In many modern workplaces, there exists a certain type of so-called “work” where there are people present… attending meetings; completing tasks; and meeting deadlines… all things which create that appear to be “productive”. However, one could argue that while there may or may not be an actual “performance” occurring as described above, the people engage as part of some larger, external “performance” in relation to work, rather than as collaborating “partners”. An increasing number of members of the “Gen Z” demographic, however, are choosing a “pathless path” from such externally-driven “performance”.
Upon further investigation, this transition may appear to be attributed to laziness, entitlement or inability to be resilient; but, rather than being an issue with one’s attitude, it is more about the way people fit within the current workplace system. A large percentage of workers today experience difficulty satisfying basic psychological needs for control, growth, and purpose in their workplace environment, resulting in disengagement from work rather than being seen as an area in which employees are unsuccessful.
Read More: Why Deadlines Feel Overwhelming: Understanding Workplace Anxiety Through Neuroscience
The Legacy of Performative Productivity
For generations, work culture has been predominantly based on the notion of visibility. The act of being visible as a worker has been as noteworthy and, in some cases, more noteworthy than the work being performed.
- If you were to stay late, you would be seen as being committed.
- If you were to answer immediately, you would be viewed as efficient.
- If you were to take on extra work, you would be seen as ambitious.
Through a process of normalisation, these behaviours have become accepted practices, not necessarily because they produced effective results, but rather because they were rewarded.
However, research into the burnout phenomenon indicates that this model is flawed. It has been found in research conducted by Maslach and Leiter (2016) that chronic workplace stress (particularly stress associated with excessive workload and lack of control) can lead to emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced performance. Burnout was also formally recognised as an occupational phenomenon by the World Health Organisation in 2019, as a result of unmitigated workplace stress.
Generation Z has seen these behaviours through the lens of the previous generations. They have witnessed the behaviour patterns of the previous generations and have found the belief that overworking leads to mental health issues to be inconsistent with their own view of success, and in fact, they do not intend to follow this pattern of behaviour. They do not reject work or effort; however, they do reject the belief of unquestioned work/effort.
“Act Your Wage”: A Psychological Adjustment, Not A Trend
The phrase “act your wage” is often understood to mean to do only what is required of you, with the word “act” conveying a sense of activity versus passivity; however, the psychology of this phrase is more nuanced. Specifically, it describes the degree of effort invested (both physically and emotionally) in one’s job as recalibrated by one’s perception of how fair that effort is when compared to the reward one receives in return.
According to the research on organisational justice (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2013), employees are constantly evaluating the ratio of what they are putting forth (efforts, time, abilities) to what they receive in return (salary, recognition, and opportunity). When the ratio becomes perceived as inequitable, the motivational level of an employee will decrease, not out of spite, but as a normal response due to the inequity.
This concept is based on the Equity Theory of Adams (1965), which states that when an employee perceives an inequity. They will typically reduce the amount of input to try to restore the sense of equity. The idea of “acting your wage” suggests that an employee is establishing a boundary, an understanding that effort and reward should be reciprocal rather than taken from one party and given to another.
Emotional Detachment as a Coping Strategy
A further example of change in how young employees view their jobs is that, in general. Their jobs don’t define who they are anymore. In the past, an individual’s job and self-concept were often linked. Professional achievements were used to quantify an individual’s value. More and more people today are actively trying to make the distinction between the two.
Critics may not always agree with this emotional disassociation, but it actually has a significant function for the individual. The JD-R Model (Demerouti et al., 2001) describes how dedicated employees experience burnout when job demands exceed the capacity of job resources to meet those demands. A solution for individuals to remedy this imbalance is to build a psychological distance from their employment. This results in less emotional energy being spent on the profession, which protects the individual’s mental health.
The Shift from Extrinsic to Intrinsic Motivation
Extrinsic motivators, such as reimbursement promotions and status, were, for years, relied on by traditional working cultures. While these will still remain important motivators, they are no longer enough to sustain employee engagement for a long time. Gen Z places more value on intrinsic factors, such as having a work that has meaning, allows for personal growth and development, provides them with autonomy, and is in line with their work/life balance, which matters the most or is what motivates them intrinsically. This aligns with the Self Determination Theory of (Deci & Ryan, 2000), which states that autonomy, competence and relatedness are the three fundamental psychological needs that drive human behaviour.
Read More: Work-Life Balance Obsession in Gen Z: Causes and Psychological Effects
Feedback Culture: From Formality to Function
Gen Z does not want feedback for any reason other than improvement. Instead of vague terminology like “great job” or “you need to do better,” they want constructive information on what they did well, what they can do better, and how to get better.
In addition, timely feedback is appreciated as this allows them to understand and subsequently implement that information. Feedback is more effective when it provides specific information (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Vague or delayed feedback can limit the usefulness of that feedback, leading to a lack of motivation overall. For Gen Z, feedback is more than a means of assessment. It is about learning, developing, and becoming better in real-time.
The Reframing of Success
Success for Gen Z is not measured merely by a paycheque or a new job title, or being promoted quickly. In previous generations, individuals would measure success in the workplace by how much money they made or how quickly they advanced in their careers; however, this has shifted. Instead, employees are now beginning to consider:
- Am I mentally healthy while at my job?
- Do I have a work-life balance?
- Is what I do fulfilling and meaningful?
A survey conducted by Deloitte showed that the Gen Z group sees themselves as equally valuing their well-being with their purpose in life, rather than just their income. Therefore, success is about not only “doing well” at your job, but also “feeling well.”
Read More: The Existential Shift: How Gen Z Is Redefining Success, Purpose, and Work-Life Balance
Meaning to Organizations
By supporting employees to enhance their mental health and emotional well-being, organisations can assist employees in achieving optimal work performance. Employees who know that they are supported by their employer will be better able to focus on their work, will have higher energy levels and motivation, and will display a greater level of commitment to their employer. Harter et al. (2003) link the well-being of employees to increased productivity and retention rates.
As such, providing a safe and supportive work environment is not only beneficial to employees. But it can also be an effective way for organisations to optimise their performance. The importance of ensuring a supportive work environment for employees has significant long-term benefits for employees and supports the ability for employees to achieve success at work with less stress than they otherwise would, due to the stressors associated with their job.
Read More: Understanding Commitment: The Psychology Behind Promises and Hard Work
Final Reflection
Generation Z is questioning how work has been organised for centuries. But does not seem to be losing interest in actually working. They would like to put in a lot of effort in their employment. But they also want to ensure that their mental well-being, their self-image and personal life are not compromised during the process. Thus, the emphasis placed on these matters by workers will be more focused on discovering an equilibrium for work than on working fewer hours in total. In this respect, they want to create a new definition of how to develop a positive relationship with their job, versus having an attitude that works against it as a way of coping with stress at work.
References +
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic Review of 25 Years of Organisational Justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). Self-Determination Theory – an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. Sciencedirect.com.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/self-determination-theory Deloitte. (2023, May 17). 2023 Gen Z and Millennial Survey. Deloitte.
https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/about/press-room/2023-gen-z-and-millenial-survey.ht ml
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11419809/
Harter, J. K. (2003). APA PsycNet. Psycnet.apa.org. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2003-04013-009
Kluger, A. N. (1996). APA PsycNet. Psycnet.apa.org. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-02773-003
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the Burnout Experience: Recent Research and Its Implications for Psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20311
Restubog, S., & Kiewitz, C. (2015). Equity Theory – an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. Sciencedirect.com. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/equity-theory
World Health Organisation. (2019, May 28). Burn-out an “occupational phenomenon”: International classification of diseases. World Health Organisation; World Health Organisation. https://www.who.int/news/item/28-05-2019-burn-out-an-occupational-phenomenon-inter national-classification-of-diseases
