I think, having worked as an 'in between' for academics, students, and older researchers and professionals, your article tone suggests you are trapped in your algorithm a bit. I think in terms of algorithms for this mismatch, which I feel is common. We have each our individual decision trees (both deep and wide) facing polar decisions fairly regularly. On top of that, we have the random forest algorithms that collect and bundle decision trees and, through this bundling, impact our individual decision trees and/or our perceptions of our options. In the current environment, two individual decision trees working side-by-side may never realize that they are operating in completely different forests. Your exit interview allowed for two trees in different forests to engage, so that's a good start!

For many who might be called 'Gen Z', the world appears far less certain (though this may be due to the perception projected by media, individuals, etc., and not altogether historically accurate - of course, history is another random forest altogether...). Also, experiential and intellectual understanding are different. I can watch a movie to understand a concept but I haven't lived the story myself, so I am missing a lot. Older generations do forget how much learning must be actually experienced as opposed to intellectually understood to do work. Plus, a lot of education over time has removed the aspects that are human-centric. Students are, in my experience, told through many channels to prioritize results/impact/deliverables and perceived productivity over intent/learning/individuals/relationships. This is a real problem in academia, for example, where publications are more to build a CV than to impact research or even, arguably, to be read by other human researchers. Society is quite lopsided as we currently construct it, with more money and more time and more resources going to the head and the machines the head values (think of your headphones and your phone) than the hands and body and the future generations that we presumably appreciate in some way.

All this combines to create an environment that many younger students perceive as hostile and unconcerned with them outside of how well they prune the machines and the managers. This impacts individual interactions - if you expect less, you generally get it, right? That may not be on the other person; in fact, common research suggests when you judge something, you are finding what you lack, not necessarily what the other owes (not necessarily.)

I think you have an opportunity here to imagine as a thought experiment that her world view of your organisation is accurate and then navigate your response from her perspective, which you seem to be doing, and try to find value out of that where you can (though as your writing suggests you know, but it should still be said, value is different from profit.) Maybe try to rewrite the exit interview from her perspective - write her movie so you can better have her experience to some degree.

I worked in healthcare for a bit, and in tech, and I do notice that those in subordinate but arguably collectively more valuable positions (sometimes perceived as 'maintenance' workers) are stretched and ignored to the point of understandable frustration. I think, for example, of nurses, the trust and safety community workers in tech, teachers, etc. The underlying sentiment for people in such positions in my experience recently is 'if you are not a king, you're a pawn' so these self-perceived pawns (who may accurately judge the situation in many respects) struggle to become kings, to stay on side of kings, or they give up and limp along with reduced expectations and desire to innovate. Anger is often the first step in this devalue chain.

Hopefully your consideration for Jasmine is a sign that both of you can grow from the experience.