Gen Z: A Challenge to Vertical Empathy

A couple of years ago, I wrote:

We are seeing a broad-based breakdown in empathy, more specifically, what I am calling vertical empathy. Vertical empathy brings together three levels of empathy – emotional, cognitive, and compassionate – in the context of the workplace where there are hierarchical structures and power differentials. Without vertical empathy, leaders cease to empathize with those that report to them and, just as importantly, the reverse – those that are reporting to someone else cease to empathize with the person or group to whom they report or with leadership in general. We can’t help create a generation of healthy adults if we are unable to model healthy human relationships and functional, productive dialogue.

Vertical empathy came back to mind when I read a recent piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled, A New Lost Generation: Why Gen Z is Unprepared for the Workplace. In the piece, Tessa West describes the context out of which the issue has arisen for Gen Z – an absence of romantic relationships growing up, online education, and the ascendency of digital communication. She next points out ways the Gen Z’s deficits in the workplace might play out. The picture she paints is not pretty, and it is difficult to argue with.

The final part of “A New Lost Generation” provides guidance regarding how best to support Gen Z in the workplace. The bottom line: ensure “clear and direct” communication.

Since reading it, I have been reflecting on how this new “Lost Generation” may impact the schools where they are becoming faculty members. I am anxious about what this means for schools, particularly for schools with ambitious aspirations, a prerequisite for maintaining or extending competitive advantage in their marketplaces, and improving their service to their students.

Some of the key factors:

• The depth and quality of the hiring pool is shrinking across all generations of teachers seeking to work in schools, not just Gen Z, thus magnifying the impact of their lack of faculty readiness.
• What’s more, because many school leaders can't afford to pay so many veteran teachers, schools are being forced to hire younger teachers at a time when these early career teachers are less prepared than ever to move into a high-demand professional job.
• There is a level of maturity and initiative required of teachers from day one of their lives as faculty members. Given the immediate demands on them, their window to improve their practice is too short to accommodate a lengthy initial growth curve. Becoming a master teacher takes years, of course, but young teachers must come out of the gate with a level of competence that is increasingly difficult to find and often too slow to get into place.
• The type of “clear and direct” communication that White calls for has not been a sufficiently common characteristic of professional communication within schools.
• Schools have been too quick to adopt ambitious strategic goals without accounting for the deficits in the potential of teachers to execute well on those ambitions.

So, what should schools do? In the Wall Street Journal piece, White states: “Leaders may not ‘get’ their Gen-Z employees, but remember: The employees don’t ‘get’ the leaders, either. To adapt, we need a whole new mindset: Create strategies of direct communication that everyone, no matter what their generation, can get on board with.” OK, but at least in a school setting, that cannot be the full answer. It is not that this advice is unhelpful; however, it is woefully incomplete.

Schools must think more dynamically than merely committing to clearer, more direct communication. Some thoughts on how to move forward:

• Reflect on and implement new approaches to the hiring process for younger candidates. These young teachers will need stronger connections to those to whom they will report. An early human connection during the hiring process is imperative for building the trust that vertical empathy calls for.
• Redesign onboarding processes. Focus at least as much on bringing new faculty members into the school's community as on tactical/practical information sharing.
• Create systems for regular, sustained dialogue about their experiences and learning. Many schools claim to do this, but a close look under the hood at what they actually do is often extremely disappointing. One factor leading to underperformance is that schools don’t commit the resources they need to the effort. Without resources and accountability, it will not happen.
• Be willing to reflect as much on one’s own leadership approach to young teachers as on expectations for their growth. In short, leaders cannot just wait for young teachers to align with leadership’s expectations for their work and professionalism.
• Leaders have to find ways to adjust their own approach to meet the needs of young faculty members. Being clearer and more direct will not be enough; sooner or later, leaders will just sound shrill to Gen Z teachers unless clarity and directness are accompanied by healthy doses of listening to Gen Z teachers.

In my original piece on vertical empathy, I noted that “kids deserve healthy adults in their lives.” They also deserve schools that have healthy human systems. Given the challenges Gen Z poses for healthy human systems, as well as their ample strengths and potential, leadership teams should invest real time in creating action-oriented plans to meet the needs of this group of young teachers, both as a group and as individuals. They are the future.

Finally, to practice vertical empathy, leadership cannot simply identify Gen Z’s perceived weaknesses and respond with deficit-based measures. Getting to know individual young teachers well enough to see beyond Gen Z generalizations is critical to be the resources they need to flourish as teachers.