I’ve always hated the career ladder metaphor. Often the main beneficiaries of a career ladder structure are those that fit the profile expectations of career progression. In this post pandemic, post Black Lives Matter, post MeToo, post Trump and especially Post AI – the career ladder is dead. Long live career uncertainty.  

​In the corporate vocab of the 20th century, the ‘career ladder’ was a comforting beast. It promised a predictable ascent: climb the rungs, be rewarded for effort and connections, wait your turn, and retire with a pension. That beast has been on life support for decades – especially if we view it through an Equity lens. Now, AI is preparing to pull the plug. For Human Resources often the most risk-averse species this presents a terrifying dilemma. They can continue to pantomime the rituals of old of promotion and progress – where do you see yourself in five years time – career ladder stuff. Or they can embrace a controversial truth: in the new world of work, progress is uncertain, the corporation is no longer a family. We now work in a dynamic ecosystem, uncertainty is the norm, the ladders are disappearing and AI is the new climate. 

 From my work on ‘Industry 5.0’ I would argue we are witnessing the end of the ‘job’ as a fixed bundle of duties – but now we’re moving into an even more flexible way of working. In this new landscape, relying on technical (in its broadest sense) competence alone is a fast track to obsolescence. AI has a massive impact on work – but to focus on Generative AI specifically, it really is unbundling jobs and job roles. This shift is also driven by the rapid commodification of white-collar skills. In my book Futureproof Your Career, in this world I say the goal is not to outrun the machine, but to build a relationship with it. We are moving towards Industry 5.0 an era not of replacement, but of Human-AI symbiosis.

The future of career management, then, is not about climbing a ladder, but navigating crisscross pathways.”

​Here lies the rub for HR. For years, the function has been an administrative shock-absorber, protecting the status quo of career progression – skills needed + skills in. I think this transactional approach misses the critical human element of how we workers make career changes. To survive now, HR must become an engine of ‘career resilience’. I remember last year – 2025 a very disappointed CPO of a global energy company. He was saying when he welcomed a cohort of new graduates saying in his welcome speech: “one of you may become our future CEO” but instead of thrilled faces of GenZers he met with a sea of faces that said – yeah we don’t buy into that career ladder thinking. 

The honest conversation to have with a recruit in 2026 is not, “We see a path to Director,” but rather, “We will help you build the human capabilities needed to activate your success and we respect that you need to have wellbeing in your work-life.” My research says this shift is about emphasis on empathy, ethical judgment, and complex problem-solving. As we know – these are skills that the algorithm cannot replicate.

 This is where the argument becomes thorny. If HR merely uses AI to optimise hiring and promotion based on historical data, it automates jobs and not careers. The future of career management, then, is not about climbing a ladder, but navigating crisscross pathways. It’s all about shifting patterns where (my research shows) agility and adaptive skill under uncertainty matters. 

​For HR, the mandate is clear but demanding. Stop nurturing the illusion of stability. Instead, build an infrastructure of psychological safety where workers feel secure enough to experiment, fail, and relearn in order to progress in the matrix. Embrace the uncertainty too. You do not futureproof a career by hiding from change, but by building a relationship with it. Honestly speaking the ladder is gone. The safety net is gone. HR’s job is enable people manage themselves in this matrix/maze/crisscross career pathways – and to ensure the footing is fair.

The Responsible AI Summit, which I’ve attended since 2023, has grown from a small gathering of less than 100 people into a global event. What started out as a fringe notion for turning AI ethics into business language is now coming together as a full-blown Responsible AI (RAI) profession.

For HR leaders, trying to define clearly what skills and qualifications are needed could feel like an annoying burden. But I’m seeing RAI professionals as important allies for HR leaders, providing ammunition for why the whole gamut of policies and practices that support people are not ‘woke nonsense’ but actually vital for business success.

This year some companies that had embraced Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) principles are facing significant pressure to scale back these initiatives. We’re seeing some organisations quietly remove ESG from their communications – Currys recently scrapped their Board level ESG Committee – whilst others are scaling back DEI programs in response to the US administration’s changed remit.

If you are concerned that this is a retrograde step, seek out RAI professionals to collaborate with. They can provide the necessary data and assurance to demonstrate why these initiatives are not just ‘feel-good’ exercises, but critical to identifying and reducing risks associated with AI use.

Expertise on tap

By cultivating a strong RAI function the HR department will also benefit from having expertise on tap as you increasingly rely on AI tools to save your team time, reduce human bias in hiring, and improve the overall candidate experience. Your RAI professional can help evaluate and ensure that your AI-powered recruitment tools, for example, are genuinely fair and transparent, rather than reinforcing existing biases. This strengthens the integrity of your HR processes and boosts employee trust in the organisation’s commitment to fairness. This is a pragmatic, business-critical approach.

But who are these RAI folk? It’s a melting pot of backgrounds – from law to computer science, social sciences to data science. This diversity is a major strength, bringing different perspectives to the complex challenges of ethical AI implementation. However, it also means there are no clear career paths or standardised training yet. It’s a bit like data protection was 20 years ago. As a profession, RAI is still finding its formal structure and boundaries. This means RAI professionals needs you help because most organisations lack consensus on where RAI functions should sit, what authority they should hold, and how they should interact with development teams. This creates inconsistent implementation and makes accountability difficult to establish.

Formal certifications emerging

The good news is that we are starting to see the development of formal certifications to address these gaps. Bodies like the IAPP and IEEE have created certifications for AI governance and AI ethics. These programmes aim to provide a more structured pathway into the profession by offering training on everything from ethical frameworks to regulatory compliance. Some of these certifications are designed to align with global regulations, including the EU AI Act and the UK’s approach to AI governance.

If you are recruiting people into AI governance-related roles, look for people who can combine technical literacy with strong analytical skills, and the ability to build consensus and influence organisational culture. An RAI professional isn’t just a gatekeeper; they need to be an orchestrator who brings together experts from different departments to ensure AI is used responsibly. You can help them by establishing a clear mandate and a direct reporting line to senior leadership, giving them the authority they need to drive change.

Grow your own

And there aren’t enough people with these skills so you may need to ‘grow your own’ by cultivating talent in-house. Avoid only looking to compliance or IT and instead give opportunities to employees with diverse backgrounds from data science, project management or customer-facing roles, who possess strong skills in influencing colleagues. A critical step is to provide them with structured training programmes and invest in educational pathways that develop both technical and ethical competencies. By allowing employees to take on RAI duties in hybrid roles, you can build a resilient in-house capability and empower individuals to become the orchestrators who bridge the gap between technical teams and ethical principles.

I am certain that, for the UK to become a global leader in AI, we must cultivate a robust RAI professional community. And HR is at the heart of this. By investing in educational pathways and talent pipelines, you’ll be building the human infrastructure that ensures AI development is not only innovative but also aligned with our societal values.

As we enter the age of human-machine collaboration, the world of work is changing beyond all recognition. With technology – and AI in particular – continuing to advance at such a rapid pace impacting businesses so much, it is a daily challenge just to keep up. But in the race to stay ahead and adopt innovative technology, are leaders in danger of losing focus and forgetting about people and purpose? Have business ethics and responsible usage been overlooked in favour of quick wins and efficiency gains?

These were some of the big questions debated in our recent Leadership Futures conference, hosted by the World of Work Institute. And as referenced by all of our speakers, purpose and the impact of technology on people are more crucial than ever to ensure business success. For all the benefits that AI can bring, unless its implemented responsibly and with a ‘humans-in-the-loop’ design application, it can do more harm than good.

But we all agreed that this is the tricky part. It requires businesses to be agile and adaptive in their leadership approach. It becomes a balancing act between risk and reward. What is the impact on people, reputation, trust – the list goes on. The late Charles Handy, pioneer on management education and leadership put it well when he said:

“The companies that survive longest are the ones that work out what they uniquely can give to the world, not just growth or money but their excellence, their respect for others, or their ability to make people happy. Some call those things a soul.”

This perfectly captures the belief that a company’s true essence and longevity come from its purpose and positive contribution to society. And this is something that AI should not eradicate. Instead it calls for leaders to double-down on creating true psychological safety for workers and the inspirational vision necessary for their teams to perform in an increasingly AI-centric world.

Optimistic but overwhelmed

The importance of leading from the top was brought into stark reality by the findings of our recent survey into feelings about AI in the workplace. Despite more than half (56%) of full-time workers in the UK feeling optimistic about the benefits of AI at work, just under two-thirds (61%) find it overwhelming to keep up with the rapid pace of AI technology advancements. This was a view largely shared across the ages and sectors we surveyed. It is clear that future of work is not about choosing between humans and machines but about moving to a strong focus on how to create effective synergy between the two.

Indeed, as AI and automation begin to master the ‘science’ of optimising processes, tracking metrics, and allocating resources, the uniquely human ‘art’ of leadership becomes paramount. As routine work becomes consumed by AI, people need to understand the impact it has on their roles and how to use it effectively. Transparency and responsible usage will be key as human roles evolve to possibly become more complex, more creative, more emotionally demanding and require more critical thinking. 

Ensuring responsible AI integration

AI is here to stay whether we like it or not. What will make the difference between success and failure is ensuring it serves people and meets business purpose. 

As covered during our conference and in the Leadership Futures report ‘Harnessing Technology for Human Progress’, the current pace around AI has led many to dive into implementation without proper planning or considering organisational needs. You could say purpose and people are being pushed out in favour of profit.

But identifying and articulating the need for AI, and making the business case are critical. Without a clearly defined use case, projects risk creating problems that don’t exist or not aligning with organisational priorities. The consequences of this can be far reaching – from damaging worker trust and loyalty, impacting external reputation or even leading to data security issues. 

Leaders must therefore focus on areas where AI can address specific challenges or unlock opportunities, ensuring that the technology supports real and pressing business needs. With a tangible use case for AI, leaders can lay the foundations for organisation-wide acceptance and success as well as demonstrate AI’s value to all stakeholders – from employees to customers. 

Bringing clarity to change

When people see clear, practical benefits, that align with their values and expectations they are more likely to embrace change and support new ways of working. Articulating an effective use case can mitigate strategic risk and allow leaders to deploy AI sustainably and responsibly. Finding the right use case is both a technical decision and, importantly, a strategic imperative. It helps leaders to ensure that AI adoption is purposeful, impactful and aligned with both the organisation and workers’ needs.

We know that the potential for technology to unlock human creativity is immense, but it needs to be done with consideration and a conscience. True strategic leadership will be defined by the ability to navigate this duality to embrace technological opportunity with ambition while building the ethical and resilient frameworks needed to defend against its inherent risks. Putting people and purpose at the centre will be crucial to success, and ensure AI becomes a true business enabler rather than inhibiter.

“We cannot wait for great visions from great people, for they are in short supply. It is up to us to light our own small fires in the darkness.” Charles Handy 

For many people, equity in the workplace seems a sensible, decent and productive thing to achieve. Yet here we are in 2025, woefully behind on creating workplaces that have equitable outcomes – including for women. But even so, we’re hearing from leaders that actually we need more masculine energy in the workplace. To say that out loud – to millions including employees – is quite something. It must mean people feel confident that they are right. So what is the attraction of a masculine energy company?

The Perception of Masculinity in the Workplace: Research-Based Analysis

The construct that a more masculine approach is favoured in certain professional settings, particularly in sectors like finance and technology, is a complex issue with roots in deeply ingrained societal biases. Research suggests the argument for masculine traits seems to focus on three key traits. 

1. Assertiveness and Dominance: Studies suggest that assertive communication styles and a focus on individual achievement are often valued in fast-paced, competitive environments. These traits are frequently associated with traditional ideas of masculinity. Literally – move fast and break things. 
2. Risk-Taking and Decision-Making: Industries like finance and tech often involve high-stakes decisions and calculated risks. A perceived “masculine” approach of decisive action and calculated risk-taking can be seen as an asset – because “look at what’s at stake dude if we slow down”. Yes. But. Some deep crashes that caused catastrophes can be linked to rash decisions. So.
3. Authority Leadership Styles: Traditional leadership models often emphasise directness, authority, and a focus on results. These characteristics can align with perceived masculine traits. The appeal of power-chat when we’re difficult conditions is easy to see – but does it translate to reality?

Looking at these traits I think all are useful – but it’s when people think these traits are the only/best way we get into problems. To say we need higher masculine energy and less female energy seems ridiculously dated. But they are said in countless workplaces and so we need to really consider how deep the impact of gender bias goes. We’ve built gender biases for over a hundred years within the leadership and management space. As such we all demonstrate our “Implicit Bias” which means such biases can lead to favouring individuals who exhibit traditionally masculine traits, regardless of gender in all of the talent pipeline. And now emphasising higher masculine traits are needed can/will create a disadvantage for women (and non-binary individuals) who may be perceived as less – less assertive, less decisive, less leadership-ey. We can see this on the political stage – even seeing the leadership stance of legs apart and shoulders back. Is a leadership based on how we stand now – and not on what we deliver? Preconceived notions about gender roles can influence perceptions of competence and leadership potential. For example, women who are assertive are still, to this day unbelievably, being labelled as “bossy” while men with the same behaviour are seen as “strong leaders.” This leaves women often saying they’ve got masculine traits in order to show leadership credentials, Rachel Reeves wanting to be known as The Iron Chancellor. 

Why We Need to Resist This Notion

First and foremost. It’s bad business. Excluding individuals based on gender stereotypes limits the pool of available talent and hinders organisational growth. Countless studies show a diverse workforce brings a wider range of perspectives, experiences, and skillsets, leading to better decision-making and innovation. 

But it’s not just about growth. As that late great Charles Handy said “A society dedicated to the enrichment and enhancement of the self will only survive and certainly will only prosper if the dominant ethic is the support and encouragement of others.” We all have responsibility to not reinforces harmful stereotypes. Leadership must know that the notion that certain traits are inherently “masculine” perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes that limit individuals’ potential and create a hostile work environment. Handy also said the future of work needs a balance of skills (that might be classified as more feminine – but I feel they are within all genders). He said that  “Organisations need talented women in their core jobs…because many will have the kinds of attitudes and attributes that the new flexible organisation will need. If they screen out the women they will handicap their futures.” Charles Handy, The Empty Raincoat: Making Sense of the Future, 1994. 

What can HR do?

Gender equality isn’t going to change quickly. But it can happen. In addition to all the great DEI work conducted in HR teams, I think a big part is to take a big step to change leadership thinking. Traditional leadership models that emphasise dominance and competition are increasingly being recognised as ineffective and unsustainable. Modern workplaces require collaborative, empathetic, and inclusive leadership styles. These are things we should look for all along the talent pipeline. Because the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in these sectors reinforces the perception that masculine traits are necessary for success. And despite the push against DEI, workplaces that value diversity and inclusion foster a sense of belonging, increase employee engagement, and promote a culture of respect and collaboration. We need to stay strong. The resistance is real. 

“The future is not inevitable. We can influence it, if we know what we want it to be.” Charles Handy 

However, commentators are suggesting Trump’s ‘Anti-Woke’ conservative stance greatly appealed to many voters – and especially White male voters. The support of Elon Musk who speaks at length on the “the woke mind virus” may too have played a role. Musk has even targeted other tech-bros and previously accused both OpenAI and Google of being “infected” with the woke mind virus. 

What might Anti-Woke mean for the future of DEI strategy 

Keeping sentimentality aside, the term ‘woke’ is was originally used as a call to be alert to societal injustices. And woke has been around for a long time. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, it’s a decades-old term and originated from African Americans to urge people to be ‘aware of social problems’ like racism and inequality. However, over time, the term gained cultural and political DEI significance, with varying interpretations. In contemporary usage, being ‘woke’ extends beyond the initial focus on racial discrimination to encompass broader social justice issues such as gender equality, LGBTQ+ and trans rights, environmental concerns, and more.

Yet here we are in anti-wokeness. ‘Woke’ has now become a negatively charged political buzzword, often criticised for its performative use to appear bland liberalism. When I look at my social media feed I see people getting very cross watching adverts, or Disney cartoons and live-action films, where for example, classic “princesses” are reimagined with diverse ethnicities to promote diverse representation in media.

We can all see how the concept of ‘woke’ has become almost a lightning rod for controversy, particularly in the realm of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Woke is now co-opted and weaponised by critics who view it as synonymous with excessive political correctness and identity politics in the UK as well. 

This backlash against ‘wokeness’ might now have a significant impact on the development and implementation of DEI strategies, raising concerns about their effectiveness and even their legitimacy. We might see many organisations hesitant to invest in DEI programs for fear of attracting criticism and alienating customers or employees. 

One of the primary concerns is that the anti-woke movement has created a hostile environment for DEI initiatives. Critics often conflate genuine efforts to promote diversity and inclusion with divisive and harmful ideologies. This worry is that this conflation could lead to the marginalisation of DEI and the silencing of important conversations about systemic inequality. 

The DEI strategy should be about effective end-goals for the whole organisation such as growth and prosperity 

However, it is important to note that not all criticism of DEI initiatives is unfounded. My observations on some DEI initiatives are run from HR and do not create harmony – rather the opposite. Some well-intentioned efforts may have inadvertently created a culture of performative allyship or tokenism, rather than addressing the root causes of inequality and address how inequality in organisations impacts each other. Additionally, the focus on individual responsibility rather than systemic organisational issues can hinder progress towards genuine equity and inclusion. The new leader of the UK Conservative party, Kemi Badenoch also appears to push against wokeness and DEI. It is crucial to distinguish between legitimate concerns about the implementation of DEI strategies and outright hostility towards the concept of diversity and inclusion itself. 

To navigate this complex landscape, organisations must strike a balance between addressing legitimate concerns and remaining committed to their DEI goals. This requires a nuanced approach that acknowledges the challenges while also emphasising the importance of creating a more equitable and inclusive workplace. By fostering open dialogue, engaging with diverse perspectives, and focusing on concrete actions, organisations can develop DEI strategies that are both effective and sustainable. Effective means aligning to the values and goals of an organisation – including market growth, engagement, value and profit. 

A new Trump presidency may make DEI an even more complex landscape. We might see a potential anti-woke backlash which could foster a climate of suspicion and mistrust. This will make it difficult to build the trust and collaboration necessary for successful DEI initiatives. Employees from marginalised groups may feel less safe and supported – leading to decreased morale and productivity. 

Moving ahead, I think we all do need to acknowledge and understand that DEI & wokeness can appear woolly and ineffective to employers and employees equally. My own experience in DEI showed me that it needs to core strategy to strengthen the whole organisation and sometimes HR teams often take it into a niche zone that alienates. To strike an optimistic note, I think we stay committed to DEI but we need to make it more straightforward and business aligned – while keeping to its truth. So ahead of us I feel that with both nuance and determination (and good data) organisations can create workplaces that are truly inclusive and equitable for all that improves the lives of all in an organisation. 

The recent far-right riots in the United Kingdom have sent shockwaves through communities. These violent incidents specifically targeted mosques, asylum seeker accommodations, and people of colour. Police officers have been injured, and while the riots have stopped, tensions continue to escalate. The underlying causes of these riots are deeply rooted in racism and Islamophobia, exacerbated by the rapid spread of misinformation on social media platforms.

Our recent experience of race movements means we learned that Black lives matter as much as all other lives and inequity exists across different races in education, housing and employment. We also found that organisations that stand up to race do better overall. My work in Henley Business School researching race published in The Equity Effect report, found businesses which actively confront inequity and racism with practical measures, can expect to see an improvement in their employees’ job satisfaction, loyalty, creativity and, ultimately, value, recording an average revenue 58% higher than those which did not.

The reasons are obvious – but for the sake of recap, here they are again: Racism slows down growth not least because talent pools are smaller, and so innovation is reduced. Racism causes organisational trauma – the research found that even witnessing racism happen as white employees had a huge negative impact on productivity. As many as 22% of employees say they have personally experienced or seen discrimination of some sort in their workplace, with many citing race as the primary pretext (55%). I found during the Black Lives Matter movement that organisations took time to get into a culture of ‘we must address race’ but eventually things started to happen. So we should be ok this time round? Not quite as we see slow responses in HR teams on race and Islamophobia. Here are some thoughts and provocations:

Where is the focus?

Focussing discussion primarily on the legitimate concerns of rioters might block addressing fear and concerns of some employees: Many UK citizens are grappling with declining living standards, neglected local facilities, benefit cuts, and reduced services. This sense of disillusionment and frustration becomes fertile ground for racist extremists who offer simplistic solutions to complex problems. So yes, economic hardships fuel resentment and create an environment where hate can thrive. But the poorest in UK society are often from minority groups who therefore also have legitimate concerns, but at this time, did not take to rioting. So conversations on root causes must be carefully nuanced enough to ensure that criminal activity and hate is not legitimatised as this contributes to fears in employees as they or their families may have been affected.

Politicians and Media and HR: Some politicians have contributed to the toxic environment by using dangerous anti-migrant and Islamophobic rhetoric. Figures like Suella Braverman and Nigel Farage have laid the groundwork for violence through their inflammatory statements. Additionally, media outlets have vilified certain communities, further deepening the divide. As HR leaders now, where do we go if senior politicians say this? We really need to be focussing back on the purpose, mission, vision of an organisation. This is essential at this time, review practices in DEI – then giving it teeth. For example not letting hate discussions to flourish in person or online in the organisation. And this time mindful that Islamophobia needs to be addressed as well as racism.

Scapegoating needs to be addressed: Migrants, Muslims, and ethnic minorities are unfairly blamed for policy failures. Whether it’s the strain on the National Health Service (NHS), housing shortages, or job opportunities, these communities are often scapegoated without evidence. The claims made against them are demonstrably false, but they persist, perpetuating division and animosity. If we had more courageous conversations on these in workplaces, we may get balanced thinking – but it will take courage to have a chat on Islamophobia.

Lessons for HR & Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

To combat racism and Islamophobia, we must hold those who spread dehumanising rhetoric accountable. Whether it’s public figures, media personalities, or online influencers, addressing hate speech is essential. Structural racism and bias must be acknowledged and actively dismantled. But this becomes a bigger task for DEI groups, but even so it must not be brushed under the carpet. I found in my research that while leaders know the impact of racism on their organisation – including that impact on revenue – chose to not address is because is a difficult and complex area that requires huge emotional labour from them.

The Role of HR Leaders

It is hard, but during these tumultuous times, HR leaders play a critical role in supporting employees and fostering a positive workplace environment. Here’s how they can contribute:

1. Open Dialogue: HR leaders should encourage open conversations about racism, Islamophobia, discrimination, and bias. Creating safe spaces for employees to share their experiences is essential.
2. Training and Education: Implement training programs that address socialised bias, cultural competence, and allyship. Educating employees helps build empathy and understanding.
3. Policy Review: Evaluate existing policies to ensure they promote diversity and inclusion. Make necessary adjustments to prevent discrimination.
4. Mental Health Support: Prioritise employee well-being by offering mental health resources and counselling services – especially to those feeling under attack and de-valued.

Addressing racism and Islamophobia requires collective effort – from individuals to corporations to politicians. We are all part of the solution.

If you believe the hype, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the hot new sous chef in the HR kitchen, promising to automate tasks and whip up solutions faster than you can say ‘performance review’. You’re probably being bombarded by third party suppliers selling their latest AI-powered tech solution, but before you ditch the paper resumes and invest all your budget in robot recruiters, take time to explore the pros and cons.

What AI is good for

AI is great at finding patterns hidden in large amounts of data.  Once the patterns are uncovered, we can use them to predict, personalise or automate to give management insights, improve productivity or create new services.

From analysing video interviews and sifting CVs to personalised learning recommendations, there are AI tools for every HR activity.  Companies are increasingly experimenting with generative AI-powered chatbots as the first port of call for employees’ HR queries. If you have a database of past queries and answers, building your bespoke HR bot on top of a large language model can give you a sophisticated, always-on service, which could cut the volume of queries to HR by as much as 90%.

Wellbeing support

Some companies are going further and incorporating AI into their employee wellbeing tools. Whilst some people respond well to this, do you trust the virtual therapist will be as good at identifying potential burnout as a human?  Is there evidence either way?  Recently we’ve seen cases of companies putting too much trust in AI-powered tools, for example using the prediction from video interviews of which candidates to put through to the next round en masse, without any human oversight.

Some AI tools are like that fancy kitchen gadget you bought on a whim – complex and confusing. It might be tough to understand how they arrive at decisions, which can be a recipe for disaster, especially when it comes to high-stakes decisions like performance reviews or disciplinary actions.

There’s no doubt that some AI tools are giving us meaningful insights into our current and future employees and automating repetitive, non-productive work. But to use them with wisdom and integrity, you’ve got to do your due diligence. If you want to use online games to assess personalities, ask how the algorithm works and what data is it using? And keep asking questions. Does the speed of mouse clicks in a game really tell you anything useful about someone’s about personality? Does it actually matter for the job you’re hiring for?

HR needs to be the watchful host at the AI feast, constantly checking the AI for bias, hype and how it can shift power too far away from people and make sure everyone gets a fair shot.

Congratulations to all who have recently been rewarded with an ‘employee of the month’. It should feel good to everyone working in the organisation to see people valued by the award. But at the back of some people’s mind we might wonder if this kind of reward systems really works effectively to increase engagement. There’s even a movie Employee of the Month (set in a Costco!) taking a humorous but a bit cynical account of these programmes. A recent study by UB School of Management (UB) revealed that setting up employee of the month reward systems might enable negative conduct. Their research on companies with the scheme showed that types of ‘envy behaviours’ occurred in some employees – as a result of an employee of the month award, and in some cases it led to employee withdrawal in workplaces. The study did show that it did depend on the employee’s primary motivation, for example, team-oriented employees who feel ‘envious’ are more likely to miss work or even quit, while achievement-driven employees tended to stay and work harder to improve themselves.

The UB study essentially showed an employee of the month reward programme maybe not be all that straight forward. There is potential that it can lead a rise in unhealthy competition amongst colleagues, which could mean a decrease morale and lead to a drop in productivity. When in overdrive, these programmes can discourage teamwork and collaboration – and potentially reward individuals that prioritise personal glory over collective success – as depicted in the movie. Maybe this form of rewards is focused on the wrong metrics as programmes often reward visible accomplishments or those easily quantifiable, perhaps neglecting the importance of less tangible contributions

Rethink forms of employee Reward and Recognition (R&R)

The post pandemic work world has created a rise in flexible working, hybrid and home-working. This rise of remote and hybrid work models might necessitate a complete overhaul of how we approach employee reward and recognition (R&R) programmes. Where once the option to work from home on an ad-hoc basis might have been considered a perk, for those working in the knowledge economy, flexible working is increasingly considered a “must-have” item. People are willing to switch roles for it.

This new landscape demands a system that caters to the individual needs of a dispersed workforce and acknowledges the changing nature of work itself, with AI playing an increasingly prominent role. A dispersed workforce has given us workers a more ‘individualistic focus’ vs a more ‘collectivist’ approach of all employees being in the workplace – all of the time. It’s not that collective good values are abandoned, rather that wellness and work balance and our non-work identities are valued in too.

Cat Barnard, Director and co-founder of work trend advisory firm Working the Future says, ‘For many, the pandemic was an existential moment. It exposed the fragility and arbitrary nature of life. While of course many struggled with the realities of lockdown, among those in a more comfortable situation, months of isolation caused a mass re-evaluation of what’s important and what constitutes a life well lived. Couple this with an ongoing erosion of trust in governments and institutions and it’s not so surprising people of working age have become more individualistic in their outlook. And this has a significant bearing on how we motivate and reward people at work.’

As such, having rewards and recognitions such as Employee of The Month can promote a ‘style of work’ that is easier to measure and ignore the other aspects of us. So, focusing solely on say one individual can leave others feeling undervalued, particularly if their contributions are less visible or go unrecognised – as especially some work might not be as visible if we are not in the workplace as much.

One-size-fits-all is no longer a fit

The “employee of the month” plaque simply doesn’t quite resonate with today’s diverse workforce. Individuals are motivated by different factors – some crave public recognition, while others value personalised feedback for example. A one-dimensional R&R programme fails to capture this spectrum of needs – and risks alienating a significant portion of the workforce.

Barnard says, ‘The age of mass career customisation has arrived. People want increasingly diverse things, based on where they are at in their lives and careers. As an example, working mothers with young children will have an entirely different set of needs to someone in their fifties. Despite progress, for the most part, women are still expected by society to act as primary caregivers. Any help and support an employer can therefore give to help women juggle their multiple caregiving responsibilities is likely to mean so much more than any ‘employee of the month’ award. The rise in popularity of flexible benefit providers like Perk Box and Reward Gateway underscores this.”

The rise of AI presents both challenges and opportunities for R&R. While automation may replace some jobs, it might (and it is a big ‘might’) also free up HR professionals to focus on creating more meaningful and personalised recognition experiences. But certainly HR managers will more than likely being using AI-powered platforms to analyse performance data, identify individual accomplishments, and suggest tailored rewards – a big question – does this feel fair and authentic?

Sandra Evans and Julie Blunt, Managing Directors of The Art of Work Ltd and Founders of Go Human also find the too, “In our experience in working with our wide and varied clients, many employees no longer feel motivated by this type of  ‘employee of the …’ rewards system which feels outdated and too often lacking inclusivity in the current workplace. People today are looking for a more personalised approach and this includes how they are rewarded and recognised. They want to be treated as individuals and rewarded accordingly. One size does not fit all and so this means taking the time to talk and importantly listen.”

Cash bonuses and sweets and gifts might have held value in the past, but I wonder if today’s employees seek rewards that align with their personal lives and well-being. I wonder if we would prefer more flexible work arrangements, additional paid time off, or educational/training opportunities and feel these more motivating than generic gifts. Evans and Blunt further add, “We also need to reconsider ‘what’ it is that’s being rewarded and more away from rewarding long hours ‘heroics’. Not everyone can always work long hours but all too often this is what seems to be recognised. We often do not know what is going on both in and away from work that can impact on performance. Surely this should be based on more balanced measures and not just long hours ensuring a more inclusive reward and recognition approach? “

Rethinking the Reward System

The post-pandemic workplace is here to stay. By moving away from a one-size-fits-all approach like “employee of the month” and embracing a more nuanced and personalised system, companies can create a culture of recognition that fosters a motivated, engaged, and high-performing workforce. By embracing a more nuanced and personalized approach to R&R, HR can ensure a motivated and engaged workforce, even in a distributed environment. The rewards revolution is upon us, and it’s time for organisations to embrace it.

Links:

UB School of Management research: https://www.buffalo.edu/news/news-releases.host.html/content/shared/mgt/news/why-singling-out-employee-of-the-month-may-backfire.detail.html

We must never forget the marketing and resources that will be pumped into winning your business. Whether it’s to gain an RPO or MSP agreement, become an exclusive talent supplier, win some retained work, or become a preferred agency, your business has a hefty price tag around its neck.

Luckily, most recruitment businesses have the skills, resources, and know-how to fulfil your traditional hiring requirements and keep their promises.

However, there’s a growing concern, a topic that should be at the top of every agency’s agenda, RPO/MSP space included, and that is DE&I. It’s not just another acronym, it’s a crucial aspect of our industry.

Unfortunately, DE&I hasn’t received the attention it needs and deserves from the recruitment industry. In my opinion, this is not just a small oversight but a significant neglect that needs to be urgently addressed. Many staffing providers are far from where they should be, and in my view, they lack the necessary skills, knowledge, tech, or expertise to offer it as a client service.

Why?

Ignoring DE&I

Some recruitment leaders are oblivious to the importance of DE&I and choose to ignore the issues of underrepresentation. Some even dismiss equality in recruitment as a passing trend. However, with the industry responsible for nearly 50% of UK hires, it’s clear that DE&I is a pressing ‘agency’ problem.

The quick fix for responding to questions relating to DEI on your RFP, Procurement Questionnaire, or Tender Document is to pass them over to marketing to make their answers look and sound pretty. Alternatively, an under-informed HR leader who doesn’t have the first clue about strategic DE&I & its relationship with hiring may have a go with it.

If you are really lucky, maybe the recruiter with a marginalised identity whose current side hustle is ‘diversity stuff’ within the businesses will write something compelling and feel duty-bound to allow the agency to exploit their identity by splashing their photo all over the application.

And don’t be shocked if you start to see the familiar ‘fostering’ tones of ChatGPT showing up more often. This tech is becoming so advanced that it’s easy to understand how easily we’re convinced folks know what they are talking about when, in reality, it’s AI who’s selling you the DE&I dream.

How do I know all of this? I’ve seen it happening, and it concerns me.

I am at a total loss as to how employers who rely on all forms of talent-sourcing models can ever achieve their diversity and representation goals if their suppliers don’t have their act together.

It’s frustrating to see organisations put together comprehensive DE&I strategies, transform how their people work, pump a stack of equity into the working environment, get their culture on point, develop healthy EVPs, and spend money, resources, and time building out something that they genuinely believe will evolve their business – only to be let down by their talent pipeline suppliers.

I’ve seen companies bring in trainers and invest heavily in the professional development of internal recruitment teams and hiring manager populations. They are well on their way to developing inclusive, accessible, and equitable hiring processes, but then nothing changes.

There’s no abundance of diversity in the pipeline, no diverse shortlists, and the people they’ve worked so hard to create space for didn’t get the memo about their latest recruitment drive.

And even if they had, they’d probably have been rejected by external recruitment partners anyway or deselected themselves from inaccessible, inequitable processes. So, it is just the usual suspects coming through the talent funnel.

The solution to address DE&I

Firstly, we need to understand how some resourcing models can create friction between cost and time to hire and our DE&I objectives. They are often not conducive to inclusive recruitment methodology.

For example, time to hire and speed are often built into SLAs, yet accelerated hiring completely disrupts inclusion and equity. There is the potential for increased bias, and recruiters overlook narrower talent pools and inclusive practices.

Cost reduction is also essential for most agreements, yet evolving how we hire and attract talent may have increased cost implications. Businesses need honest conversations about whether they are genuinely willing to prioritise inclusive hiring over cost and time to hire.

We should also consider how RPOs and MSPs extensively use automation. Its use feeds into my points above, cutting costs and speeding up hiring.

Whilst ATSs and AI can be programmed to support bias minimisation, standardise recruitment processes, and provide critical diversity data, this is often not the case. We are still seeing historical hiring data being used to train AI, creating out-of-control algorithmic bias. Employers and agencies are still not acknowledging and accommodating tech access and equity issues, and too many automated systems are screening out candidates with non-traditional career paths or gaps in CVs.

Secondly, how do we cut through the BS and identify partners who can support us?

Audits are the way to go, and I don’t mean trusting the stuff written in word count-controlled boxes. I mean a forensic examination of what your supplier does to ensure fair, ethical hiring processes that should eventually attract larger, more diverse pools of talent.

A way ahead

Here is a snapshot of the receipts you need to be looking at…

Training—Have ALL their teams been regularly and professionally trained on inclusive recruitment practices? A quick 30-minute online session on unconscious bias a decade ago won’t cut it. Don’t get distracted by a brilliant DE&I lead. They will not be recruiting for your business and often don’t cascade best practices down.

Recruitment Policy & Process – You’ll need a detailed overview of how inclusive, accessible and equitable recruitment is embedded across the entire hiring process, including TA.

Diversity Data Metrics—Now, this is a biggie that needs its own article. Check, check, and re-check that they have the expertise, technology, and capability to compliantly and ethically collect diversity and demographic data. It’s like the Wild West regarding data collection and analytics. If you don’t have the expertise to audit this, please bring in a third party to assist.

Look at their branding & reputation – Do they have the comms and marketing credentials to attract and build trust with marginalised candidates? We so often pass over agency value propositions and brand image. Are they actively showing allyship and an authentic, credible commitment to DE&I?

History of inclusive recruitment – Collect references and case studies on their previous recruitment projects centred on DE&I. Interview candidates who’ve gone through hiring processes, especially those who didn’t get the job.

Can they audit you? – Any credible, inclusive recruitment partner should be able to audit your processes. This is a two-way street, and looking at what you do should be part of their processes. Observing how they complete this is a smart way to assess their competency, and you can benefit from their recommendations if they know what they are doing.

Are they representative – Are marginalised candidates represented across their recruiter population? Can they provide their own diversity and demographic data? Teams packed with posh, homogenous Oxbridge folk don’t represent the real world.

Do they share your values? You’ve got to get under their skin and really figure out if there’s a genuine understanding of your DE&I goals and true shared values. People who do not care change absolutely nothing for underrepresented and historically marginalised candidates or your business.

Remember, no agency can ever guarantee diversity, but they can and should guarantee inclusive, accessible, and equitable recruitment services. This isn’t a quick numbers game. It’s a process of changing decades of legacy behaviour and processes.

I could go on because I am so passionate about this topic. There is a lot to this. But a thorough audit by a third party, someone who really gets this stuff, is critical – shameless plug, but reach out if you need support. I’ve got you. This stuff needs to change!

In the past year, I have interviewed many people who were dissatisfied with a work culture that demands long hours, high stress, and constant productivity. Many voiced that they feel that the promise (and even the gain) of success and rewards is not worth the toll on their health and happiness – a few voicing that they just wanted to give it up and live a simpler life. It reminded me of a vintage BBC TV comedy series made in the 1970s called The Good Life where a couple gave up the corporate race to live sustainably, and the comedy rested on them comparing notes to the couple next door that stayed in the corporate rat race. The interviews reflected an idea that seems to be gaining ground again that more workers are now being drawn to the idea of ‘anti-work’. Numerous new studies show this is a movement, or at least a drive, that challenges the necessity and value of most modern jobs. Studies show that people are planning to quit their careers and live more simply and freely – and it might fuelled by the lockdown experience. It may also be pushed by younger generations in the workplace who don’t seem to buy into the corporate speak of give your company a 110% and hustle harder for success.

According to generational studies, Gen Z, the youngest cohort in the workforce, is more sceptical of the hustle culture that millennials embraced. They want a better balance between work and life, and they are not willing to sacrifice their wellbeing for their employers. They have seen the effects of burnout and many are rejecting it. Many are saying no to exploitative and toxic work environments. Ali Orr, Director of Student Development at Kingston, argues: “Organisations will increasingly need to communicate how their culture and values align with this purpose journey.” He also notes a change in younger generations. Orr argues that he has seen a definite shift in recent years in what students are seeking from potential employers: “there is a greater priority being attached to work-life balance, and to company culture and values. That’s hardly surprising when this generation has lived through a pandemic and cost of living crisis before they’ve even graduated, and the global challenges that they are inheriting.”

A movement for all generations

Has the impact of over consumption, not just on goods, but in jobs, led to fuelling the anti-work thinking, not just for GenZ but for all generations? Where work doesn’t just pay the bills, but enriches everyone’s lives. I would argue that leaders have contributed to developing an anti-work movement themselves with strategies built on words like; ‘we are a mission, values, purpose, organisation where social impact takes centre stage’.

At the heart of the anti-work movement lies a critique of this ‘hustle culture’ that has permeated our professional lives. We have the contradiction of wellness at work but still feel the pressure to wear busy-ness as a badge of honour, sacrificing wellbeing for the elusive promise of success. The phrase ‘anti-work’ might conjure images of slackers and freeloaders, but delve deeper and you’ll see how younger generation disillusioned feel with a system that feels rigged against them. However hard they save on avocado toast and Netflix, buying a house on their salary a far away dream. Their demands of more balanced and good work, might hold the key to unlocking a future.

Professor Nick Kemsley Director at N Kemsley Consulting Ltd , and HR Centre, Henley Business School has said the link between how people feel about work, and indeed anti-work, raises a valid question around the “product” of organisations. Kemsley suggests that the reality for many is that the products, services, customer and employees are somewhere in the middle of the value chain; and that the real product driving everything is a return to institutional shareholders above everything. This positions employees as ‘costs to be minimised’ in some organisations. This has been reinforced by the recent cost of living crisis exposing lack of wage inflation and the scaling back of customer contact mechanisms post pandemic. A valid question, says Kemsley “What does your company do of value” is being asked more and more by the current and future talent generation. What they hear back is now, often rightly, seen as window dressing. Indeed, Orr suggests that his work with students is shifting now to work that is enabling students to cultivate their own purpose and identify how they can find it through work.

What is a good life?

Workers are absorbing such words not as banal statements on a reception wall, but for real, prompting a re-evaluation of what truly constitutes a ‘good life’. Richard Freeman CEO of Always Possible suggests that the future of work is not a divide between ‘life’ and ‘labour’. Freeman adds that workspaces need to be engineered as centres of creativity and capability, not mechanical tasks. “Technology’s single duty is to make it easier to be human, so that the bits only humans can do are only ‘work’ in the sense that you are under contract,” he says.

The work-life balance

All of my interviews sparked conversations about work-life balance. Just the critique of anti-work in work culture, has a potential to significantly shift our attitudes towards work and burnout. Many individuals I spoke with discussed and re-evaluated what constitutes a fulfilling life beyond their job title. Many highlighted the mental and physical toll of burnout. In some ways the anti-work movement encourages open discussions about mental health in the workplace, potentially reducing stigma and normalizing taking breaks and seeking help. Anti-work started with no-work and now has also moulded into an idea of less ‘over-work’, which might seem like a recipe for disaster for many organisations, but consider the unintended consequences of over-work. Companies, facing a talent exodus, are being forced to re-evaluate their offerings. Suddenly, flexible work arrangements, competitive wages, and a genuine focus on employee wellbeing aren’t just perks; they’re survival tactics on talent and retention for the best people.

This creates a ripple effect, pushing the entire market towards better working conditions for everyone. Kemsley adds that the basic issue is that talent is now looking at organisations in an entirely different way than organisations are looking at talent: “most of our career and talent assumptions have their roots in the period 1950-1979. Your career is ‘the time you work for us’ is the best example of this mismatch”. From my interviews I would say that the impact goes beyond individual workplaces, a view echoed by Jane Barrett, a coach, founder of The Career Farm and author ‘Taking Charge Of Your Career’: “I’ve more people at a younger age embracing a flexible freelance lifestyle or micro-entrepreneurship. Covid has seen a rise in ‘remote first’ jobs and highly skilled and experienced people can demand this.”

Automation and AI arrives

Automation and AI is of course a looming challenge, and ensuring everyone benefits from a potential shift in work structures will require careful planning and social safety nets. Can companies truly offer purpose in a world increasingly driven by automation and efficiency? Can the traditional notion of a “job” adapt to the aspirations of a generation raised on instant gratification and side hustles? And has transparency of what work is like on the inside enabled the shift? Derek Moseley, Director of Sales and Marketing – Corporate Development at Henley Business School says yes, and that “in this data-rich world of Glassdoor, company reviews, news articles and multiple other data points, it becomes more difficult for organisations to hide their culture behind glossy corporate veneer. In relation to AI and impact on vulnerable groups, ethical organisations may do well to consider using the productivity/cost savings that they bring to focus on ‘ethical’ projects rather than pocket the money.”

The purpose of work

The anti-work movement shines a spotlight on the very purpose of work in our society. Is it merely a means to an end a hamster wheel of production and consumption? Or can it be something more, a source of meaning, fulfilment, and contribution to a larger purpose? And how can we ensure that this evolution towards a more fulfilling work culture doesn’t leave vulnerable populations behind – and we retain equity and diversity? Freeman adds: “the reality, we’re more focused on making, inventing, selling, servicing, thinking, designing, transporting and repairing as enjoyable crafts. The challenge is to construct a work culture that enriches – and that especially includes trade, care, and production-line roles. This isn’t utopia anymore. It’s a strategic inevitability – for a future where work and technology serves individuals and communities, not the other way around.”

It’s important to note that there are diverse perspectives within the anti-work movement itself, and its long-term impact remains to be seen. And indeed diversity itself should be accounted for – as with the BBC series, The Good Life, pushing back against traditional corporate work was easier for people who experienced it and came from privileged backgrounds. Likewise saying all GenZers can afford to pull back from over-work isn’t true – not least because of financial hardships. Groups that have gained confidence to say this type of work isn’t for me, may only be a choice for some, as social mobility, race and gender inequity make this an impossible ideal for many.

Radical change or smaller improvements?

However, the influence on social discourse of anti-work is immense and its potential to challenge harmful workplace norms cannot be ignored. Whether it brings about radical change or incremental improvements, the anti-work movement is prompting a much-needed re-evaluation of our attitudes towards work and the role it plays in our lives. I feel the questions on anti-work demand exploration and by questioning the status quo, the movement opens up a conversation about redesigning work itself, moving away from work-tasks and towards building careers through jobs that tap into individual talents and passions. But the anti-work movement, despite its provocative name, might just be the push we need to finally address the deep disconnects between work and careers and the lives we want to lead.

—

Useful Links:

Derek Moseley: https://www.linkedin.com/in/derekmoseley

Nick Kemsley: https://www.linkedin.com/in/professor-nick-kemsley-9a61841/

Richard Freeman: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rpfreeman/

Ali Orr: https://www.linkedin.com/in/aliorr/

Jane Barrett: https://www.linkedin.com/in/janelouisebarrett/