Menu

HR

Survey: 65% of Layoff Survivors Say Lack of Training Led to Costly Mistakes

by

HR NEWS

Survey: 65% of Layoff Survivors Say Lack of Training Led to Costly Mistakes

As economic uncertainty continues and US workforce reductions ripple across industries, a new survey from Kahoot! – the learning and engagement platform – reveals a critical blind spot in post-layoff workforce strategy: training for the employees who remain. 

While the focus is often on those who are let go, it is the survivors who are left to pick up the pieces with little to no support.

This comes at a time when workplace engagement in the U.S. has dropped to its lowest level in a decade, according to Gallup. New findings from Kahoot! show that organizational disruption, continued workforce and geopolitical volatility, and a lack of structured re-onboarding following a layoff are further fueling that decline, especially among younger employees.

According to the Kahoot! 2025 Layoff Survivor Survey, 65% of layoff survivors said they made a costly mistake or felt unprepared or hesitant to act at work due to a lack of training after layoffs. 

Among Gen Z employees, that number rises to 77 percent—highlighting how younger workers are feeling the impact most acutely. Seventy percent of all respondents said a structured re-onboarding program would have made the transition easier, yet only 27% received one.

“Surviving a layoff doesn’t mean surviving the impact,” said Eilert Hanoa, CEO of Kahoot!. “When companies cut headcount without supporting those who remain, they are not just risking morale and employee engagement. They are risking mistakes, missed opportunities, and lost talent. The knowledge that left with those layoffs is not easily replaced. Without proper re-onboarding, what is lost can ripple across the entire organization.”

Survey: 65% of Layoff Survivors Say Lack of Training Led to Costly Mistakes

Trial and error has replaced training and the hidden tax is falling on employees

Most employees weren’t just doing more after surviving a layoff. They were figuring it out as they went. Eighty-four percent said they spent time during the workweek teaching themselves how to handle new responsibilities. One in four spent more than four hours a week doing so.

Only 27% received structured training or orientation for their new responsibilities. The rest relied on informal support or none at all. Fifty-five percent leaned on peer learning, 44% learned through trial and error, and 28% turned to resources like YouTube or Google to help.

After the Workquake, the aftershock became the job

For many, the workload surge hit on day one. Sixty-one percent said their workload increased immediately after layoffs. That rose to 63% by the end of the first week. A month later, 60% were still carrying more work than before. What began as temporary coverage became the new job.

Despite the heavier lift, 42% said they were frequently or constantly assigned tasks outside their area of expertise without training. While senior-level executives (60%) were more likely to receive structured onboarding for new tasks, only 20% of individual contributors said the same.

“Quiet chaos” took over where leadership should have stepped in

Nearly half of layoff survivors (49%) reported a drop in morale and engagement. For many, the silence that followed was more damaging than the layoffs themselves. Nineteen percent said their motivation took a significant hit and that leadership offered no support. Another 30% said there was some effort to rebuild morale, but it didn’t go far enough.

Adding to the emotional toll, 48% said current global and economic tensions have made things worse. With no clear direction and mounting stress, the result is quiet chaos: unspoken burnout, growing disconnection, and leadership that isn’t showing up when it’s needed most.

The next round of exits will not be layoffs, they will be walkouts

The lack of training and support isn’t just affecting performance, it’s influencing retention. Only 24% said the absence of training and development would have no impact on their decision to stay. Forty-five percent said they would likely leave within the next year if training needs aren’t met. Another 31% said they would stay, but feel less committed to the company.

Younger employees are feeling this most. Seventy-two percent of Gen Z respondents said they’ve considered leaving due to increased pressure and limited support after layoffs.

When fear of judgment wins, learning loses

While 54% of employees said they feel comfortable asking leadership for help or training, the other 46% do not. Eighteen percent worry they’ll appear incompetent, 10% said no resources are available, and another 18% said it depends on the situation.

Despite these barriers, employees want to learn. Sixty percent said access to training improved their ability to contribute to company goals. Eighty percent said they’d be more likely to recommend their employer if learning and development were prioritized, revealing a powerful link between upskilling and loyalty.

About the Kahoot! 2025 Layoff Survivor Survey

This survey was conducted online by Researchscape on behalf of Kahoot! from April 24 to May 1, 2025, and includes responses from 1,064 full-time U.S. workers who experienced at least one company layoff in the past three years.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts

The Promotion Equation: Loyalty, Performance, and the Risk of Attrition

by

The Promotion Equation: Loyalty, Performance, and the Risk of Attrition

It is one of the most revealing dilemmas a manager can face, a choice that pits stability against raw talent. 

On one hand, you have the loyal, average performer—the steady pillar of the team who embodies the company culture but may have a limited performance ceiling. 

On the other, the high-achieving “flight risk”—a top performer who consistently drives exceptional results but whose ambition suggests they may not be around for the long haul.

Who do you promote?

This decision goes far beyond filling a single role; it sends a powerful message to the entire organization about what is truly valued: consistency and commitment, or game-changing, albeit potentially temporary, performance. 

In the competitive talent market of 2025, where retaining key employees is a paramount concern, this question has never been more urgent.

To navigate this complex issue, we turned to a panel of seasoned HR and business leaders and asked them to make the tough call:

“Would you promote a loyal yet average performer over a high-performing employee but potential flight risk? What are the strategic considerations driving your decision?”

Their responses are a masterclass in strategic thinking, revealing the delicate balance between managing risk, fostering culture, and driving results. Here’s how they would approach this timeless management crossroads.

Read on!

Ambrosio Arizu
Co-Founder & Managing Partner, Argoz Consultants

Ambrosio Arizu

If loyalty and organizational stability are priorities, promoting the loyal employee may be more beneficial, as their commitment can foster a solid and lasting work environment. However, if the goal is to drive immediate performance and innovation, a high-performing employee might be a better option, although with the concern of retaining them long-term.

In this case, a key consideration is the impact on the team: a loyal leader could inspire others to become more committed to the company, while a high performer may generate faster results but with the risk of losing talent in the future. The ideal approach would be to create an environment where both types of employees can grow, maintaining the commitment of the loyal ones while leveraging the performance of the more productive ones.

Kevandre (Dre) Thompson
Full Cycle Talent Acquisition Specialist, Innomotics

Kevandre (Dre) Thompson

I would lean towards promoting the loyal, average performer due to the value they bring in terms of stability, team cohesion, and long-term commitment.

I believe loyalty should be rewarded, and it usually translates to a deeper understanding of the company culture, processes, and the trust that comes with consistent performance.

Although high performers may bring immediate results, their potential flight risk can introduce uncertainty and disruption, especially if their concerns aren’t addressed in a timely manner.

By investing in a loyal, average performer, you ensure continuity within the team, which can be crucial in maintaining morale and retaining institutional knowledge (that can be passed on to new company joiners).

Lastly, with the right development and support, an average performer may have the potential to grow into a strong leader who can contribute to the company’s long-term success and objectives.

Steven Rodemer
Owner and Attorney, Rodemer & Kane

Steven Rodemer

Promotions are to further the long-term viability of a company, not to reward short-term gains. A good performer can attract strong numbers, but if he is a flight risk, his leaving the company can disrupt operations and morale. Leadership positions demand stability, trust, and loyalty to the future of the company.

An average but loyal performer provides valuable reliability. They understand the systems, culture, and team dynamics. However, reliability in itself is not sufficient. If they lack the potential to grow in the position, advancing them poses a risk of inefficiency. Good decision-making, flexibility, and inspiring others are necessary for leadership. If they possess growth potential, cultivating them can provide an opportunity to create a long-term leader who will remain in the company.

The optimal decision hinges on the larger picture. If the high achiever is already exploring other opportunities, their loyalty is short-term. A company succeeds with leaders who find a balance between performance and commitment. Selecting a candidate who builds a solid foundation for the company avoids disruption and guarantees long-term success.

Chintan Shah
President & Managing Partner, KNB Communications

Chintan Shah

Always promote the high performer. The risk of losing them may be higher–but so is the cost of keeping them stagnant.

Loyalty is valuable, but it can’t outweigh impact.

The best way to retain your top talent is to challenge, reward, and promote them at the pace of their ambition. It keeps them engaged, and it also sends a message to the rest of the team that great work earns growth.

Jo Trizila
Founder & CEO, TrizCom PR

Jo Trizila

While it might seem like a no-brainer to promote the over-achieving employee, I can say without pause loyalty is an invaluable asset that’s difficult to cultivate and replace.

From my experience owning and running a successful PR firm for the past 18 years, TrizCom PR, loyalty, while not as immediately quantifiable as performance metrics, contributes significantly to an organization’s long-term stability and culture.

A loyal employee may exceed expectations when given greater responsibility and also enhance team morale and commitment.

We have always tried to promote based on loyalty, alongside performance, which has benefited our company, reinforcing a culture that values growth and dedication.

Joan Denizot
Owner, Body Ready

Joan Denizot

When deciding between promoting a loyal yet average performer and a high-performing employee who is a flight risk, I believe the key factor is long-term business stability.

While high performers can drive immediate results, their potential departure poses risks such as operational disruptions and costly recruitment.

Loyal employees, even if not top performers, often provide stability, institutional knowledge, and cultural continuity. If they show potential for growth, investing in their development can yield long-term benefits.

However, if the high performer aligns with company goals and can be retained through incentives or career growth opportunities, promoting them may be a more strategic choice.

Ultimately, the decision should balance performance impact with organizational stability, ensuring that the promoted employee contributes to the company’s sustained success.

Austin Rulfs
Founder, Zanda Wealth

Austin Rulfs

From my experience, whether to promote a loyal average performer or a high-performing employee with flight risk relies greatly on the larger context.

Loyalty is a significant strength, particularly in a company that is driven by long-term relationships, such as property investment and finance. Nevertheless, a high performer with great potential might yield short-term benefits, but if they jump ship shortly after promotion, it might lead to disruptions.

It’s about balancing immediate needs with long-term sustainability. In some cases, promoting the loyal employee could strengthen team morale, reduce turnover, and maintain stability.

But if a high performer’s contributions are significantly impactful, I’d work on strategies to retain them, perhaps offering incentives or career development opportunities to address their flight risk.

Paul Koenigsberg
Attorney, Koenigsberg & Associates

Paul Koenigsberg

I would promote a loyal yet average performer if they have shown enough consistency to be trusted with more strategic things. 

However, that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t consider promoting the potential flight risk but high-performing employee. This is very often the case with high performers. They are potential flight risks because they are often misunderstood. 

Sometimes, leaders can see enough promise in a person to actually take that risk just to see where it would lead, even if that meant putting out fires indefinitely.

It all comes down to what the team needs and what kind of risk is worth taking. 

A loyal, steady performer can be the backbone of stability, while a high performer, especially one on the edge of leaving, can either push the team to new heights or create chaos. 

The real challenge for leadership is knowing when to bet on potential and when to double down on reliability. 

Sometimes, the right move isn’t just about performance but about who will step up when it really counts.

Hayden Cohen
CEO, Hire With Near

Hayden Cohen

The answer here depends a lot on what kind of promotion we’re talking about. Loyal-yet-average workers often make great managers.

They may lack some of the raw talent of their peers, but if they’re good with people and committed to the organization and its culture, management may be the ideal place for them. On the flip side of this, promoting flight risks can be a good way to keep them around, as long as a promotion is what they’re after. If I suspect that someone’s going to leave shortly after being promoted, I’ll definitely go with the more loyal person.

Rearranging staffing causes disruptions, and those are expensive. If a promotion will keep them around, though, then it can be a smart move.

Jason Hennessey
CEO, Hennessey Digital

Jason Hennessey

Business decisions should be strategic, not emotional. Promoting a loyal but average performer can limit growth. Losing a high performer can hurt momentum. I would first analyze their long-term potential. If the high performer can be retained, I’d make that my focus. If the loyal employee is coachable, I’d consider them. A promotion should benefit both the individual and the company. Stability and performance should always complement each other.

Strong teams need a balance of reliability and excellence. Promotions should drive performance, not just maintain comfort. If neither candidate fits leadership, I’d develop another. Investing in leadership development ensures long-term success. Retaining top talent is more cost-effective than replacing them. Loyalty without growth is a risk. A company thrives on smart leadership decisions. A strong leader creates lasting impact.

The HR Spotlight team thanks these industry leaders for offering their expertise and experience and sharing these insights.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts

New York Becomes First State to Mandate AI and Automation Disclosure in Layoffs

by

HR NEWS

New York Becomes First State to Mandate AI and Automation Disclosure in Layoffs

June 17, 2025 — In a pioneering move, New York has become the first U.S. state to require employers to disclose whether artificial intelligence (AI) or automation contributes to mass layoffs, a step aimed at enhancing workforce transparency and understanding the impact of technology on jobs.

The new requirement, which took effect in March 2025, is part of an amendment to the state’s Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, announced by Governor Kathy Hochul during her January 2025 State of the State address.

New York Becomes First State to Mandate AI and Automation Disclosure in Layoffs

The New Rule: A Checkbox for Transparency

Under the updated NY WARN Act, employers with 50 or more employees must file a notice at least 90 days before a mass layoff or plant closure affecting at least 25 workers or one-third of the workforce at a single site. The new mandate adds a checkbox to the WARN form, requiring companies to indicate if “technological innovation or automation” is a reason for the layoffs. If checked, employers must specify the technology involved, such as AI or robotics.

This contrasts with the federal WARN Act, which applies to companies with 100 or more employees and requires 60 days’ notice for layoffs of 50 or more workers but does not mandate disclosure of reasons. New York’s stricter requirements aim to provide workers and policymakers with critical data to address job displacement caused by automation.

Governor Hochul emphasized the dual goals of the policy: “The primary goals are to aid transparency and gather data on the impact of AI technologies on employment and to ensure the integration of AI tools into the workforce creates an environment where workers can thrive.” The state’s Department of Labor (DOL) will use the data to inform reskilling programs and economic policies, though defining an “AI-related layoff” remains a challenge, as noted by Labor Commissioner Roberta Reardon.

Why It Matters: AI’s Growing Impact on Jobs

The rise of AI has sparked widespread concern about job displacement across industries. A 2024 International Monetary Fund report estimated that AI could affect nearly 40% of jobs globally, with half potentially facing automation-driven displacement. In the U.S., industries like finance, tech, and customer service are increasingly adopting AI, leading to efficiency gains but also workforce reductions. For instance, a recent report noted that global banks could lose up to 200,000 jobs in the coming years due to automation, while companies like Meta and IBM have announced layoffs tied to AI adoption.

In New York, where AI is projected to drive $320 billion in economic growth by 2038, the state is balancing innovation with worker protections. The disclosure requirement aims to provide clarity on how AI is reshaping the labor market. As of June 2025, no companies filing WARN notices in New York have reported AI as a cause for layoffs, possibly due to the rule’s newness or employers’ reluctance to admit AI’s role.

Experts see this as a critical step. Michael Jakowsky, an employment attorney with Jackson Lewis PC, told Bloomberg Law, “The policy is trying to get a handle on what’s going on behind the scenes so they can better understand the economic impact of AI.” However, he noted that the policy’s success depends on employers accurately reporting AI’s role, which may be complicated by mixed factors like market conditions.

Implications for Employers and Workers

For employers, the mandate introduces new compliance obligations. Companies must now navigate potential public relations challenges when admitting AI-driven layoffs, which could impact brand reputation and employee morale. However, transparency could foster trust with workers and the public.

Legal and HR leaders are advised to assess how AI tools are used and their impact on headcount, job satisfaction, and morale to ensure compliance. Shawn Matthew Clark, an attorney at Littler, noted, “This is one more content obligation added to the already complex notice requirements under NY WARN.”

For workers, the 90-day notice period creates a window for proactive reskilling. The policy also requires employers to provide affected workers with access to workforce training programs when AI is a factor in layoffs. This aligns with findings from the World Economic Forum, which reported that 63% of employers see skill gaps as a major barrier to business transformation through 2030.

Broader Context: AI Regulation in the Workplace

New York’s move is part of a growing trend to regulate AI in employment. In 2021, New York City passed Local Law 144, requiring bias audits for automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) used in hiring and promotions. Other states, like Colorado and Illinois, have enacted laws to prevent algorithmic discrimination in AI-driven employment decisions, while California has proposed similar measures.

At the federal level, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidance in 2023 on AI’s potential for adverse impact in workplace decisions, though recent rollbacks under the Trump administration have shifted focus to state-level regulations. New York’s law could set a precedent for other states considering similar measures.

Challenges and Criticisms

The policy has potential shortcomings. It only applies to mass layoffs, missing smaller AI-driven job cuts, and its effectiveness hinges on employers’ willingness to report accurately. 

Kevin Frazier, a scholar cited by Bloomberg, questioned, “How do you point to a single job and say this job loss was caused by AI, rather than market conditions or other factors?” 

Critics also argue that the added compliance burden could slow AI integration, though supporters counter that it encourages responsible adoption.

Looking Ahead

New York’s AI disclosure mandate marks a bold step toward addressing the human cost of automation. 

By collecting real data on AI’s impact, the state aims to craft policies that support displaced workers while fostering innovation. 

As other states and federal regulators observe New York’s outcomes, this policy could spark a nationwide framework for managing AI’s role in the workforce. 

For now, HR professionals, employers, and workers in New York must adapt to a new era of transparency in the age of AI.

Written by Grok with inputs from the HR Spotlight team and information sourced from Bloomberg Law, New York State Government, New York State Department of Labor (DOL), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Economic Forum (WEF), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), New York City Local Law 144, General Web Sources.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts

US Supreme Court Unanimously Rules in Favor of Employee: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

by

HR NEWS

US Supreme Court Unanimously Rules in Favor of Employee: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Marlean Ames, a former employee of the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS), striking down a controversial “background circumstances” rule that imposed a higher evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases. 

The landmark ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, issued on June 5, 2025, clarifies that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies equally to all individuals, regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group. 

The decision, authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, is set to reshape workplace discrimination litigation across the United States, particularly in the 20 states and Washington, D.C., covered by the five federal circuits that previously applied the now-defunct rule.

US Supreme Court Unanimously Rules in Favor of Employee: Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services

A Case Rooted in Alleged Bias

Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, began her career at DYS in 2004 as an executive secretary and advanced to program administrator by 2014, overseeing compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA).

Known for her strong performance, Ames received glowing reviews, including a 2018 evaluation from her supervisor, Ginine Trim, a lesbian woman, praising her work in 11 performance categories.

However, in 2019, Ames faced setbacks that would spark her legal battle. She was passed over for a promotion to bureau chief of quality in favor of another lesbian woman and was later demoted from her administrator role, which was filled by a 25-year-old gay man.

Her salary was significantly reduced, prompting Ames to file a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging discrimination based on her sexual orientation.

Ames claimed that DYS favored LGBTQ+ employees, violating Title VII, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin—a protection extended to sexual orientation following the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision.

However, both the district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed her claims, citing her failure to meet the “background circumstances” rule.

This rule, applied in the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits, required majority-group plaintiffs (e.g., white, male, or heterosexual individuals) to provide additional evidence—such as statistical proof of a pattern of discrimination against the majority or evidence that a minority-group member made the employment decision—to establish a prima facie case.

Ames appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the rule created an unfair double standard, placing a heavier burden on majority-group plaintiffs compared to their minority-group counterparts.

The Court agreed, delivering a ruling that levels the playing field.

The Supreme Court’s Decision: A Unified Standard for All

In a concise yet forceful opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that Title VII’s text, which prohibits discrimination “against any individual” based on protected characteristics, does not permit courts to impose different evidentiary standards based on group identity.

The “background circumstances” rule, the Court found, was a “categorical requirement” that conflicted with the framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973).

That precedent outlines a three-step process for proving disparate treatment under Title VII without direct evidence:

1. The plaintiff must show they belong to a protected class, were qualified for the position, suffered an adverse employment action, and that the employer treated similarly situated individuals outside the protected class more favorably.

2. The employer must provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action.

3.The plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer’s reason was a pretext for discrimination.

The Sixth Circuit acknowledged that Ames could have met the prima facie standard but for the “background circumstances” requirement.

The Supreme Court rejected this additional hurdle, noting that it unfairly burdened majority-group plaintiffs with demands not imposed on others, such as statistical data or proof of a minority decision-maker.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch in a concurring opinion, called the rule “itself discriminatory” and questioned the broader McDonnell Douglas framework, suggesting it may merit future scrutiny.

The Court vacated the Sixth Circuit’s ruling and remanded Ames’ case for reconsideration under the standard McDonnell Douglas framework, giving her a renewed chance to prove her claims without the extra evidentiary burden.

A New Era for Workplace Discrimination Claims

The Ames ruling has immediate implications for employers, particularly in the 20 states and Washington, D.C., covered by the five circuits that previously applied the “background circumstances” rule. 

Legal experts predict a surge in so-called “reverse discrimination” claims, as majority-group plaintiffs—such as white, male, or heterosexual employees—face fewer obstacles in pursuing Title VII lawsuits.

“This decision doesn’t rewrite Title VII, but it removes a significant barrier for majority-group plaintiffs,” said Sarah Werner, an employment law attorney based in Columbus. “Employers need to be more diligent than ever in documenting their decisions to avoid costly litigation.”

The ruling arrives amid heightened scrutiny of workplace diversity initiatives. 

Following the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision, which ended race-based affirmative action in higher education, 43% of HR leaders reported scaling back DEI programs due to legal risks, according to a 2024 Deloitte survey. 

The Ames decision may amplify these concerns, as plaintiffs could challenge policies perceived as favoring minority groups. 

However, civil rights organizations, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, emphasized in an amicus brief that the ruling does not weaken protections for historically marginalized groups, noting that Title VII remains a vital tool for addressing discrimination against Black and LGBTQ+ workers.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which supported Ames’ position, reiterated that “there is no such thing as ‘reverse’ discrimination—only discrimination.” 

With discrimination charges rising 8% in 2024 to 21,000, per the EEOC’s annual report, the agency is expected to ramp up enforcement actions in response to the ruling.

Implications for Employers and HR Professionals

The Ames decision places new demands on employers to ensure fair and transparent employment practices. Key steps for HR professionals include:

Robust Documentation: Maintain detailed records of hiring, promotion, and termination decisions, citing objective criteria like qualifications or performance metrics to defend against potential claims.

Manager Training: Educate leadership on Title VII’s uniform standards, emphasizing that bias against any group, including majority groups, is unlawful.

DEI Policy Reviews: Reassess diversity initiatives to ensure they prioritize inclusivity without appearing to favor specific groups. Skills-based hiring and universal benefits, such as expanded parental leave, can advance equity while minimizing legal risks.

Legal Collaboration: Work with employment attorneys to audit policies and prepare for potential litigation, particularly in circuits previously bound by the “background circumstances” rule.

A Texas-based tech company recently shifted its DEI strategy to focus on socioeconomic diversity and skills-based hiring, reducing legal exposure while maintaining inclusivity.

 Conversely, a Chicago retailer faced a lawsuit from a white male employee alleging he was denied a promotion due to DEI goals, a case that may gain traction post-Ames.

Looking Ahead: Ames’ Case and Beyond

While the Supreme Court’s ruling removes a significant hurdle for Marlean Ames, her legal battle continues. 

The lower courts will now reassess her claims under the standard McDonnell Douglas framework, evaluating whether DYS’s reasons for her demotion and denied promotion—likely centered on performance or organizational needs—were legitimate or a pretext for discrimination. 

Proving intent remains a high bar in employment discrimination cases, often relying on circumstantial evidence like inconsistent application of policies or biased statements.

For the broader workforce, the Ames ruling underscores Title VII’s universal promise: no one should face discrimination based on protected characteristics. 

As companies navigate economic pressures, hybrid work debates, and evolving DEI landscapes, HR leaders must balance compliance with fairness. 

The decision also aligns with broader trends, as 67% of HR leaders plan to leverage technology-driven solutions like HR analytics to address workplace challenges in 2025, according to a PwC survey.

“This is a wake-up call for employers to get their house in order,” said Werner. “Fairness and transparency aren’t just legal requirements—they’re critical for building trust and retaining talent.”

As workplaces evolve, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services stands as a reminder that equality under the law applies to all.

The HR Spotlight team thanks these industry leaders for offering their expertise and experience and sharing these insights.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts

Byline Post

by

May 30, 2025

Scaling XR for Healthcare HR: Unlocking a $250 Billion Future

By Sarah Chen, Chief Executive Officer, HorizonXR Innovations

The extended reality (XR) market is poised to soar to $250 billion by 2028, driven by a 250% surge in search interest over the past five years, according to McKinsey’s 2024 report and Exploding Topics 2025.

As CEO of HorizonXR Innovations, I’ve spent 15 years harnessing XR to transform healthcare, from surgical training to patient care. Yet, a critical challenge persists: 70% of organizations lack the IT infrastructure to scale XR, per Gartner’s 2025 tech trends. For HR leaders in healthcare, XR offers unparalleled opportunities to upskill clinicians, enhance employee well-being, and foster diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

Drawing on my experience leading XR deployments for 200+ healthcare providers, I propose a cloud-native, edge-integrated platform as the key to overcoming scalability barriers, empowering HR to shape a resilient workforce in a $70 billion healthcare XR market.

  • XR’s Transformative Power in Healthcare HR

My journey in XR began at Stanford’s HealthTech Lab, developing AR surgical navigation tools, followed by five years leading Microsoft’s HoloLens healthcare initiatives.

At HorizonXR, I’ve overseen XR solutions that redefine HR processes. Our VR training programs have boosted clinician proficiency by 20% and reduced training costs by 30% across 150 hospitals, per our 2024 data. AR wellness apps have improved staff engagement by 25%, addressing the 60% of healthcare workers reporting financial stress, per a 2025 PwC survey.
With 80% of healthcare executives planning XR investments by 2027 (Deloitte 2025), HR is at the forefront of this shift, especially as 65% of medical students now train with VR, per a 2024 AAMC study.

HR’s role is critical amid 2025’s challenges: 61,000 tech layoffs (Times of India 2025), a 4.8 million cybersecurity talent gap (SHRM 2025), and 48% employee burnout post-election (SHRM 2025). XR enables HR to upskill, engage, and retain talent, but only if scalability issues are addressed.

  • The IT Scalability Challenge

Gartner’s 2025 finding that 70% of companies lack XR-ready IT infrastructure resonates in healthcare. HR teams face three hurdles:

Outdated Networks: 60% of hospitals rely on 4G or basic Wi-Fi, per a 2024 FCC study, unable to support XR’s 10-20 Mbps bandwidth needs. This disrupts VR training, where 95% of clinicians demand real-time performance, per our surveys.

Legacy Systems: 55% of hospitals struggle to integrate XR with EHR platforms like Epic, per HIMSS 2024, complicating HR’s ability to track training outcomes.

Processing Gaps: 70% of hospital servers, over five years old (Gartner 2025), can’t handle XR’s 3D rendering, limiting multi-user sessions critical for team training.

These barriers hit smaller and rural facilities hardest, where only 25% have upgraded IT in a decade (HIMSS 2024). With XR deployment costs averaging $500,000-$1 million (IDC 2024) and 5% healthcare inflation (PwC 2025), HR needs cost-effective solutions.

  • A Cloud-Native Solution for HR

To bridge the 70% IT gap, I advocate cloud-native XR platforms with edge computing integration.
By hosting XR applications on AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud and using edge nodes for local processing, HR can deploy training and wellness programs without costly hardware upgrades. This approach:

Cuts Latency: Edge computing reduces lag by 40% (AWS 2024), ensuring seamless VR training for 2,000 concurrent users.

Saves Costs: Cloud platforms slash hardware expenses by 35%, per our 2024 data, with subscriptions starting at $15,000 annually versus $500,000 for on-premises setups.

Ensures Compliance: Edge nodes secure patient data, addressing the 70% of healthcare breaches tied to weak systems (Gartner 2025).

In 2024, we piloted this solution with St. Luke’s Medical Center in Chicago. Their HR team scaled VR training from 50 to 250 clinicians monthly, saving $750,000 and boosting satisfaction to 97%. A similar pilot with Rural Health Network in Appalachia used AR wellness apps to reduce staff absenteeism by 20% for 500 employees, proving scalability for resource-constrained settings.

These outcomes align with HR’s data-driven focus, as 82% of leaders use analytics for talent management (SHRM 2023).

  • Real-World Impact from My Experience

My 15 years in health tech have taught me that XR’s success hinges on accessibility. At Microsoft, I led HoloLens deployments for 200 hospitals, cutting surgical training time by 25%.

At HorizonXR, I’ve driven cloud-based XR for 200+ providers, navigating HIPAA and legacy IT. Our 2024 Mercy Health partnership scaled XR training, wellness, and DEI programs across 20 facilities, reducing turnover by 18% and saving $1.2 million, with 96% clinician approval.

These results stem from strategic partnerships with cloud providers (65% of healthcare cloud market, Forrester 2024) and open-source frameworks like OpenXR, which cut development costs by 20% (Omdia 2024).

For HR, the ROI is clear: a 3:1 return within 18 months, per our pilots, driven by lower training costs and higher engagement. Subscription models and incremental adoption—starting with low-bandwidth AR tools requiring 5 Mbps—make XR viable for 40% of budget-constrained clinics (HIMSS 2024).

  • The Future of XR for HR

By 2028, healthcare XR will hit $70 billion, growing at a 34% CAGR (Statista 2024). Emerging trends will enhance HR’s impact:

6G Networks: Offering 1ms latency (Nokia 2025), 6G will enable real-time XR training, vital when 75% of hospitals lack 5G (HIMSS 2024).

AI Optimization: AI rendering cuts bandwidth needs by 30% (Nvidia 2024), supporting rural providers serving 20% of U.S. patients (CDC 2024).

Modular Devices: XR headsets, 40% cheaper by 2027 (IDC 2024), will democratize access.
HR must prepare by upskilling staff—50% lack XR skills, per Gartner—with certifications like AWS Cloud Practitioner.

For HR professionals entering XR, focus on cloud architecture (35% demand growth, LinkedIn 2024), Unity-based 3D modeling (60% of XR developer needs), and cybersecurity, with 750,000 U.S. job openings (Cybersecurity Ventures 2025). Bootcamps can train workers in 6-12 months, addressing the 61,000 tech layoffs.

  • A Call to HR Leadership

The $250 billion XR market is a transformative opportunity for healthcare HR. At HorizonXR, we’re proving that cloud-native, edge-integrated platforms can overcome the 70% IT gap, enabling HR to upskill clinicians, boost well-being, and champion DEI.

With 20% of healthcare workers reporting low morale (BrandStoryboard 2025) and 70% of Gen Z valuing inclusion (Oyster 2025), XR is HR’s tool to build resilient, engaged teams.

Let’s shape a future where healthcare thrives through innovative talent strategies.

About the Author

Sarah Chen is CEO of HorizonXR Innovations. With 15 years in health tech, including roles at Stanford HealthTech Lab and Microsoft’s HoloLens team, she pioneers XR solutions that empower HR to transform healthcare training, well-being, and inclusion.

Do you wish to contribute to HR Spotlight? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your experience and expertise.

Accountability Unlocked: HR and Business Leaders’ Top Strategies

by

Accountability Unlocked: HR and Business Leaders’ Top Strategies

Workplace blame-shifting can fracture trust, dampen morale, and hinder progress, posing a stubborn obstacle for countless organizations.

Research, like Gallup’s 2024 findings, reveals that cultures prioritizing accountability can lift employee engagement by 27%, making responsibility a cornerstone of success.

To crack this issue, we consulted HR trailblazers and business executives with a key question:
What are your top strategies for cultivating accountability in your teams?

Their actionable solutions—ranging from clear, trackable objectives to nurturing open, safe communication—provide a roadmap for turning blame into empowerment.

Explore their expert insights to build a thriving, accountable workplace.

Read on!

Alexandru Samoila
Head of Operations, Connect Vending

Recognizing Accountability Boosts Team Confidence

One strategy I use to empower my team members is focussing on recognizing and rewarding accountability.

I make it a point to celebrate when team members take ownership of their tasks and deliver results, to offer positive reinforcement.

For example, when a team member successfully led a project and exceeded expectations, I publicly acknowledged their initiative and contributions.

I think it’s also important to reward team members who may underperform, but take accountability and learn from the outcome, as I think creating an environment of open communication and honesty is very important in increasing employees’ confidence in taking ownership of tasks.

Matthew Ramirez
Founder, Rephrasely

Weekly Reviews Foster Ownership And Growth

In order to cultivate a culture of accountability within my team, I emphasize the importance of establishing clear expectations and fostering an environment in which all members comprehend their roles and recognize the significance of their contributions to the overall success of the organization.

One effective strategy I have implemented is the regular review of progress through weekly meetings. During these sessions, each team member is afforded the opportunity to provide updates regarding their tasks, discuss any challenges encountered, and articulate what resources they require for success. This practice not only ensures alignment among team members but also instills a sense of ownership over their responsibilities.

Furthermore, I encourage team members to establish personal goals and monitor their own progress, thereby promoting accountability for meeting deadlines and delivering high-quality outcomes.

Additionally, I underscore the importance of constructive feedback, encompassing both commendations and areas for improvement, to ensure that individuals feel supported in their professional development.

This comprehensive approach not only reinforces accountability but also nurtures a collaborative and growth-oriented environment.

George Yang
Founder & Chief Product Designer, YR Fitness

Team Debriefs Shift Focus From Blame To Lessons

What’s worked best for us is building a culture where people speak up early, own their role, and learn from mistakes without fear.

Years ago, we had a major overseas order that was delayed, our teams pointed fingers and I brought everyone together and asked this question “What can we do better next time?” People stopped deflecting and started contributing, it shifted the focus from protecting themselves to protecting the team. From that point on, we made a small but powerful change where after every order, we do a 10-minute team debrief. Not to point fingers but to share lessons.

We also made ownership visible. For every project, one person’s name is clearly listed as “owning” it, that simple line reduces confusion and excuses. People step up when it’s clear what’s theirs to lead.

And when mistakes happen, I encourage people to speak up early. One junior staffer once flagged a minor barcode error, it turned out to save us from a customs delay that would’ve cost weeks. We praised her not just for catching it but for saying something.

Natalia Lavrenenko
UGC & Marketing Manager, Rathly

Simple Check-Ins Promote Ownership And Progress

Accountability starts with clear roles. When everyone knows what’s expected–and what success looks like–it’s harder to hide behind excuses. I like using simple check-ins. Not heavy meetings, just quick weekly syncs to see what’s moving forward and where someone’s stuck. That alone changes how people show up and take ownership of their work.

Also helps to lead by example. If something goes wrong on my end, I own it–no fluff, no spin. That sets the tone. And when someone else drops the ball, we talk about what happened and how to fix it, not who to blame. The goal’s always progress, not perfection. That kind of mindset spreads fast once people see it’s safe to be honest.

Michael Benoit
Founder & Insurance Expert, ContractorBond

Milestone-Based Ownership Drives Accountability

In my experience, a highly effective strategy for fostering accountability is implementing milestone-based ownership. Each team member takes full responsibility for a specific part of a project, ensuring they manage timelines, communicate updates, and resolve any issues independently.

During our recent launch of a streamlined bonding process, I assigned a key team member to oversee client onboarding improvements. They were accountable for reducing onboarding time from 7 days to 3 by optimizing workflows and handling client concerns directly.

This approach resulted in a 57% reduction in onboarding time, and we received positive feedback from clients who appreciated the smoother process.

I believe this level of ownership motivates team members to go beyond simply completing tasks-they develop a deeper understanding of the business and their role in its success.

In my opinion, giving individuals clear milestones and measurable goals creates an environment where they feel valued and capable of making impactful contributions.

Danilo Miranda
Managing Director, Presenteverso

Trust And Development Turn Mistakes Into Learning

At Presentverso, improving accountability starts with trust and development. We give each team member control over their assigned goals and performance measures. We use mistakes as learning opportunities rather than assigning blame when things go wrong. I always ask, What can we learn from this?

I also make sure to assist their development through quick online courses or pairing them with experienced individuals. This perspective turns errors into learning opportunities, which leads to people gradually taking on more responsibility.

Joseph Commisso
Owner, WeBuyHousesQuick.ca

Open Communication Builds Accountability Culture

Improving accountability starts with setting clear expectations and leading by example. When everyone understands their role and what’s expected, it’s easier to own results–good or bad.

Open communication is key, so I always encourage honest conversations, especially when mistakes happen. Instead of pointing fingers, we focus on what can be learned and how to move forward.

Regular check-ins, constructive feedback, and recognizing those who take responsibility help build a culture where accountability is the norm, not the exception.

It’s about creating a safe space where people feel supported to grow, not afraid to fail.

David Struogano
Managing Director & Mold Remediation Expert, Mold Removal Port St. Lucie

Clear Ownership Prevents Blame-Shifting

As someone who juggles multiple clients, I’ve found that assigning clear ownership to every project or deliverable is my most effective tactic. Clear responsibility assignment prevents blame-shifting because everyone understands their exact role.

I also make accountability part of the conversation from day one, and I reinforce it with regular check-ins. This strategy allows everyone to take pride in their role, and it’s significantly improved the flow of communication and outcomes.

Samuel Lee
Managing Sponsor, Mighty Vault Storage

Coaching And Communication Foster Accountability

Improving accountability starts with setting clear expectations and fostering a culture where team members take pride in their responsibilities. At Mighty Vault Storage, especially with the unique needs of RV and boat storage, every team member plays a vital role in maintaining the customer experience–from keeping the grounds clean to ensuring smooth move-ins.

When I notice a pattern of shifting blame, my first step is to have an honest one-on-one conversation. I try to understand what’s behind the behavior–whether it’s a lack of clarity, training, or confidence. Then, I focus on coaching rather than criticizing. We also emphasize team ownership during our meetings, where we celebrate wins but also discuss setbacks as a group, reinforcing the idea that accountability is about learning and improving, not finger-pointing.

By encouraging open communication, setting measurable goals, and modeling accountability at the leadership level, we create an environment where people feel both responsible and supported. Over time, this approach builds trust and helps shift the mindset from deflecting blame to stepping up with solutions.

Wendy Rummler
Chief People Officer, Credit Acceptance

Strong Listening Culture for Empowerment and Accountability

At Credit Acceptance, we believe that accountability begins with listening. We empower our team members through our strong listening culture, where their insights don’t just get heard, they directly shape business decisions. In fact, over 70% of our leadership initiatives have been influenced by employee feedback. That level of inclusion builds a sense of ownership, trust, and shared responsibility throughout the organization.

Our leadership team plays a critical role in reinforcing this culture. From onboarding to regular team interactions, our leaders are expected to model ownership, listen actively, and coach supportively. I learned the importance of this early in my own career when I made a significant mistake. Rather than assigning blame, my leader responded with empathy and guidance. That moment shaped how I view accountability: not as punishment, but as an opportunity to learn and grow. Today, that same philosophy underpins how we develop people across the company.

We start building accountability on Day 1. Our year-long cohort-based onboarding program includes regular check-ins and peer support to ensure new team members feel heard, aligned, and set up for success. Throughout the employee journey, we maintain open feedback loops via roundtables and surveys. That responsiveness reinforces a two-way accountability: we expect our people to speak up, and they expect us to listen and act.

We also equip our leaders with training, resources, and discretionary budgets to support and recognize their teams meaningfully. By creating opportunities for employees to lead, take on stretch projects, and grow, we make space for individual ownership and pride in outcomes.

Accountability doesn’t come from top-down enforcement—it comes from a culture where people know their voices matter and where leadership responds with clarity, consistency, and care.

The HR Spotlight team thanks these industry leaders for offering their expertise and experience and sharing these insights.

Do you wish to contribute to the next HR Spotlight article? Or is there an insight or idea you’d like to share with readers across the globe?

Write to us at connect@HRSpotlight.com, and our team will help you share your insights.

Recent Posts