Almost a third of talent acquisition managers, according to a survey by ResumeBuilders.com, say they avoid hiring Gen Z employees because they ask for too much money, are not loyal, stress over a 40-hour work week, insist on working remotely, and quit for not good reason.

History reports that older generations have a penchant for criticizing younger generations.  Philosopher Aristotle, in the 4^th century BC wrote, “Young people are high-minded because they have not yet been humbled by life. . . .They think they know everything and are always quite sure about it.”

Heck, when Rome was burning in 64 AD, Nero and his council probably complained about the irresponsible young Romans spending too much time racing their chariots.

Of course, interests (and maybe conscientiousness) of younger and older employees differ, but does that mean the younger generation is less resolute than their grandparents were at the same age?  I doubt it.

Rather than twisting employee manuals into knots trying to accommodate nuisance differences among age groupings, it would be better to focus on what all generations—young and old—seek in their work cultures: full appreciation, respect, growth opportunities, meaningful work, clear expectations, effective leadership, transparent communication, collaborative peers, fair reward structures, and the opportunity to do what they do best. 

Seventy-three percent of managers in my surveys say they spend more time with marginal performers than they do with high performers.  When I ask “why?” I get responses like:  “They need more help.” “The best way to improve is to fix your weaknesses.” “I take pride in developing people.”   Underdogs, long shots, and dark horses get our sympathy.

According to survey results reported by Karie Willyerd, a workplace futurist for SAP SuccessFactors, in the Harvard Business Review, high performers produce 400% more than average performers.  High performers value competitive compensation, merit rewards, monthly 1:1 sit-down sessions with their managers, work challenges and personal growth

Authors Smith and Rutigliano, in a Business Journal article, suggest you allocate your time with team members as follows:

• 50-60% of your time with your stars,
• 20-30% of your time with talented newcomers,
• 10-15% of your time with experienced performers who have acceptable performance, and
• whatever time you have left professionally removing your chronically low performers.

Please understand, I do not suggest abandoning average and new performers. I do suggest dramatically increasing support for higher performers.  You will get better results; and although they may not need your attention, they have earned it. 

“I’ve got to find a way to improve my team’s performance,” a frustrated manager said to me. “Competition has increased in my territory and we are losing ground.”

“What have you tried?” I asked.

“I’ve made my team aware of our declining performance metrics. I’ve asked them to work a little harder and be more diligent in serving our clients. I’ve also explained that we will lose positions if the decline continues. I’ve asked for suggestions, but we haven’t been able to move the needle in the right direction.”

I recommended three things the manager can do to improve performance: better people, better tools and better methods.

By far, the most impactful, and the most difficult, path to improved performance is to infuse the team with more talented and resolute players.

Improved tools (think technological advancements—robots, software applications, smart devices) have accounted for much of the productivity improvement over the last five decades.

A third path to better performance is to invent better ways of doing what you are doing—eliminate or refine required processes, allow performers more freedom in how they do their jobs, require fewer approvals for decisions.  Many bureaucratic requirements are costly but add little value.