Data Truth + Narrative Engineering = Persuasive but Misleading Storytelling
i recently came across a LinkedIn post by a CNBC reporter summarizing a new global study from the real estate firm JLL.
The headline claim: Gen Z is leading the return to the office.
The story seems to buck the prevailing stereotype that younger workers are digital-first and office-averse and instead paints Gen Z as eager to embrace cubicles, commute, and corporate culture. The narrative is reinforced with three anecdotal interviews and a convenient statistic: workers up to age 24 reportedly spend more time in the office than older generations.
But whenever a data-driven claim aligns this neatly with the interests of a major stakeholder, in this case, a commercial real estate firm, it’s worth stepping back and asking a few harder questions.
So that’s what this post is, a breakdown of how this narrative may have been constructed, what data sleights-of-hand might be at play, and how logical framing choices (intentional or not) can subtly, or not so subtly, serve the business model of the party publishing the research.
Age Band Manipulation
What they did: Focused the “Gen Z” label on workers aged up to 24 only, ignoring the broader Gen Z cohort (typically ages 18–28 in 2025).
Why it matters: This younger segment likely includes:
Interns, entry-level workers, or recent grads with less control over work location
Workers more likely to comply with in-office expectations due to lack of tenure or bargaining power
Individuals still acclimating to professional environments and actively seeking mentorship
The maneuver: This segmentation can inflate the appearance of voluntary in-office enthusiasm, when in reality it may reflect workplace hierarchy, not generational preference.
Averages Without Distributions
What they did: Reported an average of three days in-office for Gen Z.
Why it matters: Averages obscure reality particularly with bimodal or skewed distributions. For example:
If half the Gen Z group comes in 5 days and the rest 1 day, the average is 3 yet this would reflect polarization, not consensus.
No median, range, or standard deviation was reported, which would reveal spread and clustering.
The maneuver: Averages are easily weaponized to paint a middle-ground story that suggests uniform behavior where none exists.
Selective Comparison Across Age Groups
What they did: Compared Gen Z (3 days/week) to other age groups like 35+ (≈2 days/week), implying higher office enthusiasm in Gen Z.
Why it matters:
Older workers often have greater negotiating power and seniority to dictate flexibility.
Middle-aged workers frequently carry caregiving responsibilities (children, aging parents), which impact in-office frequency.
Office attendance may be a function of personal life stage, not preference or job dedication.
The maneuver: Comparing cross-generational groups without adjusting for job level, life stage, or control over work conditions can falsely imply motivational differences rather than contextual ones.
Conflating Presence with Preference
What they did: Imply that being in the office = wanting to be there.
Why it matters:
Nowhere in the report does it demonstrate that Gen Z workers prefer the office or feel more productive there.
On the contrary, the study says younger workers reported the lowest workplace wellbeing, even as they attended the most.
The maneuver: This is a category error, measuring behavior (attendance) and inferring attitude (enthusiasm). That’s a leap of logic unsupported by the data.
Strategic Framing Around “Mentorship” and “Connection”
What they did: Reframed the generational office presence as “seeking mentorship” and “launching careers.”
Why it matters: These are subjective inferences not empirically proven in the study. It’s an emotionally resonant justification that:
Aligns with company goals (more in-office bodies)
Sounds virtuous and career-minded
Deflects from more likely causes such as junior workers having less autonomy or facing unwritten rules about showing up
The maneuver: This is narrative backfill, making the behavior seem like a self-empowered choice to align with pro-office values.
JLL’s report is not outright fabrication, it likely contains real data. But the design, framing, and selective analysis align tightly with their commercial interests which are fill offices, validate leases, and combat remote work trends.
This is a textbook case of data truth + narrative engineering = persuasive but misleading storytelling.
