For a few years now, there has been an increase in journalistic articles in which the supposed deficits of the GenZ, from general values to specific work ethics, have been addressed. People in this age cohort, roughly those born between 1995 and 2010, are accused of being lazy, leisure-oriented and lacking ambition, among other things. The question of how the GenZ’s attitudes to work and their expectations of their working conditions differ from those of previous generations and whether these differences stand up to scientific scrutiny is an open research question. Professor Katharina Sachse, in collaboration with Claus-Peter Heinrich, Silke F. Heiss and Sandra Sülzenbrück, has investigated this question as part of a recently published study entitled “Employer attractiveness from the perspective of the generations. Unity instead of differences”.
The term “generation” is vague and is used differently in science and everyday life. Although many people feel that they belong to a generation, it remains unclear what actually holds this unit together.
Youth researcher Jürgen Zinnecker distinguishes between three perspectives:
- Birth cohorts – people born in the same time period.
- Life stages – such as grandparents, parents and children, who are characterized by different life situations.
- Contemporary historical events – defining moments such as 9/11 or the introduction of the iPhone.
All three approaches show that “generation” can mean different things. Ultimately, the concept of generation should not be understood as a fixed boundary, but as a tool to make changes between groups visible.
It is important to note that different disciplines use the term differently: Pedagogy, sociology or historiography each set their own accents. The term remains useful above all to describe how people place themselves and others in their time. In the HR departments of companies, generational classifications are sometimes used to align specific personnel measures. Business psychology sheds scientific light on how employees can be recruited and retained, and also examines whether the often-discussed differences between generations – for example in GenZ – can actually be proven.
GenZ: Between crises and criticism
And that brings us to GenZ, whose youth and young adult life was primarily characterized by crises, from the euro crisis and the “refugee” crisis to the pandemic and its consequences and finally the Ukraine “crisis”. (Cf. Katharina Sache et al, Arbeitgeberattraktivität aus Sicht der Generationen. Einigkeit statt Unterschiede, Berlin 2025, p.12) The increasing digitalization of everyday life, social life and communication should also have an impact on this generation’s understanding and relationship to the world. Even if the childhood and youth of the GenZ were shaped by special circumstances and certain effects on this generation are therefore plausible, the criticism of the work ethic of this generation noted at the beginning is based less on soft attitude variants than on fixed, tangible differences in the value system of the GenZ that separate them from other cohorts. The concept of generation is not used here in the sense of an exploration of soft differences in attitude, but as an attribution of tangible, overarching characteristics of an age group.
The criticism is primarily aimed at the subject area of work and can be divided into the individual work ethic and the demands of the people concerned on their employers. For example: WirtschaftsWoche headlines that GenZ would rather be unemployed than unhappy. Deutschlandfunk Nova states a high willingness to change jobs or employers, RP online asks about excessive sensitivity in professional life. The press portal reports on GenZ’s immense salary expectations, while Focus sees a lack of willingness to work overtime. ZDF presenter Lanz prominently criticized the post-material values of GenZ and their search for the ideal work-life balance. In addition to articles and books about GenZ, there are numerous videos on platforms such as YouTube. Aside from critical impulses, the focus is often on advice for companies and HR managers.
The evidence-based review
The question arises not only as to whether these descriptions of Generation Z are at all accurate, but also whether the normative changes, for example in the demands of a work-life balance, are an effect limited to this generation or rather mark a socio-cultural shift encompassing all generations in the spirit of the times. In an empirical study, Katharina Sachse’s research group investigated the question of whether the claimed differences between the generations stand up to scrutiny.
According to a popular distinction of generations into cohorts, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Y (Millenials) and Z can be separated and characterized by more or less rough attributions. From the point of view of companies that perceive they are in an increasingly competitive market for skilled workers, these profiles are important, as they can supposedly maximize recruitment opportunities and minimize fluctuation risks by taking them into account. The assumption that security is important for the motivation of older employees and self-fulfilment in the workplace for younger generations could be used to generate tailor-made job profiles and job conditions. (Cf. Sachse et al. 2025, p.09f.)
The question now is whether the fundamental thesis of a tangible difference between the generations and their weighting of employer attractiveness factors is even true. The research situation on GenZ is still thin, because there can hardly be any reliable studies for the sole reason that GenZ has only recently entered the labor market and been able to gain experience. International studies that generally focus on generational differences have not yet been able to identify any serious differences between the generations. (See Sachse et al. 2025, p. 17f.)
The aim of the study by Professor Sachse and her research team was, on the one hand, to provide an empirical study using Germany as an example and, on the other, to provide a focus on attitudes towards employers.[1] The evaluation of the survey was based on data from 1133 working people, with all generations represented in roughly equal numbers.
The survey examined various employer attractiveness factors in 68 items along 19 dimensions. A regression analysis of the data revealed that both instrumental (income, security, benefits, etc.) and symbolic characteristics (social and altruistic values as well as status, i.e. prestige and authority, etc.) are relevant for employer attractiveness. The weighting of the factors does not differ significantly between the generations. Above all, there are no differences between the generations in the most important characteristics such as identification with the employer, leadership and work tasks – these are equally relevant for all. In short, the break between the generations and a distinct character of the GenZ in their work values and expectations cannot be empirically confirmed.
Conclusion: An unnecessary polarization
This does not mean that the attractiveness factors do not change over time. However, a zeitgeist effect that affects all generations sui generis seems to be the decisive factor here. For example, another study found that preferences regarding the length of working hours have generally changed – even baby boomers today pay more attention to work-life balance than in the past.
Tailoring recruitment to Generation Z is therefore unnecessary. Employees at all stages of their careers – from starting a new job through to retirement – should be offered working conditions that suit their needs. This includes good leadership, meaningful activities, appropriate remuneration and work tasks in which employees can use and expand their own skills.
It can be stated that although there are individual generational variances, these are only minimal. Among other things, changes in the zeitgeist and the genuine effects of life stages must always be taken into account when comparing generations. At the beginning of their professional lives, GenZ are in an orientation phase in which they have to gain various experiences in order to find the right employer and career path[2] . This alone explains the differences to members of older generations on the labor market.
In addition to a conceptual sharpness, the term generation also lacks an empirical profile that could be confirmed on the basis of concrete observations: although individual differences can be identified between generations, including in the attractiveness of employer factors and work values, these are too small to serve as a dividing line between the generations. Despite a certain variance, the work values of the generations are close to each other. In short: GenZ is no different.
[1] The design of studies necessarily has an impact on the perspective opened up: in a cross-sectional study, in which all people are surveyed at one point in time, all generations can be depicted, but at the same time the generation cannot be separated from the life stage. At the time of the survey, all members of a generation are the same age and therefore in the same phase of life. Any differences identified between the generations can therefore also be due to age or life stage effects.
[2] The phases of exploration, establishment, maintenance and withdrawal can be separated, whereby each is subject to its own logic and preferences. (See . Sachse et al. 2025, p. 16)