Instead of relying on generalizations about millennials and Gen Zers, employers should try to figure out where their goals and those of their younger workers intersect, The Washington Post’s Work Advice columnist advised.

One reader, an attorney of 35 years, wrote about the difficulty in recruiting and retaining younger attorneys. The reader had been told that younger workers hold beliefs such as that they should not stay at the same company for more than a few years before switching to get a pay increase, that working after hours or on weekends is optional, that working at home is just as good as working in person, and that employers should not expect them to invest their time in learning their job.

The reader then asked if it is realistic for Gen X managers to expect millennials and Gen Zers to adopt a more responsive and committed attitude.

Columnist Karla Miller called the reader's attitudes toward young workers “reductive generational statements,” and she urged the reader to “sift for clues about what else might work.”

She said that the statement, "Staying at the company for more than a few years is too long" translates into a value of career mobility. Acknowledging that pay boosts can accompany a new job or title, and that law school graduates carry debt that may cause them to seek more lucrative opportunities, she added that “others may have nonfinancial reasons for not putting down roots at any one employer.”

Those reasons could include an erosion in the concept of loyalty, as many younger workers have seen and experienced what had happened to previous generations who were fired or laid off. She added that technological and social changes may compel some workers to pursue other opportunities to prevent them from falling behind. More ambitious and motivated workers in high demand will be enticed by jobs that offer better opportunity, variety and reward.

“Employers that can entice [workers] with experiences and opportunities beyond their job description stand a better chance of keeping them on board longer,” she wrote as a possible solution.

As for after-hours or weekend work, Miller acknowledged that legal work is not a 9-to-5 business. “High compensation, including salary and perks, has traditionally been the trade-off—but there is still a limit to how much of their lives people are willing to give over to their jobs,” she wrote.

Workers want their presence to serve a purpose, so she advised employers to have a rationale for why that extra effort matters. She also urged granting flexibility around business hours. “Entrusting employees with some control over their time is a more effective way to get them to suit up and put in the extra hours when necessary.”

Miller said that a good response by employers to the attitude that they should not expect younger workers to invest time in learning their job is to offer professional development support. “Expecting them to pursue it entirely of their own accord sends the message that development is for their benefit alone, not a priority for the employer,” she wrote.

Employers should consider the kind of time, space and opportunity that the firm is offering for learning, asking if employees can set aside a block of uninterrupted time to undergo mandatory training or if are they expected to pause for client calls.

She also questioned whether junior employees are being mentored and whether they receive continuous, constructive feedback.

“I realize it is hard to build these practices into a high-stakes, deadline-driven client service environment; you’re hiring attorneys with the expectation that they can hit the ground running and learn as they go,” she wrote in conclusion. “But the best way to ensure they make learning a priority is to show them you value it.”