives in a fair way (Bell et al., 2022). The study included both individual and organizational perspectives in talent management to enable a comprehensive analysis. The focus is on relationships within the management consulting industry, with particular emphasis on the companies' strategies and how employees experience these in relation to talent management. Although the study uses several strategies linked to credibility and relevance, there are limitations that have been 36 discovered. The study uses a qualitative method that is context-specific. This means that the results may be less transferable to other industries with different contexts and conditions. The extensive amount of data may contribute to being perceived as resource-intensive and thus pose a challenge for other researchers to replicate the study process. 3.6 Limitations The study has identified several limitations that need to be addressed. The first limitation concerns the sampling strategies. Although the selection is initially strategic, it later develops into a snowball sampling. Snowball sampling is an effective method of identifying participants with specific experiences and skills, but there is a risk of introducing bias into the selection process, despite efforts to avoid this. Bell et al. (2022) describe that snowball sampling can lead to limited diversity in the sample, as individuals often recommend people with similar backgrounds, experiences and perspectives. This may result in a homogenous group of participants, which in turn risks not representing the full range of experiences within the researched area (Bell et al., 2022). Thus, the results may become less generalizable to other contexts or organizations. Furthermore, the study’s findings are also constrained by the selection of organizations. Given that only a limited number of management consulting firms (connected to the participants) are included in the study, it might contribute to not fully capturing the wide range of organizational cultures, practices, or strategies for talent management that exist in the broader management consulting industry. This selection bias could limit the extent to which the findings can be generalized beyond the specific organizations studied. Bell et al. (2022) describes that such limitations are inherent in qualitative research, where the focus is on depth and context rather than broad generalization (Bell et al., 2022). However, it is important to point out that the sample in this study may not fully represent the diversity of organizations within the management consulting industry. The last limitation that the study wants to point out is the narrow focus on the perspective of employees (the “talents”) within management consulting firms. This limitation is two sided, on one hand it does provide valuable insights into their experiences and perceptions, which aligns with the research question. On the other hand, this focus may overlook the perspectives of other important actors, such as managers or HR professionals and other stakeholders, who 37 also play an important role in shaping talent attraction and retention strategies. By not including the views of these other actors, the study may present an incomplete picture of the organizational practices and strategies at hand. While the focus on talents is in line with the research question, the lack of these other perspectives might limit the holistic perspective of the studied subject. 4. Empirical Findings This chapter presents the empirical findings based on the eight semi-structured interviews with recent graduates working in the management consulting industry. The aim is to provide an in-depth understanding of how individuals experience their work environment, leadership, motivation, and overall job satisfaction, hence impacting attraction and retention. The chapter is structured around several thematic areas that emerged from the data, each highlighting specific aspects of the respondents’ professional experiences. The first section explores leadership styles and their perceived influence on employee motivation and satisfaction. This is followed by a deeper look into key motivational drivers and how these interact with different leadership approaches. The next sections address work environment and organizational culture, as well as work-life balance and flexibility, two areas emphasized by participants as central to their experience. In addition, the chapter highlights the respondents’ personal reflections on what attracted them to their current employers and why they chose to stay, as well as their perceptions of broader trends influencing attraction and retention among their peers. Although attraction and retention are discussed later on in the chapter, the structure is intentionally chosen, as the introductory themes constitute fundamental factors that influence why individuals are attracted to and choose to remain in an organization. Generational perspectives on work expectations are also considered, as these play an increasing role in shaping organizational strategies. Finally, the chapter concludes with a summary of the three most important factors for job satisfaction, as identified by each respondent. Throughout the chapter, interview citations are used to support and illustrate the findings, allowing voices of the participants to shape the narrative. 4.1 Leadership Styles During the interviews, various questions regarding leadership styles were presented. Throughout this investigation it became clear that these leadership styles were important 38 components in creating the working environment across the different companies. This in turn impacted other factors, such as motivation and job satisfaction. Regarding leadership styles, all of the respondents provided insights into the general leadership approach at their companies. They described that, in theory, the aim is to have inspirational leaders who emphasize soft values, such as employee well-being and individual needs. To explore this further, follow-up questions examined their closest leaders characteristics to assess the impact on employees. This revealed two distinct leadership styles: one inspirational and people-focused, and the other result-oriented and strict. The first type of leadership style, the inspirational, was the most common leadership style and found among five of the participants. Interviews revealed that these inspiring leaders are characterized by vision, empathy, and integrity, qualities that motivate others to grow and create lasting impact. They lead by example, fostering a culture of trust, collaboration, and continuous development. The focus of these leaders was continuously on soft values and wellbeing of its employees. To exemplify this, E3 described "My immediate manager is fantastic and someone I really look up to. She always sees the person first and quickly notices if someone in the team needs support. She is also very good at building team spirit and making sure we do things together." While E4 described the closest leader with the following: "She is very good at making you think for yourself. Often, when I come with a question or a concern, her first response is to turn the question back to me: ‘What do you think?’ or ‘Have you considered this?’ It forces you to reflect before being given a ready-made solution." This leadership style was also identified in the experiences of E2, E6 and E7, reinforcing that many leaders aim to create an engaging and supportive work environment where the employees are given much freedom with constant support from the leaders. Respondents often described this approach as fostering both motivation and long-term growth. By encouraging independent thinking and personal responsibility, inspirational leaders seemed to empower employees to take initiatives and drive their own development. This is also supported by regular feedback sessions where feedback is presented both ways, from the perspective of the employee as well as the leader. The second type of leadership style identified was highly result-driven and strict, where performance expectations are the main priority. Interviews have revealed that results-driven and structured leaders are characterized by clarity, decisiveness, and high standards, qualities that ensure efficiency, accountability, and measurable outcomes. They set clear expectations, 39 maintain focus on goals, and foster a culture of performance and discipline. While some employees appreciated the challenge, others found it demanding and felt their personal needs were overlooked. As E1 puts it, “My closest manager is very result-oriented, both in a good and a bad way. He challenges me a lot, which is beneficial in some ways, but also quite demanding.” E5 shared similar experiences, expressing frustration with their leader’s approach: "I experience my manager as someone who says he wants to develop me, but at the same time slows me down and doesn't really understand what I need. The only feedback I get is when something doesn’t go according to his plan." Both respondents noted that their leaders consistently pushed for higher performance without considering employee-wellbeing, making it difficult to maintain motivation from time to time. Rather than feeling empowered to make decisions, the respondents here felt micromanaged or reduced to performance metrics. This per say often led to a more reactive work approach, where employees waited for directions rather than acting proactively, with a sense of fear in doing wrong. While the two leadership styles were clearly identifiable, many interviewees emphasized that leadership is often a blend of different approaches, rather than strictly one or the other. E8 experienced this blend in her closest manager: "She cares about how we work and how we feel in our roles, but she's also very results-driven and strict. It's a combination of focusing on performance while still making sure we’re comfortable and developing." E3 also highlighted this balance from observations at his company: “A leader can be results-oriented but still understand how to motivate people. Even in a highly results-driven work environment, leadership can incorporate softer values that keep employees motivated.” Even E4, who primarily described an inspirational leadership style, acknowledged the potential benefits of structure and clear expectations: "I don’t mind if leaders are strict, as long as they are fair. Sometimes, it can feel a bit too soft at my company, and I would have preferred more structure and clear guidelines." Additionally E5 mentioned that their leader had shifted from inspirational to a strict, result-oriented leadership style. However, rather than adapting well to this change, E5 found it demotivating, as the shift no longer aligned with their needs. Overall, the interviews suggest that leadership styles are fluid and can evolve over time. While a balance between inspiration and result may be ideal, it is essential for leaders to recognize how their approach affects the employees and ensure they adapt to individual and situational needs. These findings provide insights that different leadership styles might be suitable for different employees, and individual differences are a key factor influencing the outcome. 40 4.2 Motivation & Job Satisfaction When delving into motivation, and what factors improve job satisfaction, three themes emerged: the desire for growth and challenge, recognition and influence, as well as purpose and meaning in work. The first theme, the desire for growth and challenge was found among all candidates. They expressed that continuous learning and professional development are key motivators and the importance of feeling challenged and seeing the progress in their skills and career paths. E1 described: “It’s important for me to feel challenged. I’m still early in my career, so I want to keep learning and developing.” Which is also backed by E7, who expressed: "For me, job satisfaction is very much about three things: challenging tasks, good colleagues and opportunities for development." This citation also highlighted the need for good colleagues, which was an often recurring topic, and many of the respondents described the potential learning opportunities that come with working with highly knowledgeable and inspiring people. The management consulting industry was widely recognized as a field full of opportunities for personal development, with constant learning and new challenges. However, some respondents also noted that this fast-paced learning curve can sometimes feel overwhelming, particularly when the right support is lacking. Both E1 and E5 put a lot of weight on the topic of growth and challenge as key motivators, and they both had experiences of the result-oriented and strict leaders, where they sometimes didn’t feel supported enough which had led to demotivating situations. E8, who experiences a blend of the leadership styles also pointed out this connection "When my manager is too strict and focused only on results without being attentive, it makes me lose motivation. For me it’s important that my manager sees my personal aspirations and really listens to me." Another finding from the interviews was that the respondents from the large companies (E1, E3, E5, E7 and E8) experience more structure regarding feedback sessions, and also a clearer career path. In contrast, respondents from small and medium companies (E2, E4 and E6) explained the feedback and career paths as more fluid and individual with no strict guidelines. This highlights the differences in approaches for personal development and career progression, depending on the size of the companies. The second key motivator identified was the aspect of recognition and influence. Feeling recognized and valued for one’s contributions was a strong theme among the respondents. Many of the respondents expressed that they appreciated acknowledgement from managers and colleagues, and some of them also found motivation in taking ownership of their work 41 and seeing their responsibility grow over time. E1 explained: “I think what motivates me most is external recognition. If I do a good job, I want to hear that from my manager or colleagues.”, which puts a lot of weight on the aspect of recognition. He further explained that he especially wants to hear it from an external source and not just feel it himself, as he is so early on in his career that determining his achievement himself is difficult. Whereas the area of influence is backed by E6, who explained “I am motivated by responsibility, and I notice that it increases the longer I stay at the company and develop in my career.", which is also in line with E3: "For me, the biggest motivation is having influence and feeling that I can take responsibility and that a project is ‘mine’." This points to the direction that many of the respondents want to be seen, they want to take credit for the work they have done, and also feel valued for that. The final motivation theme identified was the aspect of purpose and meaning at work. A strong sense of purpose and making a difference are seen as important motivational factors. For many of the respondents, purpose at work was tied to the feeling that one’s efforts contribute to something larger, whether through creating value for others, driving change, or aligning with personal beliefs and goals. E2 explained "I want to feel like I'm making a difference and that my work really matters." This is also backed by E6 “It is important that what I do feels meaningful, that it has significance.” These findings suggest that employees are not only motivated by career growth and recognition but also by alignment with their personal values. In the context of management consulting, where employees often work on a variety of projects, this may present a challenge. The extent to which employees feel connected to the broader purpose of their work may vary depending on the project. Some respondents expressed higher engagement and motivation when they could see the direct impact of their efforts, while others found it harder to maintain motivation in projects where the value was less clear. The findings indicate that motivation in management consulting is multifaceted, driven by aspects such as growth, recognition, and purpose. However, these factors are also interconnected with leadership styles and workplace culture. While a challenging and fast-paced environment can be highly motivating, the presence of recognition and support is crucial to sustaining long-term engagement. Alongside these motivating factors, salary was often brought up, and there was a broad consensus that salary is a necessary component in their work, but wasn’t seen as a motivator per se. These insights suggest that while salary 42 alone may not drive engagement, it remains a crucial element for fairness, recognition, and long-term motivation. As E3 put it: “Right now, personal development weighs more than salary. Of course, the salary needs to reflect the work I do, but at the moment, learning and growth are my biggest driving forces.” Our empirical findings reveal differences in how respondents experience motivation, depending on the type of leadership they have been exposed to. Respondents who described their leaders as highly result-oriented and strict often linked their motivation directly to the leader. For these individuals, motivation often stems from a desire to meet the leader’s expectations and align their performance with set goals. A lack of support in these areas could lead to feelings of demotivation. In contrast, respondents who experienced a more inspirational leadership style, rooted in soft values, tended to describe their motivation as more internally driven. These individuals spoke more freely about their personal goals and aspirations, and did not consistently reference the leader when discussing what motivated them. Overall, the findings suggest that while leadership style can influence how motivation is expressed and shaped, there is a shared understanding among respondents that motivation primarily originates from within, with personal ambition being a key factor. 4.3 Work Environment & Organizational Culture The work environment and organizational culture play an important role in shaping employees’ day-to-day experiences, their motivation, and their long-term commitment to the company. Throughout the interviews all respondents expressed the importance of having a great team around them. Many of them also expressed that they get inspired by all of the knowledgeable people that they get to share their work environment with. Furthermore, participants got to share their insights on how cultural components, such as value alignment, trust, team dynamics, and learning opportunities, in fact influence their feeling of belonging and sense of satisfaction at work. While each organization had its unique structure, several recurring themes emerged, which offered insight into what recent graduates value in their workplace environments. A recurring theme across several interviews was the importance of feeling a cultural fit within the organization. Many respondents put a lot of weight on how aligning with the company’s values contributed to a sense of security and belonging. For some, this alignment 43 was clear even before joining the company. As E2 described, "From the first contact, I felt that the company's culture and values were in line with my own, which created a strong sense of belonging and security." Others expressed the same message through references to trust and psychological safety in their teams. E6 highlighted the value of shared support and openness in her citation “We help and learn from each other, and there is an openness around giving and receiving feedback.” Similarly, E7 pointed out the company’s recurring efforts to foster inclusion, “There are various initiatives to ensure an inclusive work environment, such as networks, training, and a culture where everyone is encouraged to contribute.” A culture where employees feel accepted and connected appears to play a vital role in creating a sustainable and engaging work environment. Another notable theme that emerged in the aspect of organizational culture was the existence of trust and autonomy. The findings suggest that trust and autonomy are not only valued principles but also actively practiced within the organizations, enabling individuals to take ownership of their work and make independent decisions within a supportive environment. Several respondents explained that being trusted to manage their own responsibilities contributed positively to motivation and job satisfaction. E6 described, “There is a culture of trust and if I take on a task, my colleagues trust me to carry it out." E4 also referenced a flat organizational structure built on trust and personal responsibility. In parallel to this, recognition, both achievements and individual qualities, was highlighted as a meaningful cultural component. E2 emphasized, "It is important to be appreciated for who you are and to have your work seen and valued." Together, these reflections indicate cultures that balance autonomy with individual recognition tend to foster stronger employee engagement and emotional investment. The last theme that stood out was the cultural diversity across teams. The findings suggest that organizational culture is often shaped not only by overarching values but also by the dynamics within individual teams, where distinct group cultures can emerge based on leadership, collaboration patterns, and shared practices. While overall company cultures were generally perceived positively, several respondents pointed out differences between teams at their organizations, suggesting the presence of subcultures. E5 described, "The company culture is very diverse and in some teams it's about having fun together, while others focus more on work and deadlines." This diversity in team culture may stem from leadership styles or the nature of specific projects, and indicates that employees’ day-to-day experiences can 44 vary significantly. Despite this, a shared value across many teams was the importance of feedback and continuous development. Many of the respondents spoke of regular feedback sessions and the opportunity to grow through peer learning and reflection. These insights reflect an organizational culture that values adaptability, development, and the ability to foster unique team identities while maintaining a unified cultural foundation. E8 described "The company wants us to work together as one unit. Our slogan is incorporating this, which reflects that idea of unity." But at the same time she followed up with "But in practice, I don’t always feel that it’s fully lived up to. There’s still a tendency for different departments and teams to work a bit in silos." Which shows that in practice, remaining a unified cultural foundation can be more difficult than in theory. 4.4 Work-Life Balance & Flexibility During the interviews it also became clear that hybrid work flexibility is a key driver of job satisfaction. The ability to choose when and where to work is increasingly valued, as it allows individuals to better manage their workloads while maintaining a fulfilling personal life. All the respondents described that they have hybrid work models, and as E1 highlighted the importance of hybrid work flexibility, “We have a really good hybrid work model. We can work exactly where we want and when we want, as long as deadlines are met. This aspect is a big advantage and a contributing factor to my will to stay at the company.” The increased opportunity to work remotely has also changed the perception of the workplace. E7 emphasized how the pandemic has accelerated this shift, making flexibility even more essential, "Especially now after Covid-19, things have changed. You almost need to be able to work in different places today, which is also a motivating factor for me." Similarly, E2 connects flexibility to increased motivation, “The freedom to work from wherever I want makes me feel motivated to work harder." Work flexibility allows employees to feel productive and comfortable regardless of their workplace, which has been shown to generate increased engagement. Hybrid work flexibility has become an expectation among employees and no longer just an option, affecting both job satisfaction and retention. Another important theme was the role of individual responsibility in maintaining work-life balance. Many of the respondents mentioned that the ability to control their own working hours has had a positive impact on their mental health. E6 highlighted the role of flexible work schedules in promoting work-life balance, "Work-life balance is something my company 45 really promotes. For example, if someone prefers to start work early in the morning and have shorter days, that's totally fine. If you need to pick up or drop off children at preschool, that's also completely accepted." Another aspect of work-life balance is that the workload should be perceived as manageable. E3 highlighted how employees themselves play a crucial role in maintaining balance, "It is very much up to me to create that balance. Of course, sometimes you end up in really demanding projects, but then you can signal that you need support. No one expects you to burn out." Similarly, E8 emphasizes the importance of personal time management in creating balance, "If you’re good at planning and prioritizing, you can create a much better work-life balance. In this role, it’s possible to work a lot or a little, it really depends on how you manage it." Which shows that flexibility is important and that employees also have their own responsibility for their well-being, with the help of the employer as support. In addition to flexibility and individual responsibility, the interviews showed that company culture is at least as important in experiencing work-life balance. One key aspect that emerged from the interviews was how a supportive company culture can actively promote work-life balance by creating shared values and realistic expectations around ambition and well-being. E4 emphasized, “Most of us here share the same ambitions at a reasonable level, and there is a strong awareness of the importance of work-life balance. It is important to work for a company that understands that work is not everything in life.” Similarly, E8 emphasizes the importance of a workplace that values w ork-life balance, “It is important for me to work for a company that understands that work is not everything in life.” These quotes support the argument that professional ambition should be encouraged but not at the expense of well-being. E7 discussed how company culture prevents unhealthy competition, “You can have very high goals and high demands, but it is also supported by your colleagues and managers. So you never feel like you have to work too hard.” In this way, company culture ensures that performance expectations are sustainable and at the same time reduces the risk of employees becoming burned out. 4.5 Attraction Factors The participants reflected on the factors they considered important when choosing an employer, while also offering insights into what they believe attracts young talent more broadly. Three key themes emerged from the interviews: Employer branding and networking, 46 development opportunities, as well as influence and community. These themes reflect both personal experiences and perceived trends among peers, highlighting how attraction strategies can vary between large, well-known firms and smaller, more niche consulting firms. Employer branding and networking was shown to be central components in recent graduate’s decision-making processes, particularly in the context of large, established firms. Several participants described being drawn to employers with a visible presence at universities and a strong reputation, often reinforced through peer networks. E1 noted that his company’s active university marketing and positive word-of-mouth gave a compelling image of its culture, something that he was drawn to. Similarly, E3 emphasized the role of networking and peer recommendations, "I had friends working here, and they spoke very highly of the company. They described a good work-life balance, great development opportunities, and a strong culture." These insights reflect how social proof and institutional visibility interact to influence perceptions. In contrast, smaller firms appeared to compensate for lower brand awareness with more personalized recruitment processes, often relying on direct engagement and individual outreach. This distinction highlights how firm size shapes strategies used to attract young talent. The second theme that was identified was the aspect of development opportunities. Several interviewees highlighted how opportunities for personal and professional growth play a central role in attracting new talent to the organization. These possibilities not only contribute to motivation but also make the company an appealing long-term choice. E6 described that growth potential makes the company attractive, "I think what attracts talent to apply is that the company is in an exciting growth phase, which means that many people want to be on the journey.” Similarly, E5 emphasized the appeal for recent graduates, "The reason why recent graduates come to us is because we offer rapid career development, internal opportunities to climb, a focused effort to elevate talent, and an open and personal recruitment process where we really want to get to know and understand their potential." This shows that offering clear development paths and investing in individual growth can be strong leverage in attracting talent. E8 reinforces this by highlighting the structural and flexible aspect of growth within the organization, "There are very clear career steps outlined, so you know how you can grow within the company. The company is also investing heavily in internal mobility, so you can switch departments and develop within the organization." This demonstrates that structured 47 development, combined with individual involvement, not only draws talent but also supports long-term engagement and retention. Influence and community were key deciding factors for those who chose smaller companies. Here, a personal and structured recruitment process, the opportunity to have an influence and community emerged as central driving forces. E2 explains how the ability to influence the workplace played a key role, "I was drawn to a smaller company where I felt I could have more influence and a more personal work environment." Similarly, E4 highlights company size as an important factor, explaining "One important factor for me was the company’s size. It’s a relatively small firm, which I felt was suitable for me." This reasoning emphasizes a more transparent and familiar environment, where employees are given greater responsibility early on, which proved to be decisive for the interviewees who chose a smaller employer. Several participants described smaller companies as places where their voices were more likely to be heard, and where close collaboration across teams created a sense of community. This contributed to a feeling of being part of something meaningful, not just performing a role, but actively shaping the workplace culture and direction. 4.6 Retention Factors In discussing retention, the participants reflected on both their own reasons for staying with their current employer and the factors they believe contribute to others leaving their roles. These insights revealed three recurring themes: financial incentives, work-life balance, as well as organizational culture and leadership. An important aspect that emerged during the interviews was the opportunity for development and financial reward. Financial incentives play a crucial role in employee retention, offering motivation and stability. Several participants emphasized that clear development paths combined with structured salary progressions not only motivate employees to perform, but also serve as a deliberate strategy to encourage long-term commitment. Several interviewees pointed to structured salary increases as a key reason to stay. As E3 describes, "We have a very steep salary curve during the first few years. I think that’s mainly to retain people, so they don’t just come here, learn a lot, and then leave for industry." Similarly, E1 notes that this steep progression is a well used strategy to retain employees, “There’s a very steep salary progression in the first few years, and I think that’s an intentional way to keep people from 48 leaving too soon.” However, despite these efforts, the desire for faster salary growth remains a common reason for leaving. E8 highlighted this challenge, "I’d say the main reason people leave is to improve their salary more quickly than what’s possible if they stay." This underscores the importance of not only offering competitive compensation, but also aligning financial progression with employee expectations over time. Another major theme is the role of work-life balance. A sustainable work-life balance between work and personal life is essential for long-term employee satisfaction and overall well-being. As E4 pointed out, flexibility can be a decisive factor, "The flexibility we have is something that makes people want to stay, especially those who value work-life balance." He also described that they put a lot of effort on work-life balance at his company, which has influenced his well being. Employees who are able to manage both personal and professional responsibilities are more likely to stay committed to their employer. However, while flexibility and work-life balance can support retention, the management consulting industry is often described as demanding and high-paced. E1 reflected on this by describing, “I’ve definitely heard of people leaving due to burnout. The nature of consulting can be very intense at times, and if you don’t have the right communication with leadership, it can be hard to manage.” This illustrates how the lack of boundaries or support can become a push factor. E3 adds on this by highlighting a desire for stability as a reason for leaving, “Some people leave because they want more stability. As a consultant, you are constantly switching projects, and at some point, you might want something more predictable.” These insights show that while the dynamic and fast-paced nature of consulting can be attractive early in one’s career, it may become less appealing over time, particularly as personal priorities shift. E1 also noted that some leave not necessarily due to dissatisfaction, but rather to specialize in a specific industry they’ve become familiar with through consulting, "A colleague of mine spent three years working with the energy sector and eventually moved to a large energy company." Which he also described as a more predictable workplace. This reflects how the combination of burnout risk, lack of predictability, and a desire for deeper specialization often drives talent away from the consulting field. Lastly, a strong effective leadership is identified as critical for employee engagement and retention. Employees are more likely to stay in a workplace where they feel understood, valued and supported. All of the respondents continuously described the importance of leadership at a workplace and seven of them highlighted that their leader positively 49 influenced their daily work and overall willingness to remain within their organization. However, when leadership fails to meet these expectations, it can drive employees to consider leaving. Out of the eight respondents, one was considering leaving their company, namely E5, this due to the ineffective leadership. E5 described "My main reason for considering leaving is that my manager doesn't understand what I need to thrive, and that he sometimes belittles me with comments about me being young and junior." Leadership that fails to recognize employees' needs can create frustration and disengagement. Furthermore, E5 emphasized, "It makes you question whether this is the kind of leader you want to work for, one who fails to understand and support their employees, instead making them feel undervalued and dismissed." Effective leadership is not just about managing tasks, it is about fostering an environment where employees feel heard, respected and motivated to grow. When leaders fail to provide this, they risk losing valuable talents, such as E5. To ensure long-term retention and engagement, companies must invest in leadership that actively supports and empowers their workforce. 4.7 Generational Differences in Talent Expectations In the consulting industry, adapting to evolving generational preferences is critical and often seen as a strategic component in companies. Since the companies in the study are advising clients on the future of work, many of the respondents expressed that they must first implement these changes internally. A common theme among the respondents is that they saw evolving generational preferences, and a trend that younger employees increasingly value work-life balance and flexibility while older generations often prioritize structured work schedules and stability. Due to this, the consulting companies need to be at the forefront of the shifts as they are uniquely positioned to anticipate them and help other companies. As respondent E1 put it, “We can’t go out and consult companies on the future workplace being hybrid if we haven’t worked that way ourselves.” Therefore, he explained that his firm is constantly trying to evaluate itself and spot new trends to constantly be at the forefront. E3 also gave a more concrete example, "The older generation has probably had to adapt a lot to the younger one, especially in leadership. In the past, there were probably bigger differences, but today, leadership is more focused on the individual and adapting to get the best out of everyone." E3, just as E1 explained that they saw a heavy preference for flexibility and work-life balance, and they saw a need for a leadership style which takes individual needs into consideration. 50 With the high employee turnover and continuous recruitment of young talent, consulting firms are in a constant state of adaptation. This ensures that generational shifts, as well as changing work expectations are not seen as sudden disruptions but as ongoing evolutions. E4 described, "Younger employees are generally more aware of what’s happening at other companies and explore more options. Older colleagues tend to be more settled and stay longer at a company." He therefore explained that his company is continuously evaluating themselves, in order to adapt to changing expectations as well as trying to strategically position themselves as an attractive employer. E4 was also one of the respondents who highlighted that salary is a common reason why employees decide to leave the firm, and discussions on how to solve that problem is an ongoing conversation at his firm. He explained one possible solution they discussed, "One idea we've discussed is creating a model where the company makes a financial contribution for employees who stay longer. For example, if you stay for five to seven years and are offered partnership, you would have built up capital over time. That could serve as an extra incentive. If you leave, you don’t get access to that money, but if you stay, there's a clear reward that makes it more attractive to continue at the company." He further explained that the older generation often stay at a company in an aspect of loyalty, but the changing preferences of the newer generation do not share the same sense of loyalty to their workplaces. 4.8 Top Three Important Aspects Lastly all of the participants were asked to mention the three most important aspects regarding their work life satisfaction, which sums up many important aspects. This question was asked last, with hope to gather a more nuanced picture after the previous discussions. The specific answer of each respondent is presented in appendix 2. Many of the respondents had similar takes in their answers, which highlighted important aspects, such as company culture, personal development and varied assignments which were the most common answers. Figure 4 below, shows a summary of the aspects that respondents have highlighted as important in the interviews. The vertical axis reflects the number of respondents who mentioned each aspect, while the horizontal axis shows the specific aspects that emerged. When comparing responses from employees at SMEs and large companies, no significant differences were found in which aspects were emphasized. This indicates that these factors are considered important regardless of company size. 51 Other aspects, such as flexibility, responsibility and transparency, were also mentioned, indicating that they are important components of job satisfaction, although they are not as prominent. The model can be understood as a hierarchy of factors that influence the work environment and the respondents' experience of their workplace. The fact that company culture is the most mentioned factor suggests that it plays a central role in creating a pleasant and motivating work environment. Personal development and varied assignments are also among the most mentioned aspects, which shows that many are looking for opportunities to grow within their roles. This includes training, mentoring and career opportunities. Finally, work-life balance emerges as one of the important factors, reflecting a changing view of working life, where the individual's well-being and the possibility of combining work and private life are becoming increasingly important. The increased demand for flexible working hours and hybrid solutions may be one of the reasons why this aspect is highlighted so clearly. The less frequently mentioned factors, such as flexibility, responsibility and transparency, indicate that these are important but possibly more situational or dependent on the organizational structure. Feedback and communication occur to some extent, but the low frequency may indicate that these factors are seen as more self-evident or expected in a functioning work environment. In summary, this section provides a clear picture of which factors are most crucial to respondents' job satisfaction, regardless of company size, and shows what is valued most in their professional lives. 52 Figure 4: Distribution of Aspects Mentioned by Respondents 5. Analysis This chapter aims to investigate how leadership and motivation affect the attraction and retention of new graduates in the management consulting industry. The analysis is based on the conceptualized model (Figure 3), which illustrates how different leadership styles, namely Transformational and Transactional leadership influence both attraction and retention through their impact on employee motivation, whether intrinsic or extrinsic. These motivational dynamics shape not only the initial interest in an employer but also long-term commitment and willingness to stay. However, based on the empirical findings, several patterns emerged that allow for a refinement of this model. Notably, company size, generational preferences, and the interplay between motivational factors and work environment were identified as important contextual variables influencing the model’s pathways. These contextual variables influence how leadership styles are perceived and how different types of motivation are 53 activated and sustained in the workplace. By combining theory from Transformational and Transactional Leadership, Self-Determination Theory (SDT), Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory, and empirical evidence from interviews with recently graduated management consultants from the generation of late-stage Millennials and Generation Z, patterns and key factors that characterize the experience of the work environment are identified. The focus is on understanding which types of leadership and motivational climate as well as the new contextual variables that promote long-term motivation and loyalty and which ones instead risk leading to stagnation or an increased tendency to leave the workplace. The combination of the old conceptual model and the new contextual variables calls for a revised model of figure 3, that more clearly incorporates these moderating factors, and a visual representation of this updated conceptual framework. Such a revised model is presented below in figure 5. Figure 5: Revised Conceptual Model of factors affecting Attraction & Retention The structure of this chapter starts with the inspirational leader due to the dominance in the empirical findings, which indicates the importance of such a leadership style. This is followed by motivational factors coming from within, with the same reasoning, a dominance compared to external motivation. Furthermore, the less dominant leadership style, the result driven and strict leader is presented with connected motivational factors. Lastly the conceptual model is once again revisited to tie it all together and the layers of company size and generational differences are added. 54 5.1 The Inspirational Leader in Practice - A Reflection of Transformational Leadership The empirical findings strongly indicate that the presence of inspirational and supportive leaders plays a central role in how recent graduates perceive their work environment and long-term engagement. The findings show that many participants described a leadership style that goes beyond coordination and control, and instead emphasizes motivation, personal development, as well as trust, which was described as the inspirational leader in the empirical findings. These qualities align closely with transformational leadership, and the four core dimensions: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1999; Lee et al., 2023). Moreover, the analysis draws on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory. These leadership behaviours appear to support the psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, in line with the SDT (Deci et al., 2017; Van den Broeck et al., 2008). While also reflecting motivational factors such as recognition, achievement, and growth, which Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory argues are essential for generating job satisfaction and long-term retention (Herzberg, 1982). The first core dimension of transformational leadership, idealized influence, focuses on the aspect of how leaders act as role models, where they demonstrate behaviours that the followers seek to replicate (Lee et al., 2023). All of the respondents who experienced the inspirational leader spoke positively about their leader and it became clear that they have traits, such as empathy and integrity, qualities they admired and were inspired by. This admiration also reflects SDT’s psychological need for relatedness, as the leader fosters trust and emotional connection, while also enhancing competence by providing a clear and inspiring model for personal development (Deci et al., 2017). In Herzberg’s terms, this type of admiration and respect relates to the motivational factor of recognition, where employees feel valued and seen, contributing to higher levels of satisfaction (Herzberg, 1982). The second core dimension of transformational leadership, inspirational motivation, refers to how the leaders create clear and attractive visions that are in line with the individual and organizational goals (Lee et al., 2023). This dimension was also found among the respondents' answers, where a lot of weight was put on how the leader communicated shared values and meaning. Some respondents expressed that they felt value alignment with the 55 company even before joining, which illustrates how their leaders communicate the organization’s vision even before employment, which contributed to a strong personal connection. Descriptions of a leader as someone who really sees the person, but also the group, where alignment of these creates a clear and attractive vision where everyone is seen were also found. These visions and goals are communicated by the inspirational leader with enthusiasm, leading to inspired and motivated employees. Furthermore, these examples also show how inspirational motivation can foster SDT’s psychological need of both autonomy, by aligning organizational values with personal values, and also relatedness, by creating a sense of purpose and belonging (Deci et al., 2017). Additionally, this sense of shared purpose aligns with Herzberg’s motivational factor of meaningful achievement, as employees feel their work is contributing to something larger, one of the key drivers of long-term engagement (Herzberg, 1982). The third core dimension of transformational leadership, intellectual stimulation, refers to the leaders’ ability to encourage creativity and innovation by challenging established assumptions and promoting independent thinking (Lee et al., 2023). One citation that really stood out and pinpointed this dimension was presented by E4, who described his closest leader with the following: "She is very good at making you think for yourself. Often, when I come with a question or a concern, her first response is to turn the question back to me: ‘What do you think?’ or ‘Have you considered this?’ It forces you to reflect before being given a ready-made solution." This citation is also in line with findings from other participants who described similar experiences. The indicated approach not only reflects intellectual stimulation, but can also be connected to SDT’s psychological need for autonomy. By encouraging the employees to reflect and formulate their own solutions, the leader strengthens the employees sense of ownership and personal control over their work (Deci et al., 2017). This also reflects Herzberg’s factor of responsibility, where individuals feel trusted and empowered to make meaningful contributions, something closely connected to increased motivation and satisfaction (Herzberg, 1982). The fourth and final dimension of transformational leadership, individualized consideration, involves offering personalized support, mentorship, and coaching based on the unique needs of each follower, which facilitates their personal growth (Lee et al., 2023). These traits were frequently observed in the empirical material. For example, regular feedback sessions were a main priority for these inspirational leaders, with participants highlighting opportunities to 56 both give and receive feedback. This helped the employees to get a more personalized experience, which was highly valued, and in line with many of the motivational factors which contribute to higher satisfaction and wellbeing. These individualized development conversations are also central in fostering SDT’s psychological need for competence and relatedness. When employees feel that their leaders understand their personal strengths and growth areas, they are more likely to experience the work as meaningful and motivating (Deci et al., 2017). This directly relates to Herzberg’s motivational factors of growth and advancement, as personalized support and development opportunities are seen as essential for long-term satisfaction and retention (Herzberg, 1982). 5.2 Intrinsic Motivation as the Key Driver of Talent Retention When moving on to motivational factors among recent graduates it became clear that the transformational leadership style, which was the most common leadership style, set the tone to what motivates the employees. These findings reinforce the role of transformational leadership, which appears to create conditions to support intrinsic motivation, and in term correlate with figure 1. A recurring theme throughout our empirical findings is just this, the presence of intrinsic motivation as a central role of talent attraction and retention among recent graduates in management consulting, aligning closely with the theoretical framework of the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory. To start off, the transformational leader creates an environment of autonomous motivation by satisfying the three psychological needs of SDT: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci et al., 2017; Van den Broeck et al., 2008), as pointed out in section 5.1. As described in the theoretical chapter, autonomous motivation is often rooted in intrinsic motivation and internalized extrinsic motivation, where employees engage in activities which are rooted in willingness and a sense of choice. Autonomous motivation often leads to satisfaction and well-being (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). This also aligns closely with Herzberg’s motivational factors, such as responsibility, recognition and career development, which leads to job satisfaction and engagement (Herzberg, 1982). Across several interviews, the aspect of growth and challenge emerged as a theme in regards to motivation. The participants emphasized the importance of continuous learning, growth opportunities, and being intellectually stimulated in their roles. These factors strongly reflect Herzberg’s motivational factors, such as achievement and advancement (Herzberg, 1982), 57 and are also directly linked to SDT’s psychological need of competence, the need to feel effective and capable of one’s work (Deci et al., 2017). Many of the respondents expressed the wish to continuously grow in their career path, and develop new skills, which worked as a motivational factor. This reflects how growth and challenge foster sustainable and long-term motivation, where the employees don't see an end goal, but a continuous growth journey. Employees who perceive their work as intellectually engaging are therefore more likely to internalize extrinsic goals, as they see them as a part of their personal values, which put them in a state of autonomous motivation that enhances long-term retention (Deci et al., 2017). Recognition and influence was another recurring theme in regards to motivation, particularly the desire to feel appreciated, listened to, and able to influence decision making. This also connects to the work environment factor of trust and autonomy, which affect employees’ day-to day experiences. These experiences relate closely to both Herzberg’s motivational factor of recognition (Herzberg, 1982) and SDT’s psychological need of autonomy and relatedness (Deci et al., 2017). When the individuals feel their contributions are seen and valued, it strengthens their emotional bond to the organization. In this aspect it also became clear that the recognition goes beyond verbal confirmation, it is also expressed through involvement of meaningful projects and getting one's voice heard, which enhances employees' sense of purpose and belonging. This aspect can be connected to SDT’s view on internalized extrinsic motivation, that the reward in the form of words of praise actually affects the individual’s sense of self and personal values (Deci et al., 2017). Several participants also expressed a desire to contribute to something meaningful, which strengthened the notion that purpose is a powerful motivator. Even if not always explicitly articulated, many described the value in solving real client problems and being part of a value-driven organization. These experiences support autonomous motivation, where external goals are internalized and become personally meaningful (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). Citations regarding this aspect are clear indicators of intrinsic motivation, where engagement stems from internal values and a desire to make a difference. It also reflects Herzberg’s responsibility and personal achievement drivers (Herzberg, 1982) and aligns with SDT’s emphasis on internalization of values (Deci et al., 2017). While growth, recognition, and purpose represent motivational factors, the findings also highlighted the importance of work environment and work-life balance. These aspects were 58 described as important for work satisfaction and motivation. One example of this is cultural fit, where the respondents described that feeling aligned with the company culture contributed to a sense of security and belonging. This can be closely connected to SDT’s psychological need of relatedness (Deci et al., 2017) and Herzberg’s motivational factor of recognition, the importance of being seen (Herzberg, 1982). Other aspects that were brought up under these topics were such as hybrid work models, individual responsibility in creating work-life balance as well as a company culture which fosters it. These aspects can be connected to Herzberg’s hygiene factors as they don't necessarily create motivation themselves, but their absence can result in dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1982). This was confirmed by several respondents who stated that no amount of challenge or purpose can compensate for burnout or poor working conditions. Although these elements are more aligned with Herzberg’s hygiene factors, they create a stable baseline that allows motivational factors to take root and flourish. In SDT terms, they create the psychological safety needed for autonomous motivation to be sustained over time (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). Our findings demonstrate how transformational leadership acts as a catalyst for intrinsic motivation and autonomous motivation by nurturing growth, recognition, and purpose, all of which correspond to Herzberg’s motivational factors and the three psychological needs defined by SDT. At the same time, hygiene factors such as flexibility and a positive work environment form the necessary foundation to prevent dissatisfaction and burnout. By addressing both layers, motivation and hygiene, and fostering autonomy, competence, and relatedness, organizations create an environment that employees are attracted to and where employees not only stay, but thrive. 5.3 The Strict Leader in Practice - A Reflection of Transactional Leadership Another recurring pattern among the participants, although less dominant, was the experience of a leadership style that emphasized structure, performance, and control. The leadership of these managers is strongly goal- and control-focused, which reflects the characteristics of the leader noted as the highly result-driven and strict leader in the empirical finding. E1, E5 and E8 in particular, appear to be within this kind of leadership, and notably, all three are employed at larger consulting firms. The characteristics of this leadership style closely align with the defining traits of transactional leadership, which emphasizes clear structures, goal 59 orientation, and a system of rewards as well as corrective measures (Yukl, 2013). This observation suggests that organizational context, particularly firm size, may influence the dominant leadership style. Larger firms often feature more formalized structures and standardized processes, which may naturally lend themselves to more transactional forms of leadership. At the same time, E8 describes a leadership style that blends an inspirational and strict leader, where clear expectations and a strong results focus are balanced by a degree of attentiveness to individual needs. This blend of the two leadership styles is in line with the critique presented by Hofstede et al. (2010), who highlight that leaders often need to combine elements from both strategies depending on the situation and goals. It should also be noted that some respondents expressed a desire for more structure and clarity. They suggest that certain traits of transactional leadership, such as clear expectations, performance monitoring, and goal-setting, can be appreciated and even necessary in certain contexts, also in line with Hofstede et al. (2022). To deepen the analysis of how transactional leadership influences employee job satisfaction, this section focuses on the three core dimensions of transactional leadership: contingent reward, passive management of deviations and active management of deviations (Yukl, 2013). In appendix 2, E1 expressed one of his the three most important aspects of job satisfaction as “Monetary compensation”. The focus on monetary compensation can directly relate to the dimension of contingent reward within transactional leadership (Yukl, 2013), which at the same time connects the importance of financial incentives. If the leader clearly links financial compensation to achieve goals, this can contribute to employees experiencing some form of satisfaction. The reward in the form of salary and any bonuses then becomes a concrete expression of the transactional exchange between organization and employee. This shows that there is a correlation between extrinsic rewards and indications of controlled motivation, which suggests that although rewards can motivate employees to achieve specific goals, it does not necessarily lead to intrinsic satisfaction or long-term commitment. SDT's view corresponds to that extrinsic rewards can lead to internalized motivation, but that too strong an emphasis on these factors risks creating a sense of external coercion rather than internal drive (Deci et al., 2017). The other core dimensions are as mentioned passive management of deviations and active management of deviations. A central distinction within transactional leadership is how leaders handle deviations in performance, that is, whether they do so through active or 60 passive deviation management (Bass, 1985; Yukl, 2013). This difference became clear in the empirical material, where different types of leadership behaviors could be placed along this spectrum. Active deviation management means that the leader continuously monitors employee performance, provides regular feedback and acts proactively to prevent problems before they arise (Bass, 1985). This was reflected in the experiences of several respondents. For example, participants from larger companies often described structured follow-up routines and a more systematic feedback process, which contributes to clarity and helps to stay the course before something goes wrong. This reflects the active form of transactional leadership, where control and expectations are clear and where deviations are prevented through ongoing dialogue and follow-up. In contrast to this, there was also passive deviation management, where managers took a more reactive role and only intervened when a problem had already arisen (Bass, 1985). This was particularly evident in participants such as E5’s story, where the manager did express a willingness to support development, but where the actual behavior was more restrained and wait-and-see. Instead of proactively guiding and supporting the employee, feedback was only given when something had already gone wrong. This type of leadership is characterized by a low degree of presence and reactivity rather than proactivity, which is consistent with passive deviation management, where the leader mainly intervenes when established standards are not met (Bass, 1985). Such passivity had tangible consequences for the employees. E5 described how the lack of active support from the manager led to a feeling of stagnation and not being seen. E8 also expressed that when the manager became too focused on results without showing interest in the individual's goals and needs, it led to reduced motivation. These examples show the limitations of transactional leadership that does not balance structure with responsiveness to the individual. This distinction becomes particularly relevant in relation to Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which emphasizes that intrinsic motivation is fostered by experiences of autonomy, competence, and belonging (Deci & Ryan, 2017). Passive leadership, characterized by low presence and reactivity, risks undermining these needs, especially the need for competence and belonging. Active leadership, on the other hand, can promote these psychological needs through clear feedback and guidance (Bass, 1985). The analysis thus shows an important limitation of transactional leadership, that although it can create structure and clear 61 expectations, its effectiveness is strongly dependent on whether the leader applies an active or passive approach. For some respondents, the clarity and structure offered by a transactional leader can be reassuring and create a sense of predictability. Knowing exactly what is expected and what rewards follow for good performance can be motivating, at least in the short term. At the same time, an overly one-sided focus on external rewards and corrections can also be experienced as controlling and potentially limiting intrinsic motivation and a sense of autonomy. Employees may feel that they are working primarily to obtain rewards or avoid consequences rather than out of genuine interest in the tasks themselves, which is consistent with the concept of controlled motivation in SDT (Deci et al., 2017). This also illustrates E8's story about how motivation decreases when a leader becomes too strict and results-oriented without at the same time being responsive to employees' personal goals. This balancing act becomes particularly important to avoid controlled motivation taking over at the expense of more genuine job satisfaction. Motivation is a central component in the analysis, especially in relation to how leadership style influences what drives employees in their work. These findings are closely related to the model illustrated in Figure 2, where transactional leadership is linked to external motivators such as control and performance-based rewards. This shows how different leadership styles can interact or clash with employees' internal driving forces and needs. The analysis of transactional leadership expresses how the leadership style has affected employees' job satisfaction. This connection becomes particularly clear when analyzing how participants such as E1 and E5 describe their motivation as sometimes tied to external outcomes rather than internal drivers. These participants' motivation was closely tied to performance outcomes, clear expectations, and structured feedback. 5.4 Extrinsic Motivation: A Useful Tool, But Not the Whole Answer When examining what drives people to stay in an organization, it becomes clear that motivation is not just about external rewards or security. It is very much about the experience of growing, being recognized, having influence and feeling a sense of belonging. These elements reflect several key factors in long-term motivation, and unveil situations where motivational factors might be lacking, such as situations where transactional leadership was 62 more prominent. This aligns with table 4: Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory The Four States of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction in particular state 3, which refer to a condition of low satisfaction and low dissatisfaction. State 3 is characterized by the hygiene factors being relatively fulfilled, but where motivational factors such as recognition and development are clearly lacking (Alshmemri et al., 2017). This reflects the situation of several respondents in the study, especially E1 and E5, where transactional leadership proved to be insufficient to meet their deeper psychological needs, in line with SDT, which emphasizes the importance of competence, autonomy, and relatedness for sustaining intrinsic motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005). The lack of these elements might lead to experiences of a monotonous and uninteresting working environment (Alshmemri et al., 2017). E5 describes a work situation that on the surface works well, there is structure, clear frameworks and a manager present. At the same time, she experiences a lack of space for her own initiatives, a lack of discussions about development opportunities and a feeling that her skills are not being used. She expresses frustration that there are no dialogues about the future, potential or personal goals, which leads to a feeling of standing still in her development. Although the work environment meets the basic requirements, the factors that create commitment, meaning and long-term satisfaction in the work are missing. The situation like E5 clearly shows how transactional leadership, with a focus on structure and results, can be experienced as insufficient when it is not combined with a genuine interest in the individual's development and well-being. Based on SDT, it becomes clear how transactional leadership fails to meet the three central needs: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. There are sometimes few development opportunities, no structured feedback, and a lack of interest from managers to create a learning environment. This undermines the need to feel effective and in motion, which is a key component of intrinsic motivation according to SDT. Moreover, the transactional leader's limited focus on interpersonal connection and soft values means that the sense of belonging and emotional support, which is a crucial aspect of relatedness, that is often neglected. Transactional leadership thus appears as a functional surface, where structure is created, results are ensured and stability is ensured, but at the same time leadership fails to satisfy deeper human needs that are required for long-term motivation. E1, E5 and to some extent E8 are in a state where they are not directly dissatisfied, but where something important is missing. 63 5.5 Attraction and Retention Dynamics: The Role of Leadership and Employee Motivation Based on the study's theoretical framework and empirical material, two clear paths emerge for how motivation and leadership interact, Figure 1 and Figure 2. Figure 1, represents a pathway where transformational leadership supports intrinsic motivation, while Figure 2 illustrates how transactional leadership promotes extrinsic motivation, which is later combined in figure 3, and further developed in figure 5 with contextual variables. The model clearly shows how different leadership styles, transformational and transactional, activate different motivation systems, intrinsic and extrinsic, and how contextual variables in turn lead to different results in the form of attraction and retention. In this analysis, Figures 1 and 2 are further investigated to incorporate the main motivational factors identified in our empirical material. This makes the theoretical pathways more concrete by directly linking them to the real-world experiences of the participants. For instance, Figure 1 includes intrinsic motivators such as personal growth and development, recognition, influence, and purpose. This pathway is dominated by transformational leadership and is based on internal driving forces. This leadership creates an environment where employees have an outlet for personal development, responsibility and the feeling of being part of something larger, factors that were consistently highlighted by a majority of the respondents. According to SDT, these factors are met by the needs for autonomy, competence and belonging (Deci et al., 2017). The connection with Herzberg's motivational factors is clear, as there is recognition, responsibility and career development (Herzberg, 1982). Employees in this context experience a high degree of meaningfulness and commitment (Deci et al., 2017). Respondents not only express a desire to perform, but to stay because they feel that their work is valuable. This path leads to state 1, table 4: Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory The Four States of Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction and generates high satisfaction and low levels of dissatisfaction (Alshmemri et al., 2017). Figure 2, on the other hand, includes extrinsic motivators such as salary, bonuses, structured career paths, and performance-based feedback and goal clarity. These factors were especially emphasized by respondents like E1, E5 and partly E8 who stated that their leaders primarily focus on goal achievement, control and financial incentives. Motivation occurs via external rewards such as salary, bonuses and career ladder, which are typical hygiene factors 64 according to Herzberg (Ibrahim et al., 2023). This can create short-term achievements, but risks inhibiting the internal drive and leading to controlled motivation according to SDT (Deci et al., 2017). E1 and E5 show signs that their motivation decreases when development opportunities are lacking or that leaders are too controlling. It is clear that when extrinsic motivation dominates without support for psychological needs, an intermediate state of low satisfaction but without direct dissatisfaction arises. This corresponds to Herzberg's state 3, table 4 (Alshmemri et al., 2017). Our empirical data shows that intrinsic motivation, in combination with effective leadership, leads to increased commitment and the desire to stay long-term. This work environment was described by respondents as meaningful and developing. This aligns with Herzberg (1982) two-factor theory, which distinguishes between motivational factors, such as personal growth, responsibility and recognition, that contributes to job satisfaction, and hygiene factors, such as salary and working conditions that prevent dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1982). However, it also emerged that employees who experience a lack of feedback, lack of influence or only financial drivers had an increased tendency to leave the organization. In this context, the absence of motivational factors and presence of weak hygiene factors can explain why some employees choose to disengage (Herzberg, 1982). Factors such as financial incentives, lack of work-life balance, and the absence of effective leadership constitute central push factors. Respondent E5 is a concrete example of this, who is considering leaving her workplace due to a lack of leadership and the feeling of not being understood. The interviews revealed three recurring themes that reflect both the respondents' personal reasons for applying to their current workplace and their perceptions of what generally attracts young professionals to employers. This perspective highlights the inherent connection between attraction and retention, as emphasized by Kraus et al. (2024), who argue that the factors influencing an individual's decision to join an organization often overlap with those that determine whether they choose to stay. Firstly employer branding, network, and personal contact with former colleagues played a major role. Respondents described that they are influenced by reputation and culture that is conveyed through university or through friends. This aspect can be connected to SDT’s psychological need of relatedness, where the graduates get a feeling of a great community that they would like to be a part of (Deci et al., 2017). Secondly, development opportunities, the possibility of rapid development, clear career steps and personal growth were crucial, especially for younger employees who are at 65 the beginning of their careers. These development-related motivators are also likely to influence their future decisions when choosing between potential employers, as individuals tend to seek environments that support continued learning and progression. Again, this can be connected to SDT’s psychological needs, especially the aspect of competence (Deci et al., 2017), as well as Herzberg’s motivational factor of career development (Herzberg, 1982). Finally, influence and community, in particular in smaller companies the importance of being able to influence and be part of a context was emphasized. Proximity to decision-makers and a family culture were important factors in the decision to choose an employer. Once again, these aspects can be connected to SDT’s psychological need, in this particular case relatedness and autonomy (Deci et al., 2017), and Herzberg’s motivational factor of recognition (Herzberg, 1982). In the long run, such motivational factors including the ability to make an impact, feel belonging, and grow, may also play a critical role in employee retention and future job choices. Our conceptualized model shows that organizations must choose between driving motivation through external incentives or by supporting internal drive. The analysis supports that the leadership and motivational conditions illustrated in Figure 1, which emphasize transformational leadership and intrinsic motivation, are associated with strong long-term retention and engagement. This aligns with Herzberg's state 1, where both hygiene and motivational factors are present (Alshmemri et al., 2017). To achieve this, leadership is required to be both clear and supportive, as well as a culture that values personal development, recognition and participation. Organizations that get stuck in Figure 2 risk having high turnover, low engagement and missing the chance to develop loyal employees. Therefore, the choice of strategy becomes crucial for how organizations succeed in attracting and retaining the talents of the future in a dynamic labor market. 5.5.1 Company Size as a Determinant of Motivational Climate When analysing the respondents with their corresponding organizations, it became evident that the sizes of the organizations had an impact on the outcome in terms of multiple aspects, such as leadership, motivation and overall perceived work satisfaction. One of the biggest patterns in the empirical findings regarding this matter is the connection between company size and leadership style, which later impacted motivational factors. All tendencies of transactional leadership, characterized by structured hierarchies, performance-based reward 66 systems, and a focus on short-term goals, were exclusively identified in larger consulting firms (firms of E1, E5, and E8). These organizations seemed to emphasize efficiency, standardization, and formalized career paths, aligning with Herzberg’s hygiene factors such as pay, job security, and clear policies. While these factors prevent dissatisfaction, they do not themselves foster long-term engagement or satisfaction (Herzberg, 1982). As identified in the empirical findings, these participants do indeed value other factors, more aligned with Herzberg’s motivational factors but sometimes experience lacking efforts from the organization to meet them. They also highlighted that there is often a blend of approaches at the companies, with several leaders who do in fact value these matters, and the organizations as a whole doesn’t necessarily go by this style. These larger organizations also had more emphasis on regular feedback sessions, which leaves room for improvements, both from a personal perspective but also from an organizational perspective. In contrast, respondents from smaller and medium-sized companies (firms of E2, E4, E6) described more informal structures and closer contact with the leaders, and in this case study only experiencing aspects of transformational leadership. This included individualized consideration, greater autonomy in decision-making, and a sense of personal development, all of which correspond to the motivational factors in Herzberg’s theory (Herzberg, 1982) and the autonomous motivation outlined in the Self-Determination Theory (Deci et al., 2017; Weinstein & Ryan, 2010) These observations suggest that company size not only shapes organizational structure but also influences the motivational climate within the workplace. Large firms, while offering stability and structure, may risk falling into transactional patterns that appeal more extrinsic to motivation. In contrast, smaller firms seem to foster more intrinsic motivation through meaningful engagement, responsibility, and growth opportunities. Although it should be pointed out that not all firms within the same size category are the same, the empirical findings reveal several firms within the large size category who also had transformational characteristics (firms of E3 and E7), and all of the respondents from the large firms did in fact express that the transformational path was the goal for all of the organizations. 5.5.2 From Security to Purpose: A Generational Shift in Workplace Motivation Another key dimension revealed in the empirical findings is the generational shift in what recent graduates value in the workplace. Participants consistently emphasized the importance of flexibility, purpose, personal developments, and psychological safety, aligning with SDT’s 67 three psychological needs, autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci et al., 2017; Van den Broeck et al., 2008). The participants expressed that these values differ from those prioritized by older generations, such as financial incentives and long-term job security. This shift can be connected to the broader context of labor market transformation highlighted in the introduction, including the Great Resignation and the rise of employer-to-employer (EE) flows. These trends reflect how younger generations are constantly re-evaluating employment choices based on meaning, values, and personal well-being, rather than job stability alone. This shift is also evident in the way participants interpret leadership. While transactional leadership may have once been effective in motivating employees through reward systems and rule-following, it appears insufficient in today’s context. The newer generations instead seek leaders who inspire, involve, and empower them, qualities associated with transformational leadership. These leaders fulfill Hetzberg’s motivational factors such as recognition and personal growth (Herzberg, 1982), while also facilitating intrinsic motivation through autonomous motivation and the three psychological needs of SDT (Deci et al., 2017; Van den Broeck et al., 2008). This directly reflects the theoretical framework of this study, particularly the conceptual model illustrating how transformational leadership fosters intrinsic motivation, which in turn enhances talent attraction and retention. This generational perspective reveals that extrinsic rewards are no longer enough. For late-stage Millennials and Generation Z (the participants of this study), who are entering and shaping the labor market, motivation is increasingly rooted in meaning, identity, and value alignment. They do not necessarily reject extrinsic rewards, but they expect more and are constantly looking around on what the labor market has to offer. These findings also respond directly to the posed research question: How do leadership styles and motivational factors influence recent graduates’ perceptions of talent attraction and retention in Swedish management consulting firms? The answer lies in the desire for more than just compensation, they seek environments where they can grow, feel values, and align with the organization’s purpose. Within the Swedish management consulting industry, characterized by fast-paced development and heightened competition for talent, this generational shift poses both a challenge and a strategic opportunity. Firms operating in this context must reassess traditional value propositions and instead emphasize flexibility, psychological safety, and inclusive leadership to remain competitive. Ultimately, the data suggests that future-proof talent strategies cannot rely solely on hygiene factors like salary and job security. Instead, they must be grounded in psychological insight and supportive 68 leadership. Organizations that emphasize an environment where autonomy, competence, and relatedness are actively supported are more likely to attract and retain the next generation of talent in an increasingly dynamic labor market. 6. Conclusion This study explored how leadership styles and motivational factors influence recently graduated management consultants’ perceptions of what attracts and retains talent in the Swedish consulting industry. By combining theories, such as Transformational and Transactional Leadership, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Herzberg's Two Factor Theory, with empirical data from interviews, several key insights have been identified. The results suggest that recently graduated consultants appreciate aspects associated with transformational leadership, such as purpose, development and meaning. These preferences point not only to a leadership shift but also reflect deeper motivational needs, indicating that motivation, especially the intrinsic kind, plays a central mediating role in how leadership is experienced. Based on this, the study interprets these perceptions as potential signs of a broader transition away from traditional, transactional structures and rewards. This shift emphasizes the growing importance of fostering intrinsic motivation as a foundation for sustainable talent attraction and retention. One of the study’s most prominent findings is that transformational leadership acts as a catalyst for long-term motivation and loyalty among young consultants. Leaders who inspire, provide space for autonomy, and offer personal development create an environment where employees not only perform, but also want to stay and grow. Not only does these leaders satisfy the three psychological needs of SDT (autonomy, competence, and relatedness), but also address Herzberg’s motivational factors, such as recognition, responsibility, and development opportunities. These aspects combined have been shown to play as important drivers of retention. In contrast to the transformational leader, the findings of the study indicate that transactional leadership, with its strong focus on clear goals, rewards, and corrective actions, has limited effect on long-term commitment. While this leadership style can create structure and short-term performance, it lacks the ability to meet the deeper psychological needs required for young employees to feel true satisfaction and the desire to stay. Participants who worked under strict leadership reported a greater tendency to consider 69 leaving their workplace, despite functioning external conditions and external rewards such as salary. When it comes to motivational factors, the findings indicate a tendency towards a shift from external to internal drivers among recently graduated consultants. Participants primarily valued opportunities for growth, intellectual stimulation, recognition and the opportunity to influence their work, all of which align with the motivational factors identified by Herzberg, as well as the psychological needs outlined in Self-Determination Theory (autonomy, competence, and relatedness). These conditions were perceived as fostering autonomous motivation, where individuals engage in work of genuine interest and personal meaning rather than external pressure. Flexibility and psychological security also emerged as central components of an attractive work environment. These factors, which strengthen employees' experiences of meaning and belonging, appear to be key to long-term retention. At the same time, a lack of development opportunities and influence was perceived as a risk to motivation, even in organizations that offer good material benefits. Another important dimension that the study highlights is how company size affects leadership and motivational climate. The findings indicate that transactional leadership, characterized by a focus on performance, standardization and formal career paths, was more commonly reported by participants working in larger firms. While this approach may create clarity and stability, it risks fostering primarily extrinsic motivation, which could contribute to shorter employment periods. In contrast, participants from small and medium-sized firms more frequently described experiencing inspirational and transformational leadership styles. Although, across all interviews, participants expressed that their organizations generally aimed to adopt elements of transformational leadership. Moreover, in cases where such leadership was perceived as lacking, there was a clear desire among the consultants for a stronger emphasis on transformational qualities such as inspiration, personal development, and individualized support. The division of leadership styles in our data indicates that consultants in firms characterized by transformational leadership reported closer relationships with their leaders, greater autonomy and more personalized work experiences. These environments seemed to support intrinsic motivation and in turn, enhance the likelihood of long-term retention. Based on this, the study suggests competitive advantages regarding attracting young talent for the two categories of firms. SMEs competitive advantage is tied to their offering of meaningful and individualized work environments. Larger firms on the other 70 hand, have a competitive advantage in their strong employer brands and structured career paths. Although these firms may face challenges in maintaining long-term retention if evolving employee expectations put a growing focus on meaningful relationships and personal development. Since the same factors that attract talent also influence whether they choose to stay, attraction and retention are inherently connected, what individuals value or dislike shapes not only their initial decision but also their long-term commitment. Furthermore, a generational shift in work values is emerging. Late-stage Millennials and Generation Z, who formed the participant group in this study, prioritize purpose, flexibility, personal development and psychological security over traditional factors such as salary and job security. This shift challenges older models of motivation and requires organizations to adapt their leadership styles and HR strategies to meet new expectations. Young employees are not only looking for employers that offer financial rewards and external benefits, but also organizations whose values t hey can identify with and where they are given the space to influence and develop. They are also more likely to change employers if these needs are not met, which places demands on employers to actively work with culture, leadership and development opportunities as central parts of their offering in order to also attract new graduates. The study thus directly answers the research question: How do leadership styles and motivational factors influence recent graduates’ perceptions of talent attraction and retention in Swedish management consulting firms? The answer is that transformational leadership and a work climate that promotes autonomous motivation, based on intrinsic motivators, are crucial for attracting and retaining young talent. At the same time, the study shows that transactional methods and a one-sided focus on extrinsic rewards risk leading to controlled motivation, hence lower engagement and increased employee turnover. However, the study revealed that broader contextual factors, such as generational differences, company size, and work environment, play an indirect but significant role in shaping how leadership and motivation are experienced by recent graduates. These factors influence how leadership is perceived and which motivational drivers become relevant, thereby impacting both attraction and retention in subtle but important ways. These insights mean that organizations that want to future-proof their talent strategy should invest in developing leaders who not only manage through goals and rewards, but who also inspire and provide support and create meaning. 71 6.1 Managerial Implications and Recommendations The findings of this study can be translated into practical implications for management consulting firms aiming to improve their attractions and retention strategies. Improvements that can lead to better meeting the expectations of recent graduates. Although both large firms and SMEs do have some common challenges, our results indicate that separate approaches may be the most effective due to the different organizational environments that characterize the firms depending on the size. For SMEs, the ability to foster close relationships and maintain flat hierarchies provides a competitive advantage. These firms are encouraged to strengthen transformational leadership practices even further by offering individualized support, mentorship, and opportunities for professional development. Additionally, SMEs should continue to prioritize flexibility and psychological safety to create a workplace where young consultants feel empowered and valued. In contrast, large consulting firms benefit from established employer brands and well structured career paths, but face the risk of relying too heavily on extrinsic motivators such as salary and benefits. Our study suggests that larger firms should complement these traditional strengths by promoting elements of transformational leadership. Leaders should be encouraged to act as mentors and role models, that provide meaningful feedback and offer opportunities for growth and autonomy. The study highlights the importance of continuously adapting talent management strategies to meet generational expectations. The younger generation increasingly search for purpose, autonomy, and personal development, together with job security and financial benefits. Furthermore, they seek leaders who value work environmental aspects such as meaningful company culture, flexibility, and a sustainable work-life balance. Consulting firms that successfully balance these elements are more likely to attract talent, experience stronger engagement, reduced turnover and a more resilient workforce. This is particularly important in a labor market characterized by change, high mobility and increased demands from a new generation of workers. Previous studies have explored broader labor market trends such as the Great Resignation and employer-to-employer flows, often focusing on structural or global patterns with limited attention to generational or industry-specific perspectives. Other research has emphasized 72 changing career values among younger generations, yet often without connecting these to leadership and motivation practices. However, this study adds a generational and context-specific perspective by highlighting how recent graduates in Sweden value intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership, thereby extending existing knowledge within the field of talent management. 6.2 Further Research Although this study does offer valuable insights into the attraction and retention of recent graduates in the Swedish management consulting sector, there is room for further research. Based on the scope of this study, it could be further expanded in multiple areas. Firstly, the selected participants in this study have not resigned from their jobs. To further investigate resignation, perspectives from resigned consultants could increase understanding and unveil deeper insights. Secondly, the narrow focus on recent graduates and employees could be expanded in the aspect of the managerial areas. For example, include perspectives of HR professionals and leaders in order to investigate the connection between understanding of generational preferences and strategies. This could unveil potential alignments or misalignments between employer intentions and employee perceptions. Thirdly, comparing multiple industries could further increase the generalizability of the findings and investigate if the identified trends are specific to the management consulting industry or if they reflect broader trends. This would not only increase the generalizability of the findings, but also give the research a more holistic perspective. Lastly, due to the qualitative nature of the study, a study of quantitative nature could further increase the validation of the findings. A large-scale survey could help quantify the relative importance of different motivational factors and leadership styles and provide statistical support. 73 References Alshmemri, M., Maude, P., & Shahwan-Akl, L. (2017). Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory. Life Science Journal, 14(5), 12–16. https://doi.org/10.7537/marslsj140517.03. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 9–32. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/135943299398410 Bassett‐Jones, N., & Lloyd, G. C. (2005). Does Herzberg’s Motivation Theory Have Staying power? Journal of Management Development, 24(10), 929–943. Battisti, E., Alfiero, S., & Leonidou, E. (2022). Remote Working and Digital Transformation during the COVID-19 pandemic: Economic–financial Impacts and Psychological Drivers for Employees. Journal of Business Research, 150(1), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.06.010 Bell, E., Bryman, A., & Harley, B. (2022). Business Research Methods (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. Bjelland, M., Fallick, B., Haltiwanger, J., & McEntarfer, E. (2011). Employer-to-Employer Flows in the United States: Estimates Using Linked Employer-Employee Data. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 29(4), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1198/jbes.2011.08053 Bohm, J. (2012). Two-factor theory – at the intersection of health care management and patient satisfaction. ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research, 4, 277. https://doi.org/10.2147/ceor.s29347 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Brozović, D., Jansson, C., & Boers, B. (2023). Strategic flexibility and growth of small and medium-sized enterprises: a study of enablers and barriers. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-05-2022-0577 Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper and Row. Clark, T. (1995). Managing consultants : consultancy as the management of impressions. Open University Press. Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. 74 Coquin, M. (2023). How Consulting Firms Can Find - And Keep - Top Talent. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2023/02/23/how-cons ulting-firms-can-find-and-keep-top-talent/ Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-Determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4(1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108 Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: an Abductive Approach to Case Research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8 Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination Theory and Work Motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322 Gebert, D., Heinitz, K., & Buengeler, C. (2016). Leaders’ charismatic leadership and followers’ commitment - The moderating dynamics of value erosion at the societal level. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.006 Gerhart, B., & Fang, M. (2015). Pay, Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, Performance, and Creativity in the Workplace: Revisiting Long-Held Beliefs. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 489–521. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111418 Ghose, A., & Mukherjee, J. (2023). Conacent Consulting Private Limited: Coping With Mass Resignations After Covid-19. In SAGE Publications: SAGE Business Cases Originals eBooks. SAGE Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529621051 Herzberg, F. (1982). The Managerial Choice. Olympus Pub. Co. Hiltrop, J.-M. (1999). The Quest for the best: Human Resource Practices to Attract and Retain Talent. European Management Journal, 17(4), 422–430. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations : software of the mind : intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed.). Mcgraw-Hill. Ibrahim, I. W., Ghazali, I. M., Syed, A., Rahmat, N. H., Hamid, A., & Azhari, S. H. A. (2023). Exploring Motivation for Learning Using Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13(3), 1065–1083. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i3/16480 75 Kraus, S., Caputo, A., Palacios-Marqués, D., & Danvila-del-Valle, I. (2024). Guest editorial: Talent attraction and retention strategies in the post-COVID era: an introduction. Management Decision, 62(10), 2961–2968. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-10-2024-246 Kostanek, E., & Khoreva, V. (2018). Multi-generational Workforce and Its Implication for Talent Retention Strategies. Psychology of Retention, 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98920-4_10 Kubr, M. (2002). Management Consulting : a Guide to the Profession (4th ed.). International Labour Office. Lee, C.-C., Yeh, W.-C., Yu, Z., & Lin, X.-C. (2023). The relationships between leader emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, and transactional leadership and job performance: A mediator model of trust. Heliyon, 9(8). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18007 Masa’deh, R., Obeidat, B. Y., & Tarhini, A. (2016). A Jordanian empirical study of the associations among transformational leadership, transactional leadership, knowledge sharing, job performance, and firm performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(5), 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-09-2015-0134 Mikroföretag samt små och medelstora företag: definition och tillämpningsområde | EUR-Lex. (2015). Europa.eu. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/SV/TXT/?uri=LEGISSUM:n26026 Numhauser-Henning, A. (2015). The Policy on Gender Equality in Sweden. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/510011/IPOL_STU(201 5)510011_EN.pdf Parker, K., & Horowitz, J. M. (2022). Majority of Workers Who Quit a Job in 2021 Cite Low pay, No Opportunities for advancement, Feeling Disrespected. Pew ResearchCenter. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/09/majority-of-workers-who-quit-a -job-in-2021-cite-low-pay-no-opportunities-for-advancement-feeling-disrespected/ Penn, R., & Nezamis, E. (2022). Job openings and quits reach record highs in 2021, layoffs and discharges fall to record lows. Monthly Labor Review. https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2022.17 Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2013). Organizational behavior (15th ed.). Pearson. Tessema, M. T., Tesfom, G., Faircloth, M. A., Tesfagiorgis, M., & Teckle, P. (2022). The “Great Resignation”: Causes, Consequences, and Creative HR Management Strategies. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 10(01), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2022.101011 76 Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22(3), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393672 Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. John Wiley & Sons. Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016984 Yukl, G. A. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson. 77 Appendix Appendix 1. Interview Guide 78 Appendix 2. Three Words - Most Important Aspects of Job Satisfaction Employee Aspect 1 Aspect 2 Aspect 3 E1 Monetary Personal Work-Life Balance Compensation Development E2 Communication Transparency Flexibility E3 Company Culture Responsibility Varied Assignments E4 Company Culture Personal Varied Assignments Development E5 Company Culture Personal Feedback Development E6 Company Culture Structure Varied Assignments E7 Company Culture Personal Work-Life Balance Development E8 Company Culture Personal Flexibility Development 79