Recent reports show that Gen Z, labeled the “lazy” generation, is being fired from the workplace at alarming rates. The reasons might be more complex than you think.
The article is not half bad at all, and definitely makes some good points. One thing I would like to point out (and the reason why I tend to object to pigeonholing titles of articles such as this one), is that out of the three points made in the article, only one of them is somewhat unique to GenZ:
2. They Are Speaking A Different Language
Another issue that may be contributing to Gen Z’s workplace challenges is communication. While members of this generation are often hailed as digital natives, that doesn’t always translate into strong interpersonal skills in a traditional work environment. Growing up immersed in social media and text-based communication means many young employees may struggle with face-to-face conversations, especially those expected in professional settings.
A 2022 article from Harvard Law School explains that Gen Z workers entered the workforce during the pandemic. This generation began their careers when it was acceptable to send a quick text — something they are very comfortable with — instead of having a team meeting. They missed office facetime at a crucial point in their career development. This potentially created a gap in their learning and left them unprepared for industries where meetings, presentations and in-depth collaboration are the norm.
The problem arises when workplaces expect Gen Z to conform without offering any middle ground. This communication gap can easily lead to misunderstandings, mistakes or even the appearance that these workers are not engaged — when in reality, they are just using different methods to communicate.
The other two points (and I suppose I will let you decide whether to read the article and make this determination yourself rather than quote it all) are entirely being experienced by many, if not most, of the rest of us, in the toxic waste pit that is this timeline’s current corporate work culture.
The last thing I would point out is that over the last seven years, I have absolutely observed more misunderstandings and inadvertent, undesirable, and unfortunate, shenanigans and miscommunications, resulting from the ever-increasing dominance of text-based communication between everyone in a given organization. I would posit that for those of us who are fortunately permitted by our corporate overlords to remain remote, or at the very least hybrid, this is a challenge that we are all dealing with.
Your last paragraph is on point. At some point you have to realize that text doesn’t convey context and people can take what you say wrong. Text has its use but calling is often a lot faster to convey info when it gets more complex than one single point.
Live meetings are very valuable when done right. Flying the team in for regular face to face onsites is hugely valuable. Forcing people to do stupid commutes for some arbitrary amount of days, with no set meeting schedules or other legitimate reasons, is monumentally stupid. Many of us will not take those kinds of jobs again. I’d rather manage a Wendy’s that’s close by.
Implicit conflict created by screens and asynchronous communication is actually a well studied subject. It’s not imaginary or some conspiracy to get people to the office. Microsoft, Oracle and IBM all studied this in depth in the late 90s and early 2000s during the dot com boom because they wanted to get rid of office overhead.
Remote teams can work, but not for every situation, or for every team, and it requires a specific management skill set which is not widely taught in management school. Basically right now everyone is wrong about this. Executives are wrong in thinking that everyone needs to be in the office, and workers are wrong in thinking that there is no value at all to co-working in person.
The article is not half bad at all, and definitely makes some good points. One thing I would like to point out (and the reason why I tend to object to pigeonholing titles of articles such as this one), is that out of the three points made in the article, only one of them is somewhat unique to GenZ:
Another issue that may be contributing to Gen Z’s workplace challenges is communication. While members of this generation are often hailed as digital natives, that doesn’t always translate into strong interpersonal skills in a traditional work environment. Growing up immersed in social media and text-based communication means many young employees may struggle with face-to-face conversations, especially those expected in professional settings.
The other two points (and I suppose I will let you decide whether to read the article and make this determination yourself rather than quote it all) are entirely being experienced by many, if not most, of the rest of us, in the toxic waste pit that is this timeline’s current corporate work culture.
The last thing I would point out is that over the last seven years, I have absolutely observed more misunderstandings and inadvertent, undesirable, and unfortunate, shenanigans and miscommunications, resulting from the ever-increasing dominance of text-based communication between everyone in a given organization. I would posit that for those of us who are fortunately permitted by our corporate overlords to remain remote, or at the very least hybrid, this is a challenge that we are all dealing with.
Your last paragraph is on point. At some point you have to realize that text doesn’t convey context and people can take what you say wrong. Text has its use but calling is often a lot faster to convey info when it gets more complex than one single point.
Live meetings are very valuable when done right. Flying the team in for regular face to face onsites is hugely valuable. Forcing people to do stupid commutes for some arbitrary amount of days, with no set meeting schedules or other legitimate reasons, is monumentally stupid. Many of us will not take those kinds of jobs again. I’d rather manage a Wendy’s that’s close by.
Implicit conflict created by screens and asynchronous communication is actually a well studied subject. It’s not imaginary or some conspiracy to get people to the office. Microsoft, Oracle and IBM all studied this in depth in the late 90s and early 2000s during the dot com boom because they wanted to get rid of office overhead.
Remote teams can work, but not for every situation, or for every team, and it requires a specific management skill set which is not widely taught in management school. Basically right now everyone is wrong about this. Executives are wrong in thinking that everyone needs to be in the office, and workers are wrong in thinking that there is no value at all to co-working in person.