A new US survey puts a hard number on something many organisations still prefer to treat as a soft, uncomfortable issue: $56 billion a year in lost productivity caused by generational conflict at work.
That figure alone should stop leaders in their tracks. But the deeper insight from the research is not really about age, attitude, or even artificial intelligence. It is about a familiar pattern: organisations optimising technology while neglecting the human system around it.
The result is friction, frustration, and burnout – at scale.
This is not a generational feud – it is a system failure
The research, conducted in late 2025 among 2,000 US employees in revenue-generating roles, spans four generations – Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z. What stands out is not inter-generational hostility, but where the strain is felt most acutely.
The youngest and oldest workers report the highest levels of stress and burnout.
Younger employees describe rising pressure, disengagement, and a desire to escape rigid or outdated expectations. Older employees describe frustration, erosion of professional norms, and a readiness to leave altogether. Managers, meanwhile, report time lost not to selling or leading, but to mediating misunderstandings and resolving conflict.
When 70 per cent of people on age-diverse teams say generational tension is hurting their productivity, this stops being a culture footnote. It becomes a failure of leadership and communication.
When AI becomes easier than working with people
The most provocative finding in the research is also the most easily misunderstood.
Nearly four in ten Gen Z respondents say they would rather be managed by AI than a Baby Boomer. One quarter of Baby Boomers say they would prefer working with AI over a Gen Z colleague.
Taken at face value, this reads as favouring machines over humans. It is more revealing – and more troubling – than that.
That should concern leaders far more than any debate about automation.
The real cost is not just productivity
The headline $56 billion figure is based on hours lost due to conflict, miscommunication, duplicate work, and slow decision-making. But the research makes clear that the wider cost runs deeper.
Talent is walking away – with Gen Z actively seeking roles where they can avoid older colleagues, and Baby Boomers retiring early to escape younger ones. Institutional knowledge is leaking out of organisations that can least afford it. Stress and burnout are rising, even as companies invest heavily in tools designed to make work easier.
When mentoring disappears and knowledge transfer breaks down, organisations lose both experience and innovation. That is not a demographic inevitability. It is a design failure.
AI is not the problem – but it exposes the problem
Artificial intelligence sits at the centre of this research, but not in the way most headlines suggest.
Across all age groups, employees believe AI can help improve knowledge sharing, bridge experience gaps, and strengthen cross-generational communication. In other words, people do not see AI as inherently divisive. They see it as potentially unifying – if it is introduced and supported intentionally.
AI does not create these tensions. It amplifies the culture, clarity, and communication already in place.
This is a leadership and communication challenge
Seen through this lens, the survey is less about generations and more about alignment.
Leaders now face questions they can no longer avoid:
- Do we value logged hours or outcomes achieved?
- How do we define judgement in an AI-assisted workplace?
- How do we support people differently without fragmenting teams?
- How do we ensure experience flows both ways, not just downwards?
These are not technical questions. They are communication questions. They demand clarity, dialogue, and trust, not just dashboards and playbooks.
What makes this research compelling is that it also highlights a missed opportunity.
Nearly everyone agrees that different generations have something to teach one another. Many say they would welcome mentoring or skill-sharing across age groups. Yet few organisations design for this intentionally, especially once AI is introduced.
Instead of asking how fast AI can be adopted, a better question might be: what kind of organisation are we becoming as we adopt it?
If leaders do not answer that question explicitly, employees will answer it for them – through disengagement, withdrawal, or exit.
Engage
When people say they would rather work with AI than with one another, the issue is not technology. It is trust.
The $56 billion figure may be an American estimate based on sales roles. But the underlying signal travels well. Organisations everywhere are grappling with the same mix of demographic change, technological acceleration, and unresolved assumptions about work.
AI will not fix generational conflict on its own. But handled intentionally, it can force a more honest conversation about how work gets done, how people are valued, and how leadership shows up.
Avoiding that conversation is already proving far more expensive.
Source:
Research Report: The $56B Cost of Generational Conflict And How AI Can Fix It / Clari+Salesloft, published 27 January 2026.
