
No, Gen Z isn't like ‘every other generation.' And that's a good thing
Every other day, someone rolls out a confident take: Gen Z isn't really all that different. Give them a few years, they say, and they'll fall in line like every generation before them.
It's a comforting story—especially for those who built the system they expect Gen Z to fit into. But after years of teaching Gen Z, studying their values, and listening to what they need from work and leadership, I can say with certainty: It's not that simple. And pretending it is might be the biggest leadership blind spot of our time.
Gen Z didn't grow up in the same world their managers did. Every generation faces unique struggles—but those struggles shape different expectations, different instincts, and different realities. For Gen Z, those realities include climate anxiety, political polarization, mass shootings, pandemic isolation, and economic instability. They watched institutions crumble in real time. Their parents raised them in a world with constantly changing rules, a workplace that doesn't always reward loyalty, and an environment that makes it seem like success involves passing the stress test.
What Gen Z actually wants
When Gen Z employees walk into a workplace, they're not trying to conform. They're looking for clarity. They're looking for fairness. And they're looking for leaders who make sense. I surveyed 175 Gen Z college students, ages 18 to 21, and asked them: What leadership traits do you most value in a boss? What helps you feel engaged at work?
The answers weren't radical. They were grounded, human, and refreshingly reasonable. Here are the top 10.
1. Organization: Clear expectations and structured leadership
2. Respect: Fair treatment and valuing individual input
3. Communication: Honest feedback and transparency
4. Positive Attitude: Supportive, motivating tone
5. Approachability: Leaders who feel safe to talk to
6. Flexibility: Some autonomy in how and when work is done
7. Fair Pay: Transparent and equitable compensation
8. Responsibility: Leaders who take accountability
9. Trust: Confidence in leadership decision-making
10. Acknowledgment: Recognition for effort and contribution
What struck me was not how surprising the results were but how basic they were. Gen Z isn't demanding perfection. They're asking for what most generations have wanted—but they're less willing to tolerate its absence.
They aren't disengaged. They're discerning.
The importance of empathy
That distinction matters. In my conversations with executives, I often hear frustration: 'They don't want to pay their dues.' 'They push back too much.' 'They ghost interviews.' But when I talk to Gen Z, what I hear is something different: 'I want to understand the why.' 'I need a boss I can actually talk to.' 'If I feel invisible, I'll leave.'
Gen Z isn't fragile. They're focused. They're not afraid of hard work—they're just not willing to do it in a place that treats them like a cog with a college degree. They want work environments that align with their values: fairness, flexibility, and the radical notion that people deserve to be treated like people. And if they don't find it, they move on. Not out of entitlement, but out of self-preservation. Because they've learned—sometimes the hard way—that no job is worth your dignity. And they don't see burnout as a badge of honor.
That's where empathy comes in. Not the curated kind, where a company posts a mindfulness webinar at noon and sends passive-aggressive emails at five. I'm talking about real, grounded empathy—the kind that shows up in how leaders communicate, take responsibility, and follow through. It's not about being soft. It's about being steady. And it's the difference between a boss who manages tasks and a leader who earns trust.
I call it engaged empathy: leadership that listens, adapts, and holds firm when it matters but never forgets it's leading people. It's not about coddling or over-accommodating. It's about removing the guesswork from work and building trust—day by day, word by word.
Somewhere along the way, leadership got tangled in bravado. But Gen Z doesn't respond to that. They want and respond to consistency, communication, and yes, kindness. The best leaders I've observed don't perform strength—they embody steadiness.
A generation forging their own path
There's something I've been thinking about a lot lately: Gen Z isn't waiting to be molded—they're choosing what's worth shaping themselves around. And that's not a sign of weakness—it's a sign of agency. It's easy to compare them to how we were at 22, to say 'They'll figure it out,' and move on. But the truth is, they've come of age in a different world. Of course, they see things differently. That's not a threat to tradition—it's an invitation to evolve.
When the workplace grows to meet its clarity, we all benefit. Burnout goes down. Retention goes up. Cultures become more thoughtful and more human. Leadership becomes something people want to follow—not something they endure. Wouldn't that result in a better workplace for us all?
So no, they're not like you were at 22. And that's more than okay. In fact, that might be exactly what the workplace has been waiting for.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
35 minutes ago
- Fox News
Will Rubio move to ban Chinese students from the US?
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Protest erupts after immigration raid, police in standoff


CBS News
35 minutes ago
- CBS News
Police cast wide net in probe of defunct North Texas car dealership's business practices
Desire Godfrey said it was time for a vehicle upgrade. The Lancaster mother had her eye on a Lexus. "I had a baby, so I'm looking for something reliable for me and a baby," Godfrey said. She searched online and found what she thought was the right vehicle at The Reserve Auto Group in The Colony. She described the sales process in May 2024 as a positive experience. Warranty and GAP insurance issues But an unexpected oil change six months later changed everything. Godfrey, 33, said a Lexus dealership informed her the vehicle was not under warranty. She also discovered her GAP insurance policy didn't exist. "They (Reserve Auto Group) never paid the warranty company the money they were supposed to pay to activate this warranty and this GAP insurance," she said. Car loan charges continue Godfrey said the costs were included in her car note. She filed a report with The Colony Police Department — and she's not alone. Police said they received their first complaint on Jan. 31. According to a news release, police have been investigating multiple fraud claims connected to the dealership since 2023. The business shut down in December 2024, but complaints continue to come in. Alleged auto fraud pattern Investigators said customers were allegedly instructed to write separate checks for aftermarket warranties or GAP insurance policies. Those payments were supposed to go to third-party providers, but police said the dealership allegedly cashed the checks and never forwarded the money — leaving customers without coverage. Another victim comes forward A second alleged victim, who spoke to CBS News Texas anonymously, said she and her husband also bought a Lexus from the dealership. She provided a non-activation letter from DOWC Administrative Services LLC, a company that offers GAP insurance and warranties. The letter stated: "Please be advised that Reserve Auto has failed to remit payment to Us as the Administrator and Provider for your Contract. Consequently, the Contract was not activated in our system." Investigation still ongoing Police have not made any arrests or publicly identified anyone associated with the allegations. Officers said they are continuing to vet additional alleged victims. CBS News Texas is not naming the person listed as the dealership's owner, as police have indicated he did nothing wrong. He spoke briefly by phone, saying he wanted to schedule an appointment to discuss the claims further because he believed "we did not have all the facts." When asked for clarification, he said he didn't have time to explain. Legal team responds Two emails followed the call, and attorneys from Herrin Law introduced themselves. "We have no comment at this time. Thank you for your interest in our client's side of the story," attorney Benjamin Palatiere said. He requested that all future inquiries be directed to him. Buyer left without coverage Meanwhile, Godfrey said the vehicle itself has not had any issues. But she continues to pay for a warranty and insurance that don't exist. "So nobody wants to refinance the loan. Nobody wants to give me GAP insurance," she said. "It's just more so like I'm going to take it or leave it. If I wreck the car, then I would have to figure out a way to pay that car off." Godfrey said she hopes to recover the money one day.


CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court halts lower court orders requiring DOGE to hand over information about work and personnel
Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday halted lower court orders that required the White House's Department of Government Efficiency to turn over information to a government watchdog group as part of a lawsuit that tests whether President Trump's cost-cutting task force has to comply with federal public records law. The order from the high court clears DOGE for now from having to turn over records related to its work and personnel, and keeps Amy Gleason, identified as its acting administrator, from having to answer questions at a deposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "The portions of the district court's April 15 discovery order that require the government to disclose the content of intra–executive branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed are not appropriately tailored," the court said in its order. "Any inquiry into whether an entity is an agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act cannot turn on the entity's ability to persuade. Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications." The Supreme Court sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for more proceedings. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the district court's order last month, which allowed the Supreme Court more time to consider the Trump administration's bid for emergency relief. A district judge had ordered DOGE to turn over documents to the group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, by June 3, and for Gleason's deposition to be completed by June 13. The underlying issue in the case involves whether DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act. CREW argues that the cost-cutting task force wields "substantial independent authority," which makes it a de facto agency that must comply with federal public records law. The Justice Department, however, disagrees and instead claims that DOGE is a presidential advisory body housed within the Executive Office of the President that makes recommendations to the president and federal agencies on matters that are important to Mr. Trump's second-term agenda. DOGE's agency status was not before the Supreme Court, though the high court may be asked to settle that matter in the future. Instead, the Trump administration had asked the justices to temporarily halt a district court's order that allowed CREW to gather certain information from DOGE as part of its effort to determine whether the task force is an advisory panel that is outside FOIA's scope or is an agency that is subject to the records law. The judge overseeing the dispute, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, had ordered DOGE to turn over certain documents to the watchdog group by June 3 and to complete all depositions, including of Gleason, by June 13. Mr. Trump ordered the creation of DOGE on his first day back in the White House as part of his initiative to slash the size of the federal government. Since then, DOGE team members have fanned out to agencies across the executive branch and have been part of efforts to shrink the federal workforce and shutter entities like the U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S. Institute of Peace. DOGE has also attempted to gain access to sensitive databases kept by the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration and Office of Personnel Management, prompting legal battles. In an effort to learn more about DOGE's structure and operations, CREW submitted an expedited FOIA request to the task force. After it did not respond in a timely manner, CREW filed a lawsuit and sought a preliminary injunction to expedite processing of its records request. The organization argued that DOGE was exercising significant independent authority, which made it an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper granted CREW's request for a preliminary injunction in March and agreed that FOIA likely applies to DOGE because it is "likely exercising substantial independent authority much greater than other [Executive Office of the President] components held to be covered by FOIA." He then allowed CREW to conduct limited information-gathering, which the watchdog group said aimed to determine whether DOGE is exercising substantial authority that would bring it within FOIA's reach. A federal appeals court ultimately declined to pause that order, requiring DOGE to turn over the documents sought by CREW. In seeking the Supreme Court's intervention, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said CREW is conducting a "fishing expedition" into DOGE's activities. He warned that if Cooper's order remains in place, several components of the White House, such as the offices of the chief of staff and national security adviser, would be subject to FOIA. "That untenable result would compromise the provision of candid, confidential advice to the president and disrupt the inner workings of the Executive Branch," Sauer wrote. "Yet, in the decisions below, the court of appeals and district court treated a presidential advisory body as a potential 'agency' based on the persuasive force of its recommendations — threatening opening season for FOIA requests on the president's advisors." But lawyers for CREW told the Supreme Court in a filing that the Justice Department's position "would require courts to blindly yield to the Executive's characterization" of the authority and operations of a component of the Executive Office of the President. They said adopting the Trump administration's approach to DOGE would give the president "free reign" to create new entities within the Executive Office of the President that exercise substantial independent authority but are shielded from transparency laws. "Courts would be forced to blindly accept the government's representations about an EOP unit's realworld operations, unable to test those representations through even limited discovery," CREW's lawyers wrote. "It is that extreme position, not the discovery order, that would 'turn[] FOIA on its head.'"