Starting a career has increasingly felt like a right of passage for Gen Z and Millennial workers struggling to adapt to the working week and stand out to their new bosses.

But it looks like those bosses aren’t doing much in return to help their young staffers adjust to corporate life, and it could be having major effects on their company’s output.

Research by the London School of Economics and Protiviti found that friction in the workplace was causing a worrying productivity chasm between bosses and their employees, and it was by far the worst for Gen Z and Millennial workers.

The survey of nearly 1,500 U.K. and U.S. office workers found that a quarter of employees self-reported low productivity in the workplace. More than a third of Gen Z employees reported low productivity, while 30% of Millennials described themselves as unproductive.

  • Philo
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Removed by mod

    • JJROKCZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      10 months ago

      He’s just saying these companies need to adapt their culture to fit the culture of younger generations or the companies will die with the boomers in a few years.

      Culture changes over time, those that refuse to change get left behind, this has always been the way of the world

      Personally I’m ok with a lot of companies failing and being replaced with healthier alternatives. In my mind we need to get back to the economy of thousands of smaller businesses rather than 15 mega corps owning everything on the planet.

    • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yes, I would encourage everyone to take as little shit from their job as possible. Frequent job-hopping has been the norm for millennials, because it’s typically the easiest way to increase your salary.

      I think it’s more useful to think in terms of trends than in terms of individuals. This isn’t about one person or one company. One person can leave one company, no problem. Millions of people cannot leave thousands of companies. There’s nowhere else for that many people to go.

      It seems more realistic for a small number of companies to adapt to a large number of individuals than vice-versa. If you have one unproductive employee, then they’re a bad employee. If you have hundreds or thousands of unproductive employees, then you are a bad employer.

      • Philo
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Removed by mod

        • GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          I am assuming at-will employment. But I don’t think unions change the dynamic in principle. They just shift the power balance away from employers. That’s great, but it doesn’t resolve the fundamental issue that there is NOT an abundance of choice.