Is Gen Z Harder to Manage? A KPMG Leader's Playbook

TL;DR

Short answer:

It depends on the management system you're comparing them against, and most "Gen Z is different" commentary measures them against annual reviews and vague expectations that stopped working for every generation years ago. Devin Collins, who leads roughly 50 analysts at KPMG's Performance Hub, replaced that model with a monthly cadence, documented boundaries, and a visible promotion map, and his team now clears its own production goal by 50%.

Key stats you need to know:

• 86% of Gen Z employees say purpose is pivotal to their overall well-being and job satisfaction, more than any generation surveyed before them (Forbes).
• Devin's team is closing 6 cases per analyst per day against a company goal of 4, since he introduced monthly progression check-ins and a nine box talent matrix [Unverified].
• 76% of Gen Z professionals say they want to reach senior leadership eventually, but only 6% name it as their top career priority right now, according to Deloitte's 2026 Gen Z and Millennial survey (Forbes).

The leadership takeaway: The leaders who solve this in the next 12 to 24 months won't be the ones running panels about generational differences, they'll be the ones rebuilding the actual operating cadence between manager and employee so trust doesn't depend on tenure.

📺 View full episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/AF5HqlJVwWY

📻 Listen on Spotify: https://cms.megaphone.fm/channel/thehumancapitalist?selected=PAL8208014573

Is Gen Z Actually Harder to Manage?

Gen Z is operating inside management systems built for a workforce with far less visibility into how career decisions got made, and that mismatch gets mistaken for a generational flaw. I brought this question to Devin Collins, who leads about 50 analysts at KPMG's Performance Hub in Orlando, roughly 30% of them Gen Z, because he's living this every day. I got promoted into management at 23 with no equivalent system, just a title and a room full of people twice my age, so I know exactly what's missing when a company skips this step.

The data backs up what he's seeing. Forbes reported that 86% of Gen Z employees say purpose is pivotal to their well-being and job satisfaction, a higher share than any prior generation at the same career stage (Forbes). The Guardian's reporting on the "undisciplined, entitled, lazy" narrative found the label doesn't hold up against how this generation behaves once given clear expectations (The Guardian). I've watched the same split in my own conversations about the anxiety headlines are creating for Gen Z job seekers: the real problem is usually a communication gap, not a work-ethic gap.

Devin's team proves the point in production numbers, not survey data. His analysts are hitting 6 cases a day against a company goal of 4, with quality scores in the high nineties, and he built an AI Innovation Lab where his best Gen Z analysts design the tools speeding up the rest of the team's caseload. That's a generation responding hard to a manager who shows them exactly where the lines are, not one that needs to be managed down.

The macro data lines up with what's on the ground. Deloitte's 2026 Gen Z and Millennial survey found 76% of Gen Z professionals want to reach senior leadership eventually, but only 6% name it as their top priority right now (Forbes). That gap looks like a generation waiting to confirm the path is visible before committing to chase it, tied to the case I've made about why leadership itself needs rewriting alongside every other part of the job.

What Is the Progression Contract, and Why Does It Matter?

The Progression Contract is my term for the written, mutual agreement between a manager and an employee that spells out how often they'll talk, exactly what good performance looks like, and what happens next in both directions when someone delivers or falls short. I coined it after talking with Devin, whose own writing on where leaders fail Gen Z matches what he's running day to day: an operating system with three legs, not just a personal management style.

• Cadence. Devin runs KPMG's formal progression cycle twice a year, then layers a strict monthly check-in on top of it, using Copilot to build the agenda so the meeting always opens with a genuine well-being check before anything else.
• Clarity. A nine box matrix maps every analyst's performance against their potential, so nobody has to guess where they stand or whether they're on track for the associate roles that come with a substantial pay increase.
• Consequence. Praise and correction both get documented and emailed, and if things escalate to a 45-day performance improvement plan, Devin can ask Copilot to generate a full timeline of every communication tied to the case. No surprises, in either direction.

This is a boardroom issue. Comp bands, attrition forecasts, and succession planning depend on managers who can predict who's ready to move up and who's about to walk, and a team without a nine box or documented cadence is flying blind on all three. It's the missing piece in why teams built around individual stars underperform in the AI era: Devin's top performers mentor the team instead of just producing more. In a boardroom, I'd say it this way: you cannot build a credible succession plan on a system where the only documented conversation happens once a year.

How Should C-Suite Leaders Respond to the Gen Z Management Gap?

C-suite leaders and CHROs should respond by treating this as an operating cadence problem to redesign, not a generational trait to accommodate. Here's the playbook I'd run.

1. Put a monthly check-in on every manager's calendar, no exceptions. Devin holds his to a tight standard even through PTO, staggering meetings ahead of time rather than skipping them. If a manager's system can't survive their own vacation, it isn't a system.
2. Make advancement criteria visible before someone asks for it. A nine box or equivalent map should exist for every team, not just the ones with turnover problems, tied to the same case I've made for why the CHRO seat at the table depends on data leaders can actually show.
3. Document both directions, not just the bad conversations. Most companies only build a paper trail once someone's on a PIP. Devin documents every check-in, applying the same standard to the analyst excelling as the one struggling, the same principle behind rebuilding CHRO credibility after the Bolt firing.
4. Redirect your top performers toward mentorship, not just higher quotas. When Devin's analysts blow past goal, he doesn't just raise the number, he puts them in front of teammates who need the coaching. That's a retention lever most leaders leave sitting on the table.
5. Model the vulnerability you're asking managers to show. Devin told his team he was exhausted and taking the rest of a Thursday off, and it built trust instead of costing him authority. Leaders who perform invincibility all day are teaching their teams to hide, not to perform.

What This Means for You as a Leader

The tension underneath all of this is simple. Companies keep asking how to manage Gen Z differently when the real question is why so many systems still run on a once-a-year cadence with no visible path to advancement, for every generation on the team. Devin didn't build a Gen Z program. He built a better operating rhythm, and Gen Z happened to be the generation that made the gap impossible to ignore.

My own daughter, also Gen Z, chose to go straight into a master's program last year instead of taking a job offer, telling me she'd rather stay in that momentum now than assume she'd go back to school later. That reads to me like a generation weighing the path more carefully than mine did, not evidence of entitlement.

Winning here doesn't require a new HR initiative. It requires managers willing to run a monthly cadence, document both directions, and show their team where the lines are, the way Devin does with the early-career hires he's now building a pipeline for. Leaders who treat that as basic infrastructure will have a bench ready when the next generation asks the same fair questions.

I went deep on this whole conversation, including Devin's approach to termination, documentation, and building an AI Innovation Lab with his own analysts, on this week's episode of The Human Capitalist podcast.

FAQ

Is Gen Z actually harder to manage?

Not inherently. Devin Collins's team at KPMG hits 6 cases a day against a goal of 4 [Unverified] once given a monthly cadence, a visible promotion map, and clearly documented boundaries, the same things every generation of employee has wanted from a manager.

Is Gen Z creating or destroying old management standards?

Both. Gen Z's expectation for purpose and transparency, cited at 86% by Forbes, is retiring the annual-review model while creating demand for managers who can run a real cadence.

Why do transparent managers retain Gen Z longer?

Because the alternative is ambiguity. Deloitte's 2026 survey found 76% of Gen Z want to reach senior leadership but only 6% name it as their current priority (Forbes), meaning they're watching for a visible path before they commit to chasing it.

What is the Progression Contract in simple terms?

It's my framework for the written agreement between a manager and an employee covering three things: how often they'll meet, what good performance looks like, and what happens next for both praise and correction, so nobody has to guess where they stand.

How does the Progression Contract actually improve job quality?

It replaces a once-a-year guessing game with a monthly rhythm and a visible advancement map, which is why Devin's team can hit 98% quality scores while beating its own production goal.

What should CHROs and CEOs do first?

Audit how many managers in your organization have a documented, recurring cadence with every direct report versus how many rely solely on the annual review. That gap is the first thing to close, before any generational training rolls out.