Letting the side down

As a father of twin, near-20-year-old sons, it has always struck me how different their lives are from my life at their age. The differences are so numerous and so stark as not to warrant listing. As a Gen Xer, I could take the view that my generation is special, and there is very little we can’t do if we turn our minds to it; and on the subject of minds, we are (generally speaking) also incredibly mentally resilient compared to Gen Z. And judging by the pro-Gen X t-shirts I see on Instagram; I wouldn’t be alone! Most of the rhetoric I encounter centres around a generation who are essentially far less capable than their parents. Basically, many Gen Xers would happily admit to believing Gen Z has let the side down. (Obviously not their own offspring, but other people’s!)

According to Statista in 2022, there were 12.2 million Gen X employed in the UK workplace and 4.3 million Gen Z. Now, halfway through 2025, that delta will have narrowed significantly. And by 2030, they (Gen Z) will make up over 70 per cent of the workforce. So, if the chatter on social media is to be believed, our pensions aren’t looking too clever given it will be Gen Z that will be managing them on our behalf as we, Gen X, cycle, run, swim, hang glide and bungee jump into retirement!

I believe that employers, specifically the C-Suite, must change their attitude and approach to the training and development of their employees, regardless of their generation.

I am a firm believer that we humans are the product of our environment, or perhaps circumstance. Gen X and Gen Z were raised in very different circumstances and with very different approaches. My recollection of my primary school childhood in the 70s was being left to fend for myself all week, eating very little, drinking tap water, and perhaps spending a little bit of time with my parents at the weekend, with even more time fending for myself outdoors in all weathers.

For those curious Gen Zs that may be reading this, yes, we had electricity, and yes, we had telephones (connected to the wall in the hallway and with dials), but no, we didn’t have social media, mobile phones, or the internet. To put things in perspective, we had a street party when Channel 4 was launched. If we wanted something done, we had to work out how to do it. Nobody fixed my bicycle when it broke; we just learned from each other how to do it. The alternative was completely unacceptable – to be condemned to staying at home, doubtless doing chores your mum found you to do to keep you “busy”, whilst your mates roamed the district having fun on their working bikes.

Necessity was the mother of invention in our day, and to be fair, things were a lot simpler. Things were also built to last and not to be thrown away, so fixing stuff was perhaps a far more realistic proposition back in the day than it is today. And in fairness, we didn’t have the incessant, almost impossible-to-switch-off “connectivity” and “instantaneous” nature of existence that I feel has so harmed Gen Z.

If you think about it, good old elitist Gen X wouldn’t be the capable generational superstars we are if the iPhone had been around in our day! We too would have been seduced by the allure of everything at your fingertips, by the ability to “Google it” and swerve the hard work of actually learning how to do it. We too would have probably seen the pointlessness of writing your homework when you can just get any number of plagiarism-proof AI applications to do it for you. The fact that by doing so you are learning very little appears lost on all concerned.

And as for walking miles every day, why bother when there are now 32 million cars on the road compared with just 11 million in 1970, and perhaps an unknown number of e-bikes, scooters, and other forms of “easy” personal transportation, to take the strain for us? And don’t even get me started on nutrition! Our lot would have gorged themselves senseless if we had the abundance of cheap, unhealthy, and downright tasty fare available to Gen Z since the day they were born.

The fact of the matter is, Gen X has failed Gen Z. We are the ones who have let the side down. Rather than perhaps attempting to understand just how cosmically different the circumstances are now compared with when we were young, we (Gen X) appear all too happy to draw out the apparent “failings” of Gen Z, whilst failing ourselves to live up to our generation’s unofficial motto and solve any and all problems thrown at us.

We have “allowed” our kids to mainline social media and the internet with little responsibility for the damage this will do them. With scant regard for the fact that we have presided over a regime that allows Gen Z to avoid the need to become genuinely competent at anything other than perhaps social media and the use of AI to “blag” their exams. A case in point: Forzis Mazars went on record two months ago telling the world they were forced to “teach Gen Z how to use the telephone”.

“How many Gen Z employees does it take to pick up the phone? None, they’re all too scared of it. That’s the theory about professional 20-somethings, anyway, which is why one of the UK’s top accountancy firms is giving telephone training to their young staff. Forzis Mazars is launching a “comprehensive” training programme, which will include teaching the whippersnappers how to have “challenging” conversations on the phone.” 1

Because apparently, despite having one glued to their hands 24/7, the phone’s functionality was largely reserved for interacting in monosyllabic and ineffective responses to questions posed by concerned parents, rather than their own generation, who communicate almost entirely differently via texts, chat, and video. Now, I am sure your own kids aren’t that “bad”, but Forzis Mazars is teaching somebody’s kids, and somebody’s kids have record levels of anxiety, record low levels of wellbeing, and record poor mental health.

According to research conducted by the Walton Family Foundation, 42% of Gen Z battle with depression and feelings of hopelessness, which is almost twice as high as Americans over 25 (23%).2

The reality is that circumstances have conspired against Gen Z, such that, almost no matter how dedicated and/or committed the parents, this generation as a whole isn’t workplace ready. I would say this applies with the exception of “trades” and other sectors where the recruit is developing vocational skills. If you think about it, we appear to have no problem taking school leavers, often young men with the lowest exam results, into a trade environment and turning out hard-working, first-class, ultra-competent tradespeople. Perhaps this is because their employers aren’t so much interested in quick fixes and ticking boxes, as these are useless in an environment where competence is not just desired, but fundamental to everyday success. I don’t have the data point, but I would wager that the level of wellbeing and mental health amongst Gen Z tradespeople is significantly higher than those employed in, say, the Financial Services sector.

In our sector, the workplace training and development of Gen Z is, on the whole, characterised by an attitude of delivering the training at the lowest possible cost and in the shortest possible time. This approach focuses on ticking boxes for regulatory audit purposes, with precious little regard for actual in-role competence outcomes. Can you imagine if the local electrician took the same approach to developing their apprentice? The results would be catastrophic, and I suspect in many instances, fatal!

It’s understandable why recruits in the UK FinServ sector might be dropping out, citing “inability to do the job” and “it’s too difficult,” especially if employers are inadvertently throwing them under the bus. If C-suite executives were genuinely concerned about employee wellbeing and organisational culture, they wouldn’t be obsessing over “lost time” to training. Instead, they would be focusing on supporting every individual who joins their business to genuinely develop them to their full potential. In response to this criticism, I understand that many are now doing so.

In the mantra of the FCA, I might say, “Show me, don’t tell me.”

I believe that employers, specifically the C-Suite, must change their attitude and approach to the training and development of their employees, regardless of their generation. However, it’s important to recognise that soon the majority will be Gen Z. This point is not lost on the FCA, who frequently cite inappropriate approaches to employee training and competency.

“Firms decide which methods to use when assessing employee competence. We [FCA] define competence as having the skills, knowledge and expertise needed to discharge the responsibilities of an employee’s role.

Competence includes achieving a good standard of ethical behaviour. It is not just a question of having the appropriate qualification and reading the Statements of Principle for Approved Persons (APER) or the Code of Conduct (COCON) (as applicable). Firms need procedures in place with clear criteria for individuals to be assessed as competent, so all parties involved understand when competence has been reached.

Your firm must review employee competence and training needs regularly. You must consider changes in the marketplace and products, regulation and legislation. You must also look at the skills, expertise, technical knowledge and behaviour of your employees in practice.

Firms should make sure appropriate training is provided so employees remain competent. You will also need to monitor and assess regularly the training’s effectiveness to make sure it meets objectives.

Firms should make sure employees are always supervised. How closely the individual is supervised will depend on their experience and whether they have been assessed as competent. The level and intensity of supervision should be significantly greater before competence is achieved than afterwards. We expect firms to have clear criteria and procedures in place to identify the specific point at which the individual becomes competent so they can prove when and why a reduced level of supervision is warranted. We do not expect supervision to only involve file checking.”3

Competence and wellbeing are, contrary to popular myth, quantifiable. Technology like Clever Nelly exists to continually measure both and leverage AI to treat every employee as an individual, gently and collaboratively supporting them in their development journey. The regulator is (rightly, perhaps) fixated on organisational culture and ensuring good consumer outcomes are at the heart of decision-making in every firm in the sector. It’s difficult to see how that will pan out as intended if most EXCOs are letting the side down in their approach and attitude to the development and support of Gen Z as they form an increasingly large percentage of the workforce.