WCRC Analysis
The organisations' 22 October research release reports that 85% of workers aged 18–26 rated job security as important, compared with 27% of HR leaders assessing its importance on their behalf. This compares separate groups and questions. It does not show individual managers misreading their own employees.
The worker survey ran from 2 April to 4 May 2026 and included 1,510 US workers, of whom 1,005 were aged 18–26. The separate survey of 1,010 director-level-or-higher HR professionals ran on 8–9 April. Both samples were unweighted. October is the release date, rather than the fieldwork period.
Ask what security means in this workplace
WCRC's analysis is that the useful response begins with a conversation inside the organisation. Job security can mean different things to different employees. An HR team needs to understand what people are asking before deciding what it can credibly provide.
For one hypothetical employee, uncertainty may concern the renewal of a fixed-term contract. Another may want to know whether a changing role will still have a place in the business. Asking both simply whether they feel secure could produce the same answer while concealing different management decisions.
A listening exercise should therefore allow employees to explain the source of uncertainty. Managers then need a route for answering questions they can resolve and escalating those they cannot. Collecting comments without assigning responsibility for a response leaves employees with another unanswered request.
The study does not establish how any particular employer should change its contracts or staffing. It suggests a reason to test assumptions, while the organisation's own circumstances must determine the response.
Make the employment offer believable
An employer should be careful about promising stability that its operating plan cannot support. Reassuring language can be easy to approve in a recruitment campaign and difficult to defend when an employee asks what it means.
A more useful offer states what the organisation can commit to now. That may include clear responsibilities, access to a manager and an explanation of how role changes will be communicated. These commitments should be specific enough for an employee to recognise whether they have been met. They do not amount to a guarantee of continued employment.
There is also a timing issue. If an important decision remains unresolved, saying when the next update will come gives the employee something concrete. An update can explain that a decision is still pending. Silence makes it harder to distinguish a genuine delay from a question management has ignored.
Employers should check whether their approach works across roles and employment arrangements. A single campaign about a generation is a poor substitute for understanding the work people actually do and the conditions under which they are employed.
This is sponsor-released US research, not evidence about all young workers or an estimate of priorities in India. WCRC's recommendations are management analysis; the study does not prove they will improve retention.
Our workforce-change accountability article examines who should own decisions when work changes. Here, the immediate responsibility is simpler: find out what employees are asking, then give an answer the organisation can stand behind.