Gen Z'ers: Entitled little ***** or workplace visionaries?

My fathers has been doing sales since he left restaurants 20 years ago. I swear he’s never had a difficult quota and has a cake work/life balance.

Meanwhile since my first sales job I’ve worked for companies with 80% turnover. I’ve always been successful, but I’ve never been in position to go play golf at 4pm on a Tuesday.

He’s been in pretty much the same role with the same company for 15 years, outside of a short stint when he was a BDM. I couldn’t imagine staying in the same sales org that long.

 

If we're going with that model, does that make Gen X the first Gen, Millenials Gen 2, and Gen Z as Gen 3 in that model?

 

Yes. Zoomers aren’t having to bust their humps as evidenced by the article.

 

If companies and/or managers expect MORE from someone on the job, doesn't that make THEM the entitled ones?

 

I'm one them homeowning millennial ****heads that came up when the job market was squanched. I don't wish harm upon people that want to work less, I wish the harm on them gatekeeping boomers cunts. Lulz

 

I'm sure there's stuff out there I just haven't found and maybe another thread has discussed this, but the remote vs in office work debate and differences in generations thing with that fascinates me. At a point during Covid, I was working out in a common area in my apartment, and I overheard someone also working remote nearby on a meeting say "I asked my whole team if they'd rather a 30% raise or permanent work from home. They all said they'd rather permanent work from home". But then I overheard her going into the back to the office plan afterwards

I assume there has to be some studies out there on remote vs in office productivity, because I'm really curious if there's real productivity reasons to resist staying permanent work from home or flexible hybrid, or if it's more of an older generation thing. Because it honestly astounds me a bit so many companies are willing to lose that hiring advantage vs other companies hiring remote, as well as it being a huge perk that you can offer to raise employee happiness without actually having to pay your employees more.

I know that some people do genuinely like working in an office more, but nearly every stat I've seen suggests that remote work is more popular.

 

I think working in an office justifies some positions
Esp management. Not to mention if you have the lease in place already
you paying for empty space

I'm sure there are other arguments

Rocket River

 

My management is almost exclusively remote. The executive level guys go in 2 days a week, and that's for visibility and so they can jerk each other off, which is about 90% of an executive's job.

Saying you should go in just because you pay for the spot is ridiculous.

Most leases can be canceled early, you just have to justify the fees. It's an easy equation. Do I keep this office open for two more years for $5k a month, lose talent and embitter my employees or do I pay the $30k fee and transition to 100% remote?

If you have an issue with work productivity, that's a management issue. The owner and management needs to look internally at that. It's not the worker's fault 99% of the time. People want to work.

 

It's only good for business in narrow and uncommon circumstances/applications.

Is your target market overwhelmingly liberal/conservative? Then yeah, virtue signaling your political bonafides will probably gain you traction.

The problem is those scenarios are rare. Not as rare as they once were (niche products/services are more abundant than ever) but still rare. If you choose to go that route, you've effectively hard capped your growth potential, which is fine, but not inconsequential.

So, taking this concept to the micro level, if you go around running your mouth about your politics/morals/ethics all day every day at work, don't be surprised when you've alienated over half of your colleagues and find yourself struggling to move up.

It's easy to point to Musk, but that's a different kind of animal. You're talking about one of the richest, most powerful humans on the planet. Even if his vocalness about politics hasn't done him any favors, he still doesn't need to care about anyone's feelings.

But for the vast majority of us, getting overtly political does nothing to improve our standing or opportunities. It'd be like Coca Cola coming out with a "Democrat" drink. It's pointlessly alienating half the population.

 

I find all of this funny because the same complaints were made about Gen X and Millennials.... this is nothing but a further continuation of the same trend and I don't really have a problem with it for the most part. It rewards people that work smart and get their work done.

 

Im one of the rare ones who would take the rate increase even though I hate commuting. That said, I also live in an apartment and dont have kids or pets or anything like that.

 

Thats a good point and rainbow washing is a great example of that. No LGBT person is at the store saying "well I normally dont buy Oreos but this has a rainbow on the package" and even when activists try to boycott big companies for their lobbying/donations it doesnt impact anything.

What that does indicate though is that Gen Z may be more open to working for less money/benefits if the company feels more aligned with their values: e.g. being a lawyer at a non-profit for less money rather being on the corporate team for an oil company. But people like that have always existed.

Its also going to matter less as time goes on and whats considered political just becomes the norm.

But talking about it pads the length of the story and makes it more share-able/clickbaity for hiring managers and angry boomers...plus you can avoid real journalism. So, its in the article.