Likewise, millennial and Gen Z respondents reported the highest stress levels, the most difficulty with day-to-day decisions, and the lowest ability to cope with life’s pressures and stress among the surveyed generations (Abrams, 2022). 45% of millennials experienced burnout on the job compared to the U.S. average of 28%. Further, 40% did not find fulfillment in their current role (Moore, 2022). 50% struggled with declining self-efficacy compared to older generations, and only 47% felt they earned enough money (Moore, 2022). These relatively higher levels of stress and burnout seemed to correlate with the great resignation attrition rates.

Even though the national average voluntary quit rate was 18%, Gen Z and young millennials (ages 18-29) attrition rate was significantly higher at 37%. By comparison, the attrition rate for employees aged 30-49 was 17%, 9% between 50-64, and only 5% for 65 years old or more. Millennials and Gen Z appeared to differ from their Gen X and boomer peers. This evidence points to a need for a better understanding of the emerging and dominant generations to attract and retain them as employees.

​

The Two-Edged Sword of Remote Work

Before the pandemic, employees considered work from home (WFH) opportunities a luxury or privilege. According to the social exchange theory, employees were willing to perform high in exchange for the privilege of WFH. Before the pandemic, remote work had advantages to offset employee burnout, such as providing more flexibility, greater autonomy, and better work-life balance. Employees slept better while not commuting to the office daily, saving time and money.

However, certain conditions at home were necessary to optimize the WFH experience. Ideally, employees had a quiet workplace, fast Internet access, and minimal interruptions from family members in the home. For introverts especially, WFH seemed ideal, while extroverts found WFH to be more of a tortured situation. Thus, remote work (RW) was only for some, fitting only some situations or remote conditions.

However, The COVID-19 pandemic did not care about ideal RW conditions. At first, the RW option seemed like a miracle windfall for organizations. JP Morgan, which embraced remote work early in the pandemic, claimed to experience a 300% increase in the productivity of its WFH traders compared to in-office traders. Likewise, Sun Microsystems reportedly saved $500M utilizing voluntary remote teams. Additionally, remote work options initially increased employee appreciation, job satisfaction, and retention.

Organizations rushed to embrace remote work with little choice as the unfurled pandemic-induced lockdowns. However, in a rush to implement RW, employers needed to provide adequate guidelines and policies. For example, organizations did not offer policies that defined personal and work time boundaries. Hence, the line between work and personal life, which was already fuzzy, became indistinguishable. RW workers were suddenly unprepared to be accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week, from any electronic device, regardless of location. However, now, there was an expectation always to answer because, theoretically, no one had any place to be during COVID-19. As a result, 67% of remote workers reported feeling pressured to be constantly available, while only 30% avoided working on weekends.

This blurring of the work and home boundaries led to employees working more hours. Post-pandemic, 45 % of all employees worldwide reported working longer hours, with the U.S. workforce working nearly three hours longer per day on average. Once more, 85% of RW employees took less than a week off, with 15% taking no time off. What once was a privilege and an antidote to burnout became a significant driver of burnout, leading to dramatic increases in ego-depletion and turnover.

Even before the pandemic, 55% of remote workers felt an “inability to balance their work and home lives." Thanks to COVID-19, the problem only got worse. 41% of employees who often work remotely reported constant stress, compared to 25% of in-office and 33% of hybrid employees. Parents with children under 18 reported more difficult times with family relationships and mental health during the WFH phase of the pandemic. Suddenly, parents needed the same quiet place to work while simultaneously helping children with homeschooling. Social media constantly reported dire news about mortality, infection, and hospitalization rates. However, Abrams (2022) noticed a critical distinction in all reported COVID-19-related stress and anxiety. Pandemic-induced stress and fatigue affected the generations differently, with millennials and Gen Z showing the highest stress levels compared to older generations.

Another unprecedented, millennial-exclusive trend was that 56% of millennials were single, which caused loneliness and isolation challenges during COVID-19 more than married millennials Not surprisingly, found that millennial employees that moved from full-time in-office work to full-time RW experienced a 67% increase in loneliness, and 49% said they lacked the social support needed to cope with work-related stress. Ironically, this coveted remote work situation embraced by millennials and Gen Z workers caused their stress and burnout to increase rather than decline.

​

These attitudes and expectations have forced managers to adjust. By adjusting their approach to leadership and embracing sustainable productivity, managers can create a more engaged, productive, and sustainable workforce that meets the expectations of younger Millennials and Gen Z workers. This can lead to increased employee satisfaction, reduced turnover, and improved business results over the long term.