






































Microsoft Word - martin Galley Draft.edited


107 

Employee Engagement Among Millennial  
Cross-Cultural Ministers: Insights for Recruitment 

and Retainment 

Michael Roy Martin 
LCC International University 

Western mission agencies are in a period of transition as baby boomers enter into retirement 
leaving personnel voids millennials and younger generations will need to fill.  Millennial values and 
expectations are different than previous generations and these differences affect their level of 
employee engagement.  Additionally, millennials have a reputation for being difficult to 
manage.  As a generation though, they possess characteristics that would benefit cross-cultural 
ministry endeavors.  Mission agency leaders need to understand their unique values and 
expectations affecting millennials' level of engagement in order to attract and retain them in cross-
cultural ministry positions. Nine factors were gleaned from a literature review that significantly 
impact millennials' level of employee engagement.  Method of Empathy-Based Storying (MEBS) 
was used to present a positive and negative scenario to existing millennial cross-cultural ministers 
(MCCMs).  They were asked to rank these nine factors in order of importance as they saw them 
affecting the protagonist of the scenario's level of engagement. Forty-nine MCCMs took part in 
the survey.  A statistically significant consensus was reached as to the level of significance four of 
the nine factors hold for MCCMs.  Meaningful and challenging work and feeling valued and 
affirmed by leader was viewed as most important, and access to up-to-date technology and 
frequent feedback from leader was least important. These results can be used to gain insights for 
the recruitment and retention of millennials for cross-cultural ministry. 

Keywords: millennial, employee engagement, cross-cultural minister, job crafting, recruitment, retainment 

Introduction 
We are in the middle of a crucial time in cross-cultural ministry recruitment and 

deployment (VanHuis, 2019).  Increasingly baby boomers, those born between 1946 and 19641 are 
retiring from active cross-cultural ministry leaving personnel gaps that need to be filled by younger 
ministers.  The millennial generation, those born between 1980 and 19962 is now the largest 
generation in our society (Cattermole, 2018; Fry, 2020; Vowels, 2014; Gong, Greenwood, Hoyte, 
Ramkissoon & He, 2018; Gerard, 2018; Rawlins, Indvik & Johnson, 2008) providing the greatest 
pool of potential replacements.  Mission leaders will need to give more thought as to how they can 
recruit and retain younger generations like millennials in order to keep or increase current 
deployment levels.  

Organizations seeking to survive what has been referred to as the “war for talent” 
(Plaskoff, 2017) have focused their attention on concepts such as employee engagement in order 
to recruit and retain millennials.  Mission agencies are, and will be, in competition with those 
presenting other career options for millennial talent.  A better understanding of the factors that 
affect levels of work engagement can be one key to win this "war." 

1 Age range for baby boomers according to Gallup as reported by Wolf (2019). 
2 Age range for millennials according to Gallup, as reported by Wolf (2019) 

ADVANCES IN BUSINESS RESEARCH 
2020, Volume 10, pages 107-119 

http://journals.sfu.ca/abr 



108 

According to research, higher levels of employee engagement have shown benefits for 
organizations and businesses.  Highly engaged employees outperform disengaged ones by as much 
as 20 to 30 percent (Burnett & Lisk, 2019).  Fully engaged employees are 50% more likely to exceed 
their employer’s expectations (Goffee & Jones, 2013).  Companies which have four engaged 
workers for every one disengaged worker show 2.6 times more growth in earnings per share 
compared to companies with one engaged worker, or less, to one disengaged worker (Choo, Mat 
& Al-Omari, 2013).  Engaged workers help companies outperform companies with mostly 
disengaged workers on several metrics, including 89 percent better customer satisfaction and up 
to four times more revenue (Goffee & Jones, 2013).  Burnett and Lisk (2019) in their research also 
found that highly engaged workers have better interactions with customers.  Most importantly, 
employee engagement has helped organizations retain employees (Ma, Mayfield & Mayfield, 2018; 
Goffee & Jones, 2013) and has contributed to higher levels of commitment (Dagher, Chapa & 
Junaid, 2015; Devendhiran & Wesley, 2017; Burnett & Lisk, 2019).   

Concepts such as employee engagement have become especially important in regards to 
millennial workers who appear uncommitted to long-term employment: fifty percent of millennials 
say they will be with another employer in a year’s time (Wolf, 2019).  Millennials are the least 
engaged generation.  In 2016, Gallup found that only 29% of millennials surveyed were engaged 
with their current job, while 16% were disengaged, that is, actively seeking to harm their 
organization (Adkins, 2016a; Clifton, 2016).  Millennials, more than any other generation, struggle 
to find jobs that engage them (Adkins, 2016b, Clifton, 2016).  According to Barna Group, a faith 
and culture research agency, 9 out of 10 millennials expect to stay in their current job for only 
three years (When millennials go …, 2016).  However, some of this non-committal behavior may 
be a result of millennials entering a difficult job market brought on by the Great Recession at the 
end of the first decade of the 21st century (De Hauw & De Vos, 2010).  Furthermore, some 
stereotypes about millennials may merely be unjust anecdotes lacking empirical backing (Wong, 
Gardiner, Lang & Coulon., 2008). 

The author carried out research in an attempt to partially address the need for more 
millennial cross-cultural ministers (MCCMs) by studying factors that create higher levels of work 
and organizational engagement for millennials who are already working in an overseas context. 
The goal was to glean insights regarding work engagement that will have implications for better 
overall recruitment and retention strategies with millennials in mission service.  A survey was 
performed by the author using Method of Empathy-Based Storying (MEBS), in which MCCMs 
were asked to rank nine factors according to their significance for higher levels of engagement. 
These factors were gleaned from an academic review of literature regarding work engagement 
factors for millennials in domestic job settings.  An extensive list of engagement elements was 
refined from 19 to 9, grouping elements together according to similarity.  This was done to limit 
the number of factors a survey participant would have to rank.  It was determined that asking 
someone to rank more than nine factors would have been an overwhelming and complicated task. 
Persons born in or between 1980 and 1996, and currently ministering cross-culturally in a foreign 
country were asked to participate in the survey.  

Little was found during a literature review regarding MCCMs and work engagement.  While 
Jolene Cassellius Erlacher in Millennials in Ministry (2014) provided invaluable insights into 
millennials in ministry regarding their values, expectations, and experiences, most of her study was 
based on interviews with millennial leaders in domestic home culture ministry settings. 
Proportionally, few of her interviews were done with MCCMs. Therefore, this research will have 
value for the broader understanding of millennials in ministry by focusing solely on MCCMs and 
what they need for better work engagement. 

Research Hypothesis 
The author proposes that millennials ministering cross-culturally will reach a consensus 

that some factors for better millennial work engagement are more or less significant in their cross-



 109 

cultural work scenarios overseas.  The null hypothesis is that no consensus in the ranking exercise 
will be reached. 
 
Literature Review 
 Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and Bakker (2002) described employee engagement 
as, “A positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and 
absorption.” William Kahn (1990) found that people use varying degrees of their physical, 
emotional, and cognitive selves at different times in their jobs.  Therefore, it is not reasonable to 
expect someone to be fully engaged at all times.  Rather, we should learn to view an employee on 
a continuum between disengaged and engaged at different levels at different points of time 
(Wollard, 2012).  With this in mind, employers need to ask, what components contribute to higher 
levels of engagement and what is the best way to keep employees engaged more frequently at 
higher levels. 
 Unfortunately, most strategies for achieving higher levels of engagement are based on old 
ways of thinking, starting with company needs instead of individual needs (Plaskoff, 2017).  
Human resources departments need to better align their overall practice with employee 
engagement strategies (Choo, et al, 2013) and one of the ways this can be done is to think about 
the worker’s condition more holistically; cognitively, emotionally, socially, politically, economically 
and physically (Plaskoff, 2017).  This is part of a shift in focus away from what can be extracted 
from an employee, to what can be instilled in an employee (Goffee & Jones, 2013). 
 An important aspect of this shift toward employee investment is job crafting or job design 
thinking.  Job crafting starts with the needs, wants, fears, and emotions of the employee, and 
focuses on designing a work experience, or “solution” with the employee’s participation (Plaskoff, 
2017).  This is a practice worth pursuing; job crafting has shown to positively affect organizational 
citizenship behavior (OCB), another element of employee engagement, especially among 
millennials (Gong et al., 20132018). 
 Furthermore, a manager’s role and actions are paramount toward creating higher levels of 
employee engagement.  Especially when managing millennials, organizations need to be careful to 
hire not only motivated and skilled managers, but caring managers who want to maximize each 
worker’s potential (Clifton, 2016; Kultalahti & Viitala, 2014; Burnett & Lisk, 2019).  Millennials 
expect managers to be coaches with whom they can be close (Kultalahti & Viitala, 2014; Kultalahti 
& Viitala, 2015).  
 
Generational Differences and Employee Engagement Strategy 
 For the first time in history, we have four distinct generations in the workforce (Plaskoff, 
2017; Bennett, Pitts & Price, 2012; Hansen & Leuty, 2012; Cahill & Sedrak, 2012).   Generational 
cohorts differ from each other based on their life experiences, attitudes, beliefs, values and 
behaviors (Cahill & Sedrak, 2012; Glazer, Mahoney & Randall, 2019; Twenge, Campbell & 
Freeman, 2012).  These shared identities are all very difficult to change (Cahill & Sedrak, 2012).  
Different generations see themselves as marked by different strengths and characteristics 
(Millennials: A portrait of ..., 2010).  Subsequently, every generation tends to put down the next 
generation based on differing characteristics (Glazer, et al., 2019; Vowels, 2014).  Each generation 
has different ideas about how to behave in the workplace and different ideas about what to expect 
from their employers (Glazer et al., 20132019).  It is important, therefore, to understand these 
differences and adapt accordingly, especially with newer generations entering the workforce.   
 Unfortunately, most leaders have taken a “wait and see” approach, anticipating that as 
younger workers grow older, they will adapt and fit in with what is expected of them (Cahill & 
Sedrak, 2012).  Such leaders may soon be disappointed, for Hansen and Leuty found in their 
research that work values are influenced more so by their generational cohort than their age (2012).  
As workers age, they are unlikely to change in order to fit in or adapt to their employer's 



110 

expectations.  The onus therefore, it would seem, is on managers and leaders of organizations to 
understand and know how to manage people from different generations with different values. 

Millennials – Who are They? 
Millennials are the largest living generation (Cattermole, 2018; Rawlins et al., 2008) and 

are expected to peak in the United States at 74.9 million people in 2033 (Fry, 2020).  Millennials 
grew up with very different experiences as kids and youth (Cahill & Sedrak, 2012).  They were the 
most supervised generation (Vowels, 2014).  They were raised by child-centric, high-performance 
parents (Glazer et al., 20132019, Raymo & Raymo, 2014) and possess an intense drive to succeed 
because of the high expectations placed upon them (Erlacher, 2014).  They were constantly told 
they were special and encouraged that they could do anything they wanted to which may have 
contributed to a sense of entitlement and narcissistic behavior (Erlacher, 2014; Cahill & Sedrak, 
2012).  They were encouraged in school to work together which generally makes them better team 
players than other generations (Vowels, 2014).  Technology, which they are very comfortable with, 
was a present reality in their lives from birth (Vowels, 2014; Gerard, 2018).  They were raised 
egalitarian, in that everyone got a prize just for simply participating (Cahill & Sedrak, 2012). 

Millennials are confident and optimistic (Adkins, 2016b).  When millennials were asked in 
a survey to agree or disagree with the statement, “I believe I can do something great,” 96% agreed 
(Vowels, 2014).  They desire responsibility, even demanding it (Martin, 2005) and want to be 
included in decision-making processes (Luscombe, Lewis, & Biggs, 2013).  Millennials expect to 
get rewards, development opportunities and promotions immediately upon employment 
(Cattermole, 2018).  

One of the most defining characteristics of millennials is their use of technology 
(Millennials: A portrait of ..., 2010).  The introduction of the internet during their youth has 
changed the way millennials "…interact, consume content, browse, buy and work" (Adkins, 
2016b).  Gordon, in her research into millennial librarians and their needs, states that millennials 
have learned to use technology as naturally as they have learned to speak their native language 
(2010).  For this reason, millennials expect that all technology in their workplace will be up-to-date 
(Luscombe et al., 2013). 

Millennials bring a lot of strengths, benefits, and positive values to the workplace. 
Millennials are stronger team players than most generations (Gordon, 2010; Cattermole, 2018). 
They desire collaboration (Martin, 2005), so offering opportunities to work in teams is one way to 
attract them into organizations (Bennett et al., 2012).  As well, training and development are highly 
valued by millennials (Gordon, 2010; Glazer et al., 2019; Luscombe et al., 2013; Adkins & Rigoni, 
2016).  They expect that their work will be varied and include meaningful, challenging tasks which 
provide opportunity for growth (Kultalahti & Viitala, 2014; Kultalahti & Viitala, 2015).  Providing 
opportunities to develop their skills creates ways for them to increase credibility with co-workers 
which in turn helps increase commitment (Gerard, 2018).  

Millennials in Cross-Cultural Ministry 
Millennials are needed in cross-cultural ministry.  Leaders need to see millennials as the 

solution instead of the problem, and that they are needed to replace retiring baby boomers (Cahill 
& Sedrak,  2012).  Much discussion to this effect is  taking place  in the  business world, but  
unfortunately, not as much as it needs to be in ministry spheres (Erlacher, 2014).  This is 
unfortunate, for millennials have shown more proclivity to service than other generations (Gong 
et al., 20132018). 

Millennials have other characteristics and values that fit well with cross-cultural ministry, 
which Vowels (2014) lays out: 

 they are a high performing generation if managed properly
 they are optimistic and possess unfailing hope



111 

 they have a holistic approach to ministry
 they consider other cultures as equal to their own
 they are concerned about alleviating human suffering

Erlacher (2014) adds that they were taught from an early age to value collaboration and teamwork, 
along with tolerance of differences and engage strongly with social justice issues which seem to be 
noble character traits of those seeking to minister cross-culturally. 

Issues Managing Millennials 
Millennials have been referred to as a generation “much maligned” (Cattermole, 2018, p. 

290).  Some see them as lazy and self-centered (When millennials go …, 2016; LaCore, 2015; 
Rawlins et al., 20132008).  Many people see them as entitled and narcissistic, making them difficult 
to please (Robison, 2018) and giving them an over-inflated view of themselves (Vowels, 2014). 
Being the most over-supervised generation ever makes many millennials seem emotionally needy 
(Luscombe et al., 2013) and often they project the role of parent onto their leaders causing extra 
pressure and frustration (Erlacher, 2014).  Many millennials were sheltered growing up, making it 
harder for them to deal with disappointment (Erlacher, 2014).  Gordon states that they have the 
reputation of being, “… a generation of needy adults who can’t think for themselves” (2010, p. 
395).  Millennials need constant praise (Cahill & Sedrak, 2012) and when there is an absence of 
constant affirmation, they begin to think that something is wrong (Erlacher, 2014).  Furthermore, 
millennials can easily become bored as a result of being constantly occupied growing up (Cahill & 
Sedrak, 2012).  These supposed attributions may become a source of stress for managers working 
with millennials. 

In regards to work engagement, millennials are the least engaged generation in the 
workforce today (Adkins, 2016a; Gong et al., 20132018).  Many millennials struggle to find jobs 
that engage them making millennials appear notoriously non-committal (Clifton, 2016).  This low 
level of commitment and psychological detachment from their jobs creates, by and large, a state 
of disinterest in long-term employment with their current employer (Gong et al., 20132018). 
However, this may be a result of the life-stage millennials are currently in, which could change as 
more get married and have families of their own (Glazer et al., 20132019).  As well, some of this 
can be contributed to the job environment millennials found themselves in during the Great 
Recession (De Hauw & De Vos, 2010). 

The Nine Factors for Better Millennial Engagement 
While researching millennial values and expectations in the workplace, certain themes 

repeatedly came forward as important factors affecting millennials' levels of work engagement.  As 
mentioned beforehand, these themes were condensed into a list of nine factors.  These factors 
were later used in a survey given to MCCMs to determine which ones were most or least significant 
for them for increasing levels of engagement.  These nine factors are as follows: frequent feedback 
from leader(s) regarding performance (Cattermole, 2018; No accounting for taste …, 2017; Martin, 
2005; Gordon, 2010; Clifton, 2016; Luscombe et al., 2013), meaningful and challenging work 
(Luscombe et al., 2013; Gerard, 2018; Martin, 2005; Kultalahti & Viitala, 2014; Glazer et al., 
20132019; Vowels, 2014; Erlacher, 2014; Gong et al., 20132018, De Hauw & De Vos, 2010), 
feeling valued and affirmed by leader(s) (Luscombe et al., 2013; Gordon, 2010; Erlacher, 2014; 
Cahill & Sedrak, 2012), opportunities for growth and development (Kultalahti & Viitala, 2014; 
Kultalahti & Viitala, 2015; Adkins & Rigoni, 2016; Glazer et al., 20132019; Gong et al., 20132018; 
Gordon, 2010; De Hauw & De Vos, 2010), collaborative team environment (Bennett et al., 
20132012; Erlander, 2014; Vowels, 2014; Martin, 2005; Kultalahti & Viitala, 2014; Kultalahti & 
Viitala, 2015; Gordon, 2010; De Hauw & De Vos, 2010), access and use of up-to-date technology 
(Martin, 2005; Luscombe et al., 2013; Millennials: A portrait of ..., 2010; Vowels, 2014; Erlacher, 
2014), personal and open relationship with leader(s) (Robison, 2019; Clifton, 2016; Kultalahti & 
Viitala, 2015; Martin, 2005; Cattermole, 2018; Erlacher, 2014; Bennett et al., 20132012; Cattermole, 



 112 

2018), good work-life balance with flexible schedule (No accounting for taste …, 2017; Martin, 
2005; Cattermole, 2018; Gordon, 2010; Kultalahti & Viitala, 2015; Erlacher, 2014; Hasen & Leuty, 
2012; Rawlins et al., 20132008; De Hauw & De Vos, 2010; Twenge, 2010), being involved in 
decisions (Luscombe et al., 2013; Cattermole, 2018; Vowels, 2014; Gordon, 2010; Martin, 2005). 
 

Methodology 
 Data was collected in a survey using Method of Empathy-Based Storying (MEBS).  MEBS 
has its roots in narrative inquiry and passive, non-active role playing (Kultalahti & Viitala, 2014).  
It came to be used as a substitute for deception used in experimental psychology (Wallin, Koro-
Ljungberg & Eskola, 2019).  The MEBS approach has been called “applied empathy” (Wallin et 
al., 20132019) where a participant is encouraged to look at the scenario from the protagonist’s 
perspective.  In this way, the participant reveals their own perceptions, reasoning, expectations 
and values by transposing them onto the character’s situation.  In MEBS, participants are 
encouraged to imagine what the protagonist is thinking and feeling, thus creating a connection.  
MEBS is thus well suited to examine the unique motivators that engage millennials by providing a 
framed story with which they can relate and bring their own unique interpretation to it, thus 
revealing their own values and expectations in similar situations.  
 MEBS is based on framed stories which are presented to participants in two variations 
with a single changed element.  In this case, one story is about a positive experience and one story 
is about a negative experience involving the same protagonist in an overseas mission context; 
One day Mel, who is a cross-cultural minister, comes home at the end of a day. Mel feels motivated, 
dedicated, invigorated and is absorbed in the ministry. It is nice to start each morning and Mel is 
always looking forward to the next day. Mel’s relationship with the organization is thriving and 
Mel enjoys the work. Why would Mel feel this motivated, dedicated, invigorated and absorbed 
with the ministry? 

One day Mel, who is a cross-cultural minister, comes home at the end of a day. Mel feels 
tired, demotivated, disconnected and depleted. Mel feels drained and disconnected from the 
ministry. It is not nice to start each morning and Mel dreads the beginning of each new day. Mel’s 
relationship with the organization is distant and Mel does not enjoy work. Why is Mel unmotivated, 
not dedicated, invigorated or absorbed with the ministry? 

The survey participants were then asked to rank the nine engagement factors for 
millennials, from most to least significance as they affected Mel's experience in the different 
scenarios.  A list of negative factors, for ranking was provided for the negative scenario and were 
the opposite of the positive factors: 
 

 Infrequent feedback from leader(s) regarding performance 
 Boring routine tasks without meaning 
 Doesn't feel valued or affirmed by leader(s) or team 
 Lack of development opportunities 
 Lack of collaborative team 
 Distant and closed relationship with leader(s) 
 No access to up-to-date technology 
 Poor work-life balance with inflexible schedule 
 Not involved in decision-making 

 
 Participants were sought through approaching different mission agencies, the leaders of 
which were sent a link to the online survey hosted by Survey Monkey.  Leaders were asked to 
distribute the survey link to millennials in the specified age bracket who had ministered or were 
currently ministering in a foreign country and who had at minimum three months of experience 
overseas.  Completed surveys were filtered to include only millennials born in or between the years 



 113 

1980 to 1996 during data analysis.  This age bracket was frequently used by Gallup in their 
millennial research and was therefore chosen as an age parameter for this survey.  According to 
this criteria, 49 valid surveys were collected for analysis.  Data was analyzed quantitatively using 
SPSS and analysis tools provided by Survey Monkey. 
 
Results 
 In the survey, the participants ranked all nine factors from one to nine, one (1) being the 
most significant and nine (9) the least significant factor.  Survey Monkey then inverted these 
rankings so that higher scores (i.e., 9) indicated higher significance and lower scores (i.e., 1) 
indicated lower significance. 
 For the positive MEBS scenario, the factor accorded the highest score (8.18 out of 9.0) 
was having meaningful and challenging work, indicating that participants considered this a very 
important factor affecting the protagonist’s positive experience in cross-cultural ministry (see 
Figure 1).  This factor was ranked number one by 63.3% (n=31) of respondents. 
Additionally, 22.4% (n=11) ranked meaningful and challenging work as either number two or  
three in significance, meaning 85.7% (n=42) ranked it as one of their top three most significant 
factors.  Clearly, for most participants, having meaningful and challenging work was the most 
significant factor, or at least was a very important one for determining their level of engagement. 
 Two other factors rounding out the top three for importance were a collaborative team 
environment (score=6.12) and feeling valued and affirmed by leader(s) (score=5.98). 
 
Figure 1 - MEBS positive scenario cumulative ranking scores 

 The lowest score, or that considered the least significant factor affecting the protagonist’s 
positive experience was having access and use of up-to-date technology (score=1.45).  
Overwhelmingly, 75.5% (n=37) ranked it the least significant factor with 90% (n=44) of 
participants ranking it as number eight or nine.  Up-to-date technology may be somewhat 
important for millennials ministering overseas for work engagement, but in comparison to the 



 114 

other factors, this was overwhelmingly considered the least important.  Frequent feedback from 
leader(s) regarding performance was scored the second lowest (score=2.92).  In contradiction to what 
other researchers have found important for millennials in the workplace, MCCMs seem to not 
consider these two factors significant for engagement. 
 Turning to the negative scenario and participants’ responses; the antithesis of meaningful 
and challenging work, that is, boring, routine tasks without meaning, was ranked as the most significant 
factor affecting the protagonist's negative experience as a cross- 
 
Figure 2 - MEBS negative scenario cumulative ranking scores 

 cultural minister, receiving a score of 6.8 out of 9.0 (see Figure 2).  Close to one-third of 
respondents, 32.7% (n=16), chose it as the most significant factor in the negative scenario. 
 Not feeling valued or affirmed by leader(s) and poor work-life balance with an inflexible schedule made 
up the remainder of the top three significant factors affecting the protagonist's negative experience 
with scores of 6.22 and 6.06, respectively. 
 As in the positive scenario, technology was considered the least significant factor affecting 
the protagonist’s negative experience, scoring 1.69.  Most respondents, 75.5% (n=37) of them, 
ranked it as the least significant factor.  Also deemed of little significance, but with a slightly higher 
score of 3.49 was having infrequent feedback from leader(s)  
regarding performance.  The majority of respondents, 61%, ranked it either number six (n=10), 
seven (n=10), or eight (n=10), however, one respondent ranked it number one. 
 
Statistical Significance Analysis of the Ranking Responses 
 A Kolmogorov-Smirnov, non-parametric test of the data found that five factors had higher 
meaning in their rank placement by the participants.  Higher homogeneity in ranking (p < .050) 
was found for the following factors: meaningful and challenging work (M = 1.82, SD = 1.52, p < .001), 
access to up-to-date technology (M = 8.55, SD = 1.00, p < .001), no access to up-to-date technology (M = 8.31, 
SD = 1.43, p < .001), frequent feedback from leader (s) regarding performance (M = 7.08, SD = 1.51, p = 



 115 

.019) and boring, routine tasks without meaning (M=3.20, SD = 2.31, p = .028).  With these factors, we 
can conclude there was a clear consensus among the survey participants as to their level of affect 
on feelings of engagement.  The remaining factors failed to show any clear consensus as to their 
importance for the participants.  
 The factors were then combined with their opposing counterpart (e.g. “meaningful and 
challenging work” with “boring, routine tasks without meaning”) and tested for homogeneity of 
variance.  Four pairs showed a higher level homogeneity (p < .100): meaningful and challenging 
work/boring routing tasks without meaning (M = 2.51, SD = 2.06, p = .001), feeling valued and affirmed by 
leader(s)/doesn’t feel valued or affirmed by leader(s) or team (M = 3.90, SD = 2.24, p = .011), access to up-to-
date technology/no access to up-to-date technology (M = 8.42, SD = 1.24, p = .035), and frequent feedback 
from leader(s) regarding performance/infrequent feedback from leader(s) regarding performance (M = 6.80, SD = 
1.73, p = .081).  Therefore, we can conclude that the survey participants reached a consensus as to 
the importance or unimportance of these factors and their affect on levels of engagement.  The 
remaining paired factors achieved no clear consensus under statistical analysis as to their level of 
importance. 
 
Discussion 
 From the survey results, we can see that there is a clear consensus that having meaningful 
and challenging tasks significantly affects work engagement levels for MCCMs.  From previous 
research into millennial values and expectations, most millennials desire to work at something 
meaningful that provides them with purpose (Luscombe et al., 2013; Gerard, 2018; Martin, 2005; 
Kultalahti & Viitala, 2014; Glazer, et al., 2019; Vowels, 2014; Erlacher, 2014; Gong, et al., 2018).  
That it was a top choice for MCCMs should not come as too much of a surprise.  Someone who 
moves from what is familiar, their home country and culture, to a place that is unfamiliar and very 
different is not likely looking for an easy task.  Furthermore, close to a third of the survey 
participants did not want to name the country they were in for security reasons, indicating another 
level of challenge beyond mere cultural adjustments.  MCCMs seem ready to take on any challenge 
no matter where they go.  There could be higher motivations, i.e., spiritual, involved here that 
seem to make the difficulties they face worthwhile and all the more purposeful. 
 The implication here is that providing work that challenges millennials will not deter, rather 
would more than likely attract them to ministering overseas.  Mission agencies should keep this in 
mind when recruiting new talent.  Potential candidates for cross-cultural ministry positions are 
looking for something that adds meaning to their lives and most likely will not be dissuaded if the 
path ahead is difficult.  Furthermore, mission agency leaders could help retain their MCCMs by 
providing task variety and somehow intentionally keep MCCMs from falling into tasks that 
become boring and routine.  Leaders of MCCMs could use tools like job crafting to create, with 
each millennial's input, positions that suit their unique desires and motivations and provide on-
going challenge and meaning. 
 There is also a clear consensus regarding the insignificance of access to up-to-date 
technology and its effect on levels of engagement.  Perhaps this is because the majority of MCCMs’ 
work is with people, involving social interaction, and they are not as dependent on technology in 
their profession as millennials would be in other lines of employment.  The slightly higher score 
for this factor’s significance affecting the negative scenario might be an indication that as long as 
technology is adequate, MCCMs will be satisfied.  Perhaps this factor’s level of significance can be 
better interpreted using Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory (Herzberg’s motivation theory …, 
2018); while the absence of technology would be unacceptable, its quality, when needed, is not 
significantly important.  The implication for mission agencies here seems obvious; using up-to-
date technology most likely will not attract millennials to cross-cultural ministry, nor will it be an 
important factor in keeping them on board. 
 A clear consensus regarding the significance of feeling valued and affirmed came across in 
the factor rankings as well.  Being valued and affirmed was firmly ranked as a top three significant 



 116 

factor in both the positive and negative scenario.  This provides us with an understanding how 
significant morale support is for MCCMs ministering in the places they live.  Encountering 
discouragement and difficulty in a foreign country is more likely given the added challenges of 
cultural adjustment.  Therefore, encouragement from leaders, in the form of affirmation and value 
placement, could play an important part in helping MCCMs continue in their work.  For recruiters, 
perhaps an honest evaluation of a candidate’s gifting and qualification, followed by 
acknowledgment of that in the form of affirmation would be a useful strategy to attract them to 
overseas positions.  After successful recruitment, continually communicating to them their value 
to the organization and the ministry seems necessary. 
 Frequent or infrequent feedback regarding their performance received clear consensus as 
to its relative insignificance to MCCM’s level of engagement.  This is a little bit surprising 
considering the number of times constant feedback appeared in the literature review, particularly 
given the research showing how annual reviews are no longer adequate for millennials and that 
they expect on-going, continual feedback.  However, the low significance it held for MCCMs could 
be explained as a result of cross-cultural ministers needing to act more independently, being 
geographically distant from their leaders.  Or it could be that leaders’ feedback may be seen as 
irrelevant because their leaders are not actually in the field and lack the insight a cross-cultural 
minister has from their everyday experience.  Whatever the reason for the low significance 
accorded to this factor, mission agency recruiters and leaders most likely will not need to focus on 
this in order attract new millennials or retain their current MCCMs. 
 For the rest of the remaining factors, a clear consensus regarding their level of significance 
for engagement was not evident.  This may not mean that they are insignificant or irrelevant for 
MCCMs.  All we can conclude here, based on the present data, is that the remaining factors may 
or may not be important enough to those surveyed to be considered as valuable recruiting and 
retention tools.  
 
Limitations To Research 
 The Covid-19 pandemic was spreading around the world as the data collection phase of 
this project was beginning.  Mission leaders seemed preoccupied with this and perhaps not as 
many people were reached by the survey as could have had everything been running normally.  A 
larger sample size would likely have provided more conclusive results.  As well, an overwhelming 
majority of participants were ethnically Caucasian. Having more diversity in the ethnic make-up 
of participants would likely have offered better insights and would have better reflected the 
ethnical-diversity of the millennial generation as a whole. 
 
Further Research 
 Further research could be made into what constitutes work that is meaningful and 
challenging for MCCMs as well as what being valued and affirmed looks like to them.  Some more 
exploration into these two factors would be beneficial given the consensus that came from the 
data regarding their level of significance.  As well, another ranking survey could be performed with 
the remaining five factors that did not produce a clear consensus as to their level of significance.  
Eliminating four factors might enable participants to differentiate better the level of significance, 
or insignificance, of these remaining factors. 
 

Conclusion 
 A change in personnel is happening in mission agencies now.  How well mission leaders 
address this transition, as one generation retires and another takes its place, will define what cross-
cultural ministry looks like in the years to come.  It is important, therefore, that leaders learn to 
adapt their strategies to not only accommodate the millennial generation, but also future 
generations to come.  This research provides leaders valuable insight regarding what millennials 
consider important for enhancing their level of work engagement.  It will be important for mission 



 117 

agencies to provide millennials with meaningful challenges to attract and retain their presence in 
missions work.  It will be important too that they continually affirm and communicate a sense of 
value for MCCMs and the work they are doing.  If these two factors are kept in mind for recruiting 
and retention efforts, mission leaders will better navigate this significant personnel transition. 
 

References 

Adkins, A. (2016a). Millennials: The job-hopping generation. Washington D.C.: Gallup. doi: 
https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/191459/millennials-job-
hoppinggeneration.aspx

Adkins, A. (2016b). What millennials want from work and life. Washington D.C.: Gallup. 
doi:https://www.gallup.com/workplace/236477/millennials-work-life.aspx  

Adkins, A., & Rigoni, B. (2016). Millennial job-hoppers: What they seek. Washington D.C.: Gallup. 
doi:https://www.gallup.com/workplace/236471/millennial-job-hoppers-seek.aspx  

Bennett, J., Pitt, M., & Price, S. (2012). Understanding the impact of generational issues in the 
workplace. Facilities, 30(7), 278-288. doi:10.1108/02632771211220086  

Burnett, J. R., & Lisk, T. C. (2019). The future of employee engagement: Real-time monitoring 
and digital tools for engaging a workforce. International Studies of Management & 
Organization, 49(1), 108-119. doi:10.1080/00208825.2019.1565097  

Cahill, T. F., & Sedrak, M. (2012). Leading a multigenerational workforce: Strategies for 
attracting and retaining millennials. Frontiers of Health Services Management, 29(1), 3-15.  

Cattermole, G. (2018). Creating an employee engagement strategy for millennials. Strategic HR 
Review, 17(6), 290-294. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/SHR-07-2018-0059  

Choo, S. L., Mat, N., & Al‐Omari, M. (2013). Organizational practices and employee 
engagement: A case of Malaysia electronics manufacturing firms. Business Strategy Series, 
14(1), 3-10. doi:10.1108/17515631311295659  

Clifton, J. (2016). Millennials: How they live and work. Washington D.C.: Gallup. doi:Gallup 
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/191426/millennials-live-work.aspx  

Dagher, G. K., Chapa, O., & Junaid, N. (2015). The historical evolution of employee 
engagement and self-efficacy constructs. Journal of Management History, 21(2), 232-256.  

De Hauw, S., & De Vos, A. (2010). Millennials' Career Perspective and Psychological Contract 
Expectations: Does the Recession Lead to Lowered Expectations? Journal of Business 
Psychology, 25, 293-302. 

Devendhiran, S., & Wesley, J. R. (2017). Spirituality at work: Enhancing levels of employee 
engagement. Development and Learning in Organizations, 31(5), 9-13. doi:10.1108/DLO-08-
2016-0070  

Erlacher, J. C. (2014). Millennials in ministry. Valley Forge: Judson Press. 
Fry, R. (2020). Millennials overtake baby boomers as America's largest generation. Retrieved from 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/28/millennials-overtake-baby-
boomers-as-americas-largest-generation/ 

Gerard, N. (2018). Millennial managers: Exploring the next generation of talent. Leadership in 
Health Services, doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-01-2018-0004  

Glazer, S., Mahoney, A. C., & Randall, Y. (2019). Employee development’s role in organizational 
commitment: A preliminary investigation comparing generation X and millennial 
employees. Industrial and Commercial Training, 51(1), 1-12. doi:10.1108/ICT-07-2018-0061  

Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2013). Creating the best workplace on earth. Harvard Business Review, 
Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/05/creating-the-best-workplace-on-earth  

Gong, B., Greenwood, R. A., Hoyte, D., Ramkissoon, A., & He, X. (2018). Millennials and 
organizational citizenship behavior: The role of job crafting and career anchor on service. 
Management Research Review, 41(7), 774-788. doi:10.1108/MRR-05-2016-0121  



 118 

Gordon, S. (2010). Once you get them, how do you keep them? millennial librarians at work. 
New Library World, 111(9/10), 391-398.  

Hansen, J. C., & Leuty, M. E. (2012). Work values across generations. Journal of Career Assessment, 
20(1), 34-52.  

Herzberg’s motivation theory – two factor theory. (2018). Retrieved from 
https://expertprogrammanagement.com/2018/04/herzbergs-two-factor-theory/ 

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at 
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.  

Kultalahti, S., & Viitala, R.L. (2014). Sufficient challenges and a weekend ahead – generation Y 
describing motivation at work. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(4), 569-582. 
doi:10.1108/JOCM-05-2014-0101  

Kultalahti, S., & Viitala, R.L. (2015). Generation Y – challenging clients for HRM? Journal of 
Managerial Psychology, 30(1), 101-114. doi:10.1108/JMP-08-2014-0230  

LaCore, E. (2015). Supporting millennials in the workplace. Strategic HR Review, 14(4) 
doi:10.1108/SHR-06-2015-0046  

Luscombe, J., Lewis, I., & Biggs, H. C. (2013). Essential elements for recruitment and retention: 
Generation Y. Education + Training, 55(3), 272-290. doi:https:// 
doi.org/10.1108/00400911311309323  

Ma, Q. K., Mayfield, M., & Mayfield, J. (2018). Keep them on-board! how organizations can 
develop employee embeddedness to increase employee retention. Development and Learning 
in Organizations, 32(4), 5-9. doi:10.1108/DLO-11-2017-0094  

Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity. Industrial and Commercial 
Training, 37(1), 39-45.  

Millennials: A portrait of generation next. (2010). Pew Research Center. Retrieved from 
http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/millennials-confident-connected-open-to-
change.pdf.  

No accounting for taste: Problems in hiring and retaining millennials. (2017). Human Resource Management 
International Digest, 25(3), 30-32. doi:10.1108/HRMID-03-2017-0044  

Plaskoff, J. (2017). Employee experience: The new human resource management approach. 
Strategic HR Review, 16(3), 136-141. doi:10.1108/SHR-12-2016-0108  

Rawlins, C., Indvik, J., & Johnson, P. R. (2008). Understanding the new generation: What the 
millennial cohort absolutely, positively must have at work. Journal of Organizational Culture, 
Communications and Conflict, 12(2), 1-8.  

Raymo, J., & Raymo, J. (2014). Millennials and mission. Pasadena, California: William Carey 
Library.  

Robison, J. (2019). What millennials want is good for your business.  Washington D.C.: Gallup.  
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of 

engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytical approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 
3(1), 71-92. 

Twenge, J.M. (2010) ‘A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work 
attitudes,’ Journal of Business and Psychology, 25: 201-210. 

Twenge, J.M., Campbell, W.K., and Freeman, E.C. (2012). Generational differences in young 
adults’ life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966-2009. Personality Processes 
and Individual Differences, 102(5), 1045-1062.  

VanHuis, M. R. (2019). Attrition study research report. Missio Nexus.  
Vowels, M. C. (2014). Millennials: Why the next generation will change the way we do missions. Bob Jones 

University.  
Wallin, A., Koro-Ljungberg, M. & Eskola, J. (2019). The method of empathy-based stories. 

International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 42(5), 525-535.   
When millennials go to work. (2016). Barna Group. Retrieved from 

https://www.barna.com/research/when-millennials-go-to-work/  



 119 

Wolf, R. (2019). Wellbeing by generation: Where some thrive, others struggle.  Washington D.C.: Gallup.  
Wollard, K. K. (2011). Quiet desperation: Another perspective on employee engagement. 

Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(4), 526-537.  
Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Generational differences in personality 

and motivation. Do they exist and what are the implications for the workplace? Journal of 
Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 878–890. 

 


