As an undisputed Generation Z born in 2000, I have a big dream: I want to become a trainer and consultant for Generation Z. I decided to tackle this topic because I saw that there is a huge gap between public discourse and reality. In family conversations and in company training, stereotypes came to the fore: young people are not loyal, not persistent and lazy. Seeing the cohort from the inside, as a junior consultant, I firmly believe that this is a symptomatic misinterpretation that affects all generations unpleasantly.

I would like to start by saying that when I set myself the goal of helping organizations solve their Generation Z problems, I made the same mistake that I want to help these organizations out of: treating an entire generation entering the labor market as a problem, including myself, even though I believe without any immodesty that I am not a problem for my own workplace.

However, if we approach the topic this way, and we live in a highly problem-solving-oriented world, and in addition, the newly entering young people really do pose more and more challenges that did not have to be dealt with before, it is no wonder that this attitude is turning on in the operation of an organization that wants to develop.

All this is completely understandable, and there is nothing surprising in it: the high turnover, the high salary, feedback, and personal attention of young employees are indeed challenges, these are all challenges that need to be solved. The mistake is when we do not interpret these as challenges associated with the entry of Generation Z into the labor market, but treat the young people themselves as the problem.
When we behave and speak as if the young people are responsible for the challenges that appear in the organization.
This is a problematic attitude, on the one hand, because the older members of an organization blame the younger ones for something that they do not themselves, namely the effects of circumstances completely independent of them.
On the other hand, because this attitude is toxic in itself. Just think about how a 22-year-old fresh graduate might feel when, in the middle of an already stressful life transition, he arrives in a completely unknown environment, where the general opinion is that “why befriend you, you won’t be here next year anyway”. What a surprise, really.

It is another question whether they are not here in a year because they are an unfaithful young person, or because they did not develop personal relationships, did not receive adequate support, and were ultimately treated as a problem.

I would like to explore two concepts that endanger young people entering the workforce regardless of their abilities, their loyalty, or their views on the world. It is important to understand these mechanisms because they have a detrimental effect on the performance of young workers and thus ultimately harm the workplace, but it is not the young people who can change it, but the organization.

Stereotype threat:

Stereotype threat is the paralyzing psychological pressure when an employee is constantly afraid that with a single mistake they will justify the negative prejudices that have been imposed on their group (in this case, Generation Z). This defensive, convulsive self-monitoring consumes so much mental energy that it paradoxically stifles the very creativity and effectiveness that the organization would expect, so that the false leadership bias eventually becomes an expensive, self-fulfilling prophecy.

Golem Effect:

The Golem Effect is the psychological mechanism by which managerial underestimation actually causes performance degradation. When a superior, even driven by unconscious bias, approaches a coworker or group with low expectations, distrust, or micromanagement, they unwittingly deprive them of the psychological space they need to develop. The undervalued party eventually gives up their claim to autonomy and conforms to the lowered standard, while the leader paradoxically “creates” the underperforming employee who confirms their own false hypothesis.

It is important to emphasize that in an organization we cannot speak of linear causality. This means that leaders do not behave in a prejudiced way because young people are lazy, and young people are not lazy because their leaders are prejudiced. In a system, its members mutually influence each other and are in a circular, circular causal relationship, one effect strengthens the other, and vice versa.
And the way out of this circular, sometimes deepening spiral is not by trying with all my might to change the other, but by changing my own behavior. If one member of the system changes, the entire system changes. However, since everyone is responsible for their own development, we can only expect change from ourselves, we can only start with ourselves if we hope for change in others.

And so we come to the question of what an employer can do if they are constantly struggling with the difficulties and challenges associated with their young employees?
I think an organization can face this question in three ways:

1. Generation Z is a threatening problem because they do not fit in, they are unable to adapt to the needs, pace, and values ​​of the organization. Fluctuation is high, and all attempts to retain them fail.
In such organizations, the two phenomena described above easily and quickly develop: blame is common, trust is low, and frustration arising from helplessness, the feeling of “this is happening again” is not uncommon. When joining such an organization, a young person can easily feel that their integration requires extra effort, that they are not welcome.

2. The emergence of Generation Z is a given, an inherent part of the changing world, and we fight against it in vain. The most we can do is to accept this change, try to understand the needs and functioning of young people, and adapt.
In such organizations, there is great openness, responsibility is not often shirked, and turnover is not a failure, but a chance to develop and learn. In such an organization, a young person does not feel extra pressure, can find their place, and can stand up without shame if they do not feel comfortable.

3. The emergence of Generation Z is an opportunity. On the one hand, they bring new knowledge, perspectives, and solutions, and can be the engines of innovation, and on the other hand, they truly understand their own age group. Generation Z is the best suited to reach Generation Z and understand its market needs.
In such organizations, older people are both mentors and mentees: they are ahead in knowledge and experience, but they need momentum, innovation, and understanding. In such a workplace, young people do not feel like a burden, but an opportunity, which has a stimulating effect on their performance. An important characteristic of organizational culture is that it does not attach positive-negative labels to values, freedom is not more valuable than stability, or perseverance than self-care. The organization recognizes and separately treats phenomena arising from age, social trends, and generational differences.
Of course, this does not mean that the organization should be turned upside down based on the needs of Generation Z, adaptation only works back and forth. Fitting into a realistic framework is an important expectation, but I think young people are also aware of this. In opportunity-oriented organizations, attitude is the key, which includes striving for understanding and honest communication.

As a Generation Z community builder, I would like to believe that the third version is possible and sustainable, but at the same time I am aware that this is a simplified model, the reality is often much more complex than this. These problems are often embedded in the deepest levels of organizational culture, and even society, and changing them takes a lot of time and energy. However, understanding must be the first step, because to change we must understand the problem, and to solve it we must choose the right tools. HTC consultants, who have 4 generations of experience from 25 to 75 years old, are very happy to help with this.

More about stereotype threat:
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811.
More about the Golem effect:
Oz, S., & Eden, D. (1994). Restraining the Golem: Boosting performance by changing the interpretation of low scores. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 744–754.