Boomers to Gen Z: Rethinking Feedback for a Multigenerational Workforce
I was born in the 1970s, graduated from high school in the late 1990s, and finished law school in the early 2000s. I learned from my experience that feedback was one-way and came in the form that suited the giver of the feedback.
In high school it came in red ink, in college it came in numbers on the front of bluebooks with lots of margin comments on papers. In law school it came in circled numbers or simply a capitalized letter on the backs of bluebooks. No one asked me what I thought about the delivery of this feedback or reached out to see if I was okay. But if I showed up and asked for help it was freely given. This prepared me well for my first job at a law firm.
My supervisors were mostly white men in their 40s and 50s. Feedback was simple, a one-way conversation focused on corrected issues and errors (no need to mention when you get it correct, you get paid for that). I learned quickly how each of my supervisors worked, what font they preferred, how quickly they expected a response, and how much input I could ask for and still be respected. My job was to meet their standards and get their approval in our effort to serve our clients. This was stressful, but “normal” to me.
My feelings about the work, my performance, or how I would like to get feedback were not given attention with one exception. I was asked to write a brief on an insurance defense case. The brief was not good. The partner came to my office and handed me a marked up copy of the brief and explained the issues and what I needed to fix. I was embarrassed. He noticed and, on his way out the door, he paused and said, “you should have seen my first brief here. It was worse than that.” I realize now that was the first time anyone at the firm had shown vulnerability or attempted to create a safe place for me to learn how to do this job.
Generational differences played a role in how I expected to get feedback and what I was willing to accept. For people in my and older generations, feedback has always been a simple exchange: identify the issue, correct it, move on. Whether it is a document filled with red ink, a direct critique of a project, or a candid conversation about performance, the assumption has long been that feedback is about the work and not employees’ emotions.
Yet, as workplace dynamics shift with new generations entering leadership roles, a pressing question emerges: does this change how we provide feedback?
No News is Good News
In previous decades, many workplaces operated under a “no news is good news” philosophy. If a leader had an issue with an employee’s work, they would address it. Otherwise, the assumption was that everything was fine. Praise was reserved for major accomplishments, and feedback was often blunt, with the belief that employees should be thick-skinned and handle it.
But Millennials (35% of the workforce) and Gen Z have a different set of expectations. Whether it was at school or on social media, their developmental environments emphasized collaboration, psychological safety, and continuous feedback. Many of today’s employees expect communication that is both constructive and affirming.
It is not that younger employees cannot handle criticism; rather, they view feedback as part of a relationship, not just a transaction. When feedback lacks context, balance, or is not two-way dialogue, they may perceive it as dismissive or as something being done to them.
So, should leaders adjust their approach? Yes, but not at the expense of clarity, expectations, or effectiveness. Considering how employees feel when receiving feedback does not mean avoiding difficult conversations or sugarcoating necessary feedback. It means delivering coaching in a way that encourages learning, accountability, growth, and retention.
Here are 4 strategies to provide engaging rather than transactional feedback:
Employee Development is Part of the Job – Developing employees is part of the job of every manager. To help employees reach their potential and develop in their career, leaders must learn to coach to performance and career goals.
Balance Directness with Context – Feedback should be clear and specific but also framed in a way that employees can receive it and understand the changes. Instead of simply saying, “This needs to be rewritten,” try: “This is a solid start, how can you adjust the wording to make it clearer for our audience.”
Recognize Individual Preferences – Not everyone needs extensive feedback, and not everyone prefers blunt criticism. Some employees appreciate in-depth discussions, while others prefer straightforward corrections. Taking the time to understand an individual’s style can make feedback more effective.
Make Feedback a Two-Way Coaching Conversation – Feedback should not be a monologue. Encouraging employees to ask questions or offer their perspectives fosters engagement, invites new ideas, and helps them take ownership of their growth. Saying, “Let’s walk through my edits together,” “Tell me about how you got to this version?,” or “What are your thoughts about this approach?” turns a critique into a coaching moment.
Leaders must be adaptable; this includes changes to better meet employee expectations and needs. Not because feelings override facts, but because effective leadership is not just about pointing out what is wrong or solely about the work, it is about guiding people toward what is possible.