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/
Anxiety is a defining feature of the modern professional experience. It shows up in boardrooms and on building sites, at early morning check-ins and during late-night laptop sessions. It lingers behind confident emails and polished presentations, and increasingly, it determines not just how people feel at work but whether they stay.
In Ireland, anxiety is now the most cited condition affecting employee wellbeing. According to Laya Healthcare’s 2025 Workplace Wellbeing Index, one in two Irish workers report living with a health condition or mental wellbeing issue, with anxiety topping the list. Half of those respondents said they would feel embarrassed to discuss their condition with their employer, and just as many feared being treated differently if they did [1]. Despite this, we continue to operate in many professional environments as if mental wellbeing were separate from performance, as if anxiety were something to be “fixed” outside office hours rather than understood, supported and worked with.
Yet the evidence tells a different story. From absenteeism to presenteeism, from strained team dynamics to rising attrition rates, the impact of anxiety is everywhere. And the challenge for employers and employees alike is to recognise it, demystify it and manage it with intention.
The normalisation of a crisis
A recent study from the UK’s Health and Safety Executive found that between 2021 and 2022, over 1.8 million workers suffered from work-related illnesses, and half of these were linked to stress, depression, or anxiety [2]. In high-pressure sectors such as healthcare, finance, education and technology, the numbers are even higher. Erik Pham, founder of health platform Health Canal, points to research from the American Psychological Association which shows that 76% of employees in toxic workplaces say their environment directly harms their mental health [3].
In Ireland, Laya’s research shows that intense anxiety, while decreasing slightly in 2025 compared to previous years, remains a powerful undercurrent across industries. Financial insecurity remains a core driver, particularly for younger employees, driven by concerns around the housing market, mortgage approval and cost-of-living pressures [4].
But anxiety does not always emerge in a dramatic or visible form. It is just as often found in overachievement, perfectionism and burnout, or in avoidance, low self-esteem and social fears. There is no one form of anxiety, nor is its arrival necessarily trackable to some linear cause and effect. Sometimes it’s just there and you don’t know why.
Many people may be suffering from anxiety without even realising it. As Morra Aarons-Mele writes in The Anxious Achiever, “Do you ever find yourself micromanaging, or redoing others’ work because it’s not up to your standards? Do you feel like you’re in over your head and any day now others will discover you’re faking it?” If so, she suggests, anxiety may be playing a more active role in your professional life than you realise [5].
Psychologist Margaret Forde, who regularly works with executives and early-career professionals, notes that anxiety affects people across the employment spectrum. It doesn’t matter where you sit on the corporate ladder or how many zeros are on your pay packet. The question is less who it impacts, but how it affects them. “People can function with anxiety,” Forde says, “but if it’s the dominant theme in their lives, they will not be at their best. It will affect them in areas such as decision-making and mental focus. You end up staring at a screen or a document, but nothing is going in” [6].
Causes
There is no single cause of workplace anxiety but common threads emerge across studies. According to wellbeing coach Vanessa Green, four triggers show up most frequently: poor work-life balance, poor communication, excessive workload, and toxic interpersonal dynamics such as bullying or exclusion [7]. These triggers often combine to create a feedback loop in which chronic stress becomes internalised as personal failure.
Green describes how many professionals struggle to disconnect from their work even after hours. “They feel guilty for taking time off, or anxious that stepping away will be interpreted as weakness or lack of commitment,” she explains [8]. Poor communication can amplify this, particularly a lack of clarity around expectations. When employees do not know what their manager wants, or do not feel safe enough to ask, anxiety tends to fill the silence. As Chester Elton, co-author of Anxiety at Work, puts it: “In the absence of information, our instinct is to assume the worst — and then work ourselves to the bone to make sure it never happens” [9].
High workloads remain a persistent driver of stress. While some leaders assume that pressure will drive performance, the opposite is often true. “We don’t eat an elephant in one bite,” says Elton. “You have to break work into digestible parts. Managers who support their teams to do that effectively can reduce anxiety more than they realise” [10].
The emotional culture of a workplace matters too. One of the most toxic (and least visible) contributors to workplace anxiety is social exclusion. “Ostracism in the workplace can have long-term psychological implications,” Elton warns. “It is often just as damaging as direct bullying” [11]. Employees who feel excluded, belittled, or overlooked often feel psychologically unsafe, which contributes to higher stress and lower self-esteem. Under such circumstances, working at a high-level becomes extremely difficult.
Why it matters
The costs of anxiety go far beyond the individual. When anxiety becomes entrenched, businesses suffer too. Chronic anxiety impairs cognitive performance, weakens memory, and reduces the ability to regulate emotion, leading to reactive decision-making or analysis paralysis. According to research cited by Laya Healthcare, anxiety increases both absenteeism and presenteeism, damages concentration, and raises the risk of secondary mental health issues such as depression, substance abuse and burnout [12].
Anxiety also erodes retention. A growing number of employees, particularly those in their twenties and thirties, cite mental health as a driving factor in their decision to leave jobs. “Seventy-five per cent of millennials and Gen Z said they left a job recently because of a mental health issue,” says Elton. “You’re losing incredibly talented people because they don’t feel safe talking about their anxiety” [13].
Given this, ignoring anxiety is not just wrongheaded from a moral standpoint but is an outright business risk. And yet, even where support is available, stigma still prevents many employees from reaching out. A 2023 study showed that 90 per cent of workers with anxiety feared disclosing it to their managers [14]. The perception that anxiety and leadership are incompatible is deeply entrenched, and it is holding organisations back.
Managing anxiety
So what can be done? The most effective responses to anxiety are not flashy wellness campaigns or one-off mental health days but long-term cultural shifts that integrate psychological safety into the fabric of an organisation.
At the core of this shift is leadership. As Elton emphasises, “If you can’t talk to your immediate supervisor about a mental health issue, what’s the result? The result is attrition. The result is burnout” [15]. Managers need to recognise that supporting mental wellbeing is a driver of high performance, not a distraction from it. That begins with empathy and emotional literacy. It means actively constructing an environment that makes talking about mental health easy from both an emotional and practical standpoint. Leaders need to communicate to their teams that it’s okay to be going through a hard time and let them know the parameters in place to help them if they are.
Leaders who are willing to be vulnerable and share their own anxieties or challenges help create environments where others feel safe to do the same. As Elton notes, “Trying too hard to appear perfectly in control makes you seem unrelatable. Disclosing that you, too, have struggles can bring all sides together” [16]. Leaders need to be fostering open dialogue, establishing clear expectations, and offering support without judgement.
To help both employees and leaders alike, the available support should be structural, with clear practices available to those who feel they need help. Practical interventions include flexible working hours, workload reviews, mental health training for managers, and accessible resources such as Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs), therapy, and digital wellbeing platforms. Some Irish employers now offer 24/7 mental wellbeing support, including financial counselling and CBT-based interventions for anxiety management [17]. These practices may not outright curtail anxiety, but they can help make it manageable. As Aarons-Mele writes, “When you understand your anxiety and learn to leverage it, you develop a leadership superpower. Unmanaged anxiety keeps you stuck imagining a scary future. But managed anxiety can give you foresight, drive, and empathy” [18].
These strategies can be helpful, but none of them will work unless the culture supports them. That means tackling the stigma head-on.
Building resilience
While organisations must lead, individuals also need tools to manage their own anxiety. Vanessa Green outlines daily practices that many high-achieving professionals use to stay grounded under pressure. These include physical self-care (exercise, sleep, diet), mindfulness, time management, and clear boundary-setting [19].
Other strategies involve building psychological resilience. Reframing anxious thoughts, focusing on problem-solving and practising self-compassion can all help to break the anxiety loop. To sceptics, these approaches can sound wishy-washy, but there’s a logic behind them that can make all the difference, even and especially for workers who are accustomed to guarding their struggles internally. “Self-compassion is not about letting yourself off the hook,” says Forde. “It’s about treating yourself with the kindness you’d extend to someone else in a difficult situation” [20].
It is also important to acknowledge that not all anxiety is bad. In fact, under the right conditions, anxiety can improve performance. The Yerkes-Dodson Law, a century-old psychological model, shows that moderate levels of arousal can boost motivation and focus. Meanwhile, too little leads to apathy and too much leads to paralysis [21]. One useful practice is to reframe anxiety as excitement. While not a guaranteed solution, this approach can be particularly effective in high-stress situations such as job interviews, performance reviews, or public speaking. Recognising that nerves are a normal response that can be channelled into a more positive, energising mindset can make these moments easier to navigate.
Overcoming anxiety at work
Overcoming workplace anxiety is not about striving for serenity in all situations, nor is it about creating perfectly calm workplaces. It is about creating environments where people feel seen, supported and psychologically safe enough to do their best work. That means recognising that anxiety is not a private flaw. It is a shared human experience that when properly understood can become a source of insight rather than isolation. If leaders commit to empathy, if organisations invest in mental health as they do in strategy, and if individuals are given the tools to manage their inner worlds then we can turn anxiety from something feared and silenced into something acknowledged, supported and ultimately transformed.
Sources
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/byroncole/2023/10/06/how-to-combat-anxiety-at-work/
[7] https://www.forbes.com/sites/byroncole/2023/10/06/how-to-combat-anxiety-at-work/
[8] https://www.forbes.com/sites/byroncole/2023/10/06/how-to-combat-anxiety-at-work/
[9] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodgerdeanduncan/2021/06/29/tips-for-dealing-with-anxiety-at-work/
[10] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodgerdeanduncan/2021/06/29/tips-for-dealing-with-anxiety-at-work/
[11] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodgerdeanduncan/2021/06/29/tips-for-dealing-with-anxiety-at-work/
[13] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccazucker/2021/06/29/overcoming-anxiety-at-work/
[14] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccazucker/2021/06/29/overcoming-anxiety-at-work/
[15] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccazucker/2021/06/29/overcoming-anxiety-at-work/
[16] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccazucker/2021/06/29/overcoming-anxiety-at-work/
[19] https://www.forbes.com/sites/byroncole/2023/10/06/how-to-combat-anxiety-at-work/
Artificial intelligence is no longer an emerging curiosity in the world of recruitment. It has become the default. In 2025, nearly every major company uses AI to some degree in hiring, whether for screening CVs, automating interview scheduling, or assessing candidates’ suitability for complex roles. A recent survey found that 99% of hiring managers now rely on AI tools in their recruitment processes, and 95% expect to increase their investment in these technologies in the coming year [1].
This enthusiasm is understandable. AI promises speed and scale, an antidote to the volume of applications that can overwhelm even the most seasoned hiring teams. But behind the scenes, AI is also having an effect more profound. It is reshaping the psychology of candidates, the fairness of assessments, and the very nature of how we define merit.
The impact on behaviour
For employers and candidates alike, the rise of AI in hiring has created a tension between efficiency and authenticity. As companies pursue the allure of automation, they risk sacrificing precisely what they claim to value most. Namely, diversity of thought, genuine human connection and a sense of fairness.
It is a paradox that researchers have begun to explore in detail. Writing in Harvard Business Review, Jonas Goergen and colleagues at the University of St. Gallen, along with Anne-Kathrin Klesse at Erasmus University, have demonstrated that AI assessment tools don’t just change how candidates are evaluated but how the candidates themselves actually behave [2]. Their research, spanning more than 13,000 participants, reveals a powerful shift in self-presentation. Candidates who knew AI was assessing them became more likely to emphasise analytical traits like rule-following or data-centric thinking and to downplay qualities like empathy, creativity, and intuition. In effect, AI nudges people toward a uniform version of competence.
This behavioural distortion is more than an academic curiosity. It has profound implications for the composition of talent pipelines. “When candidates systematically misrepresent themselves, organisations face critical challenges,” the researchers wrote. “Talent pool distortion, validity compromise, and unintended homogenisation” all threaten to undermine the very purpose of assessment [3].
The impact on bias
Companies frequently tout AI as a tool to combat bias. It is true that conventional hiring practices like unstructured interviews and gut-feel assessments are notoriously prone to human prejudice. Yet the idea that AI is inherently objective is wishful thinking. In a study published by Forbes, nearly all hiring managers agreed that AI can and does produce biased recommendations, whether because of skewed training data or opaque algorithms that replicate past discrimination [4].
These biases are not always obvious. Writing in Forbes, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic describes a troubling dynamic in which AI systems trained on historical promotion and hiring data will often select for traits that have little to do with genuine job performance. Overconfidence, self-promotion, and low agreeableness emerge as reliable predictors of career progression not because these qualities drive better results, but because they are the behaviours that have historically been rewarded in corporate hierarchies [5].
“If we train AI to predict who will get promoted in a company, it will efficiently select politicians,” Chamorro-Premuzic observed. In other words, algorithms may not only fail to fix bias, but they can even automate and entrench it at scale [6].
The impact on process
This is not to say AI has delivered no improvements. It has undoubtedly made it easier for recruiters to process vast quantities of applications and to reach more diverse candidate pools. Unilever, for example, uses HireVue’s AI tools to screen early-career applicants, reporting savings of 50,000 hours and over $1 million in the process [7]. Many hiring managers argue that AI helps free their time for strategic work, cross-training, and genuine human connection [8].
But the candidate experience tells another story. A survey from the American Staffing Association found that nearly half of job seekers believe AI recruiting tools are more biased than human recruiters. Among those actively looking for work, that scepticism runs even deeper [9].
This mistrust is not an abstraction. It has practical consequences. Candidates who perceive AI as opaque and discriminatory are less likely to engage authentically. Instead, they game the system, crafting applications that match algorithmic preferences but reveal little about their real strengths.
The result is a new kind of arms race. Employers deploy AI to filter candidates more efficiently. Candidates, in turn, adopt their own AI tools. They use generative CV builders and ChatGPT-powered cover letters to optimise for keyword matching and pass automated screens. A Software Finder study found that 75% of candidates now use AI to assist with job applications [10].
Yet this widespread adoption brings its own contradictions. The same hiring managers who champion AI’s efficiency are often the quickest to penalise candidates for using it. One in four recruiters admitted they would reject candidates whose CVs were obviously AI-generated, even though 75% could not reliably tell the difference [11].
“It’s less about hypocrisy and more about two sides of the same coin — efficiency for organisations versus genuine skills from candidates,” Adnan Malik, CEO of Software Finder, explained [12].
The paradox is unmistakable. AI can help job seekers improve their materials and reach more opportunities. But the more candidates use it, the more they risk eroding trust and inviting suspicion. The hiring process becomes not a search for mutual fit, but a contest over who can best simulate authenticity.
The reaction
Companies now face an urgent question as to whether they can harness AI’s benefits without hollowing out the very humanity they claim to value.
Some organisations are beginning to grapple with this challenge. New regulations are forcing more transparency. In the European Union, the AI Act requires companies to disclose when AI is used in high-stakes decisions. In New York City, Local Law 144 mandates annual audits of AI hiring systems for bias [13].
Disclosure is an important step, but it is not sufficient. When candidates merely learn that AI is involved, they are even more likely to adjust their behaviour, further compromising the validity of assessments. The solution, researchers argue, is radical transparency. Candidates need clear, specific communication about what AI evaluates and why [14].
Most employers fall short of this standard. Career pages tend to mention AI vaguely, if at all. As a result, candidates fill the information void themselves, sharing blog posts and YouTube tutorials that may bear little resemblance to reality. In effect, companies have ceded control over how their processes are perceived.
Beyond transparency, some organisations are experimenting with hybrid approaches, combining AI assessment with human judgement. Salesforce, Nvidia and Philip Morris International all guarantee that human reviewers make final decisions [15]. Research suggests this does mitigate, but does not eliminate, candidates’ tendency to perform analytically.
Even in hybrid systems, the human element requires deliberate investment. Kathleen Duffy, writing in Forbes, argued that AI alone can never replace the nuanced work of recruiters, who at their best are able to uncover hidden potential, build relationships, and assess qualities like resilience and adaptability [16]. AI can accelerate certain parts of the process like identifying potential matches and collecting structured data, but it lacks the intuition to distinguish between a candidate who ticks the right boxes and one who will truly thrive.
This is why the most effective models integrate AI into a broader framework of human-centred recruitment. At Duffy Group, recruiters use AI for initial research such as sourcing candidates and gathering competitive intelligence, but reserve the core assessment and relationship-building for human professionals [17].
How to react?
For job seekers, this evolving landscape demands new strategies. While it is tempting to rely on AI-generated applications, success ultimately hinges on authenticity. Julia Arpag, CEO of Aligned Recruitment, warned that candidates who lean too heavily on generative tools risk alienating the very decision-makers they hope to impress [18]. “AI can help with structure and phrasing, but hiring managers still want authenticity,” she cautioned.
Arpag recommends a balanced approach of using AI to refine and streamline, but ensuring that applications reflect genuine experience and voice. Networking, she notes, remains as essential as ever, adding: “Word of mouth recommendations still matter.” It’s a refreshing reminder that the human dimension of hiring has not entirely disappeared, even in the era of automation [19].
The question is whether employers will prioritise this human dimension. So far, most companies have focused on efficiency gains, measuring success by cost reduction. Yet negative long-term consequences in the form of talent homogenisation, candidate disengagement and entrenched biases will be harder to quantify but potentially more damaging.
Going forward
As far as Chamorro-Premuzic sees it, while recruitment may look superficially transformed, much of the change has been incremental rather than revolutionary. “So far, it is a case of mostly running faster in the same direction,” he wrote. “But it isn’t clear whether this is the right direction to begin with” [20].
This, perhaps, is the heart of the matter. AI promises to solve the inefficiencies and biases of traditional hiring. But in the rush to embrace automation, organisations risk creating a system that is more efficient, but no more equitable, transparent, or humane.
To avoid this outcome, leaders must resist the temptation to delegate judgment to algorithms. They must insist on clarity about what AI measures, invest in human-centred processes that counteract bias, and remember that technology is a tool, not a philosophy.
As companies grapple with these choices, they would do well to remember that hiring is not merely a transaction. It is an exercise in trust, empathy, and imagination, qualities no machine can fully replicate. In the end, the organisations that thrive will be those that understand AI’s power but also its limits, and that remain committed to seeing people, not just patterns.
Sources
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/07/how-ai-assessment-tools-affect-job-candidates-behavior
[3] https://hbr.org/2025/07/how-ai-assessment-tools-affect-job-candidates-behavior
[7] https://hbr.org/2025/07/how-ai-assessment-tools-affect-job-candidates-behavior
[13] https://hbr.org/2025/07/how-ai-assessment-tools-affect-job-candidates-behavior
[14] https://hbr.org/2025/07/how-ai-assessment-tools-affect-job-candidates-behavior
[15] https://hbr.org/2025/07/how-ai-assessment-tools-affect-job-candidates-behavior
It’s often difficult for a leader stepping into a new role. You’re the boss, but you’re also the newbie, simultaneously the authority figure and the one who needs to ask directions for the bathroom. The impulse to prove one’s worth early on often collides with the uncomfortable truth that credibility has yet to be earned. Whether you are a freshly minted manager or a seasoned executive walking into a new organisation, giving feedback too soon (or too tentatively) can damage trust before it takes root. Yet delaying these conversations risks allowing underperformance to calcify into culture. Navigating this tension is one of the most critical challenges that new leaders face.
Marissa Fernandez, a former C-suite executive turned executive coach, has seen this tightrope act up close. As she observes in Harvard Business Review, “Moving too fast can lead to missteps, while waiting too long risks inaction and meaningful opportunities lost” [1]. The art lies in giving feedback that is timely but also informed by real understanding of the people, systems and politics you have inherited.
This is less about technique than mindset. Too many leaders see feedback as a transaction, just one more task on a checklist of performance management. But effective feedback is a relationship. It demands curiosity, humility and the discipline to set aside your ego so you can serve the team’s growth rather than your own need for validation.
The good news is that while every organisation is unique, the principles underpinning effective feedback are remarkably consistent. Drawing on research and the experiences of leaders across industries, four strategies stand out. New learners should assess the landscape, fast-track trust, understand their team’s aspirations, and set aside their ego. Each one helps transform feedback from a threat into a catalyst for growth.
Assess the landscape
Early in a new role, it is tempting to hunt for “quick wins.” For Barry, a divisional CFO Fernandez coached, this impulse had been a career-long pattern. He would act fast in order to establish credibility. But as he later admitted, that same urgency had often bred resistance and strained relationships [2].
The temptation to jump in is understandable. Leaders are hired to deliver results, and results rarely come from standing still. Yet if you begin issuing feedback based solely on your first impressions, you risk acting on incomplete or distorted information. The solution is to slow down just long enough to build context.
Michael Watkins, author of The First 90 Days, suggests that new leaders develop a structured learning plan across four domains: technical, interpersonal, cultural and political [3]. This framework goes beyond the obvious (“What do our KPIs say?”) and forces you to consider subtler dynamics such as who really holds influence? What unspoken norms shape behaviour? Which past experiences have made the team cautious or cynical?
For Barry, this approach proved transformative. When he observed that his head of accounting, Luis, lacked the strategic capabilities the role required, his first instinct was to act immediately. But he resisted. Instead, he spent weeks gathering perspective. He observed meetings, spoke with Luis’s peers, learned about Luis’s 17-year tenure and the trust he commanded [4]. With this deeper understanding, Barry reframed his feedback. Rather than a blunt indictment of Luis’s shortcomings, it became a conversation about transitioning into a role that played to Luis’s strengths while serving the business’s evolving needs.
This measured approach underscores the broader truth that effective feedback depends on situational awareness. When you have triangulated observations and heard the same themes from multiple voices, your insights are more likely to be accurate and your feedback more likely to be accepted.
Model vulnerability
“To ensure your feedback is not just heard but acted upon, you need to build a foundation of trust,” Fernandez writes [5]. Even when your feedback is grounded in data and observation, it will fall flat without trust. Yet trust, by definition, takes time to develop.
Exceptional leaders understand that while time helps, deliberate action accelerates the process. In The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Patrick Lencioni argues that vulnerability is a core building block of trust [6]. Leaders who model openness create psychological safety, helping develop the sense that it is safe to take risks, admit mistakes and be imperfect.
One powerful way to do this is to share the “dark side” of your strengths. For example, if decisiveness is your hallmark, acknowledge that it can sometimes come across as impatience. If collaboration is your preference, admit that it can slow decision-making. By openly naming these tensions, you invite your team to do the same and signal that candid self-reflection is valued.
In one case Fernandez describes, a newly restructured leadership team held a facilitated session in which every member shared not only their top strengths but also the unintended consequences of overusing them [7]. Because everyone participated, the exercise felt less like a confessional and more like an honest calibration. The result was a foundation of faster trust and an environment primed for constructive feedback.
Understand what drives your people
Feedback is both easier to receive and more likely to inspire change when it connects to what matters most to the recipient. In other words, the best feedback is not just about correcting performance gaps but enabling aspirations.
When Divya, another of Fernandez’s clients, stepped into the role of head of global sales, she scheduled one-on-one meetings with every team member to understand their ambitions and their best working experiences [8]. These conversations built rapport, but more than that they created a roadmap for future coaching.
A few weeks later, Divya noticed that Maria, a high-performing regional sales leader, often dominated discussions, inadvertently stifling other voices. Instead of framing the feedback purely as a problem, Divya anchored it in Maria’s own goals: “Leading on a larger stage will mean fostering collaboration and creating space for others’ ideas to shine. Let’s work on strategies to build that skill now” [9].
Maria took the message to heart. Over time, she shifted her approach in meetings, drawing out quieter team members and asking more questions before offering her perspective. By aligning feedback with Maria’s aspirations, Divya transformed what could have been a defensive exchange into an empowering conversation that ultimately aided both. Finding the motivation of your team can be key to this. Maria wanted to be great at her job and thought showing her strengths was the way to go about that. Divya’s feedback helped her see that the best way to achieve her goal was actually to cede the spotlight from time to time. When feedback is positioned as a pathway to achieve personal ambitions, it feels less like criticism and more like investment. Aligning your wants with the wants of your team goes a long way.
Set aside your ego
Perhaps the most insidious obstacle to effective feedback is ego. New leaders are especially prone to letting it intrude. In the rush to prove they were the right hire, they either swing toward overassertiveness, such as by using blunt feedback to project authority, or swing the other way toward excessive caution, avoiding difficult conversations altogether.
Neither extreme works. “Exceptional leaders understand that you can be clear and direct while showing care and respect — it’s not an either/or choice,” Fernandez writes [10].
Michael, a newly promoted director at a tech startup, faced this very dilemma. When a senior engineer repeatedly missed deadlines, Michael felt he had to intervene. But he also worried about alienating a key contributor. In their one-on-one, he began by acknowledging her expertise and past successes. Then he stated the facts simply: “I’ve noticed the missed deadlines on your recent deliverables. I know you’re committed to this product, and I want to make sure you have what you need to get back on track” [11].
This combination of directness and empathy created space for dialogue rather than defensiveness. The engineer explained that a new process was slowing her down, and together they restructured her responsibilities.
Such conversations require intention. Most leaders lean naturally toward either empathy or assertiveness. The discipline lies in preparing so you can dial up the side that does not come as easily. Over time, this balance creates a culture where feedback is not feared but welcomed as part of continuous improvement.
Useful feedback maxims
Beyond these broad strategies, a series of practical maxims can help ensure your feedback lands effectively. When gathered to give their opinions on what made for effective feedback, the Forbes Coaches Council, a panel of seasoned experts, offered guidance that underscores both the clarity and humanity required in the process [12].
One of the most enduring principles the panel agreed upon was avoiding the “feedback sandwich.” While it may feel gentler to embed criticism between two positive statements, Sheri Nasim of the Center for Executive Excellence argues this practice “lacks clarity, causes confusion and can make your direct reports feel you are disingenuous” [13]. Better to be clear and direct, framed with intention and respect.
David Limiero of Edens View Coaching and Consulting suggests reimagining the very concept of feedback as “feedforward.” Because the past is immutable, focusing on what could be different next time empowers employees rather than demoralising them [14]. This forward-looking mindset shifts the tone from judgment to possibility.
Clarity is also paramount. Lynda Silsbee of the Alliance for Leadership Acceleration observes that “ambiguous feedback leaves employees guessing, while clear, direct and constructive input helps them grow” [15]. When feedback is too vague, it becomes an exercise in frustration. Specific examples, paired with clear expectations, remove this uncertainty.
Finally, adapt your delivery to the individual. Barbara Zuleger of Performance Partners Coaching reminds us that “feedback isn’t one-size-fits-all” [16]. Some people thrive on direct input while others need time to process. Flexing your approach does not mean softening your standards. Rather, it means meeting people where they are so they can engage constructively.
Receiving feedback
Of course, giving feedback is only half the story. Being a leader also means receiving it, sometimes in ways that sting. Writing in Forbes, Dede Henley, CEO of Henley Leadership Group, reflects on handling critical feedback and offers three core pieces of guidance [17].
First, look for the “kernel of truth.” Even poorly delivered criticism usually contains some valuable insight. Even if you disagree with the criticism itself, look for the note behind the note. Your team won’t always know how to perfectly express what it is that’s grinding them. Good leaders can see through the superficial complaint to the underlying issue beneath.
Second, pause. When someone says something provocative, take ten breaths and, if necessary, ask to sleep on it before responding. As Henley puts it, this pause “gets the thinking brain, the neo-cortex, back online” [18]. Receiving criticism can be hard, no matter how constructive its insight or well-intentioned its aims. Don’t allow your pride or sensitivity to respond for you.
Third, mirror back what you have heard. Paraphrase the feedback to demonstrate you have truly understood, then ask if there is more. This practice diffuses tension and shows you are committed to learning rather than defending. It also ensures you’re not adopting the wrong actionables nor internally raging against a self-constructed strawman.
Leaders who embrace this mindset and understand that feedback is not an attack but a gift model the very openness they hope to cultivate in their teams.
Feedback is the bedrock
Feedback given well is neither a performance nor a manipulation. It is a genuine commitment to help others grow. When you are new in a role, this commitment is tested most acutely. You are learning the landscape, building trust, discerning aspirations and managing your own insecurities, all while being watched for signals of who you will be as a leader.
But these early moments, handled thoughtfully, can become your leadership foundation. They set the tone for a culture defined not by blame or fear but by candour, trust and mutual success. And in that culture, everyone, including you, has permission to keep growing.
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[3] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[4] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[5] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[6] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[7] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[8] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[9] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[10] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[11] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[17] https://www.forbes.com/sites/dedehenley/2023/12/24/handling-feedback-with-a-cool-head
[18] https://www.forbes.com/sites/dedehenley/2023/12/24/handling-feedback-with-a-cool-head
In June, the heatwave that swept across Europe claimed an estimated 2,300 lives in 12 major cities. According to a rapid analysis by the World Weather Attribution group, two-thirds of those deaths — about 1,500 — were directly linked to climate breakdown, which pushed temperatures up to 4°C higher than they would have been without human-driven global heating [1]. The fact of the matter is that extreme heat is now a pervasive global issue, and one that must be factored into employers’ considerations regarding employee safety. Even in generally temperate countries like the UK and Ireland, the figures are striking, with temperatures above 40°C recorded in the UK in 2022 and above 33°C in Ireland in the same year. As the climate around us shifts out of recognisability, a fundamental rethink of workplace safety, infrastructure, and policy is vital.
The Threat
Across both the UK and Ireland, policy has been slow to adapt. Unlike cold weather, where a minimum workplace temperature of 16°C is mandated by the Health and Safety Executive, no upper threshold currently exists for when it is too hot to work safely indoors [2]. This is increasingly untenable. Heat stress doesn’t just pose a medical risk to vulnerable workers. It impairs judgment, drains productivity, and raises the likelihood of fatal errors, all while pushing infrastructure, supply chains, and employer liability to their limits.
According to the World Health Organization, extreme heat could cost the global economy over $4 trillion in lost productivity every year by 2030, with two per cent of all working hours projected to vanish due to heat stress alone [3]. In the US, a recent report estimated that heat events already account for 235,000 emergency department visits and more than 56,000 hospital admissions each summer, tacking on an extra $1 billion in healthcare costs annually [4].
As Dr Talia Varley, physician lead for Global Corporate Advisory at the Cleveland Clinic, puts it, “Extreme heat events may be the new norm. And companies have more than one reason to be worried” [5].
The Effects
The physiological dangers of extreme heat are well-documented. At a basic level, the human body relies on evaporative cooling — sweating — and increased blood flow to the skin to manage rising internal temperature. When this natural thermoregulation fails, heat stress sets in. This can manifest in various ways: heat rash, cramping, dehydration, disorientation, heat exhaustion, and in the worst cases, heat stroke, which can lead to brain dysfunction or death [6].
But the threat is not merely biological. In high-heat conditions, workers become more irritable, less focused, and more prone to errors. Fine motor skills — the kind required to type, weld, or operate machinery — degrade. Cognitive performance drops. Studies from Harvard University and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers have found that indoor air quality and ambient temperature are critical factors in focus, reaction speed, and decision-making [7]. At temperatures above 25°C, attention, task accuracy, and risk assessment begin to decline. At 30°C and above, the risk of workplace accidents increases significantly [8].
This means the health and safety implications of rising temperatures are just one side of the ledger. There are business continuity, economic performance, and human resource retention issues too.
So how can employers begin to meet this challenge?
The Role of Employers
The first step is to acknowledge that temperature thresholds alone don’t tell the full story. Heat stress results from a combination of environmental, occupational, and personal factors. It’s not just how hot it is outside, but how humid it is, whether there’s airflow, how physically demanding the job is, and whether the worker is elderly, pregnant, taking medications, or managing chronic conditions like diabetes or hypertension. Even clothing plays a role. Those wearing personal protective equipment (PPE), for instance, experience significantly higher internal temperatures [9].
The most accurate tool to assess risk is a wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) meter, which takes into account not just air temperature, but humidity, radiant heat, and wind speed. Yet very few workplaces in the UK or Ireland currently employ such measures [10].
What’s needed, says Varley, is a systemic approach. “Employers should incorporate heat-related illness prevention into broader health and safety programmes. That means developing a long-term heat-health action plan, tracking temperatures, adapting work schedules, and designing infrastructure for thermal comfort — not just cost efficiency” [11].
This isn’t just a concern for outdoor workers. Office spaces are not immune. Thermal discomfort can have cascading effects on mood, concentration, and morale. Many buildings lack adequate HVAC systems to stay within the temperature range recommended by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) [12]. Moreover, the current standards are typically based on male metabolic rates, which neglect the different thermal preferences and vulnerabilities of women. Women, particularly post-menopause, are more susceptible to sudden temperature changes due to reduced oestrogen production [13].
What’s more, as Arjun Gupta, creator of the indoor air quality device Vyana, notes: “Research shows worker performance declines above 25°C, and high CO2 levels can halve cognitive function. Investing in air filtration, monitoring, and HVAC upgrades isn’t just about comfort. It’s about operational effectiveness” [14].
What’s Being Done?
In the US, some states are taking heat safety seriously. Minnesota, Oregon, and California have implemented laws requiring temperature-specific protections for indoor and outdoor workers, such as mandatory rest breaks, hydration schedules, and shaded recovery zones [15]. Federal rules proposed by OSHA would require employers to provide shaded or air-conditioned breaks once temperatures hit 27°C, with more frequent breaks and monitoring above 32°C [16]. Yet in the UK, practically nothing has changed since the Climate Change Committee reported in March 2023 that the country had made “little progress” on adapting buildings for a warmer climate [17].
It’s not just regulation that’s lagging. According to Brian Castrucci, CEO of the de Beaumont Foundation and a member of the US National Commission on Climate and Workforce Health, only 17% of CEOs surveyed by PwC have implemented strategies to protect their employees from heat-related risk despite more than 65 million American workers already exposed to it [18]. “Extreme heat has come to Main Street, and it’s impacting Wall Street,” Castrucci says. “The question is not whether CEOs are going to feel the heat, but when” [19].
For businesses in the UK and Ireland, this should be a wake-up call. As Jamie Hailstone writes in Forbes, “Companies urgently need to develop strategies to protect workers from excessive heat as average global temperatures continue to rise” [20]. The risks are stark. In October 2024, eleven factory employees were swept away in flooding caused by Hurricane Helene in the US, a tragic reminder that extreme weather is no longer confined to seasonal or outdoor labour [21]. This point is only being further hammered home by the current tragedy unfurling in Texas in the wake of extreme flooding.
As climate hazards intensify, businesses must adopt climate resilience as part of core strategy, not as an ESG side project. That includes upgrading ventilation systems, implementing remote working protocols during red weather alerts, offering heat-related sick leave, and supporting mental health during climate-related disasters. “Effective leadership demands empathy and proactive support,” says Dalya Perez, former senior programme manager at Microsoft. “Publicly acknowledging the challenges faced by impacted employees — for instance, through company-wide messages of support — is a powerful gesture. It lets the team know it’s okay to be human” [22].
The mental health dimension of heat cannot be ignored. According to the American Psychological Association, high temperatures increase irritability and aggression, exacerbate depression, and can trigger psychotic episodes in vulnerable populations [23]. That psychological stress, layered onto physical discomfort, compounds the risk of burnout, mistakes, and absenteeism.
Planning ahead is crucial. Hansi Singh, CEO of Planette.ai, a climate forecasting startup, argues that “the perception of limited warning often stems from a lack of attention to forecasts. With better planning and integration, much of the human toll from extreme weather could be avoided” [24]. Singh is already working with insurers to develop parametric insurance products for workers whose livelihoods are disrupted by extreme weather. She predicts such schemes will become mainstream across the Global North in the coming decade [25].
Action Points
So what can businesses do now? Start by assessing the specific risks to their sector, workforce, and geography. Engage in training programmes that educate both workers and managers on the signs of heat illness, acclimatisation protocols, and emergency response. Invest in building adaptations and real-time monitoring tools. Establish internal communication strategies for red alerts. And design climate contingency policies — including remote work, staggered hours, or even temporary closures — that prioritise health over output.
It’s tempting to think of extreme heat as someone else’s problem, a challenge for vineyards in Spain or solar farms in Arizona. But the climate is shifting everywhere. In the immediate moment, it’s tempting to celebrate the uncharacteristically warmer temperatures that make for a nicer summer. But this is just the tipping point. As the world continues to warm, soon there will be far grander issues facing even countries with traditionally moderate climates. Workers will need to be protected.
As Dr Tim Fox, lead author of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers report on heat stress, warned: “Adapting industries to, and preparing them for, a warmer world will be essential for the future successful functioning of societies of all nations” [26]. In the coming years, success won’t just be measured in profits and productivity, but in how well we protected the people doing the work.
Protecting Workers from Extreme Heat
As temperatures continue to rise and the frequency of extreme heat events escalates, the case for immediate and sustained employer action is overwhelming. Protecting workers from heat stress is no longer a seasonal concern but a year-round responsibility, requiring investment, foresight, and a shift in how we define workplace safety. The economic, ethical, and human costs of inaction are simply too high. Those businesses that lead with empathy, science, and resilience will not only safeguard their workforce but also secure long-term operational stability. The climate has changed. Now, the workplace must too.
Sources
[3] https://hbr.org/2023/07/protecting-your-workforce-from-extreme-heat
[5] https://hbr.org/2023/07/protecting-your-workforce-from-extreme-heat
[6] https://hbr.org/2023/07/protecting-your-workforce-from-extreme-heat
[9] https://hbr.org/2023/07/protecting-your-workforce-from-extreme-heat
[10] https://hbr.org/2023/07/protecting-your-workforce-from-extreme-heat
[11] https://hbr.org/2023/07/protecting-your-workforce-from-extreme-heat
[12] https://hbr.org/2023/07/protecting-your-workforce-from-extreme-heat
[13] https://hbr.org/2023/07/protecting-your-workforce-from-extreme-heat
By the time most of us reach mid-career, we’ve heard it all. “Pick a lane.” “Master your craft.” “Become the go-to expert.” The mantra of specialisation — get deep, stay narrow — has long dominated career advice. It’s a compelling narrative: commit to a niche, invest your 10,000 hours, and one day you’ll be recognised as an authority, handsomely rewarded for your rarefied skill set.
But that story, while not wrong, is no longer the only one. In a world where disruption is the norm and agility is the ultimate asset, a different (once-maligned) archetype is now having its day in the sun, that of the generalist. These are the multi-hyphenate workers who roam freely across disciplines, adapting to change not by digging deeper but by zooming out.
So which is it — should you specialise or generalise? The most honest answer, as research increasingly shows, is: it depends.
When Do Generalists Win?
In a landmark study published in Administrative Science Quarterly, Florenta Teodoridis, Michael Bikard and Keyvan Vakili studied more than 4,000 mathematicians across two decades to test this very question. Their findings were nuanced but powerful. When the pace of change was slow, generalists outperformed. When it was fast, specialists surged ahead [1].
The researchers used the collapse of the Soviet Union as a natural experiment. Theoretical fields like integral equations saw a sudden flood of new ideas as Soviet research became accessible to Western scholars. In these rapidly evolving domains, specialists thrived, publishing 83% more citation-weighted papers than generalists in the following decade. Conversely, in slower-moving fields like algebra and geometry, generalists outshone their specialist peers — demonstrating a 22% productivity advantage over time [2].
The takeaway? Context is king. When knowledge is stable and innovation stems from unexpected combinations — like Ford drawing inspiration from meatpacking plants — generalists connect the dots best. But when fields evolve rapidly, as in artificial intelligence or gene editing, deep technical fluency becomes essential.
This mirrors a broader truth in today’s economy: both paths hold value. The trick lies in knowing when, where, and how to walk each.
The Need for Adaptability
Writing in Forbes, Paul Genberg, a self-described “hub of the wheel” who has done everything from ski professionally to launching cookware lines and now leads Studio X, says generalism has been a career superpower. “All knowledge builds on itself,” he says. “And the generalist takes his suitcase packed full of wide-ranging experience with him wherever he goes” [3].
His point is echoed in the rise of multihyphenates — those whose business cards don’t say one title, but three: “strategist-slash-marketer-slash-poet.” This isn’t a phase. It’s a function of a labour market that rewards adaptability over loyalty and problem-solving over pedigree.
Nicole Smartt Serres captures this shift well. “We’ve given specialising too much credit,” she argues. “In fact, it might not even be the best way.” She references David Epstein’s book Range, which Bill Gates listed among his favourite reads, for its defence of broad experience, interdisciplinary thinking and delayed specialisation [4].
That book’s core message is that generalists are better suited to solve complex, novel problems because they can borrow tools from multiple mental toolkits.
This broader worldview isn’t just theory but policy. Major employers like Google, IBM and Salesforce are de-emphasising traditional degrees in favour of shorter, skills-based certifications. These companies are betting that agility matters more than academic depth in a rapidly evolving world. As Kumar Abhishek, VP of S&P Global, notes, “certification pays off faster in the marketplace and is less time-consuming” but the broader, transferable skills of a generalist create long-term resilience [5].
Hybrid Thinkers
Yet it would be a mistake to declare specialisation obsolete. In fast-moving technical environments, deep expertise is a prerequisite. Rajeev Shroff, an ICF Master Coach and former network engineer turned venture consultant, argues that today’s innovation economy demands a blend: specialists with “fair expertise in two or three disciplines” [6].
In his view, this hybrid profile — neither pure generalist nor single-lane specialist — is the future. These individuals offer enough depth to make decisions and enough breadth to spot connections, a balance that prepares them for senior leadership and cross-functional impact.
This middle ground is increasingly vital in global innovation centres, where agility and domain knowledge must coexist. And it’s not just practical but strategic. In her TED Talk on “multipotentialites” writer and artist Emilie Wapnick puts it best: “Innovation happens at the intersections.” Generalists don’t just adapt; they synthesise. They turn ambiguity into opportunity. And when paired with specialists, they drive real breakthroughs [7].
Still, context matters. In technical fields where precision is paramount nobody wants a jack-of-all-trades. Specialisation remains a cornerstone of excellence. But the golden cage of expertise, as Genberg puts it, can also be limiting. “We tell our kids, ‘Find what you’re good at and stick to it,’” he writes. “But what if that industry goes away? What if you realise 10 years later that you hate what you do?” [8]
The ability to pivot, then, becomes essential. Mid-career switches are no longer taboo. Nearly half of surveyed workers have made dramatic career changes, from marketing to engineering, from teaching to finance. Of those, 88% reported feeling happier after the shift [9].
What makes these transitions possible? Generalist traits: transferable skills, strong communication, a willingness to learn.
Who Leads?
This makes generalists particularly well-suited to leadership roles. An HBR study found that 90% of the 17,000 CEOs they analysed had general management experience [10]. Specialists may rise quickly within functions, but the corner office often goes to those who can zoom out, make lateral moves and unify diverse teams. As one executive put it, “CEOs are required to make lateral, unconventional and even risky career moves.”
And yet, the C-suite still makes room for specialists, just not at the top. Chief legal, technology, or finance officers tend to be domain experts. The difference is one of scope: specialists optimise, generalists orchestrate. It’s not a question of superiority but of complementarity.
In fact, the most resilient teams blend both. Specialists deliver depth, accuracy and continuity. Generalists offer agility, vision and synthesis. As Shroff notes, leaders should aim to build teams that include both kinds of minds, as well as some in between. “To create maximum resilience in their teams,” he writes, “global leaders need to find the right mix of specialists with deep expertise in just one topic, specialists with fair expertise in two or three areas and a few generalists” [11].
Start Narrow, Grow Wide
This shift isn’t just organisational. It matters for individuals too. If you’re early in your career, focus matters. As Dr Eric George puts it in Forbes: “Specialisation gives you a professional foothold.” It provides earnings, opportunities and credibility [12].
His own path — first a hand surgeon, then CEO of a hospital, and eventually a successful entrepreneur — traces an hourglass arc: broad beginnings, a period of deep focus, followed by expansive growth. “Specialisation taught me to run a surgical hospital effectively and efficiently,” he writes. “Which proved vital later.”
This hourglass metaphor offers perhaps the best career guidance of all. Start broad. Focus deeply. Then broaden again. Generalisation without skill is shallow. Specialisation without adaptability is brittle. But together, they form a career that is both rooted and resilient.
For organisations, the implications are clear: hire for potential, not just pedigree. Nurture specialists, but cross-train them. Reward depth, but value range. In a knowledge economy, the strongest teams are not those stacked with polymaths or packed with narrow experts. They are the ones that know when to call on which.
For individuals, the message is subtler but just as urgent: your path doesn’t have to be linear to be valid. You can specialise, generalise, shift, return, hybridise. You can be a surgeon who becomes a CEO. A marketer who becomes an engineer. A generalist who learns to master just enough to be indispensable.
Because in the end, the question isn’t whether you should specialise or generalise. It’s whether you can read the room, read the times and read your own skills and desires.
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2018/07/when-generalists-are-better-than-specialists-and-vice-versa
[2] https://hbr.org/2018/07/when-generalists-are-better-than-specialists-and-vice-versa
[3] https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/06/03/the-value-of-being-a-generalist
[8] https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/06/03/the-value-of-being-a-generalist
By the time you finally sink your feet into the sand, lace up your hiking boots, or simply switch off your morning alarm, the last thing you want to be thinking about is a work email. Yet for many professionals, the pre-holiday period can feel like an overwhelming sprint to the finish line, a time thief that robs the joy from your well-earned rest before it even begins.
Writing in Harvard Business Review, project manager Yasmina Khelifi, author of How To Become a Culturally-Aware Project Manager, recounts a time she found herself entangled in exactly that trap. A long-awaited vacation coincided with the most critical phase of a high-priority project. “In a panic,” she writes, “I quickly began to plan for backup,” launching into a frenzy of emails, attachments, and exhaustive explanations for a colleague stepping in during her absence. What resulted was a blur of over-communication that only heightened the stress for both parties involved [1].
The mistake, as Khelifi saw in herself and sees in so many others, is the attempt to create a carbon copy of yourself at work while you’re away. “That’s not how backup plans should work,” she says. The key isn’t cloning yourself. Rather, it’s crafting a system that enables clarity, simplicity and, most importantly, trust [2].
A Matter of Mindset
The modern workplace is riddled with contradictions. We glorify time off but penalise disconnection. We promote wellbeing but idolise availability. It’s no wonder that, according to Forbes, over 765 million vacation days went unused in the US in 2023 alone — and even among those who did take time off, over half admitted to working while away [3]. The US may be more holiday-shy than most of its counterparts, but this is far from an isolated problem. In Ireland, the UK, you name it, employees are finding time off to be almost as stressful as time on the clock.
This trend isn’t just unfortunate, it’s counterproductive. Breaks are meant to be restorative, yet are often laced with more stress than day-to-day office life. Forbes contributor Shani Harmon warns of “leisure time thieves”, by which she means those lingering obligations and mental loops that sneak their way into our downtime, such as bringing your work laptop on the trip or checking your emails while away [4].
This cultural reluctance to disconnect has bled into the planning process as well. We often treat time off like a rogue wave to brace for rather than an inevitable rhythm of working life to plan around. And that’s where the change must begin.
Four Weeks Out
The most successful handovers aren’t built overnight. Ideally, you should begin your preparation four to six weeks before you set your out-of-office message. This is the moment to get strategic. Block the dates in your calendar, confirm them with your manager, and notify key stakeholders. Khelifi even recommends adding upcoming time off to your email signature. Maximum visibility, she argues, can sometimes nudge project deadlines forward to before your departure, easing the load for your backup [5].
This is also the window to reflect. What’s on your plate? Which deliverables can realistically be wrapped up in advance? “Remember,” Khelifi cautions, “your backup also has their own work to take care of” [6]. The aim isn’t to offload everything, but to ensure that what you do pass on is essential, manageable and clearly defined.
It’s here, too, that you should choose your backup. That’s a decision not to be taken lightly or left too late. The person stepping in for you needs context, time, and agency to do the job well.
Two Weeks Out
With your stand-in secured, the next stage is to define the scope. Aim to close out or renegotiate deadlines for any tasks that fall during your break. Think of your backup not as your replacement but as your representative. They’re entrusted to keep momentum going, not to inherit your entire workload.
The most powerful tool at your disposal is the handover document. This shouldn’t be a digital dumping ground but a curated, living artefact. Khelifi recommends listing every project you’re involved in, their current status, key risks, and any deadlines that fall within your absence. “Even if you’re not assigning your backup those tasks,” she says, “it will help them to know the status of your projects, and it will also help you plan your own work over the next two weeks” [8].
It’s not just a way of providing information. It’s a signal of respect for your work, your colleague’s time, and the standards your team upholds. Remember to be polite in the message and make clear that you’ll be doing everything you can to ensure they’re not overloaded in your absence [7]. They’re doing you a favour after all, it’s not a good look to ask for too much.
One Week Out
A week before your departure, the pressure mounts. But that’s precisely why this stage matters most. Begin by updating your handover document. Projects evolve, tasks shift, and what seemed urgent two weeks ago may no longer be a priority. Cross out what’s no longer relevant, and annotate the rest with clear instructions, including where to find files, who to chase for updates, and how to respond to specific contingencies [9].
Then, turn your attention to embedding your backup into the workflow. Add them to calendar invites, CC them on key email threads, and set up a one-on-one meeting. Perhaps your backup has a scheduling conflict with a meeting they’ve been asked to run. “You may need to take a call to see whether that’s to be cancelled or rescheduled and alert the attendees, Khalifi notes” [10]. The goal is to catch hiccups before they snowball.
The meeting should end with a clear email summary and a planned catch-up on your first day back. As Harmon advises, a “While you were away” update can help you reorient faster so your re-entry is smooth, not chaotic [11].
The Day Before
Out-of-office messages are often an afterthought, hastily written as you dash for the door. But a well-crafted one can make or break your time off. Be direct and specific. Set expectations, share contacts, and define your boundaries.
Khelifi suggests something in the mould of: “I’ll be hiking in the mountains with no/low network connection so I will not be checking emails” [12]. Meanwhile, Harmon goes out of her way to make clear that she will not be checking her email while away but also clarifies that anyone should text her in the event of something truly urgent [13].
Above all, resist the urge to stay connected as a form of virtue-signalling. If you’re a leader, the message you send by logging on during vacation is louder than any Teams message. “It’s become a very unhealthy norm,” Harmon writes, “particularly for senior executives, to forfeit a portion of every vacation day. That defeats the whole purpose of vacation” [14].
Instead, let your preparation do the talking. A calm, competent handoff broadcasts professionalism, emotional intelligence, and trust in your colleagues.
Protecting Your Time
There’s another side to this conversation that’s rarely addressed: how to avoid becoming the person who inherits all the leftover work when someone else goes on holiday. “Finishing up a project often involves dumping it or part of it onto someone else’s work plate,” warns Avery Blank in Forbes [15]. Many times a junior employee or someone in a non-management position ends up overloaded.
Blank offers a parallel set of principles: plan ahead, share the load, and prioritise. If someone asks you to cover, ask early for details. Clarify what’s expected, and negotiate scope if necessary [16]. Leaders, she reminds us, don’t work harder, they just work smarter [17].
It’s advice that applies on both sides of the handover. Whether you’re the one going offline or the one stepping in, the principles remain: prepare thoughtfully, communicate clearly, and honour each other’s time.
How to Hand Off Work Before Your Time Off
The deeper truth behind all of this is that well-executed handovers are more than just a logistical chore. Done right, they are an act of cultural leadership. They signal that rest is not a weakness but a necessity. That preparation is not paranoia but professionalism. That you trust your team, and in doing so, empower them to step up in your absence.
The transition from work to rest should not feel like abandoning ship. It should feel like a baton pass in a well-practiced relay. If executed properly, everyone gets to keep moving forward.
So the next time you plan a break, remember that letting go is not a liability but a skill. One worth learning, one worth sharing, and one that might just make your next holiday feel like a real one.
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
[2] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
[5] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
[6] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
[7] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
[8] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
[9] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
[10] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
[12] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
In today’s corporate landscape, few ideas have travelled faster — or been more misunderstood — than psychological safety. Once an obscure academic term coined by MIT’s Edgar Schein and Warren Bennis in the 1960s, it has since exploded into boardrooms, workshops, and keynote speeches. But in the rush to embrace it, many leaders have twisted psychological safety into something it was never meant to be: a promise of comfort, consensus, or protection from failure. The result? A well-intentioned but deeply misguided approach that often inhibits the very learning and performance it was meant to support.
Psychological safety is not about being nice. Nor is it about protecting egos, shielding people from accountability, or making workplaces uniformly agreeable. At its core, as writes Amy Edmondson, the Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School, psychological safety is about “a shared sense of permission for candour” [1]. It is the belief that one can speak up, ask questions, raise concerns, or admit mistakes without fear of humiliation or reprisal.
Psychological Safety as “nice”
So where have businesses gone wrong? Let’s begin with the most persistent misunderstanding: that psychological safety means being nice. Writing for the Harvard Business Review, Edmondson and Michaela J. Kerrissey, an associate professor of management at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, recall a consultant who boasted of having a “psychologically safe team” because “we never argue” [2]. But conflict avoidance is not a hallmark of safety — it’s a symptom of suppression. “Nice,” in this context, becomes a euphemism for silence. Teams that substitute politeness for candour become echo chambers. Without challenge, they stagnate. Without dissent, they fail.
The infamous Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 offers a cautionary tale. As Edmondson notes, senior advisors to President Kennedy withheld their concerns about the ill-fated plan for fear of appearing unsupportive [3]. The catastrophic result led Kennedy to re-engineer his team’s decision-making process to encourage dissent — an approach that later paid off during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In business, as in politics, silence kills.
This conflation of psychological safety with comfort has been exacerbated by “concept creep.” Shane Snow, CEO of the film tech company Showrunner and founder of the innovation skills center Snow Academy, warns that leaders too often treat discomfort as danger, mistaking emotional unease for a lack of safety. “Safety is not the same as comfort,” Snow writes. “A good fitness trainer will help you to safely exercise and grow your muscles. And you will be uncomfortable. But you will be safe” [4]. Discomfort is the crucible of learning. If your team never feels stretched, it’s probably not growing.
Another damaging myth is that psychological safety means getting your way. One healthcare executive described a staff member accusing leadership of creating an unsafe environment because their idea wasn’t adopted [5]. This misinterpretation weaponises the concept. Psychological safety ensures your voice is heard, not that your opinion carries the day. As Timothy R. Clark writes in Forbes, “To be heard is not to be heeded” [6].
The reality is that disagreement — respectful, rigorous disagreement — is fundamental to safety. It’s not dangerous to challenge ideas; it’s dangerous when people fear doing so. As Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff argue in The Coddling of the American Mind, conflating disagreement with violence or ideas with harm erodes resilience and undermines the very conditions necessary for democratic discourse and innovation [7].
Psychological Safety as Security
Psychological safety is also often mistaken for job security. Google’s 2023 layoff of 12,000 employees prompted outrage from staff who saw the move as a betrayal of the company’s psychological safety ethos. Yet, as Edmondson and Kerrissey clarify, the very fact that an employee felt empowered to stand up at a town hall meeting and critique leadership proved that psychological safety was still alive and well [8]. Being able to speak candidly — especially in moments of tension or disappointment — is the truest measure of a psychologically safe culture.
Psychological Safety as Performance
The most enduring and corrosive misconception, however, may be the idea that psychological safety undermines performance. This false binary — safety or excellence — misleads many leaders into thinking that fostering candour requires sacrificing standards. In reality, high-performing teams thrive on both. “When both psychological safety and accountability are high, teams do their best work,” Edmondson argues [9].
This dynamic interplay is captured well by Sarah Liu, founder and managing director of The Dream Collective, an Asia Pacific (APAC) top 10 diversity and inclusion consultancy. Writing in Forbes Australia, Liu points out that when people feel psychologically safe, they not only take more creative risks but also hold themselves and each other accountable for outcomes [10]. Safety creates the space for constructive failure. But without clear goals and high expectations, that space becomes slack rather than supportive.
Indeed, if psychological safety is used as a shield for low performance, it ceases to be safety at all; it becomes avoidance. As Clark writes, “Non-performing employees tend to invoke it as an excuse for poor performance. They claim that we should give them a pass. But autonomy is earned, not owed”. [11]
Psychological Safety as Policy
Another misconception is that psychological safety can be mandated through policy. Rhode Island’s 2024 Workplace Psychological Safety Act, which allows employees to sue employers for failing to provide a psychologically safe environment, may be well-intentioned but fundamentally misunderstands how safety is created [12]. You can’t legislate trust. You can’t demand vulnerability. You can’t write a law that tells people to be honest. Psychological safety is cultivated, not installed.
That cultivation happens, crucially, through leadership behaviour. But contrary to the top-down dogma many consultants peddle, it’s not solely a leader’s job. As Edmondson reminds us, psychological safety is “local” [13]. Some teams in the same company flourish while others flounder. Not because of executive proclamations but because of micro-behaviours: how people respond to dissent, how feedback is delivered, how mistakes are handled.
Edmondson and Kerrissey put it plainly: “It’s possible to create a motivated, psychologically safe, high-performing team anywhere. Start by focusing on your own team” [14]. Safety is not something senior leaders hand down like holiday leave, it’s something we build interaction by interaction, meeting by meeting, moment by moment.
Psychological Safety as Practice
So what does building psychological safety look like in practice?
First, leaders must put purpose front and centre. As Edmondson observed, teams that focus obsessively on safety tend to become “really nice to one another” — and nothing else. Edmondson and Kerrissey give the example of Anouk, a consultant who realised that the leadership team’s focus on creating psychological safety — the very reason she’d been hired — was actually backfiring. She helped them reframe their focus to concentrate on shared goals and performance rather than the abstract concept of safety. Psychological safety improved as a by-product [15]. The takeaway? Talk less about safety, and more about why your work matters. A shared mission justifies the risks of candour.
Second, teams must learn to have better conversations. Poor-quality dialogue — where updates crowd out inquiry, advocacy trumps curiosity, and silence is mistaken for agreement — breeds mediocrity. High-quality conversations, by contrast, are marked by engaged listening, intellectual friction, and progress. “The best way to strengthen psychological safety is to lead conversations in a way that encourages information to be shared candidly and processed thoughtfully,” write Edmondson and Kerrissey [16].
They give the example of a global retailer for whom one operations leader set up intentionally “slow” meetings — designed to be out of sync with the usual pace of business — where his team practised curiosity, admitted challenges, and collaborated more openly. The result was a microclimate of candour and improved performance [17].
Third, structure matters. Psychological safety is reinforced through rituals and routines — “failure walls,” end-of-week reflections, or drop-in office hours. These small, repeatable practices send a powerful signal: mistakes are learning opportunities, not liabilities. At PepsiCo UK, end-of-week reports on incomplete or imperfect work helped eliminate wasted effort and improve coordination [18]. At Microsoft Western Europe, Cindy Rose instituted regular “failure parties” and after-action reviews, cultivating not just accountability but shared ownership of outcomes [19].
What Businesses Get Wrong About Psychological Safety
Ultimately, the essence of psychological safety is trust — not just between individuals, but across teams. As Snow argues, trust is earned through ability, integrity, and benevolence. Only the last is non-negotiable. “No amount of skill or ability can make you trust someone who you don’t think has your best interests at heart” [20]. In a group where benevolence flows freely, people forgive mistakes, welcome dissent, and interpret each other’s actions charitably.
The challenge, then, is not to impose psychological safety from above, but to model it from within. To hold both high standards and deep empathy. To treat discomfort not as a threat but as a sign of growth. To encourage, not enforce, vulnerability.
Businesses that get this right will not only outperform their peers but outlast them. Because in an era of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, it’s not slick strategy or airtight execution that gives you the edge. It’s the ability to speak up, challenge assumptions, and learn fast. And that only happens in environments where people feel truly safe enough to do so.
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[3] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/shanesnow/2020/05/04/how-psychological-safety-actually-works/
[5] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[6] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothyclark/2021/06/21/what-psychological-safety-is-not/
[7] Haidt, J., & Lukianoff, G. (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind. Penguin Press.
[8] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[9] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[10] https://www.forbes.com.au/news/leadership/psychological-safety-debunking-the-myths/
[11] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothyclark/2021/06/21/what-psychological-safety-is-not/
[12] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[13] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[14] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[15] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[16] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[17] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[18] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[19] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[20] https://www.forbes.com/sites/shanesnow/2020/05/04/how-psychological-safety-actually-works/