Main / Blog / Resources / The Gen Z Effect: Three Contradictions That Break Your Workplace Model in 2026

Resources

The Gen Z Effect: Three Contradictions That Break Your Workplace Model in 2026

Date: April 23, 2026
by Maria Vasilyeva

How Data-Driven Strategies Can Help Companies Adapt to a New Generation of Workers

Low office attendance is often explained as a lack of willingness, especially among Gen Z, to work in person. This explanation is convenient, but it oversimplifies what is actually happening. The shift is not in attitudes toward work, but in how the office is evaluated. Younger employees are simply less tolerant of environments that do not support productivity.

Their behavior does not create the problem, it makes it more visible, because when the office does not provide clear value, people simply stop coming.

This gap between expectation and reality becomes visible through three contradictions.

1. They Come More Often Than Expected

In 2025, a global JLL study across more than 40 countries revealed an unexpected result: employees in their early twenties were coming to the office more frequently than their older colleagues.

This finding challenges a widely accepted assumption and raises a more important question. If the youngest group is not avoiding the office, then declining attendance cannot be explained by generational preferences alone. It suggests that the issue lies in how the workplace is structured. People are willing to come in, yet the office does not always justify the time and effort required. It remains part of the work model, but its role is becoming less clear.

2. Contrary to stereotypes, Gen Z doesn’t want to work exclusively from home.

Most Gen Z employees do not want to work exclusively from home. Gallup data shows that they are the least likely generation to prefer fully remote work.

Research consistently points to a preference for hybrid models, typically with two to three days in the office.

However, this preference depends on what the office actually offers. Being present only makes sense when the environment supports activities that cannot be replicated remotely, such as collaboration, informal interaction, and visibility. When these conditions are not met, hybrid work loses its effectiveness. Time is split between locations without a clear benefit from either, and the model becomes fragmented rather than productive.

3. The Well-Being Paradox: Isolation and Burnout at the Same Time

Younger employees report higher levels of burnout and are more likely to leave roles that do not support their mental well-being. At the same time, they are also more likely to experience loneliness, particularly in fully remote environments.

This creates a tension that many organizations struggle to resolve. Remote work can reduce certain pressures, yet it often weakens connection. Poorly designed office environments do not compensate for this and may increase frustration instead.

As a result, employees move between two imperfect options, neither of which fully supports their needs.

The Future of Work Is Measured, Not Assumed

Across all three contradictions, the pattern is consistent. Decisions about the workplace are still based on assumptions rather than observed behavior, which leads to underused space, uneven experience, and policies that fail to reflect how people actually work.

Understanding real behavior changes this dynamic. It provides clarity on when people come in, how spaces are used, and where friction appears, allowing organizations to move from reactive decisions to informed, continuous optimization.

At Basking, we focus on making workplace behavior measurable. Our platform provides visibility into how offices are used across teams, days, and spaces, helping organizations identify underutilized areas, detect peak demand, and align the workplace with real patterns instead of assumptions.

The objective is not to increase attendance for its own sake, but to ensure that when people come to the office, the environment supports what they need to do.