Executive Summary

Across Canada and other advanced economies, women remain persistently underrepresented in technical roles in the technology industry, and leave those roles at much higher rates than their male peers. Their departures are not driven by lack of interest, lack of ability, or family-related choices. Instead, a large and consistent body of research shows that women enter technical work well-qualified and highly motivated, and decide to leave after concluding that their work is yielding less recognition, influence, and advancement than comparable work by their male peers.

Attrition is most pronounced at mid-career, typically in women’s early to mid-30s, and the experiences that drive it are rarely dramatic or singular. Instead, they have accumulated slowly through everyday peer interactions and informal workplace dynamics. Women consistently report having their technical competence questioned or repeatedly tested by colleagues; being interrupted or talked over in meetings; having their ideas ignored or attributed to other people; being excluded from informal networks where information, reputation, and opportunity circulate; being informally steered toward support or people-facing roles; and receiving slower or less substantive feedback from peers on their work. Many describe interactions with peers that are sexualized in ways they find juvenile and unappealing.

Crucially, very few of these experiences result in formal complaints. Individual incidents are typically judged by the women experiencing them as too minor or ambiguous to justify official action, and are therefore left unreported.

However research shows that, over time, these experiences accumulate to undermine women’s authority, influence, reputation, and access to opportunity within their organizations. As their perceived competence and standing erode—often despite strong performance—their ability to succeed diminishes. Many report having received one or two early promotions, and then beginning to encounter stalled advancement. Under these conditions, leaving becomes a rational response to materially constrained prospects.

When they leave, these women do not generally exit the workforce or stop doing technical work. Instead, they leave the technology industry, often moving into technical roles in other sectors—frequently in more gender-balanced environments such as healthcare or education.

The women who leave, research has found, tend to be disproportionately highly educated, ambitious, and accomplished relative to their peers, suggesting that this attrition represents a regrettable loss of talent, rather than a natural sorting of weaker performers.

---

Introduction

Despite decades of attention to gender diversity in the technology industry, women remain significantly under-represented in technical roles and are far more likely than men to leave those roles midway through their careers. This pattern is well documented across a wide range of technical roles in the technology industry, particularly in work where advancement depends on informal collaboration, reputation, and peer evaluation. It appears across countries, organizational types, and economic cycles, including in labour markets where demand for technical talent is strong.

The persistence of this pattern has generated a wide range of theories and hypotheses, including ones citing differences in educational pathways, early career entry patterns, personal preferences, and work–life balance considerations. 

However, a large body of empirical research challenges these accounts. Women who enter technical work do so for the same reasons men do: interest in the work itself, enjoyment of problem-solving, and the opportunity to contribute to complex, high-impact projects. While they are underrepresented at every stage of the pipeline, their early career satisfaction is generally high. Over time, however, cumulative workplace experiences gradually erode that satisfaction, with many ultimately exiting at midcareer.

This document focuses on what happens to women after they enter technical work: how their experiences change over time, why attrition spikes at mid‑career, and how everyday workplace conditions—particularly low‑level harassment and harassment‑like behaviour—shape these outcomes.

---

The Scale and Timing of Attrition

Multiple large‑scale studies show that women leave technical roles in the technology industry at substantially higher rates than men, even when controlling for education, experience, and family status. Ten years after graduation, only a minority of women who originally trained in STEM fields remain in STEM roles, while men with comparable backgrounds are far more likely to persist.

Attrition is not evenly distributed across the career span. Instead, it spikes at mid‑career, typically in women’s early to mid‑30s. At this stage, many women report having reached the beginning ranks of senior individual contributor or management roles, only to find that further progression has become markedly more difficult. Promotions slow or stop, access to high‑visibility projects narrows, and professional isolation intensifies.

For many women, the cumulative effect is a growing sense that their contributions are not rewarded in proportion to their value. When a less experienced male colleague whom they hired or trained is promoted ahead of them, this often crystallizes a pattern that has been developing for years and becomes the breaking point that prompts their exit.

---

Early Career Motivation and Later Disillusionment

Research consistently finds that women enter technical fields with high levels of confidence, ambition, and intrinsic motivation. In early career surveys, women report strong satisfaction with the technical content of their work, and a desire to advance.

Over time, however, this motivation erodes. Studies show a sharp decline in self‑reported ambition among women in technical roles as they age, a pattern that is significantly steeper than among men in the same fields and steeper than among women in non‑technical professions.

This does not reflect diminished interest in technology or reduced capability. Rather, it tracks changes in how women experience their workplaces and how their efforts are rewarded.

---

Everyday Harassment and Hostile Work Environments

When workplace harassment is discussed, attention often focuses on severe or overt misconduct. Those incidents do occur and must be addressed. However research shows that women’s day‑to‑day experiences are more commonly shaped by a different category of behaviour: persistent, low‑level actions that signal exclusion, devaluation, or threat.

These behaviours include:

• comments about women’s capabilities and suitability for technical work
• repeated interruptions or dismissal in meetings
• public or private questioning of their competence
• having their work vetted more thoroughly than that of male colleagues
• social exclusion from informal networks where information and opportunities circulate
• sexualized jokes, comments, or “pranks”
• being hit on by colleagues or subjected to unwanted personal attention
• disproportionate focus on their appearance, relationships, or family plans
• being steered toward people-facing or “soft” roles rather than technical work
• assignment of low-status, non-promotable office work (e.g., note-taking, event planning)
• being expected to provide ongoing emotional support for others’ personal lives
• being labeled as “difficult,” “abrasive,” or otherwise penalized for assertive behaviour
• being mistaken for, or treated as, administrative or support staff

Individually, these behaviours are often dismissed as trivial. Collectively, they contribute to a hostile or distracting environment that imposes additional cognitive and emotional burdens on women.

---

Harassment, Power, and Punishment

Research on workplace harassment emphasizes that such behaviour is not primarily about sexual interest, but about power and norm enforcement. Women who violate gender expectations—by being assertive, ambitious, or authoritative—are more likely to be targeted for harassment or social punishment.

This dynamic helps explain why competent women are often described as abrasive or unlikeable in performance evaluations, and why identical behaviour is evaluated differently depending on the gender of the person exhibiting it.

Harassment thus operates not only as a source of immediate harm, but as a mechanism that constrains women’s behaviour and career trajectories over time.

---

Accumulated Disadvantage and Stalled Advancement

Beyond overt harassment, women in technical roles face a pattern of accumulated disadvantage that manifests in everyday work processes. Research documents that women are more likely than men to:

• receive slower or less detailed feedback
• be excluded from high‑profile assignments
• be steered toward support, coordination, or people‑facing roles
• have their contributions attributed to others
• be evaluated on the basis of personality traits rather than work quality

Small biases at each stage compound over time. Simulation studies show that even minimal bias in promotion decisions can produce extreme gender imbalance at senior levels after multiple promotion cycles.

---

Psychological Consequences and Identity Threat

The research literature describes several psychological mechanisms through which hostile or exclusionary environments affect performance and retention. One of the most studied is stereotype threat: the cognitive load imposed when people are aware that they may be judged through the lens of negative stereotypes about their group.

Women experiencing stereotype threat report heightened vigilance, rumination, and self‑monitoring. While these responses may initially lead to increased effort, over time they reduce performance, satisfaction, and well‑being. Chronic exposure is associated with burnout and withdrawal from the field.

Importantly, stereotype threat and related dynamics are largely invisible to those who do not experience them, contributing to misunderstanding and minimization within organizations.

---

Why Formal Systems Miss the Problem

Most organizations have sexual harassment and/or violence prevention policies that require complaints to be handled through formal investigative processes, even when the people involved might prefer a less formal approach. These investigations are typically led by Human Resources, sometimes with legal counsel involved, and may include the use of external investigators.

While appropriate for serious misconduct, these processes are widely felt to be disproportionate for everyday workplace issues, and they produce a range of unintended consequences. Employees and supervisors alike hesitate to discuss behavioural norms and expectations, for fear those conversations could be interpreted as complaints or give rise to them. People who experience or witness problematic behaviour hesitate to raise concerns unless they perceive the incident as especially severe. And supervisors, in turn, may minimize issues or discourage formal reports, to avoid needing to initiate a process that could be costly, disruptive, or misaligned with the scope and scale of the issue.

As a result, lower-level but persistent problems are not simply overlooked; organizational incentives actively discourage their identification and discussion. Because these issues therefore remain unaddressed, their cumulative effects progressively degrade working conditions and ultimately drive employee exit.

---

Agency, Choice, and Exit

Women’s attrition from technical work is often described as women being “pushed out.” The research supports a different interpretation.

Women who leave technical roles in the technical industry are disproportionately well educated, experienced, and highly employable, and they do not typically withdraw from paid work. Most transition into other industries, other business functions, academia, or government.

They choose to exit their workplaces because they judge—accurately—that their contributions are not being rewarded in proportion to their value. In the face of persistent undervaluation, stalled advancement, and routine low-level harassment, many conclude that other sectors, functions, or organizations will offer a better return on their talent.

From this perspective, attrition reflects agency rather than passivity. Women are not being defeated by technical work or even by harassment itself; they are simply choosing to invest elsewhere. The loss is borne primarily by the technology industry itself.

Understanding women’s departure as a choice, rather than an expulsion, reframes the problem. The issue is not women’s skills or resilience or commitment, but organizational failure to create environments in which elite technical talent sees continued participation as worthwhile.

Conclusion

The evidence is clear: women do not exit their technical workplaces because they lack interest or ability. They leave because everyday workplace conditions—shaped by low-level harassment, bias, and exclusion—no longer justify continued investment of their talent.

Understanding this pattern requires shifting attention away from rare, severe incidents of workplace harassment and violence, toward the cumulative impact of small everyday harassment-like behaviours. For employers seeking to retain technical talent, the challenge is not merely to prevent and punish the worst cases of misconduct, but to recognize and address the ordinary conditions that quietly drive away capable people.

---

Sources and Further Reading

The analysis in this document draws on a body of research examining women’s experiences in technical roles in the technology industry, with particular attention to everyday harassment, peer dynamics, job quality, and mid-career attrition. Sources include more than 200 peer-reviewed journal articles, major industry studies, conference proceedings, and selected dissertations. Below is a partial list. 

The bibliography is organized from core workplace-exit research outward to contextual and background sources.

---

Core Research on Retention, Exit, and Job Quality in Technology

• Chyn, Eric, Justine Hastings, Lesley Hirsch, Akiva Yonah Meiselman, Karen Shen, and Seth D. Zimmerman. Women in STEM and Job Quality. SSRN working paper, April 2025.
• Singh, Romila, Yejun Zhang, Min (Maggie) Wan, and Nadya A. Fouad. Why Do Women Engineers Leave the Engineering Profession? Human Resource Management 57, no. 4 (2018): 901–914.
• Smith, N. E., S. B. Costello, and S. Chowdhury. Achieving Gender Balance in Engineering: Examining the Reasons for Women’s Intent to Leave the Profession. Journal of Management in Engineering 38, no. 4 (2022).
• Halliday, C. S., S. C. Paustian-Underdahl, C. Stride, and H. Zhang. Retaining Women in Male-Dominated Occupations across Cultures: The Role of Supervisor Support and Psychological Safety. Human Performance 35, nos. 3–4 (2022): 156–177.

---

Harassment, Incivility, and Everyday Bias in Technical Work

• Saxena, M. Workplace Incivility in STEM Organizations: A Typology of STEM Incivility and Affective Consequences for Women Employees. Journal of Business Ethics 192 (2024): 501–525.
• Kim, J. Y., and A. Meister. Microaggressions, Interrupted: The Experience and Effects of Gender Microaggressions for Women in STEM. Journal of Business Ethics 185 (2023): 513–531.
• Williams, Joan, Rachel Korn, and Asma Ghani. Pinning Down the Jellyfish: The Workplace Experiences of Women of Color in Tech. Center for WorkLife Law, University of California College of the Law, San Francisco, 2022.
• Fitzgerald, Louise F., et al. The Sexual Harassment of Uppity Women. Journal of Applied Psychology (2007).

---

Lived Experience, Peer Dynamics, and Survival in Software and Engineering

• Van Breukelen, S., A. Barcomb, S. Baltes, and A. Serebrenik. “Still Around”: Experiences and Survival Strategies of Veteran Women Software Developers. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, 2023.
• Trinkenreich, Bianca, Ricardo Britto, Marco A. Gerosa, and Igor Steinmacher. An Empirical Investigation on the Challenges Faced by Women in the Software Industry: A Case Study. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering – Software Engineering in Society, 2022.
• Ross, Monique, and Allison Godwin. Stories of Black Women in the Engineering Industry: Why They Leave. Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 2015.

---

Quantitative Patterns of Attrition and Exit

• Kander, Josiane. Attrition Rates in the Engineering Industry by Gender and Time. PhD diss., Mississippi State University, 2024.
• Houston, Tyene. STEM Barriers: An Examination of Factors That Accelerate the Exit of Women Engineers from Industry. PhD diss., Pepperdine University, 2022.

---

Background and Early Context (Pipeline and Aspirations)

• Hill, Catherine, Christianne Corbett, and Andresse St. Rose. Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. American Association of University Women, 2010.
• Nguyen, Ursula, Tatiane Russo-Tait, Catherine Riegle-Crumb, and Katherine Doerr. Changing the Gendered Status Quo in Engineering? The Encouraging and Discouraging Experiences of Young Women with Engineering Aspirations. Science Education 106, no. 6 (2022): 1442–1468.

---

Retention-Focused Syntheses and Practitioner Research

• Holtzblatt, Karen, and Nicola Marsden. Retaining Women in Tech: Shifting the Paradigm. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2022.
• Center for Talent Innovation. The Athena Factor: Reversing the Brain Drain in Science, Engineering, and Technology. Harvard Business Review, 2008.
• Center for Talent Innovation. Athena 2.0: Accelerating Female Talent in Science, Engineering, and Technology. 2014.
• National Center for Women & Information Technology (NCWIT). Women in IT: The Facts. 2010.
• Catalyst. Stemming the Tide: Why Women Leave Engineering. National Science Foundation–funded report, 2012.
• National Bureau of Economic Research. Why Do Women Leave Science and Engineering? 2010.

Gen Z is the most diverse, digitally fluent, and socially conscious generation in history. They’re entering the workforce with a radically different understanding of gender, power, and consent—and they’re doing so in an era of institutional distrust, economic instability, and post-#MeToo accountability. Gen Z doesn’t see workplace sexual harassment as a side issue—it’s a litmus test for whether a workplace is safe, ethical, and worth staying in. To retain Gen Z talent, employers need to understand Gen Z and adapt to how they see things.

Who is Generation Z?

Generation Z, often abbreviated as Gen Z, refers to the cohort of people born roughly between 1997 and 2012. In Canada, this group currently includes teenagers and young adults, with the oldest members now in their late twenties and the youngest still in elementary school. Estimates suggest that Gen Z makes up about 20% of the Canadian population, or around 7.6 million people. They are the first generation to grow up entirely in the digital age, with smartphones, social media, and high-speed internet as ubiquitous parts of their environment from early childhood.

Forces That Have Shaped Gen Z

Several global and national forces have influenced Gen Z’s development:

• Digital immersion: Gen Z is the first generation to experience childhood shaped by smartphones and algorithmically driven social media platforms. As a result, Gen Z had less face-to-face interaction, unstructured outdoor play, and real-world social practice, compared to previous generations. Their social development has been influenced by online validation systems, such as likes and shares, and constant exposure to curated, often unrealistic portrayals of other people’s lives.
  
• Climate anxiety: The intensifying climate crisis and its global visibility have made environmental issues a central concern for Gen Z.
  
• Economic precarity: Growing up during or after the 2008 financial crisis, and now facing the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, housing affordability crises, rising inflation, and the effects of trade wars with the United States, Gen Z is acutely aware of economic instability.
  
• Social justice movements: The rise of movements like Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, and Indigenous rights advocacy in Canada has deeply influenced Gen Z’s values and worldview.
  
• Pandemic disruption: COVID-19 interrupted education, work entry, and social development during formative years for Gen Z.
  
• Globalization: Access to global media and discourse has made Gen Z more internationally aware and culturally fluid than previous generations.
  
• Mental health: Relative to earlier generations, Gen Z has heightened levels of anxiety, depression, and social withdrawal.

How Gen Z’s Circumstances Differ From Previous Generations

Gen Z faces a more precarious economic landscape than Boomers or Gen X did at their age. Wages have stagnated while the cost of living has surged, especially in urban centres. Home ownership, once a realistic goal for young adults, is increasingly out of reach. Their educational pathways have become more expensive, and degrees do not guarantee stable employment. At the same time, Gen Z is more educated on average and more likely to pursue post-secondary education. They are also more diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality.

Besides economic instability, Gen Z is distinguished by historically high rates of mental health concerns. Anxiety, depression, and self-harming behaviours began rising sharply around 2012 and have remained elevated. These trends are particularly pronounced among girls, who are more likely to experience body image issues and social comparison driven by visual platforms like Instagram and TikTok. Boys, meanwhile, are more likely to experience withdrawal and disengagement, including from school and relationships.

Media and Popular Culture

Gen Z consumes media primarily through digital platforms, and their habits are markedly different from those of millennials. While millennials came of age with big corporate platforms such as Facebook and YouTube, Gen Z’s pop cultural touchstones tend to be more ephemeral and interactive, like TikTok, Snapchat, Twitch, and Discord. Their media consumption is mobile-first, fast-paced, and highly personalized through algorithmic curation.

TikTok in particular represents a paradigmatic shift: it rewards creativity, remix culture, and lo-fi production. Viral trends can emerge, peak, and disappear within days. Gen Z expects to participate in culture, not just consume it; they engage by making videos, creating memes, commenting, and duetting. This participatory culture contrasts with millennials’ consumption of more polished, longer-form content.

Influencers and content creators matter more to Gen Z than mainstream celebrities. They are drawn to people who feel “real” rather than aspirational, and they value transparency over traditional forms of glamour or authority. Cancel culture, while present across both generations, has taken on new dimensions with Gen Z, who are often both hyper-aware of social issues and skeptical of performative activism.

Music preferences are eclectic and less defined by genre; Gen Z listens to everything from hyperpop and SoundCloud rap to lo-fi beats and indie bedroom pop. Spotify and TikTok serve as key discovery tools, often turning obscure artists into overnight sensations. Television and movies are consumed largely through streaming, and Gen Z preferences tilt toward animated series, genre fiction (especially dystopian and speculative), and dark comedy with social commentary.

Influences of Technology

Technology has played a defining role in shaping Gen Z’s worldview, identity, and creative sensibilities. Unlike previous generations, Gen Z has never known a world without the internet, mobile phones, and social media. The generational trajectory of digital engagement reveals a deep shift in how technology has shaped self-perception and aesthetics:

• Baby boomers often struggled with digital technology and approached it with discomfort or distrust.
• Gen X defined itself in opposition to boomers by mastering digital tools in the early internet era, when using technology required technical skill, and privacy and security were core concerns.
• Millennials inherited a sleek, commercialized internet. Their online presence became an extension of lifestyle branding: Instagram-ready, highly curated, aesthetically polished. Their aesthetic embraced minimalism, soft lighting, and calm.

Gen Z’s internet experience has been profoundly different. For them, the internet has always been a corporate space. Their digital native status is accompanied by a native skepticism—an awareness that their attention, data, and identity are always being mined, and somebody is always trying to sell them something. 

Reacting against the corporate internet, Gen Z prefer chaotic, expressive, and sometimes jarring visuals, in opposition to the calm aesthetic of millennials. Their design ethos is influenced by thrift culture, early internet aesthetics, meme logic, and anti-branding and features visual trends like weirdcore, cluttercore, and glitch art.

Aesthetic Preferences

Gen Z aesthetics reject the clean, curated, and aspirational vibe associated with millennial minimalism. Where millennials embraced neutral tones, clean lines, hygge, and “adulting” aesthetics like succulents, open-plan kitchens, and aspirational wellness, Gen Z favours chaos, contradiction, and expressive clutter. Their aesthetic is defined by maximalism, irony, surrealism, nostalgia, and a visible resistance to perfection.

Gen Z aesthetics embrace the ugly, the glitchy, the chaotic, and the strange. Online subcultures such as weirdcore, cluttercore, and goblincore celebrate contradiction, discomfort, and anti-capitalist critique. Their fashion and design choices are influenced by thrift culture, sustainability, and a desire to subvert mainstream beauty standards. Rather than aiming to look perfect or curated, Gen Z often prefers to look expressive, strange, or even off-putting—as a form of resistance to the commodification of identity.

Where millennials presented carefully filtered versions of themselves online, Gen Z is more likely to share mental health struggles, intrusive thoughts, or bizarre humour. Their aesthetic backlash is not just stylistic but ideological. They see millennial minimalism as reflective of false promises—economic stability, personal control, aesthetic harmony—that no longer feel achievable or honest. In its place, Gen Z leans into rawness, weirdness, and hyper-self-awareness, crafting an aesthetic that reflects their anxious, unstable, and hyper-mediated reality.

Beliefs and Attitudes

Unlike previous generations, Gen Z doesn’t assume that authority figures are trustworthy or competent. Their skepticism isn’t rooted in rebellion—it’s grounded in observation. They’ve watched major institutions fail to deliver on promises, protect the vulnerable, or act with transparency. And, growing up online means Gen Z has learned to distrust, cross-reference, screenshot, and dissect official messages. As a result, Gen Z generally does not generally trust or respect institutions such as the news media, law enforcement, or the legislative branch of government. In the workplace, this means they are less likely than previous generations to defer automatically to HR, managers, or senior executives. 

Gen Z is also more likely than previous generations to be activists and organizers. They are less likely to subscribe to traditional ideological labels, and instead generally embrace intersectional and issue-based politics. In general, Gen Z is more ideologically progressive than previous generations on social issues related to gender identity, sexual orientation, racial justice, and climate action. At the same time, there are signs of political divergence within Gen Z, including a small but vocal group, largely male, who are embracing far-right, libertarian or reactionary views. This shift isn’t a contradiction so much as a reaction. It appears to be driven by several factors:

Cultural backlash and identity seeking: In spaces where progressive values are dominant, some young people—particularly straight, white, cisgender young men—feel shamed, sidelined or uncertain about their role. Right-wing influencers often offer a clear (if regressive) script about gender, identity, and power that feels stable and affirming.

Digital radicalization: Platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Reddit can function as ideological pipelines. Content that starts off ironic, humorous, or critical of “wokeness” can quickly escalate to overt misogyny, racism, or authoritarianism. Algorithms favour provocative and emotionally charged content, creating echo chambers where right-wing ideas become normalized.

Rebellion framed as anti-woke: For some Gen Zers, adopting right-wing or contrarian views is a form of rebellion—especially against what they perceive as progressive orthodoxy in schools, media, or online culture. The far right has effectively branded itself as the new counterculture.

Distrust in institutions, but no left-wing outlet: Many young people are disillusioned with institutions and traditional political parties. While some lean into collective action, others gravitate toward populism, conspiracies, or libertarianism that emphasize individualism and distrust of systems.

Aesthetic, ironic, and meme-driven entry points: Right-wing ideology is often wrapped in humour, aesthetics, and cultural references that make it feel less ideological and more “edgy” or subversive. This blurs the line between sincere belief and trolling—and sometimes makes extremism feel playful or cool.

Sex, Drugs, and Licentious Behaviour

Compared to previous generations, Gen Z tends to be cautious, risk-averse, and restrained. Multiple studies from Canada and elsewhere find Gen Z is less likely to use drugs and alcohol, have sex at an early age, or engage in casual sexual relationships than Gen X or millennials did at the same age.

Sexual behaviour: Gen Z came of age in the era of #MeToo, consent education, online pornography, and digital reputational risk. These forces have produced a generation that is, on average, hesitant and deliberate when it comes to sexual activity. Many report being anxious about physical intimacy, confused about norms, and wary of missteps. While they are more open and accepting about diverse sexual orientations and gender identities, they are also more likely to delay sexual activity and have fewer partners overall.

Substance use: Rates of alcohol and drug use among Gen Z are lower than among millennials and Gen X at comparable ages. Many Gen Zers report abstaining from alcohol altogether, or drinking only occasionally. This reflects both health consciousness and a broader cultural shift away from associating adulthood with excess or rebellion. Cannabis use, where legal, is normalized—but often viewed more as wellness or self-regulation than escapism.

Licentiousness and cultural attitudes: While Gen Z is more open-minded about kink, polyamory, and sex work in theory—and are highly supportive of de-stigmatizing these practices—they are less likely to engage in them personally. They tend to approach such behaviours with intellectual curiosity rather than as personal aspirations. What looks like permissiveness from the outside is often, for Gen Z, part of a broader ethic of tolerance and boundary-respecting restraint.

In short: Gen Z talks about sex, drugs, and licentiousness more freely—but does less of it. Their caution reflects not repression but a cultural logic rooted in risk-awareness, consent, and control.

How Gen Z Views Other Generations

Their lived experience of crisis, inequality, digital saturation, and social activism informs Generation Z’s perspective on older generations. Their views are often shaped by contrasts—what they perceive as generational blind spots, failures, or hypocrisies, and areas of admiration or affinity.

Millennials (born ~1981–1996) Gen Z often sees millennials as well-intentioned but flawed older siblings. They appreciate millennials’ progressive values and cultural tastes, but also view them as performative, sentimental, and naive. Gen Z tends to mock millennial aesthetics (avocados, Harry Potter fandom, pastel branding) and vocabulary (words like “adulting”), and is critical of what they see as a millennial tendency to brand their trauma or monetise their identity.

That said, many Gen Zers relate to millennials’ economic struggles—especially with housing and student debt—and see them as the first generation to start challenging traditional workplace norms. Gen Z tends to want to finish what millennials started, but with more realism, cynicism, and urgency.

Gen X (born ~1965–1980) Gen Z has a complicated relationship with Gen X. On the one hand, they often see Gen X as cynical, emotionally closed-off, and politically checked out—especially in comparison to the activist energy Gen Z brings. On the other hand, Gen Z admires Gen X’s independence, sarcasm, and refusal to conform.

Gen Z may resonate with Gen X’s anti-authoritarian streak, but finds their disengagement frustrating. Where Gen Z wants to overhaul broken systems, they may perceive Gen X as resigned or apathetic. However, Gen Z often highly respects Gen X parents, teachers, and mentors who show up authentically and without condescension.

Boomers (born ~1946–1964) Gen Z is generally the most critical of Baby Boomers, who they often see as having created or benefited from the very systems that have failed them—climate destruction, unaffordable housing, precarious work, and institutional inequality. They perceive many Boomers as out of touch with digital culture, dismissive of identity politics, and overly nostalgic about a past that never existed for most people.

At the same time, Gen Z recognises that Boomers include trailblazers and activists who fought for women’s rights, civil rights, and other social movements. They tend to respect Boomers who continue to evolve and who listen to younger voices, but they are quick to call out those who they experience as defensive, patronising, or dismissive of change.

Gen Z at Work

Gen Z is entering the workforce in a world shaped by precarity, digitization, and cultural transformation. Their educational preparation reflects these forces: they are highly educated, with many pursuing post-secondary degrees, certifications, or hybrid learning programs. However, they are also more likely to question the return on investment of traditional education, especially as student debt rises and stable employment remains elusive.

They value flexibility, work-life balance, autonomy, and mental health. Many express a preference for remote or hybrid work, gig work, or side hustles that allow for more control over their time. The idea of “loyalty to a company” has far less resonance than it did for earlier cohorts.

Research suggests Gen Z may be more pragmatic than idealistic when it comes to employment. They are cautious, financially risk-averse, and less likely to take on long-term debt for uncertain gains. They are less likely than millennials to define themselves by their jobs, and more likely to see work as a means to support life priorities like mental health, creative expression, or activism.

Research by Meghan Grace and Corey Seemiller further highlights that Gen Z is motivated by outcomes. They want their work to make a difference and are drawn to mission-based organizations and roles that provide a sense of purpose. They are also more collaborative than competitive, preferring inclusive environments where contributions are recognized and respected. They expect continuous feedback and coaching, and tend to value learning opportunities over status or hierarchy.

What Gen Z Expects from Employers

Gen Z is not easily swayed by flashy perks or traditional notions of career loyalty. They are discerning, values-driven, and pragmatic, and they expect workplaces to reflect the world they want to live in.

What Gen Z wants:

• Authenticity and transparency: Gen Z places a high premium on honesty. They expect employers to be upfront about challenges and values, and to show consistency between stated commitments and actual behaviour.
• Work-life balance and mental health support: This generation views mental wellness as a necessity, not a bonus. They seek employers who prioritize reasonable workloads, flexible hours, and access to mental health resources.
• Flexibility and autonomy: Remote and hybrid work are not perks—they are expected norms. Gen Z wants to be trusted to manage their time and outcomes without micromanagement.
• Purpose and impact: Many in this generation want to work for organizations that have a positive impact on society. They gravitate toward employers who take real action on issues like climate change, equity, and social justice.
• Equity, diversity, and inclusion: Gen Z expects to see diverse leadership and inclusive practices in hiring, compensation, promotion, and culture—not just DEI statements.
• Continuous learning and feedback: They value regular feedback, opportunities for skill development, and clear paths for growth over rigid hierarchies or long-term tenure.

What Gen Z rejects:

• Micromanagement and rigid structures: Gen Z sees outdated management practices as signs of distrust and irrelevance. They respond best to managers who are coaches rather than gatekeepers.
• Performative branding: They are quick to identify—and call out—organizations that engage in empty symbolism without backing it up with policy or practice.
• Unpaid labour: Internships or “exposure” opportunities without compensation are broadly seen as exploitative, especially given Gen Z’s financial constraints.
• One-size-fits-all expectations: Gen Z expects workplaces to accommodate mental health needs, neurodiversity, caregiving responsibilities, and non-traditional life paths.
• Silence on social issues: They want employers to take public, substantive stands on the issues that matter to them, and will disengage when companies remain neutral or evasive.

Gen Z Expectations for Workplace Communication

Gen Z’s expectations around communication—especially in the workplace—are shaped by their fluency in digital platforms, their preference for authenticity, and their heightened sensitivity to power dynamics and exclusion. When it comes to everyday communication and more serious or difficult topics like workplace sexual harassment, they bring both high standards and a strong desire for transparency, inclusion, and accountability.

General workplace communication preferences

• Clarity and conciseness: Gen Z has grown up navigating fast, dense, and highly visual communication environments. They expect written and spoken workplace communication to be clear, direct, and jargon-free.
• Feedback-rich environments: They value regular feedback over annual reviews and prefer ongoing dialogue to static reporting structures. They want to know where they stand and how they can grow.
• Authenticity and tone: Gen Z responds poorly to overly polished or corporate-sounding language. They prefer a tone that is human, honest, and accountable—even when conveying bad news.
• Digital fluency: They are comfortable using asynchronous tools (Slack, Teams, Notion) and expect digital communications to be organized, accessible, and free of unnecessary formalities.
• Two-way communication: Gen Z expects communication to be participatory. They want to be consulted, heard, and engaged in decision-making where possible.

Communicating about difficult issues like sexual harassment

When it comes to sensitive topics like sexual harassment, Gen Z expects a different approach than previous generations:

• Transparency over secrecy: They are skeptical of behind-closed-doors handling of complaints and want visibility into how issues are addressed. While confidentiality is important, they also want to know that complaints lead to consequences and change.
• Affirmative and values-based language: Vague references to “inappropriate conduct” or “boundary concerns” are seen as evasive. Gen Z prefers that organizations speak clearly and firmly about what happened and why it matters.
• Culture over compliance: They are less interested in whether an organization follows legal protocols and more interested in whether it lives its stated values. They want communication to reflect genuine care for safety and justice—not just box-checking.
• Proactive rather than reactive: Waiting until a crisis happens to communicate about harassment is seen as a failure. Gen Z expects ongoing messaging about expectations, values, processes, and supports.
• Survivor-centred messaging: Communications should prioritize the dignity and experience of the person harmed, not just the organization’s liability or image.

Preferred communication formats

• Multimodal: Written memos or HR policies are necessary, but they’re not sufficient. Gen Z expects information to be repeated across channels—email, video, team meetings, and even social platforms.
• Conversational spaces: They value opportunities to ask questions, reflect, and share feedback—whether through live Q&As, anonymous surveys, or facilitated team discussions.
• Clarity around follow-up: When an issue arises, they want clear, timely updates about what is happening next—and they want leaders to own the outcomes.

For Gen Z, communication is not just about the words used—it’s about tone, timing, follow-through, and trust. When employers get it right, they earn loyalty and engagement. When they get it wrong, Gen Z is quick to disengage, speak out, or push for change.

Gen Z and Gender at Work

Gen Z’s approach to gender differs sharply from that of previous generations—not just in vocabulary, but in worldview. They are the most openly gender-diverse generation to date, with a significant and growing number identifying as non-binary, genderfluid, agender, or trans. 

Where older generations—whether cis or trans—tended to frame gender as something deeply intrinsic and fixed (“I’ve always known I was a woman/man”), Gen Z tends to see gender as fluid, contextual, and sometimes ephemeral. For many Gen Zers, gender isn’t a permanent identity to be uncovered and consistently expressed—it’s more like a palette, a mood, a shifting toolset, or even a kind of personal style.

This perspective often puts them at odds with older generations, including their own families, teachers, coworkers, and employers. To Gen Z, strict conformity to masculinity or femininity often looks like a kind of sadness—a reflection of earlier generations’ limited options or internalized norms. This may include people they respect such as older trans people who have experienced deep dysphoria, or older queer people whose identities are tightly wrapped around traditional presentations (e.g. butch lesbians, flamboyant gay men). Gen Z may admire the resilience of those people, but also quietly mourn the rigidity they had to internalize.

Gender expression for Gen Z is playful, sometimes chaotic, often political. Someone might wear a mustache and glitter lipstick, or combine a prairie dress with combat boots—not because they’re accidentally mixing things up, but because they’re deliberately sending ambiguous signals. Gen Z doesn’t necessarily want to be clearly “read”—they may instead want to disrupt the desire to read people at all.

This attitude is particularly visible in fashion. While millennials embraced highly gendered visual codes (e.g. the hyperfeminine “Kardashian” look or the clean-cut “metrosexual” aesthetic), Gen Z has veered in the opposite direction: shapeless silhouettes, overgrown hair, baggy clothes, flat shoes, bare faces. 

In the workplace, this creates frequent friction. Gen Z is increasingly unwilling to participate in gendered expectations around “looking professional”—especially when those expectations mean performing femininity or masculinity to someone else’s standard. Wearing makeup, heels, a tailored blouse, or a necktie may feel to Gen Z like putting on a corporate costume. They don’t read these expectations as “high standards” or “polished” or “professional”: they read them as old-fashioned and (for women, at least) somewhat inappropriately sexual, like being expected to wear a crinoline or corset at work.

Gen Z is also skeptical of masculine-coded leadership models—those that emphasize dominance, competitiveness, or control. These models often read as toxic to Gen Z, not because they reject authority per se, but because they distrust hierarchies that suppress ambiguity, collaboration, and care. They are similarly unimpressed with corporate feminism that celebrates women “breaking the glass ceiling” without addressing systemic inequity. The “girlboss” archetype in particular rings hollow because to Gen Z, it replicates toxic masculine-coded leadership in a pink package, without changing anything at a structural level, and because it celebrates hustle culture, which Gen Z doesn’t believe in.

Implications for employers

• Don’t mistake nonconformity for unprofessionalism. To older people, Gen Z women’s rejection of traditional feminine performance—such as manicured nails, tailored clothing, careful makeup and accessories, high heels—may look like sloppiness. But interpreting it that way is a mistake. Employers need to differentiate between what they may see as markers of unprofessionalism (e.g., bare faces, oversized clothing), versus actual unprofessionalism (e.g., lateness, mistakes).
• Address peer policing of gender expression. It is common for Gen Z workers to be challenged—often subtly—about their gender presentation, especially by older coworkers or supervisors who may frame it as feedback about “professionalism” (“Clients don’t want to see a man with earrings.”) or offer advice in a parental or older sibling tone (“You’d look so great with a little mascara”). Gen Z experiences these kinds of comments as microaggressions and employers should actively discourage them.
• Avoid gendered appearance expectations unless they are absolutely necessary. If an employer requires staff to be “polished” for specific public-facing roles, that standard should be articulated in non-gendered, specific terms: “clothes should be clean and unwrinkled,” not “women should wear makeup” or “men should be clean-shaven.” In most roles, a polished appearance is not essential.
• Clarify conversational boundaries with nuance. Gen Z talks about gender with fluency and openness. It is not uncommon for them to discuss their identities, pronouns, body changes, or experiences with dysphoria or euphoria in casual conversation. This does not mean it’s acceptable to ask them personal questions in return. Employers should:
  • Normalize self-disclosure without inviting invasive follow-up.
  • Train staff to differentiate between invitation and intrusion.
  • Set clear norms about consent in workplace conversations.
• Support rather than scrutinize. If a Gen Z employee is navigating gender identity or gender expression at work, the role of leadership is to offer flexibility, safety, and affirmation—not to question, interpret, or police their experience.

In short, employers must shift away from enforcing gendered norms as proxies for professionalism. Gen Z is not asking to be exempt from standards—they are asking for standards that respect autonomy, authenticity, and equity.

Gen Z and Workplace Sexual Harassment

Generation Z’s views on workplace sexual harassment (WSH) are shaped by their broader attitudes toward gender, and also power, authority, and institutional trust. Unlike older generations who may have placed some hope in formal reporting systems, Gen Z is deeply skeptical of employers, HR departments, legal frameworks, and other institutional actors. They do not expect systems to protect them. Instead, they expect systems to protect themselves.

How Gen Z defines workplace sexual harassment

Gen Z tends to take a broad and expansive view of WSH. It includes desire-based behaviours (e.g., inappropriate comments, unwanted touching, coercive flirtation) as well as hostility-based behaviours (e.g., sexist jokes, gendered mockery, exclusion, and retaliation). Gen Z is especially alert to power dynamics, digital harassment (e.g., group chats, DMs), and forms of boundary-crossing that may be normalized in certain workplaces.

Their concept of WSH also incorporates intersectional harm—recognizing that sexual harassment is often shaped by race, disability, queerness, class, and age. They are more likely to call out subtler forms of harassment, including “jokes,” pattern-based discomfort, and supervisory power plays that fall outside strict legal definitions but still create fear, pressure, or exclusion.

Consent, power, and psychological safety

Gen Z understands consent not as a one-time yes/no binary, but as an ongoing, context-sensitive negotiation that must be freely given, especially in hierarchical settings. They tend to believe that consent is invalid when the power imbalance is too great or when economic precarity pressures someone to comply. This worldview leads them to question behaviours that older generations may have rationalized or tolerated.

They also place a high value on emotional and psychological safety, and often see disrespect, dismissal, or minimization as forms of harm—especially when repeated or unacknowledged. When workplaces fail to create safe environments, Gen Z doesn’t assume the system is broken; they assume it’s working exactly as designed, and not for them.

What Gen Z doesn’t see as harassment

While Gen Z has a broader and more inclusive understanding of what workplace sexual harassment (WSH) is, there are also behaviours that previous generations might have classified as inappropriate or harassing, which Gen Z often does not view that way—at least not automatically.

This reflects a shift in cultural norms: away from blanket restrictions on speech, identity, or self-expression, and toward a consent- and context-based model that centres power dynamics and personal autonomy.

It includes: 

Open talk about sex and identity Older generations were often trained to avoid any workplace discussion of sex, sexuality, or relationships. Gen Z, by contrast, is more likely to casually share personal information about dating, gender identity, or orientation; reference polyamory, queerness, or kink as part of their lives or values; and speak openly about therapy, trauma, or even experiences of sexual harm. To many Gen Z workers, this kind of disclosure—when done consensually—is not inappropriate. It is part of authenticity and psychological safety. Attempts to silence this kind of openness may feel to them like censorship or erasure.

Gender expression and identity In prior generations, flamboyant or nontraditional gender expression might have been seen as disruptive, provocative, or unprofessional. Gen Z is much more likely to view bold fashion choices, unusual hairstyles or makeup, and androgynous or nonbinary presentation, as normal and affirming. They may interpret attempts to restrict these forms of self-expression as discriminatory—not protective.

Flirting or joking among peers Gen Z is not humourless. In fact, their humour is often dark, layered, and full of irony. Flirty banter, suggestive emojis, or jokes about attraction may not be seen as inappropriate—if the relationship is mutual and the dynamic is safe. Older generations might have flagged this kind of behaviour as inherently risky. Gen Z draws sharper distinctions based on power and consent. If two peers with an established rapport make lighthearted sexual comments to one another, Gen Z is less likely to see that as harassment—and more likely to see institutional efforts to regulate it as overreach.

Body-related compliments and affirmations Saying “You look amazing” or “That outfit is so hot” might feel dicey to older coworkers, especially if said in public. But in Gen Z culture, these compliments are often part of peer-based bonding or queer-coded communication, and are meant and experienced as supportive, not aggressive or predatory.

For employers, this means that zero-tolerance, one-size-fits-all policies may backfire. Gen Z workers are not looking to eliminate openness or emotional expression—they’re looking to eliminate coercion, hostility, and abuse of power. Policies that ignore this distinction risk:

• Silencing meaningful communication,
• Alienating younger workers,
• Misidentifying harm—or missing it entirely.

In short: Gen Z isn’t against expression, and it’s not prudish. They’re against power being used to harm, silence, or exclude. Understanding this shift is critical for managing intergenerational expectations around workplace culture.

How Gen Z handles harassment

Because they are so skeptical of internal processes, Gen Z are very unlikely to formally report. Instead, they may:

• Talk informally with trusted coworkers;
• Seek peer validation before deciding what to do next;
• Decide the workplace is toxic, and quit;
• Expose issues on social media or review sites;
• Organize coworkers to raise concerns collectively.

They do not expect justice from HR, tribunals, or ombudspeople. They see those systems as employer-protective. What they value more is community validation, peer support, and autonomy. This is a sharp generational divergence from the legalistic, policy-driven approach many employers still use.

What employers need to do

Employers need to stop treating harassment as a liability issue and start treating it as a cultural and structural one. Employers should aim to reduce or eliminate harassment and stop it when it happens, but it’s even more important to foster a culture that values and supports authenticity, equity, justice, diversity, accountability, and individuality. 

Employers should: 

• Engage Gen Z workers in co-creating policy, training, and workplace norms;
• Provide multiple, low-risk, informal pathways for disclosure—not just formal channels;
• Centre the needs and autonomy of the person who experienced harm;
• Move beyond compliance to create a culture of everyday, distributed accountability.

For Gen Z, the problem isn’t just harassers—it’s the system that enables them. They are less interested in punishment and more interested in whether a workplace is safe, fair, and honest about its limitations.

Gen Z as harassers

While much of the discourse focuses on Gen Z as victims or challengers of workplace harassment, a vocal and visible minority of Gen Z has embraced alt-right, misogynistic, or anti-feminist ideologies, especially online. These workers may bring with them:

• Aggressive denial of gender-based harm;
• Open hostility toward feminism or DEI initiatives;
• Troll-style humour that masks or excuses harm;
• Dismissal of boundaries or trauma language as “soft” or “fake.”

These behaviours can show up as persistent boundary-pushing, ironic or explicit sexism, and/or targeted exclusion—and may be harder for traditional HR systems to recognize or address, particularly when wrapped in Gen Z’s own fluency with digital communication.

Implications for employers

Employers need to update their understanding of what harassment looks like in this generation. That includes recognizing the dynamics of online harassment, coded language, and ideological backlash from younger workers—not just older ones. They must:

• Address alt-right culture as a workplace risk, not an issue of private opinion;
• Train managers to recognize new patterns of boundary testing and hostility;
• Avoid assuming that “young” equals “progressive” or “safe.”

Looking Ahead: The Future of Gen Z

Gen Z is entering adulthood in an era defined by overlapping crises: economic inequality, climate instability, political polarization, and rapid technological change. These challenges are shaping not just their present circumstances, but their long-term outlook.

They are unlikely to follow the linear life paths of earlier generations. Many will delay or forgo traditional milestones like home ownership, marriage, and childbearing. Their careers are expected to be nonlinear, flexible, and purpose-driven—characterized by frequent transitions, remote and hybrid work, and a blending of paid and unpaid forms of contribution.

They are also poised to exert increasing political and cultural influence. Gen Z is already reshaping conversations around climate, race, gender, and economic justice. As they move into leadership roles, their values—autonomy, equity, sustainability, and mental well-being—are likely to become more deeply embedded in institutions.

At the same time, Gen Z faces significant risks. High levels of anxiety and burnout could limit their capacity to lead and participate. Their skepticism toward institutions may evolve into disengagement. And the structural barriers they face—especially in housing, health care, and education—could further entrench inequality.

Whether Gen Z thrives will depend in part on whether the systems around them adapt. If institutions can become more transparent, inclusive, and responsive, this generation has the potential not only to navigate a difficult world, but to remake it.

Appendix: Gen Z Workplace Glossary

A non-exhaustive list of words and concepts Gen Z may bring into the workplace that may be less familiar—or interpreted differently—by previous generations:

Allyship – The ongoing practice of supporting marginalized groups in ways that are accountable, not self-serving. Gen Z expects visible, active, and consistent allyship in leadership.

Boundaries – Clear limits set around time, energy, or emotional engagement. Gen Z expects boundaries to be respected and openly discussed.

Boundaried – Describes someone who is self-aware and firm about their limits—often framed as a positive and healthy trait.

Call in / Call out – To “call out” is to publicly confront harmful behaviour. To “call in” is to raise the issue privately or more gently with the goal of education and relationship repair.

Co-regulation – A concept from trauma and attachment work, referring to people mutually supporting each other’s emotional stability—e.g., “I just needed a co-regulating check-in before I could go into that meeting.”

Decompress – To recover from stress, overstimulation, or intense interactions. Often used in discussions of remote work, social fatigue, or after conflict.

Disassociate / Dissociation – A mental state of zoning out or disconnecting from surroundings, often in response to overwhelm. Sometimes used humorously or colloquially (e.g., “I totally dissociated during that meeting”).

Emotional labour – The (often invisible) effort of managing one’s emotions or the emotions of others in a professional setting, especially in customer service, interpersonal conflict, or DEI work.

Emotional safety – The sense that one can express thoughts or feelings without fear of judgment or retribution. Gen Z often sees this as a basic workplace need, not a bonus.

Gaslighting – Manipulating someone into doubting their perceptions or memories. Commonly used to describe workplace invalidation or denial of harm.

Holding space – Creating a non-judgmental environment for someone to share difficult feelings or experiences.

Imposter syndrome – Feeling unqualified or fraudulent despite evidence of competence. Gen Z often names this openly and seeks structural support to address it.

Intersectionality – A framework for understanding how overlapping identities (race, gender, disability, etc.) shape lived experience. Gen Z expects intersectional thinking in policy and practice.

Masking – Suppressing one’s natural behaviours (especially for neurodivergent people) to conform to social expectations. Gen Z increasingly critiques masking as exhausting or inauthentic.

Neurodivergent – Describes people whose brains process the world differently (e.g. ADHD, autism). Gen Z uses this term more often and may expect workplace accommodations.

Normalize [X] – Used to advocate for de-stigmatizing behaviours or experiences (e.g., “Normalize setting boundaries,” “Normalize not being okay”).

Optics – How actions or statements appear publicly or to others. Gen Z is especially attuned to discrepancies between image and intent.

Out of spoons / Low on spoons – Refers to being emotionally, mentally, or physically depleted. Drawn from spoon theory, a metaphor for limited energy used in disability and chronic illness communities.

Performative – Actions that appear supportive (e.g. of DEI goals) but lack follow-through. Used to critique empty gestures or branding.

Red flag / Toxic – “Toxic” describes unhealthy workplace environments; a “red flag” is an early warning sign of potential harm or dysfunction.

Safe space / Brave space – A safe space prioritizes psychological safety; a brave space encourages respectful dialogue about difficult topics, particularly identity and power.

Soft launch / Hard launch – Social media terms for gradually or suddenly introducing something (often a relationship or job). In workplace contexts, Gen Z may use them playfully to describe gradual onboarding or role shifts.

Trauma-informed – An approach that takes into account the potential presence and impact of trauma and aims to avoid re-traumatizing.

Vibe check / Energy – Informal terms for assessing the emotional tone of a space or interaction. Gen Z may discuss the “vibe” of a team or meeting as a shorthand for workplace culture.

Appendix: Bibliography

• BBC. Did #MeToo Change the Workplace for Gen Z? March 7, 2023. https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20230307-did-me-too-change-the-workplace-for-gen-z 
• Comparably. Workplace Trends: Gen Z vs Millennials vs Baby Boomers.https://www.comparably.com/news/workplace-trends-gen-z-vs-millennials-vs-baby-boomers 
• Cosmopolitan. Young People Still Hold Dangerous Misconceptions About Rape and Consent.https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/a46552505/young-people-misconceptions-rape-consent/ 
• Cox, Daniel A. Why Young Men Are Turning Against Feminism. Survey Center on American Life, December 14, 2023. https://www.americansurveycenter.org/newsletter/why-young-men-are-turning-against-feminism/ 
• Cox, Daniel A. The War Within Gen Z. Survey Center on American Life. https://www.americansurveycenter.org/commentary/the-war-within-gen-z/ 
• Crumley, Bruce. As Teen Employee Numbers Rise, So Do Risks of Harassment on the Job. Inc. https://www.inc.com/bruce-crumley/as-teen-employee-numbers-rise-so-do-risks-of-harassment-on-job.html 
• Deckman, Melissa. The Politics of Gen Z: How the Youngest Voters Will Shape Our Democracy. Cambridge University Press, 2024.
• Deloitte. Global 2024 Gen Z and Millennial Survey. https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/issues/work/content/genzmillennialsurvey.html 
• Demsas, Jerusalem. Are Young Men Really Becoming More Sexist? The Atlantic, December 24, 2024. https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/12/young-men-sexist/681034/ 
• Duncan, Okera. One Strike and I’m Out!: Gen Z’s Approach to Toxic and Hostile Work Environments. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/one-strike-im-out-gen-zs-approach-toxic-hostile-work-okera-duncan-wyoue 
• Fast Company. Gen Z Is Least Likely to Report Workplace Misconduct. https://www.fastcompany.com/90834160/gen-z-workplace-misconduct-report-boomers-x-millennials 
• Forbes Coaches Council. Workplace Harassment Prevention Needs to Start at the Top. Forbes, August 29, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescoachescouncil/2023/08/29/workplace-harassment-prevention-needs-to-start-at-the-top/ 
• Harvard Business Review. Helping Gen Z Employees Find Their Place at Work. January 2023. https://hbr.org/2023/01/helping-gen-z-employees-find-their-place-at-work 
• Haidt, Jonathan. The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. Penguin Press, 2024.
• HiBob. Challenges with Gen Z in the Workplace. https://www.hibob.com/guides/challenges-with-gen-z-in-the-workplace/ 
• HR Brew. Harassment Is Common Among Younger Workers. https://www.hr-brew.com/stories/workplace-harassment-younger-workers-employees 
• HR News. Gen Z Least Likely to Know Where to Make a Sexual Harassment Complaint. https://hrnews.co.uk/gen-z-least-likely-to-know-where-to-make-a-sexual-harassment-complaint/ 
• Hunger Magazine. Gen Z Men Are More Intolerant Than Boomers, Report Finds. https://hungermag.com/news/gen-z-men-are-more-intolerant-than-boomers-report-finds 
• International Labour Organization. Experiences of Violence and Harassment at Work: A Global First Survey. 2022. https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_863095.pdf 
• Medical News Today. Why Is Gen Z So Depressed? https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/why-is-gen-z-depressed 
• Newsweek. Companies Avoid Hiring Gen Z. https://www.newsweek.com/companies-avoid-hiring-gen-z-workplace-1884613 
• Newsweek. Gen Z Breaking Company Rules Twice as Much as Boomers. November 2023. https://www.newsweek.com/gen-z-breaking-company-rules-twice-much-boomers-1900594 
• Psychology Today. Gen Z and Workplace Bullying, Ghosting, and Cancel Culture. July 2021. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/experimentations/202107/gen-z-and-workplace-bullying-ghosting-and-cancel-culture 
• ResearchGate. Generation Z Workers and Sexual Harassment. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357861908_Generation_Z_workers_and_sexual_harassment 
• Seemiller, Corey, and Meghan Grace. Generation Z Goes to Work: How the Post-Millennial Generation Is Transforming the Workplace. Routledge, 2019.
• Stewart, Susan M., and Davison, H. K. Generation Z Workers and Sexual Harassment. 2021.  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Susan-Stewart-16/publication/357861908_Generation_Z_workers_and_sexual_harassment/links/620f87194be28e145c9e5568/Generation-Z-workers-and-sexual-harassment.pdf 
• The HR Director. Gen Z Are Most Confident Dealing with Harassment, Neurodiversity, and Gender Identity. https://www.thehrdirector.com/business-news/managers/gen-z-confident-dealing-harassment-neurodiversity-gender-identity/ 
• The Walrus. Generation Z Is Revolutionizing Sex. https://thewalrus.ca/generation-z-is-revolutionizing-sex/ 
• Traliant. The State of Workplace Harassment: Why Gen Z Deserves Special Attention. https://www.traliant.com/blog/the-state-of-workplace-harassment-why-gen-z-deserves-special-attention/ 
• Traliant. State of Workplace Harassment Report. https://www.traliant.com/resources/state-of-workplace-harassment-report/ 
• Twenge, Jean M. iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy–and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood. Atria Books, 2017.
• Vice. British Teenagers and the #MeToo Movement: Gen Z, Sexual Assault, and Call-Out Culture. https://www.vice.com/en/article/british-teenagers-metoo-movement-gen-z-sexual-assault-call-out-culture 
• Workplace Ethics Advice. Deloitte Global 2024 Gen Z and Millennial Survey. https://www.workplaceethicsadvice.com/2024/07/deloitte-global-2024-gen-z-and-millennial-survey-.html 
• WorkLife. Gen Z and the RTO Workplace Bullying Problem. https://www.worklife.news/talent/gen-z-rto-workplace-bullying-harassment/