The relief of receiving a job offer is often short-lived. What follows is what Senior Forbes Contributor contributor Jack Kelly ornately describes as “the delicate dance of salary negotiation” [1]. For many professionals, this final hurdle proves as nerve-wracking as the interview process itself, filled with concerns about appearing greedy or jeopardising the opportunity altogether.
Indeed, research shows that 55% of professionals accept initial job offers without negotiating, whilst nearly 78% of those who do negotiate end up with higher salaries [2]. And it’s not just a short-term gain. Negotiating just £5,000 more on a starting salary, with average annual raises of 5%, translates to an extra £27,500 over five years [3]. Since future employers often base offers partly on current salary, a successful negotiation can significantly boost earnings throughout an entire career [4].
The tension candidates face is whether to push too hard and risk being perceived as greedy or settle for less and face future regret. But with the right preparation and approach, securing fair compensation needn’t damage relationships or opportunities.
Reframing the Conversation
“Why are you thinking of a negotiation as a conflict?” asks Linda Babcock, economics professor at Carnegie Mellon University and author of Ask for It [5]. She emphasises that negotiations should be conversations, not confrontations. When done properly, both parties achieve their objectives. Employees receive fair compensation, whilst employers retain quality talent who aren’t spending half the day updating their CVs [6].
This collaborative mindset matters particularly in corporate environments. As Max, a contributor to the Financial Times’ ‘Working It’ podcast, makes the case, “It wasn’t my boss’s money. It wasn’t her that was paying me directly. So it’s about how do you build a convincing argument that it makes sense for the business to give me a pay rise” [7]. Understanding that you’re ultimately making a business case to people further up the chain can remove emotion from the equation and focus the conversation on rational justifications.
The cultural context matters too. Just as haggling is expected when buying cars or houses, salary negotiation should be viewed as a standard practice. If an employer has reached the stage of making an offer, they want you to accept. The costs of hiring new employees are substantial, and negotiating for your salary shouldn’t change their decision.
Doing your Homework
Effective negotiation begins long before any conversation takes place. Researching industry-specific salary ranges, accounting for factors such as location, company size, and personal experience, provides a solid foundation for establishing reasonable compensation expectations. Resources like Glassdoor offer valuable data for understanding market rates [8].
Here, again, Max provides a great example. He approached his negotiation by speaking with multiple recruiters and getting a feel for the market. “The strategy I took was to speak to a number of different people and get what I thought was a sensible benchmark for what I actually thought was my job versus what they thought my job was,” he explains [9]. This research allowed him to make two compelling arguments. First, that the company’s benchmark was outdated based on current market rates. Second, given his strong performance over three years, he should be positioned at the higher end of whatever new benchmark was established [10].
Gillian Ku of London Business School also emphasises the importance of comprehensive information gathering. “Arm yourself with information,” she says. “In salary negotiations, think about what you are worth. This means knowing what those in your position (internally and externally) are paid” [11]. Online salary surveys prove helpful, but conversations with friends, mentors, and contacts comfortable sharing information can be equally valuable.
At an absolute minimum, Forbes’ Caroline Castrillon makes the case that it’s vital to establish three key figures. Your ideal number (the salary you’d be excited to receive based on research and qualifications), your target number (a realistic figure slightly above expectations, allowing negotiation room), and your walk-away number (the absolute minimum acceptable based on financial needs and the position’s career value) [12].
Comprehensive Compensation
Whilst salary often dominates discussions, savvy negotiators understand that compensation extends far beyond base pay. Health benefits packages, corporate titles, bonus structures (preferably documented in writing), retirement plans, stock options, and increasingly, remote or hybrid work arrangements all contribute to overall job satisfaction and work-life balance.
For those working in countries in which they may be leaving money behind at current employers — unvested equity grants, stock options, unvested 401(k) contributions, or tuition reimbursement funds requiring repayment — these amounts provide realistic starting points for sign-on bonus requests [13].
For others, simply asking “Is a sign-on bonus available?” and letting the employer name a figure first can prove effective. If pressed for specifics, requesting 10-15% of base salary provides a reasonable starting position [14].
Worth noting is that companies often demonstrate more flexibility with one-time payments like signing bonuses than with permanent salary increases. Similarly, additional equity grants may be easier to secure than higher base pay if budgets are constrained. The key is understanding where flexibility exists and where ironclad constraints like salary caps leave no room for negotiation [15].
Cynthia Saunders-Cheatham of Cornell University’s Johnson Graduate School of Management advises considering vacation time, relocation packages, start dates, and training opportunities [16]. In some cases, negotiating a six-month performance appraisal rather than the typical annual review can create an opportunity for salary increases sooner [17].
Strategic Timing
The timing of negotiations matters considerably. Generally speaking, it’s best to let the employer raise compensation first. Discussing salary too early signals that money is your primary concern rather than the role itself. The ideal moment to negotiate arrives after receiving a formal offer but before accepting it.
When multiple interviews are in progress, consider timing carefully. Having competing offers provides extra bargaining power and demonstrates how in-demand you are. The New York Times spoke to one data analyst who used this strategy effectively, asking her top-choice company for a week to decide whilst awaiting a competitor’s offer. During that time, she requested additional perks never previously considered, including restricted stock units, ultimately receiving £15,400 worth of equity and complete schedule flexibility [18].
When presenting your case, try to frame requests positively. Express genuine enthusiasm for the role and company before discussing compensation, establishing a collaborative tone. Rather than simply stating desired figures, it’s important to explain precisely why they’re justified, such as the reasons you deserve more than others hired, or why specific arrangements suit both parties.
As Deepak Malhotra of Harvard Business School advises: “Never let your proposal speak for itself — always tell the story that goes with it” [19]. If you have no justification for a demand, making it may prove unwise. The inherent tension between likability and demonstrating value requires careful management. Suggesting exceptional value can sound arrogant without thoughtful communication.
Gender Dynamics
Unfortunately, negotiation carries gendered implications requiring careful navigation. Babcock’s research demonstrates that both men and women penalise female employees when they initiate salary negotiations [20]. A 2007 study published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision showed this pattern consistently across genders [21].
“The style that a woman uses to negotiate can backfire and can create backlash, but using a cooperative style can get you what you want and help you avoid the backlash,” Babcock explains [22]. Meanwhile, paying close attention to body language during negotiations is vital so you can gauge reactions in real time. If your manager’s posture changes, tune in and adjust accordingly [24].
Difficult Moments
Preparation for tough questions is also essential. Common challenges include: “Do you have any other offers?” “If we make you an offer tomorrow, will you say yes?” “Are we your top choice?” [25] Being unprepared risks evasive or untruthful responses. Malhotra’s categorical advice is to never lie in a negotiation. It frequently comes back to bite you, and even if it doesn’t, it’s unethical [26].
When Things Don’t Go to Plan
If employers resist counteroffers, Castrillon recommends avoiding immediate concession. Instead, ask questions to understand constraints and explore creative solutions. You might say: “I understand there may be budget considerations. Could we discuss a performance review after six months with potential for adjustment based on results? Or are there other elements of the compensation package we could explore?” [28]
She also suggests one should never apologise for discussing higher salary; negotiation is standard practice employers expect [29]. Nor should one reveal their current salary; it’s irrelevant to market value for the new position. Keep discussions professional rather than personal, focusing on professional value and market rates, not personal financial needs. And be sure to maintain a collaborative tone throughout. After all, how you negotiate can be as important as what you negotiate. As Babcock reminds us: “There’s no cost to being gracious, and if you’re colleagues, you’re in a long-term relationship with this person” [31].
Kim Churches, chief executive of the American Association of University Women, advises employees to “listen to your gut on how much you can go back and forth, then make some decisions. It takes two parties to negotiate” [30]. If the other party shows no interest in continuing dialogue, determine how to move forward. You can attempt one final effort or begin to look elsewhere for employment.
The Long Game
Remember that what’s not negotiable today may become negotiable tomorrow. Over time, interests and constraints change. When someone says no, they’re saying “no, given how I see the world today.” A month later, circumstances may shift. A boss denying requests to work from home on Fridays may lack flexibility on the issue, or you may not yet have built sufficient trust for that arrangement. Six months in, you’ll likely be better positioned to demonstrate you’ll work conscientiously away from the office, or that you deserve that extra zero on your paycheck.
Sources
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/smarter-living/how-to-negotiate-salary.html
[6] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/smarter-living/how-to-negotiate-salary.html
[7] https://www.ft.com/content/412c6b12-c9cb-4118-9573-143f0e3308f2
[9] https://www.ft.com/content/412c6b12-c9cb-4118-9573-143f0e3308f2
[10] https://www.ft.com/content/412c6b12-c9cb-4118-9573-143f0e3308f2
[11] https://www.ft.com/content/4bf4493c-918c-11e8-9609-3d3b945e78cf
[13] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/business/new-job-negotiate-pay-benefits.html
[14] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/business/new-job-negotiate-pay-benefits.html
[15] https://hbr.org/2014/04/15-rules-for-negotiating-a-job-offer
[16] https://www.ft.com/content/977a1364-0495-11e5-95ad-00144feabdc0
[17] https://www.ft.com/content/977a1364-0495-11e5-95ad-00144feabdc0
[18] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/15/business/new-job-negotiate-pay-benefits.html
[19] https://hbr.org/2014/04/15-rules-for-negotiating-a-job-offer
[20] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/smarter-living/how-to-negotiate-salary.html
[21] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/smarter-living/how-to-negotiate-salary.html
[22] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/smarter-living/how-to-negotiate-salary.html
[23] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/smarter-living/how-to-negotiate-salary.html
[24] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/smarter-living/how-to-negotiate-salary.html
[25] https://hbr.org/2014/04/15-rules-for-negotiating-a-job-offer
[26] https://hbr.org/2014/04/15-rules-for-negotiating-a-job-offer
[27] https://hbr.org/2014/04/15-rules-for-negotiating-a-job-offer
[29] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinecastrillon/2025/04/03/3-steps-to-negotiate-a-higher-salary-before-accepting-a-job-offer/ [30] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/smarter-living/how-to-negotiate-salary.html
There’s a peculiar irony at the heart of corporate life. The moment professionals reach the upper echelons of leadership, the scaffolding of support that helped them climb suddenly disappears. Mid-level managers enjoy structured onboarding, regular one-to-ones, skip-level meetings, and formal mentorship. Junior members of staff enjoy a never-ending slew of self-betterment opportunities. Senior leaders, by contrast, often transition into new roles and are met by silence [1]. They’re expected to set vision, guide others, and deliver results immediately, all whilst navigating unfamiliar terrain without a safety net.
Writing in Harvard Business Review, executive coach Marlo Lyons, who has observed this pattern repeatedly, argues that this invisible drop-off represents one of the least-recognised risks in organisations today [2]. The assumption underlying this abandonment is seductive in its simplicity. We are to believe that these individuals have “arrived”. They are masters of their craft who no longer require handholding. Yet this mastery is a myth. The belief that executives inherently “know what they’re doing” simply because they’ve reached the top fundamentally misunderstands the nature of leadership development [3].
The consequences extend far beyond individual executives. When senior leaders lack adequate support, the effects ripple through entire organisations. Decision quality suffers. Cultural stability erodes. Performance declines. And the very people entrusted to set the course for everyone else may find themselves questioning the capabilities that brought them to senior positions, either making poor decisions or hesitating to make them at all.
The Economics of Neglect
The leadership development industry represents a multi-billion-pound global enterprise, yet it harbours what Senior Forbes Contributor Mark Murphy calls the “dirty secret” that most leadership programmes are evaluated by the people who design and deliver them, not by the employees who are supposed to benefit [4]. This fundamental flaw in evaluation methodology helps explain why leadership training continues to disappoint despite massive corporate investment.
Murphy’s research, involving surveys of over 150,000 employees, managers, and executives across hundreds of organisations, reveals a shocking disconnect. Whilst training departments celebrate completion rates and executives praise programme design, the people actually led by these “developed” leaders tell a dramatically different story [5].
Consider the findings from a study of 21,008 employees evaluating their leaders across seven critical competencies. Only 29% say their leader’s vision aligns with organisational goals. Despite countless hours spent in strategic leadership training, more than two-thirds of employees see their leaders as misaligned with organisational direction [6]. Only 20% report that their leader always shares the challenges the organisation faces, despite transparency being a core component of virtually every leadership programme [7]. And merely 27% say their leader always encourages and recognises suggestions for improvement, even though creative leadership and employee engagement have become ubiquitous buzzwords in professional development [8].
The business impact proves even more damning. Employees who believe their leaders demonstrate strong leadership are dramatically more engaged and productive. Those whose leaders share organisational challenges are ten times more likely to recommend their company as a great employer. Employees whose leaders encourage suggestions for improvement are twelve times more likely to recommend their organisation [9]. The return on investment potential is enormous, if leadership development actually produced effective leaders.
Why Support Evaporates at the Top
Several interlocking factors explain why organisations cease investing in talent development precisely when the stakes are highest. Beyond the mastery myth, there’s the matter of programme prioritisation. Companies direct resources towards directors and vice presidents, where leadership pipelines are built and turnover is higher [10]. This makes intuitive sense from a resource allocation perspective, but it ignores the exponentially greater impact (both positive and negative) that senior leaders wield.
Then there’s what Lyons identifies as “the stoicism culture” [11]. Admitting uncertainty at senior levels is perceived as weakness, particularly when executives were hired to “figure it out” on their own. This creates a vicious cycle in which senior leaders don’t ask for development or support because they believe they should already have the answers, which reinforces organisational assumptions that such support is unnecessary [12].
This stoicism and resistance can lead to isolation and anxiety at the top. SVPs, EVPs, and C-level leaders may begin questioning the very capabilities that elevated them to these positions. Some respond by reverting to old habits such as getting into the weeds on execution instead of strategy, because that’s where it feels safe and how they rose through the ranks [13].
Writing in Forbes, Professor of Leadership at Henley Business School Benjamin Laker frames the problem more broadly: “The higher someone climbs, the less likely they are to be formally supported in thinking critically, creatively or ethically” [14]. This isn’t merely short-sighted. It’s genuinely risky. The most senior people in firms hold decision rights over the biggest levers, be it strategic priorities, organisational culture, financial bets, technology adoption, or workforce policies. When their thinking becomes stale or reactive, the consequences echo far beyond the boardroom.
A Dearth of Thinking
Much of what’s celebrated in business relies on what psychologists call System 1 thinking. It’s fast, intuitive, and efficient. But when complexity enters the picture, instinct isn’t enough. The messy, high-stakes challenges that now define leadership, such as climate change, geopolitical tension, workforce transformation, or AI ethics, cannot be solved on autopilot [15].
As Daniel Kahneman observed in Thinking Fast and Slow, “Thinking is to humans as swimming is to cats. We can do it, but we’d rather not” [16]. Deep, reflective thought is cognitively expensive, and most of us avoid it. That becomes problematic when leaders are tasked with navigating uncertainty, interpreting ambiguous data, and making decisions affecting hundreds or thousands of lives.
The World Economic Forum lists analytical and creative thinking as the top skills needed in the global workforce [17]. Yet in many leadership pipelines, these skills are underdeveloped and under-supported [18]. The danger is compounded by artificial intelligence tools that, whilst streamlining tasks, also discourage hard thinking. When tools generate plausible answers before leaders finish formulating their questions, the temptation to skip the difficult parts such as wrestling with ambiguity, weighing nuance, or facing doubt becomes stronger [19].
The risk isn’t that AI provides bad answers. It’s that it delivers “good enough” ones that sound right, feel familiar, and allow us to move on. But effective leadership isn’t about sounding right. It’s about being right, at the right time, for the right reasons [20].
Five strategies
Addressing this paradox requires deliberate intervention. Lyons proposes five strategies to close the gap between senior leaders’ needs and the support organisations provide [21].
First, normalise executive onboarding every time. One successful senior executive Lyons onboarded received personalised training covering company and product history, the history of the team they were hired to lead, and company-culture nuances. Within two weeks, she had gained deep knowledge that accelerated her ability to make an impact [22]. Not every company can create personalised onboarding for every senior leader, but they do need executive onboarding that’s more comprehensive than what’s provided to all new hires. This should include specialised sessions focusing on expectations, company-specific leadership styles, and culture dynamics, scheduled meet-and-greets with cross-functional stakeholders, and daily touchpoints during the first two weeks to answer questions so mistakes are minimal and confidence can build quickly.
Second, build confidential peer-coaching opportunities. Every senior leader needs a safe space to test ideas without fear of judgement. Coaching that pairs leaders with peers from different functions can create that outlet. Rotating peer-coaching partners quarterly for the first year can broaden perspectives and relationships. Small senior leadership group forums where executives workshop challenges can reframe vulnerability as a strength and collaboration as the norm, reducing isolation whilst normalising learning [23].
Third, facilitate reflection early and often. Executives benefit from structured reflection time, particularly in their first six months. Sessions where leaders examine what’s going well, what’s unclear, and where adjustments are needed, facilitated by neutral internal or external facilitators, reduce performance pressure and create space for vulnerability. Positioning reflection as an investment in accelerating impact provides executives time and permission to adjust before small issues escalate [24].
Fourth, introduce focused 360-degree assessments at key intervals. Feedback doesn’t end at the director or vice president level. In fact, it’s even more critical at the top, where blind spots carry organisational consequences. Lyons has witnessed senior executives hesitate to give direct feedback to a new peer, choosing instead to discuss concerns privately and hoping the individual will “figure it out” [25]. The results are predictable. It ends in misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and eventual failure . Running a 360 assessment to capture early impressions can shape direct feedback and help a leader pivot quickly. Conducting another at six months evaluates growth and alignment. This practice reinforces a culture of continuous learning, even at the highest levels [26].
Fifth, formalise upstream mentorship and coaching. Senior leaders need trusted guides, sometimes a board member, other times an external executive coach. Pairing new executives with mentors who understand the unique stakes of senior leadership provides essential guidance and perspective. External coaches bring not only impartiality but also insight about navigating company culture. Connecting new leaders with board sponsors can accelerate their understanding of the organisation’s higher-level risk and governance approach, grounding them in the strategic, financial, and reputational considerations that drive board-level priorities [27].
Learning leaders
There’s a tendency in both business and policy to cut the ladder after the climb, assuming that those who’ve reached the top no longer need support for their continued ascent. The evidence suggests otherwise. Leadership is a practice that deteriorates without deliberate effort. Smart firms won’t wait to be told this. They’ll invest in learning not because it’s mandated, but because it’s mission-critical. Because once thinking stops, leadership does too.
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/10/senior-leaders-still-need-learning-and-development
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/10/senior-leaders-still-need-learning-and-development
[3] https://hbr.org/2025/10/senior-leaders-still-need-learning-and-development
[10] https://hbr.org/2025/10/senior-leaders-still-need-learning-and-development
[11] https://hbr.org/2025/10/senior-leaders-still-need-learning-and-development
[12] https://hbr.org/2025/10/senior-leaders-still-need-learning-and-development
[13] https://hbr.org/2025/10/senior-leaders-still-need-learning-and-development
[21] https://hbr.org/2025/10/senior-leaders-still-need-learning-and-development
[22] https://hbr.org/2025/10/senior-leaders-still-need-learning-and-development
[23] https://hbr.org/2025/10/senior-leaders-still-need-learning-and-development
[24] https://hbr.org/2025/10/senior-leaders-still-need-learning-and-development
[25] https://hbr.org/2025/10/senior-leaders-still-need-learning-and-development
[26] https://hbr.org/2025/10/senior-leaders-still-need-learning-and-development
[27] https://hbr.org/2025/10/senior-leaders-still-need-learning-and-development
Meetings have become the defining ritual of corporate life. They structure our calendars, consume our energy, and far too often erode our productivity. According to the Wall Street Journal, the average worker spends two days a week in meetings and on email, equating to 40% of their time at work, while executives spend an astonishing 23 hours a week in meetings alone, according to MIT’s Sloan School of Management [1]. In the US, this translates to a staggering cost of at least $25,000 per employee annually in lost productivity, representing one of the most significant drains on organisational resources in contemporary business [2].
The shift to remote and hybrid work has exacerbated these challenges, as organisations increasingly rely on meetings to maintain alignment, ensure visibility, and compensate for the perceived loss of in-person interaction [3]. In some company cultures, meetings have even evolved into monitoring tools rather than collaborative spaces for meaningful exchange. Yet despite this proliferation, Harvard Business Review research reveals that 70% of meetings impede employees’ efforts to accomplish “productive work” [4]. The data is unequivocal in showing that not only do we have too many meetings, but many of them are unnecessary or downright counterproductive.
Anatomy of meeting dysfunction
The dysfunction begins with fundamental misunderstandings about when meetings are actually necessary. Organisational psychologist Adam Grant identifies only four legitimate reasons to convene a meeting, “to decide, learn, bond, and do” [5]. If a meeting doesn’t accomplish any one of these objectives, Grant offers blunt advice: “Cancel it” [6]. Yet organisations routinely schedule gatherings that could be replaced by a simple email, consuming valuable time that could be devoted to substantive work.
Recent research illuminates the scope of this problem. When asked about work meetings, 29% of respondents said they were often very long and unproductive, whilst 42% reported that no decisions were made during these gatherings [7]. This tendency to “gather” leads to enormous waste of time and prevents organisations from capitalising on opportunities to align teams and set guidelines for improving business performance.
The problem extends beyond mere inefficiency. As José Luís González Rodriguez, Partner of ActionCOACH Spain, notes, “Any activity that is unproductive involves a no-return expense for the company. To the extent that there are several people gathered using part of their working day without adding value to the company, we are incurring an unnecessary and absurd expense, which makes the company less efficient and less competitive — not to mention the demotivating effect of attending meetings that waste their time” [8].
The executive trap
Perhaps nowhere is meeting dysfunction more pronounced than at the executive level, where the very structure of one-on-one meetings works against organisational interests. Writing in Harvard Business Review, Ron Carucci, cofounder and managing partner at Navalent, argues that the proliferation of executive one-on-ones creates four core problems: fragmented governance, functional bias, decision repackaging, and executive rivalry and collusion [9].
Carucci documents the experience of Melissa, a CEO of a tech company in the healthcare sector, who discovered that her well-intentioned one-on-ones were creating organisational dysfunction. Despite priding herself on being a transparent, inclusive leader, she learned that critical decisions affecting multiple departments were being made in isolation, with affected parties learning about changes from their peers rather than directly from leadership [10]. The VP of engineering learned about a deprioritised product feature from the VP of marketing, whilst the VP of quality discovered a new project to accelerate product delivery from the VP of operations.
This fragmentation occurs because “each one-on-one functions like a mini steering committee, but with no one else in the room. Governance becomes informal and duplicative, requiring rework and follow-up meetings just to keep others up to speed” [11]. The result is not efficiency but rather a multiplication of meetings and misalignment that could have been avoided through more thoughtful meeting design.
Meeting hangovers
The impact of dysfunctional meetings extends far beyond the conference room. Assistant Professor of Psychological and Organizational Science at the University of North Carolina Brent N. Reed identifies the phenomenon of “meeting hangovers”, the lingering effects of bad meetings that drain productivity and morale long after participants have returned to their desks [12]. These hangovers manifest when meetings lack clear objectives, include unnecessary participants, fail to produce actionable outcomes, or run over their allocated time.
To prevent these productivity drains, organisations must focus on fundamental meeting hygiene. This includes facilitating rather than dominating discussions, cutting guest lists to include only essential participants, transforming agendas into action plans, and demanding accountability for follow-through [5]. As the research suggests, “Fewer attendees mean more-focused conversations — and ultimately better outcomes” [13].
The importance of disciplined meeting management becomes even more critical in hybrid work environments. Mike Tolliver and Jonathan Sass, Director of Product Management and Vice President of Product and Marketing at Vyopta, note that “hybrid work has changed meetings forever,” with participation rates declining and virtual fatigue becoming widespread [14]. Their research reveals that 54% of all meetings are hosted by just 10% of employees, suggesting that targeted training for these “power users” can help promote a healthier meeting culture across entire organisations [15].
Reclaiming meeting culture
Transforming meeting culture requires a fundamental shift from viewing meetings as default activities to treating them as strategic investments. Forbes writer Caroline Castrillon advocates for implementing a “meeting budget system” that treats leaders’ time as finite resources, quantifying available meeting hours and prioritising only those gatherings that create genuine value [16]. This approach has shown remarkable results. Netflix’s implementation of strict meeting disciplines, including a 30-minute maximum duration, has reduced meetings by more than 65%, with over 85% of employees reporting improved productivity [17].
The key lies in recognising that different types of meetings serve different purposes and require distinct approaches. McKinsey research identifies three categories. They are decision-making meetings that result in final decisions, creative solutions and coordination meetings that generate potential solutions, and information-sharing meetings that should be the first target for elimination [18]. By clearly defining the purpose of each gathering, organisations can ensure that participants arrive with appropriate expectations and are prepared to contribute meaningfully.
Curiosity and structure
Global CEO coach and keynote speaker Sabina Nawaz advocates for using curiosity as a tool to keep meetings focused and engaging [19]. Rather than dominating discussions, meeting leaders should ask participants to define the goal in one sentence, actively listen to diverse perspectives, and provide feedback without judgmental language. This approach not only maintains meeting momentum but also empowers participants to contribute more authentically.
The structural elements of effective meetings cannot be overlooked. President and CEO of Tech Alpharetta Karen Cashion emphasises five critical attributes. She recommends advance preparation with clear agendas, punctual starts that signal respect for participants’ time, staying on agenda whilst maintaining control, having materials ready before the meeting begins, and ending precisely on schedule [20]. These seemingly elementary points address fundamental failures that plague most organisational meetings.
Accountability systems
The true measure of meeting effectiveness lies not in what happens during the session but in what unfolds afterward. Too often, meetings generate good intentions that dissipate amidst other pressing demands. Successful organisations implement robust accountability systems that include ending each meeting with clear action plans, documenting and distributing action items within 24 hours, and beginning subsequent meetings by reviewing progress on previous commitments [21].
This accountability loop ensures that meetings drive real progress rather than becoming isolated events disconnected from actual work. As González Rodriguez notes, “Meetings should be short and very executive. The leader of the meeting must know how to handle very well the contents of the meeting, as well as the time allocated to each item on the agenda” [22].
How to have productive meetings
The organisations that thrive moving forward will be those that master the art of productive meetings by treating them not merely as efficiency exercises but as demonstrations of respect for their teams’ most valuable resource –– time and attention. This requires moving beyond traditional approaches to embrace new models that prioritise quality over quantity.
For senior executives, this may mean shifting from frequent one-on-ones to quarterly development conversations and implementing “capability meetings” that bring together cross-functional leaders around specific business outcomes [23]. For all leaders, it means developing the discipline to ask hard questions about meeting necessity, designing gatherings that serve clear purposes, and creating systems that ensure follow-through on decisions and commitments.
The cost of maintaining the status quo is too high to ignore. When meetings consume significant portions of working time without delivering proportionate value, they represent a form of organisational self-sabotage that undermines competitiveness and employee engagement. By implementing strategic meeting disciplines, leaders can reclaim their organisation’s most precious resource and create environments where focus, innovation, and execution can flourish.
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/02/the-hidden-toll-of-meeting-hangovers
[9] https://hbr.org/2025/07/why-senior-leaders-should-stop-having-so-many-one-on-ones
[10] https://hbr.org/2025/07/why-senior-leaders-should-stop-having-so-many-one-on-ones
[11] https://hbr.org/2025/07/why-senior-leaders-should-stop-having-so-many-one-on-ones
[12] https://hbr.org/2025/02/the-hidden-toll-of-meeting-hangovers
[13] https://hbr.org/2025/02/the-hidden-toll-of-meeting-hangovers
[14] https://hbr.org/2024/06/hybrid-work-has-changed-meetings-forever
[15] https://hbr.org/2024/06/hybrid-work-has-changed-meetings-forever
[19] https://hbr.org/2024/01/how-curiosity-can-make-your-meetings-and-team-better
[23] https://hbr.org/2025/07/why-senior-leaders-should-stop-having-so-many-one-on-ones
The modern workplace faces a peculiar paradox. Whilst organisations invest heavily in strategic planning and leadership development, a growing chasm exists between executive decision-making and operational execution. This disconnect manifests in multiple ways, from C-suite indecision that paralyses middle management to misalignment between human resources teams and senior leadership that undermines people strategies. The result is organisational inertia at precisely the moment when agility and clarity are most needed.
Writing in Harvard Business Review on the issue of managing a team when the C-suite isn’t providing strategic direction, Jenny Fernandez and Kathryn Landis give the example of Lauren, a VP of operations at a high-growth technology firm, who found herself caught in an all-too-familiar predicament. The C-suite kept stalling on key decisions, including product investments, organisational restructuring, and resource allocations [1]. As leadership froze, accountability rolled downhill, leaving Lauren to manage confusion, stalled progress, and a restless team. Her situation reflects a broader crisis of executive effectiveness that is costing organisations dearly.
According to McKinsey, slow decision-making is a major driver of organisational underperformance and employee burnout, wasting over 500,000 manager days annually and costing Fortune 500 companies around £200 million in lost wages annually [2]. Meanwhile, Gallup research indicates that unclear expectations are a leading cause of employee disengagement [3]. These statistics paint a stark picture of leadership failure that extends far beyond individual cases.
Executive paralysis
The roots of C-suite indecision often lie in an organisational culture that treats reversible decisions as irreversible ones. This phenomenon becomes particularly pronounced during periods of economic uncertainty or transformation, when executive hesitation erodes momentum, weakens credibility, and drives high performers to disengage. The psychological barrier to decision-making increases when proposals feel large, final, or irreversible, even when they need not be.
Amazon’s distinction between Type 1 and Type 2 decisions offers a useful framework for understanding this paralysis [4]. Type 1 decisions are high-stakes, irreversible “one-way doors” that require careful deliberation due to their lasting impact. Type 2 decisions are low-risk, reversible “two-way doors” that can be made quickly because they’re easy to revisit or revise. The critical error many organisations make is treating the reversible as irreversible, causing them to overanalyse, overprocess, and slow down unnecessarily.
This misclassification of decisions creates a cascade of problems throughout the organisation. When senior leaders fail to provide clear strategic direction, middle managers, who serve as the crucial link between executive vision and operational reality, find themselves adrift. As one team member in Lauren’s situation observed: “We’re driving in circles. What’s the actual destination?” [5].
The HR disconnect
The leadership gap extends beyond operational decision-making into the realm of people strategy, where a troubling disconnect exists between human resources teams and the C-suite. Recent survey data from Lattice reveals only 48% of HR leaders say their C-suite takes employee engagement survey data seriously, whilst a mere 27% believe their C-suite sees HR’s impact on business revenue [6]. Perhaps most concerning, 44% of HR leaders feel increased pressure from the C-suite to justify the investment in people programmes [7].
This disconnect represents a fundamental failure of strategic alignment. As Cara Brennan Allamano, Lattice’s chief people officer, notes: “A strong, strategic CPO should have a deep understanding of the company’s business goals and objectives, using those as a north star to design talent strategies that contribute directly to achieving those goals” [8]. Yet many HR leaders walk into organisations with their own ideals about how companies should operate, with limited regard for broader organisational goals and existing culture.
The consequences of this misalignment are severe. In an era where companies routinely proclaim that people are their most valuable asset, the message rings hollow when C-suite leaders and HR aren’t working in harmony. The irony is particularly acute given that robust people strategy has become essential for company success in today’s business environment.
Change vs resistance
Compounding these challenges is the fundamental paradox of leadership transitions. Companies hire executives to drive change, but their cultures are often built to defend the status quo. This resistance to change isn’t always about defiance. More often, it stems from fear. Employees who have spent years mastering a system worry that change will diminish their expertise, reduce their influence, or put their jobs at risk.
This fear extends even to senior executives themselves. Recent survey data shows that whilst 91% of C-suite leaders are adopting generative AI, 87% also express deep concerns about its risks [9]. Such hesitation at the top trickles down throughout the organisation, creating what Sabeer Nelliparamban, writing in Forbes, describes as “leadership inertia.” [10]
The Center for Creative Leadership reports that failure rates for newly appointed executives range from 30% to 50% within the first 18 months of their tenure, typically due to unclear expectations, lack of alignment, and internal resistance [11]. For incoming leaders, this creates a high-stakes dilemma. If they push too hard, too fast, they risk alienating the very people needed for success. If they move too cautiously, they risk being absorbed into the inertia they were hired to break.
Bridging the strategic divide
Successful navigation of these challenges requires a multifaceted approach that addresses both decision-making processes and communication structures. The most effective leaders learn to reframe requests in ways that reduce psychological barriers to approval. Fernandez and Landis argue that instead of presenting proposals as comprehensive, final plans requiring immediate commitment, companies should position initiatives as “30-day pilots to gather insights before scaling” [12]. This shift transforms high-stakes decisions into low-risk experiments, enabling faster progress whilst managing perceived risk.
Equally important is the ability to quantify the cost of inaction. When executives hesitate, effective leaders make delay costs visible through real data demonstrating how stalled decisions affect business performance, employee morale, or competitive advantage. As one example illustrates, by presenting hard numbers (£180,000 in monthly churn losses and a 12% drop in engagement linked to delay) a leader shifted executive mindset and secured approval within a week [13].
The role of middle management becomes crucial in this context. These leaders serve as strategic connectors between the top floor and shop floor, and their empowerment is essential for organisational success. Research suggests that rather than eliminating middle management layers, organisations should involve these leaders in setting key performance indicators, ensuring they are bought in and can champion goals to frontline employees whilst providing candid feedback to senior leaders [14].
Technology
In today’s sophisticated, tech-savvy boardroom environment, the ability to communicate impact through data has become essential. HR leaders who exceed their goals are almost three times more likely to use performance management software and more likely to employ advanced tools for employee engagement, learning, and analytics [15]. Conversely, 65% of low-performing teams rely on simplistic tools [16].
This technology gap represents more than just operational efficiency. It demonstrates a fundamental shift in how organisational impact is measured and communicated. The rise of artificial intelligence has made clear that technological innovation isn’t slowing, with 76% of HR leaders exploring ways to incorporate AI into their practices [17]. As Donald Knight, CPO at Greenhouse, told Forbes, “HR leaders view AI as a tool, rather than a threat,” seeing it as a means of automating repetitive tasks to allow focus on more strategic initiatives [18].
Rebuilding trust
The foundation for bridging these leadership gaps lies in rebuilding trust through transparency and authentic communication. This requires what Gianna Driver, chief human resources officer at Exabeam, describes as embracing “the art of having a difficult conversation” [19]. Research indicates that transparent communications from leadership is the top driver of workplace culture [20], yet many leaders shy away from the challenging discussions that could resolve misalignments.
Effective communication at the senior level is not about simply sharing decisions but about explaining the thought process behind those decisions. As Nicky Hancock of the Forbes Human Resources Council notes, “The C-suite must show its thought process so middle managers can better understand how it supports the long-term strategy. Otherwise, they may feel they aren’t being heard, valued or trusted” [21].
This transparency extends to acknowledging when decisions are delayed or uncertain. Rather than leaving teams to speculate about direction, successful leaders maintain open channels of communication about what’s known, what’s unknown, and what’s being done to resolve ambiguity. They recognise that their role becomes that of translator, motivator, and shock absorber during periods of executive uncertainty.
What to do when the C-suite fails
The challenges of leadership alignment in modern organisations are not insurmountable, but they require deliberate effort and sustained commitment from all levels of leadership. Successful organisations recognise that strategic indecision at the top represents both a leadership stress test and a proving ground for emerging leaders.
The solution lies not in eliminating uncertainty, which is impossible in today’s volatile business environment, but in building organisational capabilities to navigate ambiguity effectively. This means creating decision-making frameworks that distinguish between reversible and irreversible choices, empowering middle management to act within defined parameters, and ensuring that support functions like HR are strategically aligned with business objectives.
Perhaps most importantly, it requires a fundamental shift in how organisations think about leadership itself. Rather than viewing leadership as a top-down function concentrated in the C-suite, successful organisations recognise that leadership capability must be distributed throughout the organisation. As Fernandez and Landis observe, “Leadership isn’t just about making decisions. It’s about how you lead through the space between them” [22].
Sources
The MIT Media Lab/Project NANDA recently released findings showing that 95% of investments in generative AI have produced zero returns [1]. This revelation comes at a time when the underwhelming launch of OpenAI’s GPT-5 has provided ammunition for sceptics questioning whether AI’s progress is slowing, with The Economist suggesting that generative AI is entering its “trough of disillusionment” era [2].
Yet these headlines tell only part of the story. The MIT report itself is more nuanced, acknowledging that whilst individuals are successfully adopting generative AI tools that increase their productivity, such results aren’t measurable at a profit and loss level, and companies are struggling with enterprise-wide deployments [3]. More tellingly, most spending on AI experiments goes to sales and marketing initiatives, despite the fact that back-end transformations tend to produce the biggest return on investment [4].
For business leaders, this presents a familiar dilemma. How can companies learn to harness these transformative tools without falling into the same traps that ensnared so many during the digital transformation era? The answer lies in understanding that experimentation, whilst essential, must be purposeful rather than scattershot.
Déjà vu
The current AI experimentation frenzy bears uncomfortable similarities to the digital transformation mistakes of the previous decade. When many leaders felt confused about digital transformation and the path forward, they embraced innovation and experimentation with a “let 10,000 flowers bloom” approach, hoping that a few experiments would produce unicorn-level returns [5].
This lack of focus proved to be a blunder. Without a clear connection to real business opportunity, the result, as described by Professor of Strategy at INSEAD Nathan Furr and John H. Loudon Chaired Professor of International Management at INSEAD Andrew Shipilov, was “a morass of unfocused, under-resourced teams that produced few scalable results” [6]. Facing disappointing returns, many leaders naturally concluded that experimentation with digital was broken and shut down the experiments, either returning to business as usual or refocusing on safer bets like replacing ageing IT systems [7].
The fundamental error was losing sight of business’s most basic objective: solving problems for customers. By framing AI as radical and disruptive, organisations often disconnect from this core purpose [8]. As one CEO admitted to Forbes’ Andrew Binns, “we are going to spend $2 billion on AI, I don’t know what on, but we are going to invest” [9]. This statement reveals the danger of investment without strategic direction.
The Broader Context
To avoid repeating past mistakes, leaders must first understand AI within the larger arc of transformation. The true change organisations are wrestling with isn’t simply about AI. Rather, it’s about a fundamental shift from digital technology operating at the periphery of organisations to digital technology operating at the very core [10].
Previously, IT was about laptops, Wi-Fi, printing, and databases for registry of core activities. Now, organisations are built around digital workflows and customer journeys rather than their own production activities [11]. In essence, every company is becoming a technology company, moving from people performing tasks based on human judgement and intuition to a world of data- and AI-driven decisions, overseen by humans but not necessarily with people as the core engine of activity [12].
Consider how Ant Financial makes lending decisions or Amazon makes pricing decisions, with humans only overseeing, not doing, the activity [13]. This represents a profound shift that will take many years to complete but will ultimately lead to a fundamentally different kind of organisation.
Understanding this bigger picture helps leaders remember that the point is to transform the business to use technology to serve customers better, faster, easier, and cheaper. All forms of AI, including generative AI, are simply tools — one of many — that can help accomplish this objective [14].
The Four Traps
Whilst strategic misalignment represents the overarching challenge, companies face several specific traps that can derail their AI initiatives. The first is resisting adoption altogether due to discomfort with the unknown [15]. Yet as Holly Shipley, a Google alumna and strategic leader spearheading generative AI efforts at a Fortune 200 tech company, notes: “Employees should be focused on the basic functionality of genAI tools like ChatGPT. This will reduce the learning curve when genAI is integrated into tools employees already use” [16].
The second trap involves fearing AI will replace human workers entirely. However, research reveals that more than 70% of workers would delegate tasks to AI to lighten their load, with organisational psychology professor Adam Grant observing, “It’s fascinating that people are more excited about AI rescuing them from burnout than they are worried about it eliminating their jobs” [17]. The reality is that individuals won’t be replaced by AI, but they will be replaced by someone who knows how to use AI [18].
The third trap represents a fundamental misunderstanding of technology’s role in solving problems. Companies often expect AI to fix cultural problems that require human intervention. For instance, AI can speed up email responses, but if companies judge employee performance by response time, it may actually increase email volume rather than reducing it [19]. Similarly, AI might help prioritise meetings, but it cannot address the underlying cultural issue of using meeting invitations as affirmations of influence and worth [20].
The fourth trap involves immediately backfilling any time AI saves with additional tasks [21]. The margins that AI could create would be beneficially used for rest, white space, relationships, and creative brainstorming, but organisational obsession with busyness often leads to filling any created space with more work [22].
The Perils of Overinvestment
The current AI investment frenzy recalls other innovation trends, particularly the “big data” revolution of the early 2000s. General Electric’s ambitious bid to become a “top ten software company” serves as a cautionary tale [23]. Seeing the possibility for an Industrial Internet of Things, GE forecast a market worth $500 billion by 2020 and committed itself to achieving first-mover advantage. It tripled its R&D budget, built a 1,000-person software division, and launched its own big data platform, Predix [24].
Five years later, the strategy had failed spectacularly. The CEO was fired, the company dropped out of the Dow Jones 30 for the first time, and GE’s software ambitions folded [25]. The problem wasn’t technical. It was that GE built a big data platform that was a mismatch with the diversity of the manufacturing sector, treating an emerging, uncertain market the same way they handled mature ones [26].
Most of GE’s toxic assumptions were about non-technical topics like customer priorities, similarities between manufacturers, ease of capturing data, and IT organisations’ readiness for new roles [27]. These critical assumptions were knowable in advance, but GE lacked the patience and humility to discover what potential customers actually wanted before launching.
Focused Experimentation
Furr and Shipilov argue that successful AI experimentation requires balancing three elements: connection to true value creation, low costs that allow multiple learning cycles, and design with an eye toward eventual scaling [28]. This sounds simple but proves difficult in practice, with leaders either charging ahead without considering scalability or becoming bogged down obsessing about enterprise readiness from day one.
The solution lies in striking a balance through what Furr and Shipilov call the IFD framework, standing for intensity, frequency, and density [29]. When evaluating potential AI applications, leaders should assess how intense the problem is, how frequently it occurs, and how many users or instances of the problem exist. For example, developing digital tools to help apartment managers order repair services might seem valuable, but parents wanting to ensure their child’s safety every night represents a more intense, frequent, and dense problem worth solving [30].
Once experiments prove their value, scaling requires careful attention and dedicated resources. Someone with power to create change must own the initiative, leading a “ninja” team with air cover from senior leadership, company-wide connections to secure resources, and focus to scale effectively [31]. These teams, observed at companies like Amazon, Qualtrics, and 7-Eleven, possess the organisational clout necessary to transform experiments into enterprise-wide solutions [32].
Going Forward
As organisations enter what some call the post-enthusiasm wave of AI, many leaders risk misinterpreting implementation challenges as signals that AI cannot create value [33]. They face the same danger that plagued digital transformation. That is, falling behind whilst competitors advance.
The truth is that AI can create significant value. But creating value always returns to the initial moment of experiment design, when teams can see how new tools create value for customers.
Success requires de-risking business models through small, relatively cheap experiments that test hypotheses before committing substantial resources. As Henley Business School’s Narendra Laljani argues, every business has a “mental model” that explains the world through unconscious, unarticulated assumptions about success [34]. When pressure mounts, organisations default to these models, which for corporates often means “go big or go home” [35].
Just because generative AI could represent innovation on the scale of the printing press doesn’t justify indiscriminate spending. Instead, leaders must de-risk their innovations with rapid experiments testing critical assumptions underlying their investments. Fortune favours the learner, not merely the brave.
The fundamental lesson remains unchanged. Regardless of what new tools emerge, business’s purpose will always be solving important problems for customers. Companies that remember this whilst thoughtfully experimenting with AI will avoid the experimentation trap and unlock genuine transformation. Those that don’t risk joining the 95% whose investments produce zero returns, a fate as avoidable as it is expensive.
Sources
[1] https://fortune.com/2025/08/18/mit-report-95-percent-generative-ai-pilots-at-companies-failing-cfo/
[2] https://www.economist.com/business/2025/05/21/welcome-to-the-ai-trough-of-disillusionment
[3] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[4] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[5] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[6] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[7] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[8] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[10] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[11] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[12] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[13] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[14] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[28] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[29] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[30] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[31] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[32] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[33] https://hbr.org/2025/08/beware-the-ai-experimentation-trap?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
The collapse of Color Labs in 2012 stands as a stark reminder that massive early funding can become a startup’s greatest liability. Despite raising £41 million before even launching their photo-sharing app, the company shuttered operations within two years, leaving £25 million unspent [1]. The failure wasn’t due to lack of capital, but rather the wrong kind of capital at the wrong time, a phenomenon that’s reshaping how entrepreneurs and investors approach startup financing in an increasingly complex market.
Color Labs’ demise illustrates a critical but often overlooked principle: when startups receive funding can have as significant an impact on innovation as how much funding they secure. The company’s massive early investment created pressure to scale rapidly instead of refining the product, ultimately shifting the focus from experimentation to exploitation too quickly [2]. This cautionary tale has profound implications for today’s startup ecosystem, where artificial intelligence tools are fundamentally altering traditional funding models whilst economic uncertainty demands more strategic approaches to investment timing.
The Innovation Paradox of Early Funding
Recent research by Harsh Ketkar of the University of Texas and Maria Roche of Harvard Business School challenges conventional wisdom about startup financing. Their analysis of 11,853 US tech companies founded between 2010 and 2019 reveals a counterintuitive truth that financial constraints can actually benefit startups by forcing them to be scrappy and resourceful [3].
“We wanted to conduct this research because we were always baffled by prior studies that said being constrained is actually very good for startups,” explains Roche. “How can not having a lot of cash be a good thing?” [4]. The answer lies in how funding timing affects a company’s willingness to experiment and innovate.
The researchers measured innovation by examining how unconventional the combinations of technologies used in each startup’s product were compared to industry peers. Companies using novel technology combinations tend to create more innovative and functional products than those relying on popular tech stacks [5]. Their findings are striking. Startups that receive their first funding round later are more likely to continue experimenting after the money arrives, whilst those receiving larger early investments use more technologies but combine them in less unusual ways, signalling reduced experimentation [6].
This suggests that “although earlier (and/or higher) availability of funding may ease survival pangs during a firm’s infancy, it also may diminish the need to experiment and search for technological combinations that constitute an innovative product” [7]. The implications extend beyond immediate product development. Early access to capital may prevent firms from developing innovation-oriented capabilities that would benefit them throughout their lifecycle.
The AI Revolution
The landscape described by Ketkar and Roche’s research is evolving rapidly thanks to artificial intelligence. Silicon Valley is witnessing a fundamental shift away from the traditional model of raising massive sums to hire armies of workers. Instead, AI-powered startups are achieving remarkable efficiency with minimal staffing [8].
Grant Lee, founder of Gamma, exemplifies this new approach. His AI startup has achieved “tens of millions” in annual recurring revenue and nearly 50 million users with just 28 employees (and importantly, the company is profitable) [9]. “If we were from the generation before, we would easily be at 200 employees,” Lee observes. “We get a chance to rethink that, basically rewrite the playbook” [10].
This efficiency revolution has created what venture capitalists call “tiny team” success stories. Anysphere, maker of the coding software Cursor, reached $100 million in annual recurring revenue in less than two years with just 20 employees, whilst ElevenLabs, an AI voice startup, achieved similar results with around 50 workers [11]. These examples represent a fundamental departure from the old Silicon Valley model where bigger was inherently better.
The financial implications are significant. Before the AI boom, startups generally burned $1 million to generate $1 million in revenue. Now, according to analysis by venture firm Afore Capital, getting to $1 million in revenue costs one-fifth as much and could eventually drop to one-tenth of previous costs [12]. As investor Gaurav Jain notes, “This time we’re automating humans as opposed to just the data centers” [13].
Strategic Investor Selection in the New Paradigm
The changing economics of startup development doesn’t diminish the importance of choosing the right investors. If anything, it makes it more critical. Roche’s research suggests entrepreneurs building technology products should ask three fundamental questions before accepting investment [13].
The first concerns alignment on experimentation. “Firms that don’t accept early funding can afford to wait and experiment until they find the innovation that separates them from the competition,” Roche explains [14]. Startups that wait to accept funding aren’t constrained by investor oversight and the pressure for immediate success, allowing experimentation to become part of the company’s DNA. This suggests finding investors who value experimentation and tolerate risk as much as the founders do, rather than large institutions demanding immediate or short-term financial results.
Strategic fit represents the second crucial consideration. Investors’ preferred exit strategies — acquisition, IPO, or allowing sustained growth as a profitable standalone company — significantly impact operational decisions and growth trajectories. Those seeking near-term IPOs are more likely to push for quicker results over constant experimentation, whilst hands-on investors who want to select technologies can close firms off to the change that drives innovation [15].
The third factor involves investor experience and reputation. “The experience and approach of investors can significantly impact a startup’s ability to remain flexible, innovative, and unconventional, even when they receive large amounts of funding,” Roche emphasises [16]. Experienced tech investors who have worked with resource-constrained startups understand the balance between growth and innovation, making them more likely to encourage experimentation and scrappiness than first-time investors or those lacking technology company experience.
Rethinking Investment Myths
The current investment landscape requires startups to navigate what Karen Grant and David Wright, seasoned investors, describe as a “perfect storm” [17]. Rising interest rates and inflation have created conditions that favour safer investments, whilst founders are seeking funding earlier than ever, often relying on external sources to kickstart entrepreneurial endeavours [18].
Wright highlights the mathematical reality: “When interest rates go up, valuation multiples come down. The glory days of the VC era are behind us” [19]. His analysis of venture capital performance over 40 years reveals that despite including standout periods in the mid to late 1990s, average returns from VC investments have been about 9%, comparable to public markets. More tellingly, the median return stands at just 1.8%, indicating that only a handful of VCs have achieved substantial returns whilst the majority have largely underperformed [20].
This reality has profound implications for the funding myth that persists among founders. As Grant observes, there’s often a fundamental gap between what investors expect and what founders believe when it comes to funding, attributed to disparity in goals and perspectives [21]. Investors focus primarily on maximising returns whilst managing risks, whereas founders are emotionally attached to their ideas and prioritise growth and innovation.
The myth that funding guarantees success proves particularly dangerous in this environment. Grant recalls numerous occasions where companies secure funding only to proceed with strategic hiring without clear direction, often recruiting friends rather than the best candidates for roles [22]. “They’re focusing on the wrong thing,” she notes. “They should be celebrating every time they break a million in their revenue stream” [23].
The Power of Bootstrapping
The research and current market conditions converge on the crucial insight that bootstrapping early can build investor confidence whilst strategic dilution later can accelerate growth. “There used to be an old saying, the best source of capital is sales because it does two things: it keeps your staff fed and watered and it adds value to the company at the same time,” Grant explains [24].
Wright elaborates on how successful market establishment through bootstrapping can demonstrate founder reliability. “By doing so,” she says, “prospective investors can watch the company’s performance over time. This builds confidence in the founder’s ability to forecast, execute plans, achieve milestones, and enhance the company’s value while being under scrutiny” [25]. This approach effectively lowers the company’s risk profile with investors.
The emotional challenge of dilution, however, remains significant for founders. Wright illustrates the mathematics, showing that an entrepreneur who initially owns 100% of their company whilst bootstrapping might sell 10% for £1 million, reducing their ownership to 90% but injecting capital to potentially double the company’s valuation [26]. If successful, their 90% stake in a £20 million company represents £18 million compared to £9 million previously, demonstrating how dilution can increase absolute value even as percentage ownership decreases.
“It’s more emotional than logical,” Grant observes. “If you can get the founders to go through the logic and actually run the numbers, they start to see and relax about selling off more of their company” [27].
Alternative Models
The Silicon Valley model of disruptive innovation isn’t universal. Research by King’s Business School suggests that South-East Asia’s tech scene could achieve greater success by following collaborative innovation strategies from Japan and South Korea, where big businesses tend to collaborate with startups rather than view them as challengers [28].
“We see the Silicon Valley approach as somewhat outdated and tied closely to the unique economic conditions of the US in the latter half of the 20th century,” explains Robyn Klingler-Vidra, associate professor at King’s Business School [29]. The collaborative approach allows large companies to stay competitive in fast-changing markets whilst providing startups with the resources and networks needed to scale.
Recent examples include Toyota’s $44.4 million investment in Japanese startup Interstellar Technologies, facilitating mass production of rockets whilst enabling Toyota’s expansion in the space industry [30]. This model of open innovation, where startups inject “innovative DNA” whilst benefiting from conglomerates’ supply chains and distribution networks, offers an alternative to the zero-sum Silicon Valley approach.
Financing Infrastructure
For capital-intensive projects such as renewable energy developments, the timing and structure of financing becomes even more critical. Marie Lucey of Deloitte explains that “as the project progresses through key development milestones, different financing options become available, offering opportunities for both equity and debt investment” [31].
The risk profile evolution of major projects creates distinct financing windows. In Ireland, investor appetite tends to increase significantly in the post-permitting phase, where various larger risks have been sufficiently mitigated [32]. Wind and solar developers frequently use internal financing to reach key milestones before seeking additional structured funding options.
Project finance has become crucial for large-scale infrastructure, allowing developers to secure financing based on future cash flows rather than their own assets. The rise of Corporate Power Purchase Agreements has been particularly significant, driven by price volatility and corporate net-zero targets [33].
Implications for the Future
The convergence of AI efficiency, economic uncertainty, and evolving investor expectations is creating a new paradigm for startup financing. The traditional model of massive early funding to scale rapidly is being replaced by more nuanced approaches that prioritise sustainable growth and genuine innovation over headline valuations.
This shift presents both opportunities and challenges. Startups can achieve profitability with less capital, reducing dependency on external funding whilst maintaining greater control over their destiny. However, this efficiency may also create challenges for venture capitalists who need to deploy large amounts of capital to generate meaningful returns.
The key insight emerging from current research and market trends is that timing truly matters as much as the amount of funding. Startups that wait until they’ve established product-market fit and demonstrated genuine innovation capabilities are better positioned to use investment capital effectively. Conversely, those that accept large early investments may find themselves constrained by investor expectations that prioritise rapid scaling over sustainable innovation.
The most successful approach appears to combine the scrappiness and experimentation encouraged by initial resource constraints with strategic capital deployment once core innovations have been validated. This requires founders to think beyond traditional fundraising milestones and consider how different types of capital can support different phases of growth whilst preserving the innovative DNA that creates sustainable competitive advantage.
In an era where technology enables unprecedented efficiency and global economic conditions demand more thoughtful capital allocation, the startups that master this strategic timing will be best positioned to create lasting value for all stakeholders.
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/09/why-startups-benefit-when-big-investments-come-later?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/09/why-startups-benefit-when-big-investments-come-later?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[3] https://hbr.org/2025/09/why-startups-benefit-when-big-investments-come-later?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[4] https://hbr.org/2025/09/why-startups-benefit-when-big-investments-come-later?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[5] https://hbr.org/2025/09/why-startups-benefit-when-big-investments-come-later?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[6] https://hbr.org/2025/09/why-startups-benefit-when-big-investments-come-later?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[7] https://hbr.org/2025/09/why-startups-benefit-when-big-investments-come-later?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/20/technology/ai-silicon-valley-start-ups.html
[9] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/20/technology/ai-silicon-valley-start-ups.html
[10] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/20/technology/ai-silicon-valley-start-ups.html
[11] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/20/technology/ai-silicon-valley-start-ups.html
[12] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/20/technology/ai-silicon-valley-start-ups.html
[13] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/20/technology/ai-silicon-valley-start-ups.html
[14] https://hbr.org/2025/09/why-startups-benefit-when-big-investments-come-later?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[15] https://hbr.org/2025/09/why-startups-benefit-when-big-investments-come-later?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[16] https://hbr.org/2025/09/why-startups-benefit-when-big-investments-come-later?ab=HP-hero-latest-3
[28] https://www.ft.com/content/32b74614-fcdd-44f7-a686-51be7638a1e1
[29] https://www.ft.com/content/32b74614-fcdd-44f7-a686-51be7638a1e1
[30] https://www.ft.com/content/32b74614-fcdd-44f7-a686-51be7638a1e1
In the corridors of corporate offices and the pages of business journals, leaders routinely frame competition and collaboration as opposing forces. This binary thinking suggests organisations must choose between fostering internal rivalry or promoting teamwork. Yet mounting evidence from across industries reveals this perceived dichotomy to be fundamentally flawed. The reality is that competition and collaboration are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary forces that, when properly balanced, create powerful advantages for businesses and individuals alike.
Rivalry Reference Effect
Recent research examining Twitter data from 100 brands across 20 product categories between 2020 and 2022 has revealed what scholars term the “rivalry reference effect” [1]. When brands reference a rival versus a non-rival competitor in public messages, consumer engagement increases substantially. This occurs because consumers perceive rivalry references as embedded within a broader, ongoing story that feels more meaningful and engaging.
Consider Pepsi’s 2019 tweet: “We don’t have Pepsi, Coke OK? #SixWordHorror.” Far from representing cutthroat competition, this exemplifies how brands can engage in strategic rivalry whilst simultaneously operating within collaborative frameworks that benefit entire industries [2].
The power lies not merely in competition itself, but in the narrative framework that rivalry creates. As Borah et al. write in Harvard Business Review, “Unlike ordinary competition, rivalry is rooted in shared history and features the essential elements of compelling storytelling: identifiable characters (the competing brands) and an engaging plot (drawn-out conflict for supremacy)” [3]. When Samsung targets Apple or T-Mobile takes aim at Verizon, they’re tapping into existing story arcs that consumers already find compelling.
Notably, this research challenges conventional marketing wisdom about message tone. For brand loyalists — a company’s most valuable customers — negative messages about rivals significantly outperform positive ones [4]. This makes intuitive sense. Loyal customers derive part of their identity from their brand preference, and negative rivalry messaging reinforces their choice whilst providing an opportunity to feel superior to “the other side.”
The Collaboration Imperative
Whilst rivalry creates engagement, collaboration drives sustainable success. A study by the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute found that collaborative competition lasting three to five years had more than a 50% chance of mutually reducing company costs [5]. This phenomenon, termed “coopetition,” demonstrates that the most profitable partnerships often emerge between direct competitors.
Amazon Marketplace exemplifies this principle. Amazon benefits from the margin on third-party sales, whilst sellers gain access to a vast customer base and established platform [6]. Similarly, YouTube and Vimeo have found mutual benefit in allowing creators to publish across both platforms. As Vimeo CEO Anjali Sud explains, this collaboration “unlocked a totally new strategy for our company…one of the biggest value-adds in our product, and it all came from flipping the script in terms of how you think about whether someone is a competitor or a partner” [7].
Perhaps the most striking example of coopetition exists between Apple and Samsung. Whilst their Galaxy and iPhone products compete directly, Samsung simultaneously serves as one of Apple’s primary suppliers, providing screens for iPhones [8]. This relationship demonstrates that companies can compete in some areas whilst collaborating in others, creating value for both parties.
The Collaboration Advantage in Teams
Within organisations, the choice between competition and collaboration becomes even more nuanced. Research consistently shows that internal competition, when poorly managed, creates destructive environments. Speaking to Forbes, one executive recounted working for a CEO who “created intense competition among the leadership team. He even hired two people to do the same job and didn’t tell them” [9]. The result was predictable: “a culture of back stabbing, in-fighting and resource hoarding. No one on the leadership team trusted each other.”
Such environments prove counterproductive because they encourage resource hoarding rather than sharing. Former Forbes Councils Member Shawn Kent Hayashi makes the point that when competition dominates internal dynamics, “people hoard systems, information and support staff. They’re less likely to share all kinds of resources — physical and intellectual. Those who see solutions for problems don’t share them until they can be sure they’ll get the credit” [10].
Conversely, collaborative environments create what researchers call a “force multiplier.” Unity speeds up decision-making, improves morale, and fosters innovation [11]. As CEO and former Mayor of Arlington, Texas, W. Jeff Williams writes, when teams collaborate effectively, they “put all their energy into positive movement, not internal battles. People embrace collaboration instead of competition. Leaders listen instead of lecturing” [12].
The Psychological Foundations
The preference for either competitive or collaborative approaches often stems from deeper psychological needs. Research published in the European Journal of Social Psychology reveals that schadenfreude — pleasure in others’ misfortune — meets basic psychological needs for self-esteem, control, and belonging, particularly in competitive scenarios [13]. However, this same research suggests that such feelings, whilst natural, can become counterproductive if they dominate workplace dynamics.
More constructively, competition can drive performance improvements. A study of professional archers found that those with direct rivals present at events performed significantly better than those without competitors, a phenomenon dubbed “the rival effect” [14]. This suggests that competition, properly channelled, enhances rather than undermines performance.
The key lies in understanding that competitive instincts can coexist with collaborative behaviours. As one NFL player turned actor discovered, “my ability to focus, practice, rehearse, and keep my plan in mind at all times did transfer” from sports to theatre, even though the specific skills did not [15]. The drive for excellence and continuous improvement proved valuable across domains when coupled with collaborative learning from mentors and peers.
Strategic Implementation
Successfully balancing competition and collaboration requires strategic thinking about when and how to deploy each approach. For brands, this means identifying true rivals — those with shared history and consumer recognition of the competitive relationship — rather than attacking all competitors indiscriminately [16]. Effective rivalry messaging should feel like “natural chapters in an ongoing story”, say Borah et al., rather than random attacks.
Within organisations, leaders must distinguish between healthy competition and destructive conflict. Amy Walker, executive vice president of sales at Paycom, emphasises that competition should focus on “winning as one” rather than individual success. “When one of us wins, the whole team becomes closer to reaching our collective goals, which becomes a massive boost in culture” [17].
This approach requires careful attention to context and audience. Negative rivalry messaging works well on brand-owned social media platforms where loyal customers concentrate, whilst broader audience campaigns benefit from more neutral tones [18]. Similarly, internal competition works best when directed toward external benchmarks rather than pitting colleagues directly against each other.
The Innovation Dividend
Perhaps most importantly, the integration of competition and collaboration drives innovation. Companies that maintain competitive edges whilst engaging in strategic partnerships often outperform those that choose exclusively competitive or collaborative approaches. This occurs because competitive pressure creates urgency and motivation, whilst collaboration provides access to resources, knowledge, and capabilities that would be impossible to develop internally.
Consider how collaborative competition between teams can create an intensity that generates powerful results for an organisation whilst avoiding the destructive effects of individual competition [19]. When teams compete against external benchmarks or other teams whilst maintaining internal collaboration, they achieve both the motivational benefits of competition and the resource-sharing advantages of collaboration.
Embracing the Paradox
The evidence suggests that framing competition and collaboration as opposing forces represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how successful organisations operate. The most effective leaders recognise that these dynamics can and must coexist. They foster internal collaboration whilst maintaining competitive edges against external rivals. They engage in strategic partnerships with competitors where mutual benefit exists whilst competing vigorously in core markets.
This integration requires nuanced leadership that can shift between collaborative and competitive modes depending on context, audience, and objectives. It demands cultural sophistication that celebrates both individual achievement and team success. Most importantly, it requires abandoning the false choice that has limited so many organisations’ potential.
The businesses that thrive in today’s complex environment will be those that master this paradox, harnessing both the motivational power of competition and the multiplicative effects of collaboration. They understand that in a world of infinite complexity, the answer to “competition or collaboration?” is simply “yes.”
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/08/a-good-rivalry-can-elevate-your-brand
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/08/a-good-rivalry-can-elevate-your-brand
[3] https://hbr.org/2025/08/a-good-rivalry-can-elevate-your-brand
[4] https://hbr.org/2025/08/a-good-rivalry-can-elevate-your-brand
[14] https://www.forbes.com/sites/trello/2019/10/08/be-competitive-at-work-youll-be-a-better-team-player/
[15] https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2019/09/03/how-to-be-the-best-in-a-competitive-field/
[16] https://hbr.org/2025/08/a-good-rivalry-can-elevate-your-brand
[17] https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrobinson/2025/01/10/5-benefits-of-a-competitive-mindset-at-work/
[18] https://hbr.org/2025/08/a-good-rivalry-can-elevate-your-brand
For decades, workplace culture has treated salary discussions as taboo, with managers routinely advised to maintain secrecy around compensation decisions. This conventional wisdom suggested that transparency would inevitably lead to dissatisfaction amongst employees who discovered they earned less than their colleagues, whilst those earning more would simply feel their compensation was justified. The result, according to traditional thinking, was that firms faced only downsides from increased transparency about pay.
Recent research, however, challenges this long-held assumption and suggests that pay transparency may actually be the strategic advantage many organisations have been overlooking. As legislative requirements sweep across jurisdictions from the European Union to individual US states, companies are discovering that transparency is an opportunity to transform workplace culture and employee satisfaction, not just a compliance box to tick.
The Research
Groundbreaking research from academics at Boston College, Tulane University, the University of Arizona, and Tsinghua University has fundamentally challenged conventional wisdom about pay transparency [1]. Using employee ratings of compensation satisfaction from more than 1,300 publicly traded firms, the researchers examined what happened when the Securities and Exchange Commission mandated CEO-to-median-employee pay disclosures in 2018.
The findings were striking. Rather than creating widespread dissatisfaction, “the transparency brought on by the new disclosure made employees more satisfied, on average, with their own pay” [2]. The study analysed approximately 300,000 individual compensation ratings across firms in 62 different industries, providing robust evidence that transparency can enhance rather than undermine employee satisfaction.
The key insight lies in understanding how employees form perceptions about fair compensation. As the researchers explain, “Employees develop beliefs about what their colleagues are paid whether or not a company discloses salary information” [3]. In the absence of accurate data, employees rely on gossip, visible signals of wealth such as expensive cars in company car parks, or holiday photos on social media. They may also consult anonymous online sources like Glassdoor, Monster, and Indeed, though this information may be incomplete or inaccurate.
Crucially, other research demonstrates that “employees overestimate what their peers make” [4]. When managers fail to provide accurate and trustworthy information, they leave employees to “guesstimate what a fair wage is for them — and that self-determined wage is likely inflated” [5]. The SEC’s CEO pay ratio disclosure provided employees with a more realistic reference point, allowing them to recalibrate their expectations based on actual data rather than speculation.
The Legislative Landscape
The momentum towards pay transparency extends far beyond individual research studies. The EU Pay Transparency Directive, formally adopted in 2023, represents “a landmark law aiming to ensure that workers of all genders receive equal pay for work of equal value” [6]. Applying to EU-based companies with 100 or more employees, the directive focuses on two critical areas: pay transparency and pay equity.
Under this directive, employees gain “the right to request average pay levels for their job category, broken down by gender” [7]. Employers must publish salary ranges in job postings and provide clear criteria for pay progression. Companies with more than 100 employees will be required to report gender pay gaps, and if gaps exceed 5%, they must conduct joint pay assessments [8].
Across the Atlantic, several US states have implemented their own transparency requirements. New York, California, Colorado, Washington, and Illinois now mandate that employers include salary ranges in job postings [9]. Some jurisdictions, such as New York City, have implemented particularly detailed disclosure rules that extend even to internal roles.
The voluntary adoption of transparency practices suggests that companies recognise the strategic value beyond mere compliance. According to the Society for Human Resource Management, 67% of organisations voluntarily include starting pay in job postings, even in states where such disclosure isn’t legally required [10].
The Business Case for Transparency
Despite the growing recognition of transparency’s importance, many companies remain unprepared for this shift. A survey of more than 1,100 companies across 45 countries found that whilst nearly seven out of ten employers acknowledged that pay transparency is now an expectation of job candidates, only 32% of organisations felt prepared to meet global transparency requirements [11].
This “readiness gap” is particularly pronounced when examined by region. Only 19% of US companies have developed a pay transparency strategy, whilst among EU-based employers, a mere 7% have implemented such strategies despite the looming 2026 compliance deadline [12].
The business benefits of transparency, however, are becoming increasingly clear. Research indicates that organisations with transparent compensation practices experience lower employee turnover, with “each incremental increase in perceived pay transparency correspond[ing] to a 30% decrease in the likelihood of an employee seeking a new job” [13]. After job security, fair pay ranks as the second most commonly cited reason why workers remain in particular roles [14].
Companies implementing transparency initiatives report enhanced employee engagement and improved retention rates [15]. These outcomes suggest that transparency functions as both a talent attraction tool and a retention strategy, addressing two of the most significant challenges facing contemporary employers.
Practical Implementation Strategies
For organisations seeking to champion pay transparency, experts recommend a systematic approach that addresses multiple stakeholder needs. The foundation lies in conducting regular salary audits to identify and address existing disparities based on gender, race, or other factors [16]. These audits provide the data necessary to ensure that compensation systems are both transparent and fair, making it easier to explain salary ranges and justify pay decisions.
Building trust between leaders and employees represents another critical component. This involves communicating reasonable pay ranges, educating employees about what pay transparency and equity mean, eliminating corporate environments where pay conversations are taboo, explaining how salary decisions are made, and conducting regular salary reviews [17].
The approach requires careful consideration of the existing information environment. Managers should assess what salary information employees already access through job search websites and determine whether this information is accurate. If online information is wrong and inflated, providing accurate salary information can improve employee morale and correct misconceptions.
Understanding current employee sentiments proves equally important. Many firms conducting anonymous surveys discover that employees believe they are underpaid, with some demographic groups holding this belief more strongly than others [18]. When employees hold these perceptions despite fair pay practices, increased transparency can benefit the organisation by correcting incorrect assumptions and potentially increasing employee satisfaction.
The competitive nature of the labour market also influences transparency strategies. In tight labour markets where employees can easily secure offers from other firms, workers likely understand market wages already. However, employees in less competitive markets or specific geographic locations possess more limited information, and research suggests that “these employees’ pay satisfaction levels will likely benefit the most from the accurate disclosure of rank-and-file employee pay information” [19].
Transforming Workplace Dynamics
The implementation of pay transparency fundamentally alters workplace dynamics across all organisational levels. For employees, transparency shifts the balance of power in compensation discussions. Rather than entering negotiations with limited information, workers can approach conversations with concrete data about pay ranges and progression criteria.
Managers face new levels of accountability in pay decisions. Vague explanations and generic responses to compensation questions become insufficient. When employees can access salary ranges and understand pay structures, managers must provide clear, policy-aligned explanations for compensation decisions. Responses such as “that’s just what we offered” no longer suffice in transparent environments [20].
Human resources business partners assume coaching roles, guiding managers through pay policies and helping identify potential bias in compensation decisions. They conduct pre-review checks to flag pay decisions that don’t align with established policies, embedding fairness into daily practices rather than treating it as an occasional audit exercise [21].
Compensation and pay equity teams drive data-backed action, developing grading systems, tracking analytics, and guiding corrective measures. These professionals create dashboards showing unexplained pay differences by gender and job category, providing tools that help managers spot and resolve inconsistencies in real-time [22].
Executive leadership sets the tone by actively modelling transparency and equity. This involves setting clear pay equity goals, investing in necessary tools and training across departments, and speaking openly about pay structures and criteria. Some companies publish pay equity goals and host internal question-and-answer sessions where leaders explain pay philosophy and criteria [23].
Strategic Opportunity
Salary transparency in 2025 offers a strategic opportunity to build trust, improve fairness, and enhance employee satisfaction. Companies leading this transformation aren’t simply posting salary ranges. They’re training managers, empowering employees, and building systems that support fair, consistent, and data-driven pay decisions. Major employers including Meta, Microsoft, Salesforce, Deloitte, and PwC have already introduced global pay banding frameworks, recognising that transparency helps attract talent more efficiently whilst building trust and improving retention. [24]
For individual employees, transparency provides new tools for career advancement and compensation discussions. Knowledge of pay ranges enables more strategic negotiation approaches, allowing workers to tailor expectations realistically whilst confidently advocating for appropriate compensation. Rather than demanding immediate parity when discovering pay disparities, employees can use transparency data to frame development conversations and demonstrate their value alignment with higher compensation levels.
Moving Forward
As we progress through 2025, the question isn’t whether pay transparency will become standard practice as legislative trends and voluntary adoption already suggest it will. The critical question is whether organisations will approach transparency reactively, implementing minimal compliance measures, or proactively, using transparency as a tool for cultural transformation and competitive advantage.
Success in this environment requires moving beyond the assumption that transparency inevitably creates problems. Instead, organisations must develop the systems, training, and cultural foundations necessary to make transparency work effectively. This means ensuring that pay decisions can withstand scrutiny, that managers can explain compensation rationally, and that employees have access to accurate information about their compensation relative to market standards and internal equity principles.
As the regulatory landscape continues evolving and employee expectations shift, the organisations that thrive will be those that view transparency not as a burden to manage but as an opportunity to build the trust and fairness that modern workforces demand.
Sources
When OpenAI launched GPT-5 early this month, it positioned the model as the company’s “smartest, fastest, most useful” release yet [1]. Sam Altman, co-founder and chief executive, described it as a “major upgrade” and “the first time that it really feels like talking to an expert in any topic – a PhD-level expert” [2]. OpenAI claims GPT-5 can deliver more accurate, nuanced, and context-aware outputs than its predecessors across coding, writing, mathematics, and health-related queries, while also being faster and less prone to “hallucinations”, the AI tendency to generate incorrect information [3].
The launch comes at a time when OpenAI is reportedly in early talks to sell stock at a $500 billion valuation, up from $300 billion earlier this year, a leap fuelled by a record $40 billion funding round in March [4]. With hundreds of millions of users, growing enterprise adoption, and a crowded competitive field including Google’s Gemini, Anthropic’s Claude, Elon Musk’s xAI Grok, and Chinese rival DeepSeek, GPT-5 arrives as both a technological and strategic play.
What’s new
OpenAI has been releasing annual updates to its GPT series since ChatGPT’s debut in late 2022. Each release has layered in new modalities, reasoning capabilities, and user-facing tools. GPT-5 continues this trajectory but shifts emphasis toward integrated functionality and contextual adaptability.
One of the most significant architectural changes is its unified design, blending the deep reasoning strengths of the o-series with the responsiveness of the GPT line [5]. This means GPT-5 can dynamically decide whether to return quick answers or take additional “thinking” time on complex prompts, without requiring users to choose between models [6].
The system is also underpinned by a revised safety and behaviour framework, visible in its leaked system prompt [7]. GPT-5 is programmed to automatically assess whether a query requires up-to-date, niche, or high-stakes information, triggering web searches and cross-checking multiple reputable sources for sensitive domains like finance, health, or law. This procedural discipline is designed to improve factual accuracy. This is a crucial differentiator given that GPT-o3 and o4-mini were found to hallucinate 30–50% of the time [8].
According to OpenAI, GPT-5’s hallucination rate is roughly 45% lower than GPT-4o’s [9], and when operating in “thinking” mode it drops further to just 4.8% overall, and only 1.6% for complex medical questions [10]. For business, legal, and health applications, this reduction in error frequency could translate directly into higher trust and adoption rates.
Coding
While GPT-5 has broad capabilities, OpenAI has clearly prioritised coding performance as a commercial growth area. Coding assistance is emerging as one of the most monetisable AI use cases: enterprises can measure productivity gains directly, and AI-generated code has the potential to create a self-improving feedback loop toward more autonomous systems [11].
GPT-5’s standout feature in this domain is “vibe coding” – the ability to produce full, stylistically distinctive software applications from natural language instructions [12]. In live demos, the model generated interactive language-learning apps, complete with games, in minutes [13]. Benchmarks back up these claims. On SWE-bench Verified, GPT-5 scored 74.9%, edging out Anthropic’s Claude Opus 4.1 (74.5%) and far ahead of Google DeepMind’s Gemini 2.5 Pro (59.6%) [14].
This performance has already swayed major users. Cursor, a popular AI coding assistant built by $10 billion start-up Anysphere, has begun integrating GPT-5, with CEO Michael Truell calling it “remarkably intelligent” [15]. If more customers follow suit, OpenAI’s annual recurring revenue – already estimated at $12 billion and forecast to reach $20 billion by year-end – could accelerate further [16].
Other uses and personalisation
OpenAI is also pitching GPT-5 as a more versatile partner for non-technical users. Enhanced writing skills, with greater literary rhythm and depth, make it more adept at translating dense material, such as medical reports, into plain English [17]. The model adapts answers based on a user’s knowledge level, context, and location [18], and can connect with tools like Google Calendar, Gmail, and Contacts to automate scheduling and coordination tasks [19].
For those seeking a more tailored interaction, GPT-5 introduces four preset “personality” modes – Nerd, Robot, Listener, and Cynic – currently in research preview [20]. These alter tone and style without requiring prompt engineering, potentially broadening appeal across different user types.
Personalisation is further enhanced by long-term memory features, such as the “bio” tool, which can store user-approved information while deliberately excluding sensitive personal data unless explicitly requested [21]. This addresses growing privacy concerns while still allowing for sustained, context-rich interactions.
Safety and trust
Another notable refinement is in reducing “sycophancy”, the AI’s tendency to agree excessively with users or reinforce their biases. An April update to GPT-4o had been rolled back after it made the chatbot overly flattering, which in some cases exacerbated user anxiety or impulsivity. GPT-5 cuts sycophantic replies from 14.5% to under 6% in targeted tests [22].
Safety training has shifted from simple refusal-based methods to “safe completions”, where the model offers partial answers or alternative safe suggestions rather than outright refusals when prompts straddle the line between benign and potentially harmful [23]. The result, says OpenAI safety lead Alex Beutel, is an AI that is “more honest, transparent, and better at distinguishing between good-faith and bad-faith users” [24].
However, GPT-5 is also classified as “high risk” for potential misuse in creating biological threats, though OpenAI stresses it has no evidence the model could independently enable such harm [25]. The company frames this as a precautionary classification, reflecting broader industry debates over governance and misuse potential.
Commercial context
GPT-5 does not exist in isolation. Google, Anthropic, xAI, DeepSeek, and Meta are all in the race, and the performance gap between top models has narrowed. On some reasoning benchmarks, Elon Musk’s Grok 4 Heavy still leads GPT-5 [26]. This clustering of capabilities has shifted competition toward pricing and integration strategies. OpenAI’s decision to make GPT-5 the default free-tier model is a clear move to maximise user lock-in, supported by lower enterprise and API pricing than some rivals [27].
The stakes are high. The AI sector is consuming “incredible amounts of money” to chase incremental capability gains, often ahead of actual revenue [28]. Price competition could squeeze margins, but the potential payoff of dominating a market with trillion-dollar aspirations keeps investment flowing.
Internally, GPT-5’s path was not entirely smooth. Development was initially centred on an internal model, Orion, which failed to outperform GPT-4o and was rebranded as GPT-4.5 [29]. Progress on reasoning models lagged expectations into mid-2025, and some early testers suggested GPT-5’s leap would not rival the step-change from GPT-3 to GPT-4 [30]. Nevertheless, the final product has been well-received among developers and AI power users, even if casual ChatGPT users notice more subtle improvements [31].
Managing expectations
While Altman has called GPT-5 “the best model in the world” and “pretty much unimaginable at any previous time in history” [8], some experts urge caution. Carissa Véliz of Oxford’s Institute for Ethics in AI points out that such systems “can only mimic – rather than truly emulate – human reasoning abilities” and warns of hype-driven market cycles [32].
Others, like Gaia Marcus of the Ada Lovelace Institute, highlight the gap between capability growth and regulatory readiness, arguing that “as these models become more capable, the need for comprehensive regulation becomes even more urgent” [33].
Even OpenAI concedes that GPT-5 is an evolution rather than a revolution. Nick Turley, VP of ChatGPT, summed up the change by saying, “When you’re talking to this thing, it feels just a little bit more natural” [34]. In this framing, the advance lies not in headline-grabbing breakthroughs but in layered refinements – accuracy, reasoning depth, safety, adaptability – that together make the tool more useful, trustworthy, and commercially viable.
In sum
GPT-5 may not redefine the limits of AI capability overnight, but it does crystallise a new competitive reality. The leaders are close in performance, forcing differentiation through reliability, safety, user experience, and ecosystem integration.
OpenAI’s choice to push GPT-5 to the broadest possible audience, cut sycophancy, lower hallucination rates, and double down on coding competence signals where it sees the near-term value.
Whether this strategy secures long-term dominance will depend on more than just benchmarks. It will hinge on how well OpenAI can turn technical refinements into user trust, developer loyalty, and sustainable commercial advantage in a market where the next breakthrough could come from anywhere.
Sources
[5] https://aiireland.ie/2025/08/08/openai-launches-gpt-5-a-new-era-for-chatgpt-and-ai-agents/
[6] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openais-gpt-5-is-out-heres-what-you-need-to-know-150005420.html
[10] https://aiireland.ie/2025/08/08/openai-launches-gpt-5-a-new-era-for-chatgpt-and-ai-agents/
[11] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/openai-gpt-5-chatgpt-first-impressions-reaction.html
[12] https://aiireland.ie/2025/08/08/openai-launches-gpt-5-a-new-era-for-chatgpt-and-ai-agents/
[13] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openais-gpt-5-is-out-heres-what-you-need-to-know-150005420.html
[14] https://aiireland.ie/2025/08/08/openai-launches-gpt-5-a-new-era-for-chatgpt-and-ai-agents/
[15] https://www.ft.com/content/dfdcf997-88fb-4001-98c7-1b5fe09939bf
[16] https://www.ft.com/content/dfdcf997-88fb-4001-98c7-1b5fe09939bf
[17] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openais-gpt-5-is-out-heres-what-you-need-to-know-150005420.html
[19] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openais-gpt-5-is-out-heres-what-you-need-to-know-150005420.html
[20] https://www.businesspost.ie/tech/the-wait-is-over-as-openai-releases-major-upgrade-with-gpt-5/
[22] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openais-gpt-5-is-out-heres-what-you-need-to-know-150005420.html
[24] https://aiireland.ie/2025/08/08/openai-launches-gpt-5-a-new-era-for-chatgpt-and-ai-agents/
[25] https://www.ft.com/content/dfdcf997-88fb-4001-98c7-1b5fe09939bf
[26] https://aiireland.ie/2025/08/08/openai-launches-gpt-5-a-new-era-for-chatgpt-and-ai-agents/
[27] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/openai-gpt-5-chatgpt-first-impressions-reaction.html
[28] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/openai-gpt-5-chatgpt-first-impressions-reaction.html
[29] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/openai-gpt-5-chatgpt-first-impressions-reaction.html
[30] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/openai-gpt-5-chatgpt-first-impressions-reaction.html
[31] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/openai-gpt-5-chatgpt-first-impressions-reaction.html
[32] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5prvgw0r1o
[33] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5prvgw0r1o [34] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/openais-gpt-5-is-out-heres-what-you-need-to-know-150005420.html
The irony of summer productivity is palpable. Despite longer days and the promise of increased energy from vitamin D exposure, workplace performance often plummets when temperatures rise. In the US, around 36% of workers report being less productive during summer months, whilst 34% admit to slacking off when their boss takes summer holiday [1]. The same is true all around the globe. This phenomenon, known as the “summer slump,” presents a significant challenge for organisations seeking to maintain momentum during the warmer months.
Yet the conventional wisdom that summer necessarily means decreased productivity deserves scrutiny. Research reveals that summer is actually when the human brain is most active, with brain scans showing that people who spend time outdoors have more grey matter in their prefrontal cortex and stronger abilities to think clearly and self-regulate [2]. The challenge, therefore, isn’t inherent to the season but rather how we adapt our working practices to harness summer’s unique advantages whilst mitigating its distractions.
The summer paradox
The summer slump isn’t merely about warm weather creating lethargy. Patrick Porter, founder of BrainTap, explains that “the warmer months can have both positive and negative effects on brain health. On one hand, longer daylight hours can improve mood and cognitive function. More exposure to sunlight means more vitamin D, which has been linked to memory improvement and mood enhancement. On the other hand, heat and humidity can lead to dehydration, which can negatively impact cognitive functions and productivity” [3].
This duality creates what might be called the summer paradox. Whilst our brains are primed for peak performance, external factors conspire to undermine our efforts. The solution lies not in fighting summer’s natural rhythms but in adapting our strategies to work with them.
The traditional approach of maintaining rigid working patterns throughout summer often proves counterproductive. When deal flow slows and key stakeholders disappear on holiday, maintaining standard productivity expectations can lead to frustration and burnout rather than meaningful progress. As Chris Myers observes in Forbes: “Each year around this time motivation lags, deal flow slows, and tempers flare. I think it has to do with the fact that teams often find themselves halfway through the year, but not necessarily halfway to their annual goals” [4].
Seasonal planning
Forward-thinking leaders recognise that summer’s unique characteristics can be leveraged strategically. Rather than viewing the season as an obstacle, they see it as an opportunity for different types of work that might be impossible during busier periods. Cal Newport’s concept of “deep work” becomes particularly relevant during summer months when inbound communications decrease dramatically [5]. With professionals typically sending and receiving an average of 122 emails per day, the reduction in message volume during holiday periods creates unprecedented opportunities for focused, meaningful work.
Dorie Clark, a Columbia Business School professor and author of The Long Game, advocates embracing this natural breathing space: “When everyone else is on vacation, the level of inbound messages drops dramatically. That gives you more freedom to schedule uninterrupted blocks of time to tackle important projects you’ve been putting off, but which could significantly benefit your career” [6]. This perspective reframes the summer slump from a productivity problem into a strategic opportunity.
The key is recognising that different seasons call for different types of work. Summer’s relaxed pace makes it ideal for tasks that require sustained concentration but aren’t urgent such as strategic planning, skill development, relationship building, and creative problem-solving. These activities often get squeezed out during busy periods but can provide significant long-term value when pursued during summer’s natural lulls.
Practical strategies
Successful summer productivity requires a fundamental shift in approach. Avery Morgan, productivity expert and chief communications officer at EduBirdie, emphasises the importance of adapting schedules to seasonal realities: “If the sun is sapping your productivity, adapt your schedule to give yourself more time to tackle tasks in the morning or later in the evening when the sun gives it a rest. You can then reward yourself with a dip in the pool, a refreshing siesta or a spot of lunch with loved ones in the afternoon” [7].
This seasonal adaptation extends beyond daily scheduling to encompass broader working patterns. The concept of “workations” gains particular relevance, as Morgan notes: “With a laptop and a reliable mobile connection, you no longer have to choose between work and play. Set up your office on the beachfront, email from the top of a mountain, and use your lunch break to explore the sights. A workation can spark creativity, improve your efficiency and stop the workday from feeling so mundane” [8].
Physical environment plays a crucial role in summer productivity. The simple act of taking a workspace outdoors can provide significant benefits. Morgan recommends: “Take your workspace outside, settle down under a shady tree or enjoy lunch on a terrace with a view. And don’t spend your weekends cramped up inside. Escape the city, pursue hobbies and enjoy nature while the sun’s shining” [9]. This aligns with research showing that replacing screen time with occasional “green time” in nature is essential for brain health, making people more energetic, resilient, and ultimately more productive.
Hydration emerges as a critical but often overlooked factor in summer productivity. Porter consistently recommends “drinking half your body’s weight in ounces of water” [10]. Dehydration can significantly impact cognitive functions, making adequate fluid intake essential for maintaining performance during warmer months. Morgan suggests making hydration more appealing by adding “a dash of lemon or mint to make it more refreshing, so you’re more likely to drink it” [11].
Managing energy and expectations
Summer productivity requires careful energy management rather than simply maintaining standard working hours. Forbes contributor Andrew Fennell suggests that “it’s a good idea to tackle your biggest or most important task earlier in the day. The cooler temperatures and early start will allow you to feel more motivated before your brain starts to wander and dream about getting out in the garden for the afternoon” [12].
This approach acknowledges summer’s natural rhythms rather than fighting them. By front-loading challenging work during cooler morning hours, professionals can align their energy levels with task demands whilst still enjoying summer’s pleasures during warmer parts of the day.
Setting realistic expectations becomes crucial during summer months. Fennell emphasises the importance of managing expectations: “If you accept that the summer is often a slower time of year and that it’s not possible to always work at 1000%, then you can start each day on the right foot and you won’t be left feeling frustrated and disappointed with yourself” [13]. This doesn’t mean lowering standards but rather adjusting them to seasonal realities.
The goal-setting process requires particular attention during summer. Rather than abandoning objectives entirely, successful professionals break larger goals into smaller, manageable tasks that can be accomplished despite seasonal distractions. Fennell recommends: “While you might wish to set larger goals, it’s also important that you break these down into smaller actions. These tasks will make up the basis of your day-to-day activities” [14].
The social side
Summer’s social dimension offers unique opportunities for professional development. The season’s emphasis on outdoor activities and gatherings creates natural networking opportunities that might not exist during other times of year. Porter notes that “socialization is important” and recommends pairing “up team members for peer coaching sessions, where each person discusses their struggles and their partner suggests potential solutions” [15].
The increased social interaction inherent in summer can be strategically leveraged for professional growth. Dana Goren, Head of HR at Hibob, suggests that summer’s slower pace creates opportunities to “connect with your managers and peers about your performance. Learn more about how they perceive your strengths and the areas where you have the most opportunity for growth” [16].
This social aspect extends to team dynamics. The summer period provides ideal conditions for team-building activities that might be difficult to schedule during busier periods. As one Forbes Human Resources Council member notes: “The warm weather makes summer a great time to organize team-building events, volunteer opportunities or company offsites and retreats. All of these can be great for engagement and bring the team closer together to enhance communication” [17].
Post-holiday blues
The challenge of returning from summer holidays requires specific attention. Research shows that instead of feeling recharged and refreshed upon returning to work after a break, many people feel drained and struggle to regain their drive [18]. Ayelet Fishbach, professor at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, explains: “There are several contributing factors. For one, travel itself can be exhausting. Second, if your vacation wasn’t all that restorative, you may feel like you never truly had a break” [19].
The key to successful reintegration lies in strategic planning rather than attempting to immediately return to pre-holiday intensity. Tessa West, professor of psychology at NYU, advises: “Leave extra time for your commute to reduce traffic-induced anxiety, and be strategic about when you schedule meetings with certain colleagues who raise your blood pressure” [20]. The initial adjustment period requires particular patience, with gradual reintegration proving more effective than attempting immediate full engagement.
Journalist and content strategist Rebecca Knight emphasises starting with manageable tasks: “Resist the urge to jolt yourself out of vacation mode by tackling the biggest, most annoying item on your to-do list upon your return. Instead, she recommends starting slow and small and doing the easiest tasks first — those you know you can complete quickly and confidently” [21]. This approach allows for momentum building whilst avoiding the overwhelming feeling that can derail post-holiday productivity.
Conquering the summer slump
Successfully navigating the summer slump requires viewing it as part of a broader annual rhythm rather than a temporary inconvenience. Just as businesses have seasonal cycles, individual productivity naturally fluctuates throughout the year. The challenge lies in aligning work patterns with these natural rhythms rather than fighting them.
Porter emphasises the importance of year-round brain fitness: “Just as physical fitness is important for the body’s strength and resilience, brain fitness is critical for cognitive health. It’s important year-round because our brains are always changing, constantly creating new connections and pathways” [22]. This perspective suggests that summer’s different pace shouldn’t be seen as a deviation from productivity but rather as a necessary component of sustainable high performance.
The evidence suggests that organisations and individuals who successfully adapt to summer’s unique characteristics often emerge stronger in autumn. By using summer’s natural advantages, such as reduced interruptions, increased social opportunities, and enhanced creativity from outdoor exposure, professionals can lay groundwork for enhanced performance when business activity intensifies.
The summer slump, therefore, represents not a problem to be solved but a seasonal reality to be strategically leveraged. By adapting working patterns to summer’s natural rhythms, maintaining realistic expectations, and using the season’s unique advantages for deep work and relationship building, professionals can transform what many see as a productivity challenge into a strategic advantage. The key lies not in maintaining winter’s intensity during summer’s warmth but in recognising that different seasons call for different approaches to achieving peak performance.
Sources
[5] https://hbr.org/2016/08/how-to-stay-motivated-when-everyone-else-is-on-vacation
[6] https://hbr.org/2016/08/how-to-stay-motivated-when-everyone-else-is-on-vacation
[16] https://www.forbes.com/sites/shelcyvjoseph/2019/07/22/feeling-the-summer-slump-at-work/
[18] https://hbr.org/2024/07/post-vacation-blues-heres-how-to-cope
[19] https://hbr.org/2024/07/post-vacation-blues-heres-how-to-cope
[20] https://hbr.org/2024/07/post-vacation-blues-heres-how-to-cope
[21] https://hbr.org/2024/07/post-vacation-blues-heres-how-to-cope
It weighs heavily, the decision as to whether to reveal a hidden part of yourself that could fundamentally alter how others see you. It’s a choice that sits somewhere between vulnerability and strategy, between authenticity and self-preservation. But for the millions of workers living with invisible disabilities, it is less a philosophical musing than a daily reality.
The numbers tell a stark story. Research shows that 61% of disabled employees have experienced some form of workplace discrimination, yet less than 4% of companies report that employees have disclosed a mental or physical disability [1]. Meanwhile, 92% of businesses claim they encourage self-identification, and 95% say they have confidential processes for disclosure [2]. The gulf between intention and reality couldn’t be wider.
The authenticity paradox
Dr Ludmila Praslova, who has navigated disclosure decisions for over 25 years as an autistic woman initially misdiagnosed with depression, says it’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. When she does reveal her health needs, “most people are considerate, but some have laughed in my face, dismissed the information, or even used it against me” [3].
This captures the central paradox. In an era where authenticity is supposedly prized above all else, with LinkedIn posts about vulnerability going viral and companies trumpetting their commitment to “bringing your whole self to work” every chance they get, the reality for those with disabilities remains fraught with risk. It’s as if we’ve created a world that celebrates difference in theory while remaining stubbornly suspicious of it in practice.
It’s not simply about whether to reveal who you are. It’s about the fact that authenticity itself has become a strategic choice with financial consequences. For many, being genuine has become an unaffordable luxury.
The cost of invisibility
Writing in HBR, Dr Paslova shares the story of Ali, whose experience illustrates the precarious nature of workplace disclosure. Working at an international consulting company, he initially found support when he confided in his department head about his long Covid symptoms — extreme fatigue and dizziness that interfered with travel. Accommodations were made, assigning him to remote consulting and research projects. But when a new department head arrived, colleagues began complaining about Ali being a “flake,” and he was met with suspicion of faking his illness. The additional stress caused his health to deteriorate, ultimately forcing his resignation [4].
This slow erosion of trust and understanding can occur when organisational memory shifts and former allies move on. It highlights one of the most insidious aspects of workplace discrimination: its chameleon-like ability to adapt and persist. While hostile ableism manifests in obvious ways such as rude treatment and bullying, benevolent ableism operates under the guise of protection. A boss might withhold information about leadership development opportunities “for the employee’s own good,” assuming they’ll face resentment if promoted. The result is the same: limited opportunities and stunted careers.
The economics of disclosure
For those weighing disclosure, the financial reality is sobering. Between 110 million and 190 million people worldwide experience disabilities, yet their unemployment rates remain historically higher than those without disabilities [5]. The World Health Organisation estimates that depression and anxiety alone cost the global economy $1 trillion annually due to productivity loss [6].
Paula Morgan, writing about disclosure strategies in Forbes, notes the uncomfortable reality that “some employers worry that people with disabilities will be less productive and more costly, even though the fact of the matter is that these workers are a dedicated, motivated pool of untapped talent” [7]. It’s a perception problem that persists despite evidence to the contrary; companies that actively hire people with disabilities see 14% higher retention rates and 33% lower interview-to-hire ratios [8].
The economic argument for inclusion is compelling, yet it often feels like shouting statistics into a hurricane of prejudice.
Timing and strategy
The timing of disclosure carries its own complexities. Caroline Casey, writing about the power of measurement in disability inclusion, emphasises that “what’s measured is managed” [9]. Yet measuring something and managing it compassionately are entirely different skills. The corporate world excels at the former while often struggling with the latter.
Rob Oliver, a Pennsylvania professional who uses a power wheelchair, conducted his own informal experiment, sometimes applying for roles without identifying as disabled. His findings were telling: “I found that I received a much better response from a resume that did not list disability-related items than from one that showed I have a disability” [10]. He received three times as many interview responses using the non-disability resume.
Oliver’s approach reflects a pragmatic understanding of bias. “My personal reason for not disclosing my disability is that I am a much better advocate for myself in person than my resume can be for me remotely,” he says. It’s a strategy born of necessity rather than choice, and of the recognition that first impressions often calcify into lasting judgements.
The network effect
One of the most innovative approaches to managing disclosure risk is what Dr Praslova calls creating a “network of disclosure”. In essence, this means sharing information with multiple people rather than relying on a single champion. As Ali’s story demonstrates, having limited support can backfire spectacularly when that person leaves or circumstances change.
The network approach recognises a fundamental truth about organisational life: people move, priorities shift, and institutional memory can be frustratingly short. By involving managers, HR representatives, accessibility officers and trusted colleagues, employees create multiple touchpoints for support and accountability.
This strategy also acknowledges the psychology of commitment. Research shows that people who make commitments known to others are more likely to honour them [11]. When accommodations are discussed across multiple stakeholders, any single party finds it harder to renege on their promises.
The tech revolution
The rise of HR technology is beginning to address some of the structural barriers to disclosure. Hannah Olson, diagnosed with chronic Lyme disease at 20, created Disclo after experiencing workplace discrimination that forced her to leave a job. Her platform acts as a third-party verifier, authenticating disabilities and required accommodations without employees having to disclose medical details directly to employers [12].
It’s a simple solution to a complex problem, removing the personal awkwardness and potential for bias from what should be a straightforward administrative process. By automating verification and streamlining accommodation requests, technology can strip away some of the emotional landmines that make disclosure so fraught.
The generational shift
Perhaps the most promising development is generational change. Writing in Forbes, Christine Michel Carter notes that “Gen Z is demanding more from their employers regarding delivering what they say” [13]. This generation has grown up with greater awareness of mental health issues and neurodiversity, potentially creating workplaces where disclosure feels less risky.
The numbers support this optimism. Depression and anxiety have been added to the Voluntary Self-Identification of Disability Form, reflecting growing recognition that mental health conditions are legitimate disabilities deserving of accommodation [14]. In the US, while only 19% of adults are diagnosed with anxiety disorders, the actual numbers experiencing symptoms are likely much higher, suggesting a vast population of potential allies in normalising these conversations. [15]
The human element
Amid all the statistics and strategies, it’s worth remembering that disclosure is fundamentally about human connection. Cameron Emily Craddock Howe, a Virginia working mother with ADHD and dyslexia, believes her disability doesn’t define her, so she has no issue marking yes on the Voluntary Self-Identification of Disability Form. “It helps immediately establish a trusting relationship with a potential employer,” she says. “Being upfront about my disability helps ensure I get what I need to be successful in my job. It’s a win-win for me and the employer” [16].
Her confidence is admirable. But it also highlights the inequality inherent in these decisions. Some people, by virtue of their circumstances, disability type, or personal resources, can afford to be bold in ways others cannot.
Janice Gassam Asare, founder of BWG Business Solutions, a consultancy that provides guidance and education for workplaces looking to foster more equitable environments, frames the decision around a crucial question: “Has your condition impacted your ability to do your job or do you expect it to impact your ability to do your job?” [17]. If the answer is yes, disclosure becomes less about choice and more about necessity. In Ireland, the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015 require employers to take appropriate measures to accommodate the needs of people with disabilities, provided the employer is aware of the need and the accommodation does not impose a disproportionate burden.
Looking forward
The landscape of disability disclosure is slowly shifting. Companies are beginning to understand that inclusion isn’t just about legal compliance or moral obligation but about accessing talent and perspectives that can drive innovation and growth. The pandemic’s normalisation of flexible working arrangements has inadvertently created accommodations that benefit everyone, not just those with disabilities.
Yet progress remains frustratingly uneven. As Denise Brodey notes, “only 4% of employees disclose a disability, but new HR tools and training could upend that trend” [18]. The gap between policy and practice persists, suggesting that systemic change requires more than good intentions and better software.
The choice
The decision to disclose a disability will likely remain deeply personal for the foreseeable future. What’s changing is the context in which these decisions are made. Better technology, evolving attitudes, and stronger legal frameworks are creating conditions where disclosure might become less risky and more routine.
But perhaps the most important shift is in how we frame these conversations. Instead of asking whether people should disclose their disabilities, we might ask how we can create workplaces where such disclosure feels safe, supported, and genuinely welcomed. The responsibility shouldn’t rest solely on individuals to reveal their vulnerabilities. It should rest on organisations to prove themselves worthy of that trust.
Until then, each person must navigate their own path through the invisible dilemma, weighing authenticity against security, and hoping that in choosing to be themselves, they don’t sacrifice their futures. In a world increasingly dominated by artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision-making, perhaps our humanity, in all its messy, complicated, diverse forms, is exactly what the workplace needs most. The choice of whether to disclose may be personal, but the obligation to create disclosure-safe environments is collective.
Sources
[1] https://gitnux.org/disability-discrimination-in-the-workplace-statistics/
[3] https://hbr.org/2024/05/how-to-weigh-the-risks-of-disclosing-a-disability
[4] https://hbr.org/2024/05/how-to-weigh-the-risks-of-disclosing-a-disability
[5] https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/disability
[6] https://www.who.int/mental_health/in_the_workplace/en/
[7] https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulamorgan/2020/09/14/tips-for-disclosing-a-disability-to-an-employer/
[8] https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2017/08/24/people-disabilities-underutilized-growing-talent-pool/
[14] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/self-id-forms
[15] https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/any-anxiety-disorder
“I hate cover letters. They add so much stress to the already uncomfortable and grueling job hunt,” admits Elainy Mata, a Harvard Business Review contributor, echoing the sentiment of countless job seekers who’ve stared at blank pages, wondering if anyone actually reads these things [1]. The unfortunate answer? Yes, they do. And in an era where artificial intelligence is increasingly screening applications and every CV is beginning to look eerily similar, the cover letter has paradoxically become both more important and more challenging to get right.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. In a recent survey by ResumeLab, 83% of recruiters agree that while not always required, including a cover letter sets candidates apart from the competition [2]. Yet only 38% of job seekers bother to submit one when it’s requested [3]. This presents a peculiar opportunity. In a world where everyone is cutting corners, those who go the extra mile with a thoughtful, authentic cover letter immediately distinguish themselves from the crowd.
And yet most cover letters are dreadful. They’re formulaic, soulless documents that could have been written by anyone for any job. The challenge isn’t just writing one. It’s writing one that doesn’t make hiring managers want to immediately bin your application.
The template trap
The first mistake most people make is reaching for a template. “You could easily Google ‘cover letter template’ to get some ideas on how to write it. Don’t,” warns Kristen Fitzpatrick, managing director of career and professional development at Harvard Business School [4]. The logic seems sound — why reinvent the wheel? — but templates are precisely the problem. They create a homogenised pool of applications that read like they were churned out by the same machine.
“You need to think about your audience,” Fitzpatrick continues. “Who’s reading it? How do you capture their attention enough so they move you from one pile to another?” [5]. This isn’t merely about standing out for the sake of it but about demonstrating the very skills the role requires. If you can’t communicate effectively and show personality in a one-page letter, why would an employer trust you to represent their company?
The template approach also reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what a cover letter should accomplish. It’s not a form to be filled in but a story to be told. Specifically, your story, and why it matters to this particular employer. The harsh truth, as Julia Korn observes in Forbes, is that “a generic, formulaic cover letter might as well not be submitted at all.” [6]
Please personalise
Most candidates fail to make their application personal to the company, role, and their own background. “No one understands your qualifications and fit for the role better than you,” notes Korn. “Do you have a transformational story from your life that has to do with the company’s mission? Tell it here.” [7]
This requires the kind of actual work that separates serious candidates from those merely spraying CVs across job boards. Research isn’t just reading the company’s ‘About’ page. It’s making an active effort to understand their recent projects, their challenges, and their culture. It means knowing who works there, what they’re talking about on LinkedIn, and how your experience specifically addresses their needs.
Compare that approach to the dreaded “To whom it may concern” opening that immediately signals you couldn’t be bothered to find out who you’re writing to. It’s pretty obvious which candidate will progress.
The authenticity approach
According to a Financial Times report, nearly half of job seekers now use AI tools to apply for jobs [8], but 74% of hiring managers claim they can spot AI-generated applications and it’s often an automatic disqualification [9]. “Using AI to apply for a position signals laziness and raises concerns about how you’ll perform on the job,” warns Korn. [10]
This creates an opportunity for those willing to invest genuine effort. In the age of artificial intelligence, authenticity becomes a superpower. It doesn’t just set the best apart from the rest but sets the willing apart from the half-hearted. Think how many applications will fall at that first hurdle, and make sure yours isn’t one of them.
Obviously there’s no surefire way for the hiring manager to know if you wrote the application yourself, but if you make the effort to show personality, it will be picked up on. As KPMG’s head of resourcing Paul Vance notes: “The most important thing is to be authentic and be your true self — it’s one of the first and possibly only opportunities you’ll have for your personality and commitment to the role to shine through.” [11]
Your cover letter should sound like you, not like ChatGPT’s interpretation of a professional version of you. Korn advises having a close family member or trusted friend read your cover letter before submitting it to test if it actually sounds like you. Amy Gallo, Harvard Business Review editor, agrees. “Find a proofreader,” she says. “Write the letter you want to write. Then share it with someone else, someone who knows you well, but someone who also will tell you like it is. We’re not good judges of our own writing” [12]. The reader should be able to imagine you saying these words in an interview. The goal isn’t perfection. It’s authenticity.
Cover letter ≠ CV
One of the most common cover letter sins is simply regurgitating what’s already on your CV. “Don’t rehash your résumé,” advises Stanford University’s assistant dean of career education, John O’Neill. “Cover letters where you’re just rewriting the content of your résumé aren’t effective.” [13]
The cover letter isn’t about what you’ve achieved in the past. That’s the CV’s job. The cover letter is about the future. How will you take your experience and apply it to solve this company’s problems? What unique perspective do you bring? What would you do in the first 90 days? This forward-looking approach transforms a backward-looking recitation into a compelling value proposition.
Consider incorporating a brief story that illustrates your capabilities. “Think of a cover letter as your first impression and a chance to build rapport with those who read it,” says Indeed Vice President Daniel Corcoran. “Similar to an in-person conversation, making a strong first impression is important and is formed in mere moments.” [14]
Stories work because they’re memorable and human. Instead of saying you’re “detail-oriented” (a phrase so overused it’s become meaningless), tell them about the time you caught an error that saved your company £50,000. Instead of claiming you’re a “team player,” describe how you facilitated cross-departmental collaboration that reduced project delivery time by 25%.
The right amount of enthusiasm
There’s a delicate balance between showing genuine excitement and coming across as desperate. “Demonstrate your enthusiasm,” advises career expert Caroline Castrillon, but “convey enthusiasm, not desperation” [15]. The difference lies in specificity. Generic enthusiasm (“I’m passionate about everything!”) raises credibility concerns. Specific enthusiasm (“Your company’s innovative approach to sustainable packaging aligns with my environmental science background”) demonstrates research and genuine interest.
Emma Scott, people partner at PwC Ireland, emphasises keeping things “short, clear, concise and never duplicate what is on your CV, or indeed what is on the job description word for word” [16]. The key is to show you understand what they do and how you fit into their future, not to regurgitate their own marketing copy back at them.
Show your worth
Ultimately, your cover letter should answer one fundamental question: what can you do for them? Too many applicants spend time explaining why they love the company when they should focus on why the company should love them.
“The company isn’t posting a job for charity, or to improve your life; they’re trying to fill a position they consider essential,” notes O’Neill. “Convince them that you’re the one who would most help them, not that you’d benefit most from it.” [17]
This means understanding their challenges and positioning yourself as the solution. If they’re expanding internationally, highlight your global experience. If they’re launching a new product, emphasise your innovation track record. If they’re undergoing digital transformation, showcase your technology skills.
Short and sweet
Keep it concise. “Make it one page,” advises Amy Gallo. “Don’t play with the font, and make it, like, eight point font, and like make your margins really wide. Just really figure out what are the most essential things that need to go on one page.” [18]
Remember that hiring managers are dealing with volume under time pressure. Research suggests they spend between 10 and 90 seconds on initial application screening [19]. Your cover letter needs to capture attention immediately and hold it briefly but memorably.
Managing your time
The obvious concern is time. How can you personalise every application without spending your entire life crafting cover letters? The answer lies in creating a flexible framework rather than starting from scratch each time. “You’re tweaking some things. You’re not writing a whole new letter,” Gallo explains. “Write your best cover letter for the first job you apply for. Share that with your friend to check the tone. Do the research on the company. Then adjust the cover letter accordingly.” [20]
This approach makes the process sustainable while maintaining quality and authenticity.
Why the cover letter still matters
Far from being an outdated formality, the cover letter is experiencing a renaissance. In a world saturated with identical CVs and AI-generated applications, it represents your last bastion of humanity in the hiring process. It’s where you can be funny, thoughtful, insightful, or passionate, all those qualities that matter enormously but don’t fit neatly into standardised application fields.
The candidates who understand this shift, who invest time in crafting genuine, personalised cover letters, will find themselves with a significant advantage. They’ll be the ones who get the interviews, who stand out in hiring managers’ memories, and who ultimately land the roles they want.
“You never know who values cover letters and who doesn’t,” notes career expert Mike Peditto, “so unless a company explicitly indicates they don’t want a cover letter, submitting one is worth your time and effort” [21]. In today’s competitive landscape, that effort might just be what sets you apart from the algorithmic masses and lands you the job of your dreams.
The cover letter isn’t dead. It’s more alive than ever. The question isn’t whether you should write one, but whether you’re brave enough to make it authentically, unmistakably you.
Sources
[2] https://resumelab.com/cover-letter/are-cover-letters-necessary
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/business/how-to-write-a-cover-letter-that-stands-out.html
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/business/how-to-write-a-cover-letter-that-stands-out.html
[8] https://www.ft.com/content/30a032dd-bdaa-4aee-bc51-754867abbde0?sharetype=blocked
[11] https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/education/2022/09/20/writing-a-stand-out-cover-letter/
[13] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/business/how-to-write-a-cover-letter-that-stands-out.html
[14] https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/education/2022/09/20/writing-a-stand-out-cover-letter/
[16] https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/education/2022/09/20/writing-a-stand-out-cover-letter/
[17] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/22/business/how-to-write-a-cover-letter-that-stands-out.html
[19] https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/education/2022/09/20/writing-a-stand-out-cover-letter/
[21] https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinecastrillon/2025/06/10/cover-letter-phrases-job-application/