Image: Darrin Klimek/Getty Images

Our workplaces are changing. Digital transformations, integrations, financial and climate challenges, AI. Organizations are shifting faster than ever. One of the changes that is walking in by itself and is needed to help tackle the rest is Generation Z. They ask questions, look at things with fresh eyes, and point out what others may have come to see as normal.

By 2030, Gen Z will make up 30 percent of the workforce. No wonder they receive so much attention. Their profile appears in headlines, articles, and books: sensitive, digitally skilled, prone to stress. As soon as they exhibit a certain behavior, it gets labeled a “Gen Z trend,” often with a note of alarm. Everyone wants a vacation now and then, but when Gen Z does it, it’s suddenly called a micro-retirement. The same need, in a new frame.

Maybe that is exactly why generational thinking is so appealing. It offers something to hold on to. Instead of dealing with complex people from varied backgrounds, we get neat categories. This one is like that, that one is like this. Quite handy, especially in times of change. Only, no matter how comforting, it does not tell the whole story.

The appeal of labels

Boomers are said to be loyal, Generation X pragmatic, millennials idealistic, Gen Z sensitive and mentally overloaded, but also digitally fluent. Handy profiles. But just like with horoscopes, these profiles are often vague enough to seem true for an entire age group.

Just as people say summer-born children are cheerful, they say Gen Z became more antisocial because of the pandemic. But not everyone born on July 1st is the same. And not every Gen Z-er experienced the pandemic the same way. Like everyone else, they differ in luck, upbringing, background, and the opportunities they get. Your birth year might say something about your context, but not much about your character.

Research confirms this. A recent meta-analysis found barely any structural generational differences in work values, job satisfaction, burnout, or loyalty. The small differences that did appear were better explained by age or career stage. Still, even studies without significant results continue to offer generation-specific advice, like “adjust your leadership style to Gen Z” or “understand what drives boomers.”

Why? Because generations act as a kind of social anchor. They offer stability. They help us make sense of rapid change. And in times when everything is shifting – technology, work, climate – we search for explanations. In such uncertain times, our brains love tidy boxes. Us versus them. Young versus old.

Generations as a thinking tool, not a diagnosis

It is no longer unusual for five generations to work in one organization. The share of Gen Z is growing, but so is the number of people over 65. The workplace is becoming younger and older, more digital and more experienced.

The real challenge is not managing age groups, but recognizing how time – and the spirit of the times – shapes us all. Sometimes that’s about age, sometimes about context, sometimes just chance. That is when generational thinking is not a strict boundary, but a gentle way to keep thinking.

If we don’t do that, we risk falling into a trap where generational thinking reinforces difference instead of creating nuance. Think Gen Z quits quickly? You might invest less in their development, and they may indeed leave sooner. Stop challenging someone in their sixties because you assume they’re done? That person might actually leave. This is how assumptions slowly become reality.

If we want to move forward, maybe we don’t need to scrap generational thinking entirely, but we do need to redefine it. Not as truth, but as a lens. Not as fact, but as a frame. The rise of Gen Z in the workplace does not just tell us something about that generation, but about how work itself has changed. How the norm has shifted. Generations can help us see that, as long as we don’t mistake them for the truth.