Gen Z at Work: Autonomy and Teamwork

At a morning meeting, the manager asked why Marta had spent almost the entire previous day with headphones on and had only sent a few short messages to colleagues. To him, it looked like she was withdrawing from the team. For Marta, it was the only way to finish a complex analysis without ten interruptions. In the evening, she sent a well-prepared document, but missed the decision the team made in a conversation by the coffee machine. The next day, both sides had confirmation of their own rightness: the manager saw that "young people don't want to cooperate," and Marta saw that it was impossible to understand the rules of the game in the office.

This is not a story about the right generation and the wrong corporate culture. It's about a failed design of interaction. When an organization doesn't distinguish between work that requires silence and personal responsibility and work that depends on joint discussion, any autonomy can easily be called loneliness, and any meeting — teamwork.

The original material for this article was based on a survey by the recruitment company Robert Walters. In it, 19% of Gen Z respondents reported preferring a team environment, while 31% said they work better independently. Managers, meanwhile, cited communication, teamwork, and critical thinking as among the difficulties. But these data do not imply that "80% of young people avoid teamwork": a lack of preference for a particular format does not equal an inability to collaborate.

The survey also captured strengths: 44% of employers were impressed by how younger employees use digital tools. This is an important reminder of the limits of interpretation. Before us are the assessments and preferences of respondents in a specific study, not a psychological portrait of all people born in certain years.

Researchers don't have a single, natural boundary where one generation ends and another begins. Labels like "Millennials" or "Gen Z" help us talk about a shared historical context, but they can mask larger differences: country, class, education, industry, family experience, age, and career stage.

Someone who first entered an office in 2021 had to learn their job through video calls and chat. This might explain their habits just as well as their birth year. When a manager attributes any behavior to a generation, they stop asking more specific questions: Is the task understood? Is there access to experienced colleagues? Is it safe to ask for help? Does the team share a common context?

A younger employee typically has less informal knowledge about the organization. They don't know who makes the final decisions, what mistakes are considered acceptable, when it's okay to disagree with a manager, and where information is stored that senior colleagues remember without documents.

What a manager might call weak critical thinking can sometimes be a lack of context. What appears to be reluctance to take responsibility might be a response to conflicting instructions. This does not remove the need to develop skills, but it changes the task: instead of "fixing Gen Z," the organization needs to make the logic of work visible.

Autonomy means the ability to influence how a task is performed, understand the boundaries of one's responsibility, and make some decisions without constant approval. Loneliness is a subjective feeling of a lack of meaningful connection. A person can work independently and feel included in a team; they can sit in an open office among dozens of colleagues and remain isolated.

Therefore, headphones, a remote day, or a short chat are not evidence of a "digital bunker." The question is different: does the employee know who to turn to; can they see the contributions of others; can they influence decisions; do they receive feedback; is there experience of completing work together as a team?

Preparing an analytical memo, writing code, calculating a budget, or editing text requires sustained periods of focus. If a meeting is held at every step, teamwork turns into constant context switching. Conversely, identifying contradictions, distributing dependencies, making decisions in uncertain situations, and retrospectively analyzing errors truly benefit from diverse perspectives.

A mature team doesn't pit autonomy and collaboration against each other. It determines where individual immersion is needed, where short synchronization is sufficient, and where collective thinking is essential. The problem Martha faced in the opening scene is resolved not by banning headphones, but by an agreement: decisions that affect her work are documented in writing, and she has a protected block of time for complex analysis.

The number of meetings says little about the quality of collaboration. Two people might be speaking on a call, while the rest wait their turn or simultaneously respond to messages. After an hour, no one knows who made the decision and what to do next.

Before a meeting, it's helpful to define its purpose: to convey information, gather ideas, resolve a conflict, or make a decision. Information is often better read. For a decision, you need an owner, criteria, and a time limit. For a complex discussion, you need pre-read material and the opportunity for everyone to speak, not just the quickest responders.

The written channel leaves a record, gives time to formulate a thought, and makes it easier for people who don't like to be interrupted to participate. It works well for statuses, instructions, and decisions. But short messages poorly convey tone, ambiguity, and emotional tension; a chain of twenty replies can be more expensive than a ten-minute conversation.

A helpful rule is not tied to age: if a message has produced two different interpretations, it's worth switching to voice or video; after the conversation, briefly record the decision in writing. This way, the team uses the advantages of both formats.

A new person needs more than just instructions; they need to see work in action. How does an experienced colleague ask clarifying questions? How do they communicate about risk? What draft do they show before it becomes perfect? How does the team argue and return to the task?

This knowledge is transferred through a shared analysis of real work, brief observation of an expert, access to examples, and regular questions. If a young employee works hybrid, the organization needs to design these moments intentionally, rather than waiting for them to happen randomly in the hallway.

In a safe team, it's okay to admit you don't know something, report a mistake, or ask an uncomfortable question without fear of humiliation. This doesn't negate quality standards. On the contrary, problems become visible earlier, when they're still fixable.

A leader sets the tone not through talk about openness, but through their reaction to the first bad news. If, after a risk report, they seek out the culprit, the team will bring them a finished catastrophe next time. If they clarify the facts, consequences, and next steps, responsibility becomes possible. The principle from "Manager Is Not a Parent" is helpful here: a mature working agreement requires neither coddling nor humiliation.

The phrase "you lack maturity" teaches nothing. It conflates one outcome with an assessment of the entire person. More helpful feedback identifies the situation, action, impact, and expectation: "The report lacked sources for three figures, so the team spent an hour on a second review. Next time, add a reference next to each indicator."

Younger employees may require more frequent contact not because of a dependence on praise, but because they haven't yet developed an internal map of standards. Over time, frequency can be reduced while maintaining clear criteria and the right to ask questions.

"Take initiative" sounds appealing, but without boundaries, it creates a trap. An employee doesn't know what decisions they can make independently, where approval is needed, what resources they can use, and most importantly, whether speed, quality, or minimal budget takes priority.

A well-defined task includes the desired outcome, context, quality criteria, deadline, available resources, and synchronization points. Within these boundaries, an individual can choose their approach to work. This is how autonomy becomes responsibility, not isolation.

The office day makes sense when it includes what's difficult to replicate at home: collaborative design solutions, meeting a new colleague, learning through observation, and complex conversations. Coming in just to sit in headphones all day for video calls is a weak reason to commute.

Remote days are good for focused work, but shouldn't make a person invisible. Teams need predictable hours of availability, written decisions, a clear channel for urgent matters, and a meeting rhythm that doesn't consume the entire week.

An experienced colleague can impart industry context, negotiation tactics, and the ability to spot risks that aren't in the instruction manual. A younger colleague can demonstrate a tool, simplify an unnecessary process, or ask a question that the team has long stopped asking.

This works when the exchange doesn't turn into a competition of "who is more modern." It's helpful to agree on a specific topic: to break down a real-world solution, show a draft, or compare two ways of working once every two weeks. Then, generation ceases to be the primary characteristic of people.

For a broader framework on trust, decision clarity, and a manager's emotional competence, see our guide to the psychology of effective leadership.

Autonomy requires visibility. If you're working independently, briefly report what's been completed, where there's risk, and when a decision is needed. Don't wait for the final version to show direction. Ask not just "Is everything okay?" but "Which two criteria are most important here?"

If a meeting seems unnecessary, propose an alternative: a written status update, an agenda, or a shorter sync. If you lack context, name the specific gap. The material on a difficult conversation with eight questions is written about partnership, but its logic of facts, goals, requests, and boundaries translates well to workplace dialogue.

Over one week, a team can't change the entire culture, but they can gather facts. For each important task, note:

At the end, choose one change for the following week: a written journal of decisions, two hours without meetings, a short paired review, or clear points of agreement. Culture changes not from a generational portrait, but from repeated ways of working together.

Organizations don't need to choose between young, autonomous workers and the old-fashioned team. They need to reject the convenient caricature. Some people of any age prefer quiet, while others think better in conversation; newcomers need context, while experienced individuals need updates on familiar ways.

A strong corporate culture makes interdependence visible: who is responsible for what, where help is needed, how decisions are made, how errors are reported, and when it's okay to work alone. In such a system, autonomy doesn't destroy the team. It gives everyone space to do their part and then return to collaborative work with something truly completed.