As Gen Z begins to take on management roles, organisations face a key question: is this new cohort of professionals ready to lead? Or, are we pressing them into service without a solid foundation for success?
Our Gen Z Leadership Blueprint report found that 86 per cent felt ready when first stepping into leadership. Yet formal leadership training for this cohort has fallen to 64 per cent, compared to 76 per cent for Millennials. This creates a clear risk for employers.
Substituting confidence for capability can expose gaps in development that, in turn, result in larger problems.
Confidence is not capability
Confidence gives new managers the willingness to take responsibility, make decisions and engage with the role, but it should be treated as a starting point rather than proof that someone is fully prepared to manage.
This distinction matters as 43 per cent of Gen Z managers felt “very ready” when first stepping into leadership, compared with 24 per cent of older generations.
Feeling ready to lead is not the same as knowing how to lead when work becomes difficult.
A new manager may be comfortable taking ownership, but still need support with delegation, feedback, performance conversations, conflict and decision making under pressure.
Feeling ready to lead is not the same as knowing how to lead when work becomes difficult
Organisations may be blaming the wrong people
Organisations should avoid treating early management struggles as a generational flaw.
In many cases, the issue is weak transition support. Older managers identify decision-making (47 per cent) and conflict management (46 per cent) as key areas where Gen Z leaders most need support.
A first-time manager who has never been trained to handle conflict, run performance conversations or make decisions under pressure may learn through trial and error.
That creates risk for the manager, their team and the wider business. It can lead to unclear expectations, delayed decisions, unresolved tensions and inconsistent management standards.
When that happens, it’s clear people are being asked to lead without enough preparation.
What early-stage leadership development needs to cover
L&D teams need to define what “ready to manage” means in practice. High performance in a role does not automatically translate into leadership capability.
A development pathway for a first-time manager should focus on the challenges they are most likely to face early on. That includes setting expectations, giving feedback, running one-to-ones, delegating work, making decisions, managing conflict, escalating risk and protecting team performance.
New managers need the right tools before they face predictable pressure points. That means moving away from vague leadership principles and towards practical preparation.
They should understand how to run effective one-to-ones, respond when deadlines move, raise performance issues early, escalate risk and make decisions with the right level of support.
These are the situations where leadership capability is tested and where structured development can make the biggest difference.
High performance in a role does not automatically translate into leadership capability
Build leadership development around real work
Formal training should connect directly to the work new managers are doing. Older managers see mentoring from senior colleagues (49 per cent) and on-the-job learning or shadowing (42 per cent) as valuable ways to support younger leaders.
Leadership is not learned through theory alone. First-time managers can benefit from short, structured learning followed by live application. Scenario-based workshops, shadowing, decision reviews and manager clinics can help them apply judgment in context.
A new manager preparing for a difficult feedback conversation should be able to talk it through with someone experienced. A manager making a decision that affects workload or delivery should have a way to review what previously worked and what did not.
A manager handling team tension should have access to guidance before the situation escalates.
Intervene before problems emerge
L&D teams should not wait for poor engagement scores, grievances, attrition or manager burnout before acting. Take, for example, a strong tech employee promoted because they are trusted and capable in their role, but given no support to manage a team.
Difficult conversations are avoided, team standards drift and the issue is eventually mislabelled as a ‘personality problem’. This is a risk when organisations assume management can be learned informally.
By the time a new manager is struggling, the cost is already being paid by their team.
Early leadership development protects team performance, retention, manager confidence and future leadership pipelines. It also gives L&D teams a stronger case for intervention before problems become visible.
That case can be built by reviewing how many first-time managers have been promoted in the last year and how many received training before taking on people management responsibilities.
L&D teams should also look at which management issues are creating the most pressure for HR and senior leaders, and where new managers are relying on informal support because no structure exists. That review will often show that the gap is not motivation; it is preparation.
By the time a new manager is struggling, the cost is already being paid by their team
Gen Z needs structure
Gen Z managers need the right structure to learn leadership, and the contrast in the data is clear. They are stepping forward with confidence, but too many are doing so without the structured development that turns readiness into capability.
For L&D teams, the next step is clear. Examine how first-time managers are being prepared, identify where support is informal or missing and build structured development before performance issues, conflict, or attrition force the business to act.
If these gaps are left unchecked, organisations risk weaker team performance, inconsistent management standards, disengaged employees, and thinner leadership pipelines.
Closing the gap matters. Today’s first-time managers are the people who will shape workforce capability, retention and resilience in the years ahead.
The question is whether employers are giving Gen Z the structure they need to succeed.
