write a response with recent peer reviewed articles to this discussion post: I am researching what HR leaders can do to retain the employees of Generation Z. Numerous organizations do not have successful retention of this cohort to be able to see the benefits of their skills. The detailed business problem I put in my prospectus is that some HR leaders do not have an effective strategy to retain the Generation Z employees. This puts the continuity of the workforce and the sustainability of the business at risk. I target HR leaders in American organizations and would employ a pragmatic qualitative inquiry in order to bring to the surface practical, evidence-based strategies that have been demonstrated to work in practice. The studies reveal that the retention of Generation Z depends on a number of factors. These are meaningful recognition, work arrangements, and career development (Bautista and Cahigas, 2024). These factors are the reason behind Gen Z staying and leaving. The topic enables me to look at tangible HR practices, including flexibility, recognition, and growth paths. I can then relate them to retention outcomes to enable the leaders to implement practical strategies in line with the Gen Z needs.

Being an independent scholar who is researching the topic of Generation Z retention strategies, I understand that my personal beliefs, experiences, and expectations can affect my understanding of the information. Since I belong to a generation that is older than Gen Z, I can, in fact, be making assumptions about their views on work, loyalty, or commitment. Such assumptions may be more of stereotypes as opposed to evidence. Stability and long-term jobs are also important to me. This may affect my assessment of brief employment experiences of Gen Z employees. The other prejudice can be due to my career in human resource management. This may make me be more inclined towards managerial approaches than employee ones. Realization of such predispositions came out of prospectus phase reflective journaling. I also read literature that focused on generational diversity (Ng & McGinnis Johnson, 2015). The awareness that prejudices may unconsciously influence interview questions and data interpretation will contribute to my ability to remain reflexive during the research process. I can then develop protection measures by clearly stating these biases and not compromising the trustworthiness and credibility of the study.

To curb the effects of my biases, I will apply a number of fundamental approaches. These are reflexivity, triangulation, and peer debriefing. Reflexivity will entail keeping a journal as I go through the research process to note my thoughts, emotional reactions, and interpretations at the end of every interview. This will make me be more aware of subjectivity patterns (Berger, 2015). Triangulated data is stronger in validating the findings because it integrates several data sources including interviews, the organizational policies, and the archival retention reports. This makes comparisons of the findings possible and minimizes the use of individual interpretations. Besides, I will perform member checking. This involves the participants looking at and verifying the interview summaries to guarantee their precise reflection of the interview views (Birt et al., 2016). External validation will be achieved by peer debriefing with other colleagues in the doctoral committee or with other peers to help in identifying the possible blind spots.

With these systematic plans, I will seek to strike a balance between empathy and analysis of the participants. I, therefore, ensure that I am ethically upright and scientifically rigorous in my doctoral research. Reflexivity, triangulation, and transparency will help me to keep ethical awareness of my research on the issue of Generation Z retention to ensure that it is credible, nonbiased, and professionally sound.