Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Are You Ready For Generation Z in Workplace PDF
Are You Ready For Generation Z in Workplace PDF
Holly Schroth1
SUMMARY
Gen Z (1997-2013) is just now entering the labor market and employers need to
be prepared for their arrival. While Gen Z shares many traits with the Millennial
Generation, they also bring in new patterns of behavior. Managers today not only
have to understand how to best manage youthful, inexperienced employees, but
also the unique characteristics of the generation shaped by their experiences. Every
generation has its doubts about the younger generation’s culture and technologies.
Understanding their behavior and the distinct needs that they have in the workplace
will lead to better integration of the new employees and mutual success.
T
he Post-Millennial Generation also known as Gen Z (1997-2013)1
is just now entering the labor market and employers need to be
prepared for its arrival. Generational or cohort differences in traits
occur because the pervasive cultural values and practices change
over time.2 While Gen Z shares many traits with the Millennial Generation, it
also brings in new patterns of behavior. Managers today not only have to under-
stand how to best manage youthful, inexperienced employees, but also the
unique characteristics of the generation shaped by their experiences. Every gen-
eration has its doubts about the younger generation’s culture and technologies.
Approaching generational differences with a blame mentality, which was preva-
lent with the Millennial Generation, only fosters complaints and derision toward
the group instead of focusing on growth-oriented solutions. In addition, every
generation is narcissistic, but narcissism is more associated with youth than
cultural value differences and diminishes over time with exposure to more life
experiences.3 Gen Z has been found to be the most achievement-oriented of the
generations.4 In addition, Gen Zers have greater economic well-being, are more
highly educated, and are more ethnically and racially diverse than any other
generation.5 However, they are also the least likely to have worked when they
5
6 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 61(3)
were young6 and most likely to suffer from depression and anxiety.7 To appreci-
ate Gen Z, it is important to understand the formative events that are unique to
this generation and how it has shaped them as learners and future employees.
The most prominent of these include lack of work experience,8 the advent of the
smartphone and social media,9 social justice movements,10 and growing up in a
culture of safety.11 Understanding their behavior and the distinct needs that they
have in the workplace, whether a factor of youth or generational difference, will
lead to better integration of the new employees and mutual success.
many positive outcomes resulting from effective onboarding practices for both new
employees and organizations. These include better performance, retention, satis-
faction, commitment, and self-efficacy.27 Onboarding practices help to reduce the
inevitable uncertainty and anxiety newcomers experience,28 bring greater clarity
and understanding to their new role,29 and help them make sense of their new
environment.30 It also provides them with the necessary tangible (e.g., explicit
knowledge) and intangible (e.g., relationships) resources to become fully function-
ing organizational members effective in their new role.31 Gen Z’s higher level of
fear and uncertainty about the workplace increases the necessity of good onboard-
ing practices.32 Top companies begin the onboarding process when the offer is
accepted and continue to track and report the process of new hires.33 Only 12% of
new employees say their company does a good job onboarding them and 87% say
they do not have the optimum level of knowledge and tools necessary to do their
job.34 Gen Zers report that they could have performed closer to their bosses’ expec-
tations if they were given more clear instructions and training on the job.35 Lack
of proper onboarding is cited as the reason that 25% of new employees report that
they want to quit their jobs within the first six months.36
Some best practices for onboarding new entry-level employees advocated
by practitioners and supported by research data include the following37:
Fostering Autonomy
Gen Z is unique in growing up with a culture of safety where overpro-
tective parenting inadvertently took away their opportunity to learn life skills.68
This interfered with their social, emotional, and intellectual development, mak-
ing it difficult for them to become autonomous adults, able to navigate the chal-
lenges of life, let alone the workplace. Becoming autonomous involves learning
how to make responsible decisions and take actions in ambiguous and uncertain
situations. Parents can foster autonomy in their children by loosening control,
Are You Ready for Gen Z in the Workplace? 11
having them make choices, and allowing them to take on more responsibility
while not shielding them from unpleasant facts or outcomes.69 Autonomy is also
facilitated by role modeling of parents who convey stable and consistent val-
ues demonstrating a congruence between beliefs and actions.70 Similarly, in the
workplace, autonomy can be fostered by managers showing trust and support
for new employees to make decisions, allowing them to take eventual ownership
over projects and have greater control over their time management and how
they complete tasks.71 There should be a shifting ownership in the process and
accountability for the outcome from the manager to the employee, where the
manager models what good processes look like and gives the tools and resources
as needed to the employee to succeed.72
•• Present skills as being learnable and that everyone is learning on the job.
•• Convey on multiple occasions that the organization values learning, effort,
and perseverance, and that mistakes are inevitable but can and should be
learned from. Remember to praise for effort and initiative and not just results.
12 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 61(3)
Workplace Coaching
More and more is being expected of modern managers. Workplace coach-
ing is a one-on-one, custom-tailored learning and development process that uses
a collaborative, reflective, goal-focused relationship to achieve professional out-
comes that are valued by the coachee.83 It is gaining widespread acceptance in
the workplace as many organizations realize that technical expertise is no longer
enough. Managers are now expected to relate to their team members in a way
that maximizes their engagement, well-being, and performance, while also facili-
tating personal change.84 Coaching has been found to provide emotional support
and to reduce stress of employees. It helps in goal attainment as well as increased
psychological and workplace well-being.85 Gen Zers say they prefer collaborative
learning rather than a “telling” approach.86 Consultative coaching helps employ-
ees explore alternatives and challenges the employee’s thinking by asking the
employee questions rather than telling them what to do.87
The coaching process typically facilitates goal attainment by helping
employees:
Communication Skills
Companies are seeking employees who have the ability to commu-
nicate and interact effectively with others.88 Communication skills include
both what is said during a social interaction and how it is said. This includes
choice of words and phrases, appropriate facial expressions, tone of voice,
body language, and eye contact. Employees’ social effectiveness depends on
their ability to read, understand, and control social interactions,89 and it is
related to job performance.90 The advent of the smart phone has had a sig-
nificant impact on social interaction among this generation.91 The introduc-
tion of smart phones has been shown to reduce the amount of face-to-face
interactions that teens have with each other.92 Technology plays a central role
in Gen Zers’ lives, from socializing to schoolwork, entertainment to exercise,
relaxation to reference.93 This can impair their ability to effectively commu-
nicate and interact with others, including the older generation, in the work-
place. When asked on a typical day whether they communicate more in
person or digitally, Gen Z and Millennials reported they communicate 74%
digitally and 26% in person.94 Face-to-face communication fosters the devel-
opment of interpersonal synchrony and rapport, leading to more trusting,
cooperative behavior.95 By relying on text messaging primarily for their inter-
action, Gen Zers have missed out on learning some vital rules of conversa-
tion. This includes how to listen, ask questions, interject in a way that is seen
as respectful to others, build relationships, problem solve in real time, and
resolve conflicts.96 For example, when a message is complex or when there
is conflict involved, it is best to use face-to-face interaction.97 However, Gen
Zers are more comfortable using technology to communicate, even when the
use of technology is not appropriate.98
Moving Forward
Managers face special challenges with the new generation of employ-
ees because Gen Z is not as prepared for the realities of the workplace as past
generations. It is important for managers to understand the factors that have
influenced Gen Zers to think and behave as they do. These factors include a
lack of work experience, the advent of the smartphone and popularity of
social media, social justice movements, and growing up in a culture of safety.
Understanding their behavior and the distinct needs that they have will help
managers to better integrate the new employees into the workplace for mutual
success. Managers can best prepare the Gen Z employees for the workplace
by taking time to help manage their expectations. This can be done by pro-
viding them with a realistic job preview during the job interview process so
they understand both the positive aspects and challenges of the job. This helps
them decide whether the job would be a good fit and allows them to mentally
prepare for any obstacles they may encounter in the workplace. Upon arrival
into the company, the manager and employee should engage in a psychologi-
cal contract, which is a more detailed agreement of mutual expectations for the
manager-employee relationship. In addition, employees will perform closer to
their managers’ expectations if they are properly on-boarded, provided check-
lists of performance goals and resources as well as an orientation program to
facilitate internal communications. To reduce anxiety in the workplace, man-
agers can help new employees gain a sense of autonomy by allowing them to
take greater ownership of projects and make more of their own decisions over
time. Furthermore, managers can foster a growth mindset in their employees
by emphasizing learning on the job and creating a culture where feedback is
valued and acted upon. Ultimately, a manager acting as a coach to guide the
employee and provide emotional support reduces stress and anxiety of employ-
ees while helping them in their development. By employing these strategies,
managers can successfully integrate their new employees into the workplace,
increasing workplace satisfaction and productivity, while reducing costly
turnover. While some companies were caught off-guard by the arrival of the
Millennials, it is not too late to prepare for Gen Z.
Author Biography
Holly Schroth is a Distinguished Teaching Fellow and Senior Lecturer at the Haas
School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley (email: hschroth@
berkeley.edu).
Are You Ready for Gen Z in the Workplace? 15
Notes
1. Michael Dimock, “Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z
Begins,” Pew Research Center, January 17, 2018, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2018/03/01/defining-generations-where-millennials-end-and-post-millennials-
begin/. Pew Research Center decided to use 1996 as the last birth year for Millennials.
Anyone born from 1997 onward is part of a new generation. The generational cut-
off points are not an exact science but the boundaries are also not arbitrary. There is
no agreed upon formula for how long that span should be. The 16 years selected is the
equivalent span of Millennial and Generation X, with Baby Boomers being slightly longer
at 19 years; 1996 is considered meaningful by the Pew Research Center because research
has shown the launch of the smart phone in 2007 has led to dramatic shifts in behaviors,
attitudes, and lifestyles.
2. B. W. Roberts, G. Edmonds, and E. Grijalva, “It Is Developmental Me, not Generation Me:
Developmental Changes Are More Important than Generational Changes in Narcissism—
Commentary on Trzesniewski & Donnellan (2010),” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5/1
(January 2010): 97-102.
3. Ibid. According to the Pew Research Center, generational cohorts help researchers under-
stand how different formative experiences—such as technological, economic, and social
shifts—interact with the life cycle and aging process to shape people’s views of the world.
There is longitudinal data for only a subset of the issues the paper addresses because
researchers are just beginning to study the new generation.
4. Barna Group, “Is Gen Z the Most Success Oriented Generation?” Research Releases in
Millennials & Generations, June 6, 2018. https://www.barna.com/research/is-gen-z-the
-most-success-oriented-generation/.
5. R. Fry and K. Parker, “Early Benchmarks Show ‘Post-Millennials’ on Track to be Most
Diverse, Best-Educated Generation,” Pew Research Center, 2018, http://www.pewsocial-
trends.org/2018/11/15/early-benchmarks-show-post-millennials-on-track-to-be-most-di-
verse-best-educated-generation-yet/.
6. Ibid.
7. American Psychological Association, “Stress in America: Generation Z,” 2018, https://www.
apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2018/stress-gen-z.pdf.
8. Fry and Parker, op. cit.
9. J. M. Twenge, iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing up Less Rebellious, More
Tolerant, Less Happy, and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood (New York, NY: Atria Books,
2017).
10. Ibid.; G. Lukianoff and J. Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad
Ideas Are Setting up a Generation for Failure (New York, NY: Penguin Press, 2018).
11. Lukianoff and Haidt, op. cit.
12. Teresa L. Morisi, “Teen Labor Force Participation before and after the Great Recession and
Beyond,” Monthly Labor Review (February 2017), doi:10.21916/mlr.2017.5.
13. Fry and Parker, op. cit.
14. Ibid.
15. Twenge, op. cit.
16. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, op. cit.
17. M. A. Huselid, “The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover,
Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance,” Academy of Management Journal, 38/3
(June 1995): 635-672, doi:10.2307/256741.
18. J. M. Phillips, “Effects of Realistic Job Previews on Multiple Organizational Outcomes: A
Meta-Analysis,” Academy of Management Journal, 41/6 (December 1998): 673-690.
19. H. A. Schroth, student survey from Leading People undergraduate class, Spring Semester
2018.
20. Ibid.
21. U. P. Sherman and M. J. Morley, “On the Formation of the Psychological Contract: A Schema
Theory Perspective,” Group & Organization Management, 40/2 (April 2015): 160-192.
22. J. M. Jensen, R. A. Opland, and A. M. Ryna, “Psychological Contracts and Counterproductive
Work Behaviors: Employee Responses to Transactional and Relational Breach,” Journal
of Business and Psychology, 25/4 (December 2010): 555-568; A. Jamil, U. Raja, and W. Darr,
“Psychological Contract Types as Moderator in the Breach-Violation and Violation-Burnout
Relationships,” The Journal of Psychology, 147/5 (2013): 491-515, doi:10.1080/00223980.2012
.717552.
16 CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW 61(3)
85. T. Theeboom, B. Beersma, and A. E. M. van Vianen, “Does Coaching Work? A Meta-Analysis
on the Effects of Coaching on Individual Level Outcomes in an Organizational Context,” The
Journal of Positive Psychology, 9/1 (September 2014): 1-18, doi:10.1080/17439760.2013.837499.
86. Barnes & Noble College Insights, op. cit.
87. A. M. Grant, “The Third ‘Generation’ of Workplace Coaching: Creating a Culture of Quality
Conversations,” Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 10/1 (2017):
37-53, doi:10.1080/17521882.2016.1266005; A. M. Grant, J. Passmore, M. J. Cavanagh, and
H. M. Parker, “The State of Play in Coaching Today: A Comprehensive Review of the Field,”
in International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, ed. G. P. Hodgkinson and J.
K. Ford, vol. 25 (Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), pp. 125-167.
88. GMAC Corporate Recruiters’ Survey, “Employers Seek Communication Skills in New Hires,”
2017, https://www.mba.com/mbas-and-business-masters/articles/your-career-path/employ-
ers-seek-communications-skills; W. A. Hochwarter, L. A. Witt, D. C. Treadway, and G. R.
Ferris, “The Interaction of Social Skill and Organizational Support on Job Performance,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91/2 (March 2006): 482-489; D. J. Deming, “The Growing
Importance of Social Skills in the Labor Market,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132/4
(November 2017): 1593-1640.
89. G. R. Ferris, P. L. Perrewé, and C. Douglas, “Social Effectiveness in Organizations: Construct
Validity and Research Directions,” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9/1 (August
2002): 49-63.
90. Deming, op. cit.
91. Twenge, op. cit.
92. Ibid.
93. A. Lenhart, “Teens, Social Media & Technology Overview 2015,” Pew Research Center, 2015,
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/.
94. R. Bradbury, “The Digital Lives of Millennials and Gen Z,” LivePerson, 2018, https://www.
liveperson.com/resources/reports/digital-lives-of-millennials-genz/.
95. Ibid.
96. R. Friedman and S. Currall, “Conflict Escalation: Dispute Exacerbating Elements of
Email Communication,” Human Relations, 56/11 (November 2003): 1325-1347; M. W.
Morris, J. Nadler, T. Kurtzberg, and L. Thompson, “Schmooze or Lose: Social Friction
and Lubrication in E-Mail Negotiations,” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
6/1 (2002): 89-100; Pew Research Center, “Communication Choices: Texting Dominates
Teens’ General Communication Choices,” 2012, http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/03/19/
communication-choices/.
97. R. L. Daft and R. H. Lengel, “Information Richness: A New Approach to Managerial Behavior
and Organizational Design,” Research in Organizational Behavior, 6 (1984): 191-233; S. R.
Murray and J. Peyrefitte, “Knowledge Type and Communication Media Choice in the
Knowledge Transfer Process,” Journal of Managerial Issues, 19/1 (Spring 2007): 111-133.
98. A. L. Drolet and M. W. Morris, “Rapport in Conflict Resolution: Accounting for How
Nonverbal Exchange Fosters Cooperation on Mutually Beneficial Settlements to Mixed-
Motive Conflicts,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36 (2000): 26-50.
99. E. Glikson, A. Cheshin, and G. A. van Kleef, “The Dark Side of a Smiley: Effects of Smiling
Emoticons on Virtual First Impressions,” Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9/5 (2018):
614-625, doi:10.1177/1948550617720269.
100. Hart Research Associates, “Fulfilling the American Dream: Liberal Education and the
Future of Work: Surveys of Business Executives and Hiring Managers,” Association
of American Colleges & Universities, Washington, DC, 2018, https://www.aacu.org/
research/2018-future-of-work.
101. D. Johnson and R. Johnson, Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive, and
Individualistic Learning (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1999).
Copyright of California Management Review is the property of California Management
Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.