share on
Speaking to HR and rewards leaders Tommy Loy, Samuel Quek, Nazrul Effendy, and Niren Srivastava, Priya Sunil explores why Gen Z and younger Millennials are not rejecting hard work – but questioning whether effort is still fairly recognised through pay, progression, and career opportunity.
For years, the shorthand critique of Gen Z and younger Millennials has been familiar: they do not want to work hard. They are too demanding, too impatient, too quick to leave, too vocal about what they want from work.
But across many Asian workplaces, that story may be a little too convenient. Younger employees are still putting in long hours. They are learning quickly, adapting to new technologies, taking on stretch assignments, and navigating workplaces that are changing faster than ever.
What has shifted is not necessarily their willingness to work, but their expectations of what work should lead to.
Priya Sunil speaks to HR leaders Tommy Loy, Samuel Quek, Niren Srivastava, and Nazrul Effendy (pictured above, from left to right) on why the 'lazy young worker’ label misses the mark – and how organisations can better connect effort with reward, progression, and retention.
It's a long read, so grab a cup of your favourite beverage, settle in, and enjoy the insights!
The myth of the “lazy” younger worker
Tommy Loy, Head of People and Capability, Anko Sourcing Asia (Kmart & Target Australia), understands where the perception comes from – but believes it misses the point.
“The idea of giving 100% effort and simply working really hard is a little ‘old school’. Younger employees understand that results are what count. It is not about working hard; it is about working smart.”
For Loy, technology has changed the meaning of effort. Younger employees are not necessarily trying to avoid work; they are trying to avoid inefficient work.
He recalls a recent discussion with his team about creating an organisational chart. A younger team member suggested populating the data in Excel, then using AI to plot the reporting relationships.
"So I think they are working in an environment where it is not about working hard in the traditional sense. It is about finding the most productive, and perhaps the shortest, way to achieve what they want to achieve. That, in itself, is hard work because you have to be creative," he says.
That view is echoed by Samuel Quek, Compensation & Rewards Lead, International, McDonald’s Corporation, who calls the stereotype "certainly an untrue and unfair statement".
"I have met many young workforce who are very driven and passionate about what they want to do. In every generation, there are all kinds of people, and we sometimes focus more on the negative ones who don’t want to work hard."
What this group stands out in, he adds, is not avoiding work, but rethinking how work gets done.
"What this group excels in is working smart: using new-age tools effectively to complete objectives so that there is less need to index on the number of hours spent as a metric of how hardworking someone is."
Samuel Quek
For Nazrul Effendy, General Manager, Total Rewards, PETRONAS, the issue is less about work ethic and more about whether effort still feels meaningful.
"I think that view is a bit too simplistic, and honestly, often unfair. From what I see, younger employees are willing to work hard. The real question they ask is whether that effort actually leads somewhere meaningful."
He continues: "In the past, the link between effort and reward felt clearer. Work hard, stay loyal, and you would usually see steady progress. Today, that connection feels less obvious. People can put in long hours but still feel progression is slow or recognition is inconsistent."
That disconnect, Nazrul adds, is often mistaken for a lack of commitment.
"So, what sometimes gets labelled as a ‘lack of work ethic’ is often frustration with systems that don’t feel fair or transparent anymore."
Niren Srivastava, Group Chief Human Resources Officer, Motilal Oswal Financial Services Limited, makes a similar point: "Younger professionals today are not avoiding hard work; they are questioning whether hard work translates into meaningful growth, recognition, and quality of life."
At Motilal Oswal Financial Services, he shares, this has shaped how productivity itself is viewed – as outcome-focused, rather than measured by hours worked. That philosophy has shaped initiatives such as the company’s 'Switch-off Policy', where systems and emails shut down after work hours and over weekends to encourage real downtime. "If an employee can deliver meaningful output in five to six focused hours, there is no reason to glorify exhaustion."
Taken together, these views suggest that younger employees are not rejecting hard work. They are rejecting the glorification of exhaustion, the equation of hours with value, and the assumption that effort should be measured by visibility rather than outcomes.
The shift is also philosophical. Younger workers still care about pay and promotion, but many are less willing to define success only through those markers. As Nazrul puts it: "Pay and promotion still matter, but learning, purpose, flexibility, and wellbeing are just as important. They want to understand what they are working towards.
"So, it’s not that they reject hard work. They just expect it to be meaningful, recognised, and sustainable."
When seniority still shapes the system
In many Asian workplaces, the promise of hard work has long been tied to tenure. Stay long enough, prove loyalty, accumulate experience, and progression will come.
That model has not disappeared. Nor, the interviewees say, should it be dismissed completely.
Loy is clear that seniority is not only an Asian issue. "I have worked in US and Australian setups, and even there, you still see that by being in the organisation long enough, people are given certain higher rewards or reach certain positions because they were in the right place at the right time. The world still revolves a little around seniority."
But in Asia, he says, hierarchy and respect for experience can be more deeply ingrained. "Experience counts, and that is even more pronounced in Asia. We grew up with the mindset of, ‘Your father said so’, or ‘You respect your elders’. So, hierarchy is still very much there."
Therefore, for HR, the challenge is not to erase seniority, but to rebalance it.
Loy believes fixed pay can still reflect years of experience, but variable rewards should more directly reflect outcomes.
"For now, I think there is still merit in paying senior people for the experience they bring to the team. Base salary or fixed compensation should reflect a person’s years of experience.
"However, the bonus component or short-term incentive should be based more clearly on output and results. If a younger team member, or a younger group of team members, can produce outstanding results compared to a more senior group, then it is fair for the short-term incentive to be weighted more towards them."
This is where many legacy compensation systems begin to show strain. If bonuses are calculated as a percentage of base salary, a more senior employee automatically receives a larger payout – even when a younger employee may have contributed equally, or more, to the outcome.
His organisation, he adds, has already experimented with a different approach. In one team, rewards are not calculated as a percentage of base salary, as this would disproportionately benefit employees who have been in the system longer, while younger team members could receive less even if they had contributed more to the product.
Instead, for that team, rewards are based purely on whether the target is achieved. If it is, each member receives a defined amount, regardless of whether they are 25, 30, or 65 years old.
From "waiting your turn" to proving impact
Other leaders also see a gradual shift away from tenure as the dominant marker of readiness.
"There is no false dichotomy: a more tenured employee can still grow by focusing on skills and merit; and a less tenured employee can also stagnate by focusing on clocking time," Quek says. "Continued transformations are a pressure point for companies that hold a strong position on seniority and hierarchy. Therefore, there is a shift happening in that companies are taking a keener look at skills and merit over tenure."
He has seen this shift play out in organisations that are increasingly willing to place younger talent into leadership roles based on impact rather than age.
"I have been blessed to be part of organisations where the narrative is changing. These organisations are increasingly hiring for talent and skills – placing talent who would be considered ‘young’ based just on age in leadership positions. It is easy to use age or tenure to make talents decisions, or we can assess talent through a harder, albeit more effective, lens of impact and contribution. I also work in an international team and see a spectrum of practices, and so my role is to bring a consultative lens to guide our markets."
The business case, he adds, is also becoming harder to ignore.
"Research has shown that organisations which measure based on impact are more performance-driven and generate more total shareholder returns compared to other organisations. There is also increased productivity, motivation and retention using pay for performance vs pay for tenure.
"The case for merit and skills-based progression is strong, and this applies regardless of age. It is also equally applicable to make merit and skills-based progression for both younger and senior employees."
Meanwhile, Nazrul describes the shift as a rebalancing rather than a rejection of tenure. "Traditionally, many Asian organisations leaned heavily on seniority and time in role.
"What I’m seeing now is a gradual shift. It’s not a complete move away from tenure, but more of a rebalancing. Skills, impact, and adaptability are becoming just as important."
Nazrul Effendy
"Where younger employees struggle is when progression feels like simply waiting your turn. In today’s market, that’s harder to accept, especially when talent has more options and mobility.
With that in mind, he believes tenure still matters, "as experience brings real value", but on its own, it is no longer enough.
He puts it simply: "Tenure gets you a seat at the table. Performance and capability determine whether you move forward."
Niren, at the same time, puts it this way: "Earlier, authority came just from tenure. Today, credibility comes from capability, adaptability, and the ability to create impact. Younger employees expect progression to be linked to contribution and skills, not just years spent in the system."
Still, he believes the future will be driven by meritocracy, while balancing institutional wisdom with performance-driven growth opportunities.
"The real opportunity lies in creating career paths where younger professionals can showcase their capabilities, while still benefiting from the guidance and maturity of experienced leaders. That balance is critical for retention."
The opaque performance review problem
If younger employees are more vocal about unfairness, it may be because they are more willing to say what older generations quietly accepted.
Loy challenges the idea that performance appraisal concerns belong only to younger workers.
"Honestly, even at my level, I sometimes feel that performance appraisals are unfair and subjective. But I may not say it because I have learned to choose my battles. My son, on the other hand, might immediately say, 'this manager is unfair'."
The uncomfortable truth, he says, is that performance management will always contain some degree of subjectivity.
"Many organisations have tried different approaches to make it less subjective. For example, they introduce SMART goals – but even SMART goals can be subjective, especially in my world."
He gives the example of culture-building. "If my goal is to ensure we have a strong culture, how do you measure ‘strong culture’? We might use an engagement survey and say everyone is happy, but is that really the full picture? There will always be a subjective element."
Quek concurs: "Performance is subjective, let's not run away from that. What HR and managers need to do is take out the biases out of performance assessments, but there is still a relative needle that points towards what adds more to an organisation's goals."
The issue, then, is not whether HR can remove subjectivity entirely. It is whether organisations can reduce bias, define expectations clearly, and help employees understand how decisions are made.
Quek explains: "Through goal setting and goal review in the performance management process, objective elements can be introduced so that employees best understand what their organisation/ manager wants to see. We need to step back and understand what is important to the organisation. While young talent might be able to articulate what is important to them, can they do the same for the organisation?
"Doing something they are greatly passionate about (and succeeding in it, to add) might not be seen in the same way across the organisation or may not be necessary for the organisation."
This is where the link between effort and reward can become especially fragile. Younger employees may be working hard, but if that work is not aligned to what the organisation values, or if those priorities are not made clear, effort may not translate into recognition.
As Quek notes: "The important takeaway is to know that while they may not be organizationally rewarded today, there is still a reward: a personal reward that elevates and accelerates their future path when they are put in the right context that calls for it."
Where effort and reward actually break down
For Nazrul, the breakdown between effort and reward does not begin when bonuses are paid or ratings are finalised. It begins much earlier – when expectations are unclear.
"First, expectations are often not as clear as we think. It’s not just about setting goals, but explaining what ‘good’ really looks like. Without that, people can work very hard but still miss the mark, especially when different managers interpret performance differently."
The second breakdown point is inconsistent assessment.
"Second, assessment can feel subjective. Some judgment is inevitable, but without clear benchmarks and consistent standards, outcomes can feel uneven. One manager may emphasise results, another behaviours; some focus on recent wins, others on consistency over time."
But the biggest issue often lies in communication. Nazrul shares: "When managers aren’t able to clearly articulate why someone received a certain rating or reward, employees struggle to connect their effort to the outcome. That’s where trust starts to erode.
"For younger employees especially, transparency and ongoing feedback really matter. If they don’t understand how decisions are made, they disengage quite quickly."
Niren concurs: performance systems fail when high performance is not clearly defined or communicated. "The disconnect begins when organisations don’t clearly define and communicate what high performance actually looks like.
"Many younger employees are putting in effort, but they also want to understand how performance decisions are made, what differentiates top performers, or how compensation and career progression are truly linked to outcomes."
Niren Srivastava
The annual appraisal cycle, in this context, may feel too slow and too opaque for a generation accustomed to faster feedback loops.
"Younger employees do not want to wait for an annual appraisal conversation. They expect regular feedback, coaching, and developmental conversations. The organisations that make performance systems simpler, transparent, and data-driven will be able to build trust with younger talent."
Loy also places responsibility heavily on managers, noting that processes matter, but the manager’s judgement, fairness, and communication are what make the system feel credible.
Managers, he says, need to consider whether goals remain relevant as business conditions shift. Ultimately, he adds: "The human element – the ability to be a good manager – is what makes the process less subjective. The mechanics of the process will always have limitations."
The AI complication: productivity without a clear reward model
The debate over effort and reward is becoming even more complex as AI enters everyday work. If AI helps an employee complete part of a task, should that affect how their contribution is valued? Loy’s view is clear: AI may change headcount planning, but it should not be used to reduce individual pay on the basis that technology performed part of the work.
"My view is that AI will increase productivity. AI will take away certain work that humans currently do manually. From a headcount perspective, adjustments will be needed. Assuming the business stays flat and AI comes in, instead of needing 100 people, you may now need 90 or 80 because AI does 20% of the work.
But I do not think that changes individual pay. Wage cost may go down because the company has invested in technology and AI, but I do not think we should move towards saying, ‘AI now does 20% of your job, so we will only pay you for 80%’."
For him, that would be the wrong compensation strategy. "If you still have 100 people and then you ask all 100 people to accept 80% pay, that creates an unhappy workforce. The better approach is: if you are very sure that you now need 80 people instead of 100, then you combine workloads and let 20 people go. The remaining 80 should still receive 100% of their pay, or even higher, because the team is now smaller and carrying more responsibility."
That places greater pressure on HR and business leaders to plan manpower carefully. "This means manpower planning from an HR point of view becomes much more important,” Loy says. “I am trying to get more involved in understanding exactly what each headcount is doing and how AI may come in. Before approving a business case for expanding headcount, that is now part of my thought process."
The risk, he adds, is over-hiring now and being forced into more painful workforce decisions later if AI delivers productivity gains faster than expected.
For HR, this means AI is not just a technology conversation. It is a workforce planning, reward, productivity, and trust conversation.
The middle manager as translator
If younger workers are more direct, more agile, and more willing to challenge systems, the middle manager becomes a crucial bridge. Loy describes middle management as one of the toughest roles in a career, as they must act as filters and translators – not shutting down younger employees’ ideas, but helping shape them into something senior leaders can understand and act on.
"My advice is that middle managers need to help cushion the thought process of younger team members, which can sometimes be seen as raw, unpolished, rude, too direct, or even reckless."
Tommy Loy
The first job is to filter what is truly unacceptable, ridiculous, or naive. At that age and experience level, some ideas will be naive, and you may need to explain why something is not possible – almost like telling a child, ‘Life is not like that.’
"But at the same time, you may also get the most brilliant ideas from that generation because they have no baggage."
The skill lies in repackaging. "After that filtering process, the middle manager needs to take the concept and repackage it into something that someone senior, more structured, more professional, and more data-driven can digest."
This, he says, is what marks a strong mid-level leader. "That is the skill of mid-tier managers: turning an idea into something valid and digestible for senior people, especially those who may not be familiar with the technology or concept being discussed."
For HR, this suggests that retaining younger talent is not only about redesigning reward systems. It is also about equipping managers to explain, coach, contextualise, and translate between generations.
What needs to change to keep younger talent?
Across the interviews, several themes emerge: more transparent performance systems, more flexible career paths, more frequent feedback, and reward models that better reflect contribution.
For Loy, one of the most urgent changes is to decouple some rewards from base salary. "Base salary or guaranteed compensation can be linked to years of experience because that is what you are paying for. But for discretionary bonuses and short-term incentives, I think we need to move towards quantum-based rewards rather than percentage-of-base rewards."
Younger employees, he says, understand that senior colleagues may earn higher fixed pay. What they struggle to accept is when exceptional performance still produces a smaller bonus simply because their base salary is lower.
Quek points out the urgency of this in Asia Pacific, given the region’s large concentration of younger workers. "Asia Pacific has the highest proportion of young workforce in the world, with about 50% of the global population of Gen Y and Gen Z in this region. It is imperative for us to ensure they are engaged as part of the workforce for the business to succeed."
For HR and total rewards leaders, he says this requires a more careful look at when tenure is used in talent and compensation decisions. Rather than relying on time served as a default measure, tenure should be applied with discernment, especially when assessing progression, rewards, or potential.
Instead, he believes organisations should focus more intentionally on recognising, developing, and rewarding younger talent in ways that are personalised and meaningful to them. This could take the form of recognition, rewards, mentoring, or development pathways, depending on what the organisation can offer and what the individual values.
The outcome, he says, should be "a highly personalised interaction and experience between leadership and younger talent".
For him, one of the most powerful interventions is belief before proven success. Younger employees, he stresses, do not only need support once they have already made it. "What young people need is not someone who celebrates them when they are already successful and known, but someone who believes in them when they are on their journey towards that. An intangible belief can go a long way, and I’m always looking out for the next young talent who I can believe in."
From annual reviews to continuous conversations
Nazrul believes companies need to rethink the fundamentals of performance, reward, and career systems.
First, he says, performance management must move beyond annual cycles. "Younger employees expect more regular check-ins and coaching, not a once-a-year conversation. That also means managers need to shift from evaluators to coaches."
Rewards, too, need to be broader than salary alone. "Salary still matters, but it’s no longer the full picture. Flexibility, wellbeing, and purpose have become baseline expectations, especially in many Asian markets today."
Finally, career paths need to reflect how younger employees actually want to grow. "The traditional ladder doesn’t resonate as strongly anymore. Younger employees are looking for opportunities to build skills, move across roles, and grow faster, sometimes in non-linear ways."
Niren’s response echoes Nazrul’s, particularly on the need for skills-led careers, continuous learning, wellbeing, and trust. He says career systems need to move away from rigid timelines and become far more skills-led, giving younger professionals clearer visibility on how they can grow and how strong performance can translate into greater opportunities.
Beyond career growth, Niren adds that wellbeing can no longer be treated as a ceremonial talking point. Employees are increasingly assessing whether an organisation allows them to build a sustainable life, not just a successful career. Additionally, he believes culture and trust are also becoming key differentiators, especially for younger employees who want to feel valued beyond their immediate output.
This broadens the retention conversation beyond pay and promotion. Younger employees are not only asking how quickly they can climb; they are asking whether the organisation is a place where they can grow, learn, contribute, and still have a sustainable life.
Differentiating for top young talent
While transparency and fairness matter, Loy also believes organisations need to be sharper in identifying and investing in high-potential younger talent.
"The next piece is that companies need to do a better job selecting who their real young top talent are. You need to know who you are willing to invest more heavily in."
He is blunt about differentiation. "At some point, I would rather have two really strong talents and invest in them than have 10 mediocre talents. The company’s ‘cake’ is only so big. To some extent, we need to be ruthless to say that 80% of the cake goes to this 2%, and the rest will only share that 20%."
While he notes that this may sound harsh, he believes organisations must recognise that top young talent is visible not only internally, but externally as well. "If I can identify someone as high-potential, young, smart, and hardworking – and you do not often get all three – then any other experienced HR person can probably see it too. That means other companies can see it as well."
This is where legacy reward systems can become risky. If high-potential young employees see that their contribution is recognised more slowly than their market value, they may not wait for the organisation to catch up. Loy’s view is that companies need to be more comfortable with differentiating rewards.
"I tell my peers and managers: go ahead and differentiate. It is okay to give someone 10% and someone else 2%. You do not have to feel guilty."
For younger talent, the message rings true: if organisations want them to stay, they need to see that exceptional contribution can lead to exceptional recognition – even if they are early in their careers.
Food-for-thought: The future of hard work is not about hours
The emerging picture is not of a generation unwilling to work, but of a generation less willing to accept vague promises. They want to know what good performance looks like. They want to see how effort connects to reward. They want managers who can explain decisions clearly. They want career systems that recognise skill and impact, not only tenure. And they want work to be sustainable enough to build a life around, not merely survive.
The challenge, therefore, is not to convince younger employees to work hard. Many already are.
The other challenge is to modernise the systems around them so that hard work feels worth it. As Loy aptly puts it, younger employees "are simply not going to work hard in the same way we did". They will question low-productivity effort. They will challenge opaque systems. They will compare what organisations say about merit with what they actually reward.
And if the link between effort, fairness, and progression remains unclear, they may not stop working hard – they may simply take that effort somewhere else.
Photos (provided)
share on
