2026 RESEARCH · WORKFORCE INTELLIGENCE

Four things HR has gotten wrong about young workers.

For two generations running.

Behavioral data from 71,747 assessments debunks 4 common myths behind how organizations hire, manage, and develop the Gen Z and Millennial workforce.

Cangrade research examines 4 top myths about the Gen Z and Millennial workforce

PUBLISHED

September 2026

READ TIME

24 minutes

FORMAT

Full Study

SAMPLE SIZE

71,747 assessments

By the Numbers · 2026 Findings

71,747

validated behavioral assessments analyzed across two generations.

4

decades-old workforce myths tested against the data.

0

of the four narratives supported by the behavioral evidence.

98%

candidate self-agreement rate on assessment results.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Four narratives. Zero support in the data.

For two decades, the same four narratives have defined Gen Z and Millennials in the workforce.

They are entitled and resistant to accountability.
They lack critical soft skills.
They job hop because they need constant change.
They are primarily in it for the money.

These narratives were applied to Millennials entering the workforce after 2001. They have been applied, with little change, to Gen Z ever since.

Cangrade’s analysis of 71,747 validated behavioral assessments of Gen Z and Millennial job applicants does not support any of them.

WHAT THE DATA SHOWS

Entitlement and accountability
The behavioral profile of Gen Z and Millennials is the opposite of entitlement. Excellence ranks 3rd of 16 motivational drivers, Results Orientation is their fastest-rising competency in the 2025 dataset, and Appreciation (external recognition-seeking) ranks 14th and is declining.

Soft skills
Emotional Intelligence ranks 1st of 40 measured competencies, scoring 30.3% above the workforce average. A specific skills gap exists in applied interpersonal behaviors, but it is not the “critical lack of soft skills” covered in the news. It’s a gap that requires a different response than what most organizations are investing in.

Constant change
Novelty ranks 16th of 16 motivations. Not only is it in last place, but it is the fastest-declining motivation year-over-year. Comfort ranks 1st. The job-hopping and novelty-seeking narratives have the motivational profile of this workforce backwards.

Compensation
Compensation ranks 15th of 16 motivations. Only Novelty ranks lower. Pay matters, particularly as financial pressure on younger workers intensifies. But it is a baseline requirement, not a primary engagement driver, for the majority of this workforce.

When the same behavioral patterns appear across two consecutive generations, these are not generational traits. They are characteristics that management has consistently misread, once generation after another.

METHODOLOGY

Behavioral data, not self-report.

The findings from this research draw from 33,711 workers assessed with Cangrade’s pre-hire assessment in 2024 and 71,747 in 2025, ages 18-44, Gen Z and Millennials combined. Cangrade’s assessment platform measures 40 professional competencies and 16 motivational drivers, derived from 50 validated personality factors. The validated assessment takes approximately 14 minutes, and, upon completion, candidates confirm the accuracy of their results. Outcomes maintain a 98% self-agreement rate.

The data captures behavioral tendencies, what people actually do, rather than their preferences, which typically reflect aspiration and are influenced by social desirability. Research in the Academy of Management Journal shows that self-report data can diverge dramatically from behavioral reality when respondents believe certain answers are more socially acceptable. When this report’s findings differ from survey-based research, methodology is typically why.

71,747
candidates

40
competencies

16
motivations

98%
self-agreement

GEN Z AND MILLENNIAL MYTH 1

Young workers are entitled and resist performance accountability

The entitlement narrative appeared in organizational research and management literature when the first wave of Millennials entered professional roles. It has since transferred to Gen Z without much revision or scrutiny. The claims typically rest on employer surveys, anecdotal manager feedback, and exit interview responses. All three are easy to misread.

The peer-reviewed research tells a different story. A 2016 study in the Journal of Business and Psychology found no statistically significant effect of generational group on work ethic. None. That finding has been replicated across multiple meta-analyses.

Despite this, the narrative persists. A 2024 survey of 1,001 U.S. hiring decision-makers found that 39% consider Gen Z the generation most likely to act entitled around raises and promotions, and 27% said they would avoid hiring Gen Z workers if possible. The same survey found that 61% of hiring managers agreed younger employees are just as ambitious as older generations at the start of their careers. However, that second finding received much less attention than the entitlement figure.

THE DATA

In Cangrade’s 2025 dataset, Excellence, the drive to do high-quality work, ranks 3rd of 16 motivational drivers, up 0.39% year-over-year.

Results Orientation (focus on delivering on outcomes and performance targets) is the fastest-rising competency in the entire 2025 dataset, up 1.11% year-over-year. Consistency is rising too (+0.57%).

The motivational profile most consistent with entitlement would show high Appreciation (external recognition-seeking), low Results Orientation, and low Excellence. These workers are not performing to be recognized for it. Appreciation ranks 14th of 16 motivations and is declining (-0.73%). They are performing because quality matters to them.

Cangrade's data debunking the myth that Gen and and Millennials are entitled

WHY IT MATTERS

A workforce internally motivated toward performance and quality, but not driven by external recognition, will respond poorly to management designed for recognition-seekers. Heavy incentive programs, praise campaigns, and close behavioral monitoring are built for workers who need approval to engage. For workers motivated by Excellence, those same approaches will be ineffective.

The declining Appreciation score also has implications for how managers interpret younger employees. When a worker does not visibly seek praise or check in for validation, that behavior is frequently misread as low engagement or a bad attitude. Someone with an internal drive for quality who doesn’t seek outward recognition can be invisible to managers looking for the wrong cues.

WHAT HR SHOULD DO

Redesign management strategies to leverage strengths. Gen Z and Millennial workers are suited for autonomous work, not micro-managing. Leverage their orientation towards excellence and results by setting them up for success, then let them do the work.

Shift performance conversations toward outcomes. Clear, high standards and an honest assessment of whether work meets them matter more to these workers than vague encouragement. Be specific about what good looks like and let them know how they performed.

Audit performance management frameworks for assumption mismatch. Frameworks built on the premise that younger workers need heavy external incentives to engage may be increasing cost without proportional return. Assess the actual motivational profile of your workforce before designing around assumptions.

Distinguish low recognition-seeking from low engagement. In screening and performance evaluation, workers who do not actively seek praise may be flagged incorrectly as disengaged. Internal drive and external expressiveness are independent characteristics. Measure both rather than inferring one from the other.

GEN Z AND MILLENNIAL MYTH 2

Gen Z and Millennials lack critical soft skills

Concerns about a lack of soft skills among Gen Z and Millennial workers have appeared consistently in the news and employer research for well over a decade. In the 2010s, claims focused on Millennials’ lack of professionalism and the communication skills needed for success in the workplace.

Now Gen Z is seeing the focus turn to them. In 2024, a Harris Poll found that 82% of managers reported Gen Z hires required more upskilling specifically around soft skills and professional behaviors. The same year, the National Association of Colleges and Employers documented a consistent gap between employer expectations and perceived graduate proficiency in interpersonal and professional competencies. Research from Intelligent.com found that close to six in ten businesses had terminated a recent college hire.

THE DATA

Cangrade’s data puts Emotional Intelligence 1st of 40 measured competencies, 30.3% above the overall workforce average. Stress Management ranks 2nd (+26.5% above average). Self-Direction ranks 3rd (+17.9%). Building Trust and Rapport ranks 4th. The four highest-scoring competencies for this workforce are uniformly interpersonal or self-regulatory. These rankings are stable across both the 2024 and 2025 datasets.

These findings do not support a generalized soft skills deficit.

But the picture changes when you look at applied interpersonal skills.

Active Listening ranks 31st of 40, 10% below the workforce average.
Consensus Building ranks 32nd (10.8% below).
Critical Thinking ranks 37th (17.7% below).

This is not a contradiction. Workers who score high on Emotional Intelligence but low on Active Listening have the awareness. They just aren’t consistently using it when it counts. The internal resource is present. The applied behavior is underdeveloped. These are different problems with different solutions.

TalentSmartEQ’s research found similar patterns in the broader workforce. Respondents scored highest in Self-Awareness (41% scored above 80) while 23% scored below 69 in Social Awareness, the outward-directed application of emotional intelligence. The gap between internal awareness and applied interpersonal behavior is not unique to Gen Z and Millennials.

The Six Seconds 2024 State of the Heart report found that out of 8 emotional intelligence competencies, Gen Z ranked 4 out of 8 on emotional literacy. One rung higher than the broader dataset’s ranking of 5 out of 8. The report identifies Gen Z’s largest skills deficit as Navigating Emotions, translating emotional awareness into regulated, constructive behavior in real situations.

That pattern is consistent with Cangrade’s data: high EI with specific deficits in applied behaviors like Active Listening and Consensus Building. The internal resource is present, but the applied skill needs to be built.

Data from Cangrade's research on emotional intelligence and soft skills in Gen Z and Millennial workers

WHY IT MATTERS

The generic soft skills deficit framing leads to the wrong development investments. Organizations investing in training to build emotional intelligence in these generations are investing in a competency that already leads the field by 30.3%. The actual development opportunity is in the applied emotional skills like structured listening and collaborative reasoning.

This also changes how to approach hiring. Screening for generalized soft skills obscures a skill profile with real variation across more specific competencies. EI is high. Applied listening is low. Critical thinking is significantly below average. Those are different hiring and development problems. Treating them as one problem won’t fix the root cause.

WHAT HR SHOULD DO

Stop investing in Emotional Intelligence training for this group. EI is the top-ranked competency across 71,747 assessments. Redirect that investment toward the actual gaps: Critical Thinking, Active Listening, and Consensus Building.

Invest in structured listening development. The gap between high EI scores and low Active Listening is the key developmental finding in this data. Communication coaching, role-play exercises, and structured programs that build sustained attention to others’ perspectives will produce real returns.

Prioritize Critical Thinking in hiring for roles that require it. At 37th of 40 competencies, Critical Thinking is a consistent, significant gap. For roles requiring analysis, risk assessment, or independent judgment, screen for this competency directly. It will not surface reliably in interviews or from credentials.

Assess specific skills, not generic ones. Grouping soft skills in assessments hides a profile with high EI and low Active Listening. These two competencies require completely different hiring and management responses. Measure them separately.

GEN Z AND MILLENNIAL MYTH 3

Younger generations job hop because they need constant change

The novelty-seeking stereotype has followed younger workers for two decades. For Millennials, it produced the job-hopping narrative, attributing frequent role changes to a preference for new experiences over organizational loyalty. The Gen Z story has followed a similar script: claims about shortened attention spans and a preference for fast-paced, constantly changing environments.

A 2025 Randstad study of 11,250 workers found Gen Z’s average job tenure is 1.1 years. That figure has been cited as evidence of novelty-seeking and low commitment. But Randstad’s own analysis of the same data reached a different conclusion. Workers are leaving for advancement, not variety. Growth-hunting, they called it. Not job-hopping. The two are easily confused in aggregate data but require very different organizational responses.

Peer-reviewed research from the National Institute on Retirement Security, published in September 2025, examined actual tenure data across generations and found that workers aged 25 to 34 in 2024 had a median tenure of 2.7 years. Nearly identical to Baby Boomers at the same career stage in 1983. The NIRS researchers found that turnover rates track economic conditions more reliably than generational character. They rise in strong economies and fall in downturns, a pattern consistent across every generation in the data. The job-hopping narrative, in their analysis, describes what the labor market produced. Not who young workers are.

THE DATA

In Cangrade’s data, Novelty ranks 16th of 16 motivations. Last place. It scores 31% below the overall motivation average and is the fastest-declining motivation year-over-year, falling 1.60% from 2024 to 2025. The gap between Novelty and the top-ranked motivation is approximately 70%.

The top-ranked motivation is Comfort, defined as preference for psychological safety, stability, and freedom from unnecessary pressure. Structure, the preference for defined processes and predictable environments, ranks 11th and is rising (+0.60% year-over-year).

Deloitte’s 2025 Gen Z and Millennial Survey found that both generations list work-life balance and a stable, healthy work environment as their top factors when evaluating employers. That result has been consistent across multiple years of Deloitte’s annual survey. Survey data and behavioral data are pointing in the same direction. The novelty narrative has persisted not because of the evidence but despite it.

Cangrade's behavioral data shows Gen Z and Millennial workers do not job hop for novelty

WHY IT MATTERS

Job descriptions advertising fast-paced, dynamic environments as selling points may be screening out the workers most likely to stay and perform. For a workforce primarily motivated by Comfort and stability, constant disruption is not energizing. It is costly.

Turnover attributed to novelty-seeking likely has a different root cause. Workers motivated by Comfort and stability do not leave because they want something new. They leave instability. They leave poorly managed environments. They leave places that mistake activity for accountability. That distinction changes what a retention strategy should look like.

WHAT HR SHOULD DO

Audit job descriptions for demotivating language. “Fast-paced,” “dynamic,” and “constantly evolving” are not selling points for the majority of Gen Z and Millennial workers. Use those descriptors only when the environment genuinely requires that tolerance, and be precise about what it means in practice.

Treat stability as a performance prerequisite. Unnecessary organizational disruption, inconsistent leadership communication, and unclear expectations create real performance costs for a Comfort-motivated workforce. Stability is not a perk. It is a management responsibility.

Reframe how you analyze turnover. Before attributing departures to job-hopping or restlessness, examine whether the working environment provided the stability, psychological safety, and clear pathways this workforce requires. Novelty-seeking rarely explains voluntary attrition in behavioral data.

Introduce change with intentionality. For the subset of workers who value growth and new challenges, create structured opportunities without disrupting the stability baseline the majority requires. The goal is selective, purposeful development. Not pervasive environmental churn.

GEN Z AND MILLENNIAL MYTH 4

Gen Z and Millennial workers are primarily motivated by compensation

Compensation appears near the top of stated priorities in exit interviews, salary negotiation research, and workforce surveys for both generations. Visible salary transparency advocacy has been closely associated with Gen Z. Documented financial stress among younger workers is real and significant. The Deloitte 2025 survey found 48% of Gen Zs and 46% of Millennials do not feel financially secure, up sharply from the prior year. Management has drawn a reasonable conclusion from this: competitive pay is the primary lever for engaging and retaining younger workers.

Yet the same research shows Gen Z and Millennials are seeking a trifecta of money, meaning, and well-being. Eighty-nine percent of Gen Z respondents said a sense of purpose is very or somewhat important to job satisfaction.

Financial pressure and financial motivation are related, but they are not the same thing. Young workers can be under real economic strain while remaining primarily motivated at work by something other than pay.

THE DATA

In Cangrade’s 2025 data, Compensation ranks 15th of 16 motivational drivers. Only Novelty ranks lower. About 1 in 14 workers in this dataset identifies Compensation as their primary motivational driver.

Frederick Herzberg’s two-factor theory categorizes compensation as a hygiene factor. Adequate pay prevents dissatisfaction. Increasing pay beyond a competitive threshold does not proportionally increase engagement or performance. That relationship holds in this data.

However, Compensation has the highest individual variance of any motivational driver in the dataset (SD = 0.63), substantially above other motivations. The population average is low, but meaningful individual variation exists. Some workers in this cohort are significantly pay-driven. Acting on the Gen Z and Millennial average would be an error in the other direction.

Compensation also shows the largest year-over-year increase of any motivation (+2.26%). The rank remains 15th. But the intensity of compensation motivation is rising. This reflects the financial pressure Deloitte documented: housing costs, student debt, and real wage stagnation at entry-level ranges. Financial stress and financial motivation are not the same thing. This data captures both.

Cangrade's research showing Gen Z and Millennials lack of motivation by compensation

WHY IT MATTERS

Below-market compensation produces attrition regardless of every other condition. That part of the conventional wisdom is correct. What is not correct is what follows. Raises above a competitive baseline will not solve engagement problems rooted in job design, management quality, or poor working conditions.

Organizations that increase compensation to address retention problems caused by something else won’t solve the problem. They are treating the wrong variable.

The high individual variance around compensation also matters for hiring and retention strategy. For this particular motivational driver, generalizations are especially unreliable. Some candidates are substantially pay-driven. Most are not. The difference between those two groups is consequential, and it is not something that job titles or educational backgrounds will tell you.

WHAT HR SHOULD DO

Treat compensation as a foundation, not a lever. Ensure pay is competitive, transparent, and equitable. Below-market pay produces attrition regardless of other factors. But increasing compensation above a competitive baseline will not reliably move engagement for most workers in this group.

Identify the actual driver before adjusting pay. If retention is the issue, examine whether the working environment delivers on Comfort, Connection, Excellence, and Autonomy before increasing compensation. Pay will not substitute for those.

Assess compensation motivation individually. The high variance around this motivation means the population average tells you relatively little about any specific candidate or employee. Individual assessment produces more actionable information than generational assumptions.

Take financial pressure seriously without conflating it with compensation motivation. Rising financial stress among younger workers is real and well-documented. Transparency about compensation structures, clear pathways for income growth, and equitable pay practices all matter. Not because pay is the primary motivator for most workers. Because workers managing financial strain cannot focus on driving performance.

DATA SNAPSHOT

All four myths, at a glance

The pattern holds across all four narratives. What the common belief predicts is not what the behavioral data shows.

A summary of Cangrade's research on Gen Z and Millennial myths in talent management

Myth	Common belief	Cangrade finding	Rank	YoY
01	Entitled	Excellence-driven	#3 / 16	+0.39%
02	Lacks soft skills	Highest EI in workforce	#1 / 40	−0.2%
03	Novelty-driven	Comfort-driven	#16 / 16	−1.60%
04	Primarily money-driven	Pay ranks near-last	#15 / 16	+2.26%

“

“When the same behavioral patterns appear across two consecutive generations, these are not generational traits. They are characteristics that management has consistently misread.”

Cangrade Research · 2026

What to Do About It

What these findings mean for HR leaders

The Gen Z and Millennial workforce sets high internal standards and doesn’t need external recognition to sustain that drive. They lead the field in emotional intelligence, but need development in the applied behaviors, like active listening, consensus building, and analytical reasoning, that make that awareness useful in practice. They want stability, not stimulation. And they are under real financial pressure that deserves to be taken seriously, without being confused for a motivation to work primarily for pay.

These characteristics describe a workforce organizations can build real strategies around. The challenge is not Gen Z and Millennials. The challenge is whether the hiring frameworks, management practices, and development investments are built for the workforce that’s actually here, or for the one the narratives describe.

Here are five strategies to align your talent management with the realities of the Gen Z and Millennial workforce.

01 Measure before you assume.

The motivations and competencies of individual candidates can vary substantially, even within the same generation. Validated behavioral assessments predict candidate fit more reliably than generational generalizations.

02 Build performance management around intrinsic drivers.

Excellence, Results Orientation, and Autonomy are the dominant performance motivators in this workforce. Frameworks built around external incentives and frequent recognition are a poor match for these generations. Instead, design for internal accountability and quality standards.

03 Target development investment where the gaps actually are.

Intelligence is a top-ranked strength. But Critical Thinking (37th of 40), Active Listening (31st), and Consensus Building (32nd) are real gaps with real consequences. Invest where the data points, not where the narrative suggests.

04 Redesign retention strategy around stability.

Comfort is the top motivation. Novelty is last. Workers in this group who leave are more likely walking away from instability, unclear expectations, or misaligned conditions than seeking something new. Identify the actual drivers before advertising novelty in job descriptions and building a culture that prioritizes constant change.

05 Get compensation right, then stop pulling the lever.

Pay competitively and transparently. For most Gen Z and Millennial workers, compensation increases beyond a fair baseline will not move engagement. Invest those resources in job design, management quality, and team structure instead.

Where we go from here

For twenty years, the same four narratives have shaped how organizations hire, develop, and retain their youngest employees. This data shows those narratives have been pointing HR in the wrong direction.

The cost has been real. Training budgets spent developing emotional intelligence in a workforce that already leads the field in it. Retention programs built around praise and pay for workers who want stability and meaningful work. Job descriptions advertising fast-paced environments that actively repel the people most likely to stay and perform.

The behavioral data shows a workforce that holds itself to high internal standards, wants clear expectations and honest feedback, and needs stable conditions to do its best work. That is not a difficult workforce to manage. It’s a workforce that has been managed with strategies founded on the wrong data.

Twenty years is long enough to have gotten this wrong. The data exists now to get it right.

Discover how Cangrade’s predictive hiring solutions can help you identify and retain top talent in every generation. Request a demo today.

See what actually drives your workforce

Before you hire, not after. Cangrade’s validated assessments measure it in 14 minutes.

Book a 15 minute demo

Browse more research

Common questions about the Gen Z & Millennial myths

These findings cover both Gen Z and Millennials together. Does that mean the data applies equally to both?

Cangrade’s combined dataset reflects workers ages 18-44, which spans both generations as Cangrade defines them. The dataset cannot be disaggregated by generation. That limitation is an important finding: the same four myths have been applied to both cohorts, and the behavioral data does not support them in either. When patterns hold across two generational groups that are treated as meaningfully different, the evidence points toward characteristics of younger workers broadly. Not traits unique to one generation.

If Gen Z and Millennials aren’t primarily motivated by novelty, why do they leave jobs so frequently?

Cangrade’s behavioral data does not show low loyalty or high novelty-seeking. It shows a workforce primarily motivated by Comfort and stability. Workers motivated by stability do not leave because they want something new. This is validated by Randstad’s 2025 research on 11,250 workers, which found Gen Z’s average tenure is 1.1 years. But also that departures were driven by a perceived lack of advancement pathways, not novelty-seeking. Workers were leaving in pursuit of growth within conditions they could not find in their current roles. That is driven by Gen Z and Millennials’ aptitude for Excellence and Autonomy, not their desire for Novelty. That retention response looks very different.

Does the declining Appreciation motivation mean younger workers do not want feedback?

No. Appreciation in this framework measures the drive for external recognition and praise. Low Appreciation motivation means workers are not performing primarily to be recognized. It does not mean feedback is unwelcome or ineffective. Workers motivated by Excellence respond well to specific, quality-focused feedback. They are less responsive to generic praise or recognition programs designed for frequency rather than substance.

Why do Gen Z and Millennials rank compensation so high in surveys when behavioral data puts it 15th?

Survey research captures what workers are willing to say about themselves. Compensation is concrete and socially acceptable to name as a priority. Workers feel justified claiming it. Behavioral assessment captures something different: what actually drives behavior, not what someone advocates for. The gap is consistent with decades of research. Herzberg classified salary as a hygiene factor in 1959. That relationship holds in this data.

What is the right way to use this data in hiring?

As one input, not the only one. This report describes population-level patterns in a specific dataset. Individual variation is wide across all 16 motivations and 40 measured competencies. Wide enough that population averages will produce meaningful prediction errors when applied to specific candidates. Validated individual assessments produce better hiring predictions than generational assumptions, including the assumptions challenged in this report. The value of the population-level data is in identifying where management and development practices may be systematically misaligned. Individual assessment is what informs decisions about specific people.

Are these findings about Gen Z and Millennials unique to Cangrade’s dataset?

The specific competency and motivation scores are unique to Cangrade’s assessment methodology. But the direction of these findings is consistent with peer-reviewed research. A 2016 study in the Journal of Business and Psychology found no statistically significant generational differences in work ethic across 77 studies. Deloitte’s annual surveys consistently show stability and work-life balance as top employer priorities for both generations, not novelty or variety. Randstad’s 2025 data attributes attrition to advancement gaps, not disengagement or novelty-seeking. Cangrade’s behavioral data adds specificity and precision. The broader direction has support.

Does the 2026 research show a change in Gen Z traits year-over-year?

Remarkably, no. Despite a 113% increase in sample size (from 33k to over 71k candidates), competency scores moved by less than 0.5%. This extreme stability confirms that these behavioral patterns are durable, long-term characteristics of the current workforce, not temporary trends.