Welcome to the debate. Today we're tackling a
really interesting and, let's be honest, sometimes
frustrating shift in how people communicate non
-verbally. It's something workplace strategists,
etiquette experts are talking about a lot, the
quote unquote Gen Z stare. It's definitely a
topic that seems packed with potential for misinterpretation.
For anyone who hasn't maybe encountered this
directly, what we're talking about is the behavior
where younger individuals, usually Gen Z, respond
to instructions, maybe complex ones, or even
just conversation with, well, an absence of those
traditional feedback cues we expect. You know,
no nodding along, no small smiles, often none
of the little ah -hahs or okay. Instead, the
person speaking is met with this steady, quite
unblinking gaze. Right. And this isn't just some
minor, quirky habit. Our discussion today is
really grounded in professional observations,
including analysis from groups that specialize
in global communication standards, like, for
instance, professional global etiquette. So the
central question for us, and it's a critical
one for workplaces today, is this. Does this
Gen Z stare actually represent a serious breakdown
in, well, established social etiquette in those
really essential communication skills? Or is
it perhaps just a misunderstood, maybe evolving
modern style of very focused listening? And I'll
be making the case today that this stillness,
this lack of outward performance, actually represents
a potentially valuable cultural shift, demonstrating
perhaps genuine presence and authenticity in
how we interact, something that maybe should
be recognized as, well, a new form of respect.
And I'll be arguing that, frankly, regardless
of the listener's intention, this specific behavior...
often constitutes a breakdown of the shared social
norms that make communication work smoothly,
that it creates unnecessary friction, miscommunication,
and crucially, doubt in important professional
and even social interactions. Okay, so let me
start by just establishing the functional role
of those traditional nonverbal cues. Communication
Especially when you're bridging, say, hierarchical
gaps or building new relationships, it relies
pretty heavily on this subtle back and forth.
You know, the nodding, the appropriate eye contact,
the small verbal or nonverbal affirmations. These
are the essential social mechanics. They're like
the, uh, the grease, I suppose, that keeps the
conversation flowing naturally. When these cues
are missing, the speaker is kind of left hanging.
without that necessary feedback loop. Right.
I hear your emphasis on flow and function, but
I suppose I challenge the underlying assumption
there that the absence of that specific kind
of performance automatically equals dysfunction.
Well, the issue for me really boils down to impact,
not necessarily the internal intent. That unblinking,
sort of unwavering stare, when it's stripped
of any visible sign of affirmation, it is overwhelmingly
interpreted by the person on the receiving end
as, well, judgmental, or disengaged, maybe even
aloof. And etiquette, fundamentally, is about
prioritizing the comfort and the clarity experienced
by the other person. So if the speaker feels
uneasy or judged or, and this is critical, unsure
if the information has actually landed or been
understood, then that interaction has kind of
failed in its purpose. It doesn't really matter
how respectful the listener intended to be. And
look, we're not just talking theory here. Studies
that are analyzed in professional etiquette training,
they consistently show that visible active feedback,
nodding, is a key one, creates this measurable
loop, it can boost a speaker's confidence, their
perceived competence, by as much as 30%. So this
frozen stare, it actively undermines collaboration
by taking away that necessary psychological reassurance.
Okay, that's a compelling point about the speaker's
confidence. I grant you that. But I do have to
question whether a 30 % boost in how confident
the speaker feels is genuinely more valuable
than, say, a deep silent absorption of the information
being conveyed. I just don't automatically accept
the premise that this is a breakdown. What an
older generation might perceive as blank could
often be, in reality, active silent focus. I
mean, this generation, Gen Z, they grew up absolutely
immersed in digital multitasking, intense sensory
input all the time. So for many of them, adopting
stillness, adopting silence, it's actually a
deliberate maybe even conscious, mechanism to
achieve genuine presence. It's a way of communicating,
look, I'm prioritizing listening, I'm prioritizing
absorption over just performing attentiveness
for you. But if that message simply isn't getting
through because it doesn't use established norms,
then isn't the listener essentially demanding
that the speaker adjusts their entire framework
of understanding just to accommodate what might
be a non -standard personal preference for how
they like to engage? Ah, but... Maybe that's
precisely where the value lies. The lack of those
constant non -verbal fillers, you know, the micro
nods, the sometimes forced -looking smiles, the
rhythmic uh -uhs. Perhaps it is a conscious rejection
of what they see as performance. Gen Z often
values authenticity very highly, right? They
might see those cues as inherently performative,
maybe even a bit dishonest at times. So they're
pushing for us to equate genuine presence, actual
cognitive engagement with attention, not just
the theatrical signs of it. Their still gaze
might be saying, I don't need to perform listening
for you. I am listening. And we also really need
to bring in the psychological layer here. This
behavior might also be functioning as perhaps
a coping tool. We know there are documented increases
in social anxiety, especially after the pandemic.
So for many young people, being required to hold
that traditional, sustained, performative eye
contact while also processing complex information,
that can be genuinely taxing, psychologically.
The STAIR, maybe, is a mechanism to regulate
that input, to maintain focus without the added
strain of constantly signaling social affirmation.
That's a sophisticated argument covering both
authenticity and the potential burden of performance.
I see that. But it brings us right back to what
I see as the core tension. This disconnect between
the intention, maybe it's focus, maybe it's anxiety
management, and the impact on the other person.
While yes, we should absolutely value authenticity
as a trait, effective communication is fundamentally
a transactional skill. It's built on shared norms,
shared understandings. If a behavior, no matter
how well -intentioned, consistently leaves the
recipient feeling uncomfortable, or doubtful,
or misunderstood, especially about something
as basic as whether the listener is even engaged,
then, I argue, it fails as effective communication.
We can't just prioritize the listener's authentic
experience if it comes at the cost of the speaker's
functional need for clarity and feedback. I disagree
that efficacy must entirely trump evolution in
this case. Shared norms, they aren't etched in
stone, are they? They're meant to shift with
cultural changes. If we stay rigidly bound to,
let's say, historical nonverbal language, we
really risk mislabeling natural cultural evolution
as some kind of professional deficiency. I mean,
think about the handshake. Post -pandemic, many
people now see it as optional, right? Declining
one isn't usually seen as rude anymore. It was
a social requirement. now it's much more context
-dependent. So I'd suggest the stare might simply
be, well, tomorrow's standard, a kind of non
-performative presence that's starting to replace
an older, more theatrical style of affirmation.
See, I'm not quite convinced by that parallel,
because the function feels fundamentally different
to me. The handshake, that's a singular moment,
a point of greeting or closing. These affirmation
cues we're talking about, like nodding, they
are collaborative. They're continuous throughout
an interaction. They sustain the momentum. They
ensure mutual understanding is happening in real
time. When you remove them completely, you create
this kind of feedback vacuum that can be really,
really crippling in professional contexts. Let's
maybe move this from the abstract theory into,
uh, a practical example. The boardroom setting
you mentioned. Okay, yes. Lay out the scenario.
Alright. Imagine a Gen Z employee. sitting in
a meeting, staring silently, maybe quite intently,
as their manager delivers some really essential
detailed feedback. Or maybe the manager is speaking
during a high -stakes presentation. Now, the
manager who relies on those, let's call them
traditional visual cues to gauge comprehension
to see if the message is landing, feels, well,
utterly dismissed, ignored even. That silent
stare creates this profound tension, this doubt
about the employee's engagement, their commitment,
maybe even their capacity to act on the feedback.
Professional etiquette as a system is designed
precisely to resolve this kind of tension. And
I maintain it has to resolve it in favor of professional
effectiveness and clarity, which in most current
contexts means conforming to the established
signals that provide that clarity. Okay, I agree
the tension exists in your scenario. Absolutely.
But we need to analyze why the manager feels
dismissed. Is it possible the employee is, as
they might claim, giving their full intellectual
attention? Prioritizing thoughtful absorption
over just a reflexive nod or an interruption?
By forcing the traditional constant affirmation
style, aren't we risking penalizing their genuine
effort? Aren't we reinforcing a definition of
respect that's more about surface -level performance
than deep -level listening? The problem, as I
see it, might often lie more in the older generation's,
perhaps rigid, often unconscious, definition
of what attentive listening must look like, rather
than an actual focus deficit in the younger generation.
But surely if the goal of professional interaction
is collaboration, achieving objectives, moving
things forward, you have to ensure your communication
style is transparent and unambiguous to the person
receiving it. especially when that recipient
is, say, a client or someone in a position of
authority who makes decisions about resources
or opportunities based on that interaction. Ambiguity
in those settings? Isn't that just failure? Well,
that insistence on rigid, often Western -centric
norms brings us directly to the third crucial
point here, which is expanding this dialogue
globally. The meaning of eye contact itself is
anything but universal, right? We in the U .S.
and much of Western culture tend to demand fairly
intense sustained eye contact as a signal of
honesty, engagement, respect. Yet we know perfectly
well that in many cultures across Asia, for instance,
that same sustained eye contact can be perceived
as aggressive or challenging or just deeply rude.
Sometimes stillness, a lack of overt affirmation
is actually the accepted sign of deference and
respect in those high context communication environments.
Yes. I completely acknowledge the extensive global
variation in nonverbal behavior. That's absolutely
a foundational principle, something we teach
and emphasize, particularly in fields like professional
global etiquette. Experts like Adrian Barker,
for example, have spent careers documenting these
exact differences. But That context actually
raises a really vital question for me. Is Gen
Z consciously trying to shift Western norms towards
something more globally influenced, maybe more
like that Eastern influence stillness? Or is
this more of an unconscious cultural shift, maybe
driven by technology or anxiety, that just happens
to risk creating unnecessary confusion and friction,
especially in diverse environments that currently
do rely on established visual feedback for clarity
and effective collaboration? If this behavior
is emerging primarily from anxiety or maybe just
a personal preference for authenticity, rather
than a conscious, understood effort to adopt
a different established communication style,
then it risks failing to provide the unambiguous
communication that diverse, global environments
really demand. Hmm. But I might argue it actually
challenges the existing ambiguity of purely performative
cues. We've all been there, haven't we? Encountered
the person who's nodding enthusiastically, smiling
away, while clearly not listening at all. Maybe
they're scrolling on their phone under the table,
or just thinking about what's for lunch. Perhaps
Gen Z is demanding that we start equating presence,
meaning actual cognitive engagement with attention,
not just the easily faked performance of it.
Maybe they're rejecting the tyranny of the constant
visual affirmation loop. You know, the rise of
digital interaction has probably made many of
us highly attuned to spotting inauthentic signaling.
And perhaps the stare is partly a reaction against
that. Okay, even if we accept that some traditional
cues can be performative or misused, they still
fulfill a practical, functional purpose in managing
the flow of conversation, don't they? When you
remove that affirmation layer entirely, you force
the speaker to expend extra cognitive energy
just wondering if the listener is still with
them, if they're tracking. That arguably diverts
focus away from the content itself, so it could
actually reduce the overall collaborative efficiency
regardless of how deeply absorbed the listener
might claim to be internally. But perhaps the
shift we're witnessing is actually a demand for
a higher quality of interaction overall. One
where the speaker maybe has to earn the listener's
engagement through the substance of what they're
saying, rather than just relying on automatic,
perhaps sometimes mindless social performance
cues from the listener. Maybe it forces both
parties to prioritize depth over just, you know,
surface level comfort. All right. So to summarize
my position, while I absolutely recognize the
rising value placed on authenticity, and I acknowledge
the potential for traditional cues to be performative
sometimes, the data we have supporting the necessity
of nonverbal affirmation for smooth interaction
is, I think, too compelling to ignore. Active
feedback, like appropriate nodding and other
cues, it's a vital mechanism. It's necessary
for bolstering speaker confidence, for ensuring
the smooth and unambiguous flow of dialogue,
and ultimately for upholding that fundamental
principle of etiquette, ensuring mutual understanding
and comfort. When the listener's intent, however
positive, consistently results in negative professional
impact, I believe the behavior needs adjustment.
And I'll conclude by reiterating that this stare,
as it's often called, shouldn't be so swiftly
pathologized as simply a deficit in social skills
or an outright communication breakdown. Instead,
I urge us to consider it as potentially a significant
cultural evolution, one that's reflective of
a generation that deeply prioritizes genuine
presence that's perhaps pushing back against
generations of what they see as performative
communication habits, and maybe seeking deeper,
more authentic connection. The very definition
of what constitutes respect might be adapting
to our faster, more visually complex world, demanding
that we look beyond just those expected, sometimes
superficial cues. Indeed. What seems certain
is that the rulebook for etiquette, for communication
norms, it's not static. It's dynamic. It changes
constantly, influenced by generations, by technologies,
by evolving cultural values. Mm -hmm. So the
central and, I think, really fascinating question
remains for our listeners to ponder. Is this
Gen Z stare an unfortunate erosion of established
functional communication protocols? Or is it
perhaps a new form of etiquette emerging, one
rooted in a different understanding of genuine
non -performative presence? We hope this discussion
today, which draws on the kind of expertise shared
by groups dedicated to understanding global communication
like professional global etiquette and others,
we hope it challenges all of us to think about
how we define respect, how we signal presence,
and how we achieve professional clarity in today's
really rapidly shifting world. Thank you for
joining us on The Debate.