I recently read a statistic in the Philadelphia Business Journal that made my eyebrows go up.
Overall, it was an interesting article about how members of Gen Z are more likely than their elder counterparts to have negotiated their first salary. Fine.
What surprised me? Because it later said:
“80% of Gen Z employees feel negative stereotypes have affected their work experience, including misconceptions of them being lazy, unprofessional or entitled, and 49% said these stereotypes have cost them a raise or promotion.”
Against Whose Standard are You Judged?
To me, if a whopping 80% of a group thinks that they are somehow victims of a stereotype that they do not believe they embody and nearly half of them believe this stereotype alone is the reason they didn't get what they believed they deserved, two initial thoughts immediately jump to mind:
- There’s a massive communication gap between managers and Gen Z employees about what “professionalism,” “hard work,” and “merit” actually look like in practice.
- The Dunning–Kruger effect may very well be at play here.
What Is the Dunning–Kruger Effect—and Why It Matters
Broadly, the Dunning-Kruger effect is a well-documented cognitive bias where people with low ability in a particular domain tend to overestimate their competence and performance, while those with high ability often underestimate theirs.
Frequently, members of both groups tend to view their performance and ability as closer to “average.”
So in this case, the chief under-performers of a group may claim, “Hey, I produce/work as hard as anyone else,” while the self-motivated overachievers may think, “Doesn’t everyone work this hard?”
Communication Gaps and the Social Media Echo Chamber
Now imagine the former group of underachievers reinforcing each other’s beliefs over coffee breaks and TikTok algorithms that serve up more of the same. It becomes a self-sustaining narrative echo chamber.
And if leadership isn’t crystal clear, on an equally consistent and frequent basis, about what the actual expectations and performance metrics are—what success looks and sounds like, how it’s measured, and when course correction is needed—can we really be surprised when self-perceptions don’t match reality?
“Do I Have to Hold Their Hand?” Yes—and Here’s Why
Of course, I can hear the grumbles now—from team leaders—thinking, “Geez, how much hand holding and communication do I need to do?”
Surface answer: I don’t know. But I’m guessing that what has been done so far has neither been frequent enough, clear enough, nor consistent enough, or things would be different.
Deeper answer: Perhaps it’s time to focus less on what you’ve said and more on what they’ve heard and understood… or didn’t hear and understand, as the case may be.
After all, communication has little to nothing to do with what message was intended, and everything to do with what message was received.
This is the kind of leadership reset we often work on in executive coaching, ensuring that you can effectively convey what seems “obvious” to you in a way that’s as clear and compelling to everyone else.
That can be in the 1:1 world, or focusing on helping leaders realign their teams around mutual understanding, measurable expectations, and trust-building feedback loops.
Accountability Check: Have You Asked the Right Questions?
Of course, this also begs the question of how much personal responsibility just might be a factor when we get results we don’t like.
Don’t get me wrong—sure, there are biases and ineffective leaders and unfair systems.
But whether or not clear expectations and metrics were set from the start, if the feedback received is that I’m not getting a promotion or raise because my performance is not to a certain standard, you better believe I’m going to get real specific in my follow-up questions:
- What are some instances where my performance fell short of expectations?
- What were those expectations and how were they measured?
- What would success have looked/sounded like, if I had done better?
- When and how were they conveyed? In a meeting, by email, in a contract, other? (Assuming I was not aware of them.)
- Looking ahead, what do you need to see/hear from me, when and how, to demonstrate consistent, higher performance standards?
Now, I may not like the answers I get, but what’s important is that they are concrete and actionable.
Story Time: When “Feedback” Isn’t Feedback at All
Sometimes feedback is uselessly vague. I had one senior exec tell me he wanted me to work with a VP who “needed to communicate better.”
“Can you be more specific?” I asked. “How does she need to communicate better?”
“You know,” he replied. “She’s just not a very good communicator.”
(Gee, I wonder who she learned that from!)
Another leader kept telling his direct report—a regular over-achiever—that with the promotion, “the bar is set higher now,” but never defining what “the bar” is, what the old “height” was or what the new one had become.
Frustrating? Yes.
But more often than not, leading begins with managing UP, and this is a perfect example of where you will need to guide the conversation until you get a meaningful, actionable, objectively measurable response.
This kind of skill—strategically asking and probing for clarity, not just passively receiving feedback and other information—is one of the most underrated superpowers in leadership. (And often one of the first things we work on in executive coaching.)
The Bottom Line: Stereotype or Strategy Problem?
But what if that seems like way too much effort?
Then perhaps check back in and ask yourself:
Is it really the stereotype that’s the problem?
