Gen Z: Are Employers Getting the Best from New Talent?

With businesses still struggling to find the right skills and Gen Z facing barriers to employment, could some traditional recruitment expectations be making the problem worse?

Finding the right employees has always involved balancing experience, ability and potential. But as the workplace changes, some of the criteria employers have traditionally relied upon may no longer tell us as much about a candidate as we think.

A CV showing several jobs in a short period, a lack of previous workplace experience or questions about flexibility during an interview can all raise concerns. Yet none of these necessarily indicates that someone would be a poor employee.

With younger generations entering an increasingly complicated labour market, it may be time for employers to reconsider what really matters when assessing applicants.

The experience paradox.

One of the biggest challenges facing young jobseekers is a familiar one: employers want experience, but candidates need employment to gain it.

According to the Office for National Statistics, an estimated 981,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were not in education, employment or training (NEET) in the UK between April and June 2026.

Although this figure includes both unemployed and economically inactive young people within Gen Z, it raises important questions about how effectively the labour market is supporting the next generation of workers.

At the same time, businesses continue to report difficulties finding suitable candidates. The CIPD’s Resourcing and Talent Planning Report 2026 found that 52% of organisations believed competition for well-qualified talent had increased over the previous year.

So what’s going on? Employers need skills, young people need opportunities, yet the two aren’t always connecting.

The answer may lie in your own expectations as an employer.

When a relatively junior role requires several years of experience, employers can inadvertently exclude applicants who have the ability and enthusiasm to succeed but haven’t yet had the opportunity to demonstrate it.

This doesn’t mean experience is unimportant. Some positions require specialist knowledge that cannot be acquired overnight. However, employers may benefit from distinguishing between skills that are essential from day one and those that could reasonably be developed through training.

The CIPD’s guidance on inclusive recruitment recommends keeping job requirements specific, relevant and limited to what is genuinely necessary.

For businesses struggling to attract suitable candidates, reviewing those requirements could be a sensible starting point.

Is job hopping still a reliable measure of commitment?

Another longstanding recruitment concern is the candidate who has moved between several roles in a relatively short period.

Historically, a CV showing frequent job changes might have suggested a lack of commitment. Employers understandably worry about investing time and money in someone who may leave within a year. But for younger generations, careers are becoming less linear.

Redundancies, temporary contracts, career changes and opportunities to develop new skills can all explain why someone has worked for several organisations.

Younger workers have also entered employment during a period of considerable uncertainty, including the pandemic, economic pressures and rapid technological change.

For Gen Z, changing roles is a way of gaining broader experience or exploring different career paths rather than evidence of an unwillingness to commit.

In fact, someone who has worked across several industries might bring fresh ideas, adaptability and a wider understanding of business than their employment history initially suggests.

Of course, employers should still explore the reasons behind frequent moves. But rejecting candidates simply because they haven’t followed a traditional career path risks narrowing the available talent pool unnecessarily.

A better question might be: what has this person learned from their experience, and how could that benefit our business?

Leadership and Careers Coach Katriina Makinen discusses working with Gen Z on the No Airs & Graces podcast.

Different workplace expectations don’t necessarily mean lower standards.

The debate around Gen Z employees often centres on attitudes towards work.

Flexible hours, remote working, wellbeing and career development are frequently cited as examples of changing expectations.

For employers accustomed to more traditional working arrangements, these priorities can sometimes be interpreted as a lack of commitment.

However, there is an important difference between wanting flexibility and being unwilling to work hard.

The pandemic demonstrated that many roles could be performed effectively outside conventional office arrangements. While not every business can offer remote working or flexible hours, candidates are increasingly aware that different approaches are possible.

Likewise, asking about benefits, training opportunities or progression during an interview shouldn’t automatically be seen as unreasonable.

Candidates are making an important decision about where to invest their time and skills. Understanding what an employer offers is part of that process.

The expert view.

In a recent episode of Flat Fee Recruiter and Consilia Legal’s  No Airs and Graces podcast,  multigenerational workplace coach Katriina Mackin explored the growing disconnect between employers’ expectations and the experiences of younger workers, warning that businesses may be overlooking a much bigger problem.

One of her concerns is that Gen Z are entering the workforce without some of the practical skills previous generations developed through early employment:

“There’s another element of some university students coming through who’ve never worked in their whole life. They’re 23, 24, 25 years old and they might have graduated in their bedroom during the pandemic and they’ve never worked in their life…  So when they arrive, the skills gap is much, much lower than we expect… and that’s the gap that we need to address.”

But the consequences extend beyond the immediate challenges of recruiting inexperienced candidates. Katriina argues that employers also need to consider what happens when experienced employees leave without passing on their knowledge:

“You’ve got to understand your plan for the next five years… who do you have right now that is retiring? Because you’ll probably have one or two there that might be a key person. What skills do they have and where can you start building that up? Because once they go, they’re gone, and [you need to be] building up that institutional knowledge, so having a succession pipeline is vital.”

Katriina’s observations raise an uncomfortable question: if businesses are reluctant to recruit and develop inexperienced workers today, where will their experienced employees come from tomorrow?

For employers, the challenge isn’t necessarily to lower recruitment standards, but to recognise potential, invest in development and think more strategically about how today’s hiring decisions will affect their future workforce.

Recruitment decisions need to look beyond assumptions.

There is another reason employers should be careful about making generalisations based on age or career history: age is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010, and discrimination protections apply to younger as well as older applicants.

Acas advises employers to assess candidates objectively and avoid assumptions about what people of different ages can or cannot do.

It also recommends focusing on the type of experience required rather than automatically specifying a particular number of years.

For example, asking for demonstrated experience handling customer enquiries may be more relevant than insisting on three years in a customer service role.

The distinction encourages employers to focus on capability rather than an arbitrary measure of time served.

Similarly, assumptions that younger employees lack resilience, older workers struggle with technology or people with varied employment histories are unreliable can prevent businesses from recognising individual strengths.

A candidate’s suitability should ultimately be determined by their skills, experience, attitude and ability to meet the requirements of the role.

The importance of developing talent, not just finding it.

Recruitment is only one part of building a successful workforce. Even the strongest candidate will need time to understand a new organisation, learn its systems and develop working relationships. For people entering employment for the first time, this can be particularly important.

Workplace communication, managing priorities, dealing with customers and understanding professional expectations are skills that often develop through practical experience.

Employers may assume these abilities should already exist, but not every candidate will have had the same opportunities to acquire them. Structured onboarding, clear expectations and regular feedback can help bridge that gap.

Businesses should also consider how knowledge is transferred between employees. As experienced workers retire or move on, valuable organisational knowledge can disappear unless there are opportunities for others to learn from them.

Investing in development isn’t simply about supporting younger employees. It can improve succession planning, strengthen teams and reduce the risks associated with losing experienced staff.

And in a labour market where specialist skills remain difficult to find, developing existing potential may sometimes be more realistic than searching indefinitely for someone who meets every requirement.

Finding the right balance.

None of this suggests employers should lower their standards or redesign every job around individual preferences.

Businesses have operational requirements, budgets and customers to consider. Some roles need fixed working hours, specific qualifications or substantial previous experience. All of those requirements are entirely legitimate when they’re necessary for the job.

But there is a difference between a genuine business requirement and a preference based on how things have always been done.

Before ruling out an applicant, employers might benefit from asking themselves whether a particular requirement is essential, whether the skills could be taught and whether the candidate offers strengths that aren’t immediately obvious from their CV.

The CIPD’s 2026 research also found that 46% of organisations still took an ad hoc approach to recruitment. That suggests there is considerable scope for businesses to review how they identify, assess and develop talent.

In a changing labour market, the employers who succeed won’t necessarily be those offering the highest salaries or most generous benefits.

They may simply be those who understand what their business genuinely needs, communicate those expectations clearly and remain open to candidates who don’t fit the traditional mould.

Good recruitment isn’t about finding someone who looks perfect on paper. It’s about recognising who has the ability and potential to succeed in the role.