Menu

HR

Powering Up AI Hiring: Solutions for a More Equitable Future

by

Powering Up AI Hiring: Solutions for a More Equitable Future

As AI-driven hiring tools gain momentum, they promise efficiency and scale in talent acquisition, but they also spark concerns about bias and fairness.

While these systems can streamline recruitment, their potential to perpetuate inequities or overlook diverse talent is a pressing issue.

To dive into this complex topic, the HR Spotlight team reached out to HR experts, AI specialists, thought leaders, and business executives to address a critical question:

Despite concerns of potential bias, AI-driven hiring is gaining traction. In your opinion, what is one serious adverse consequence of this practice within your industry, and how is your organization mitigating this risk?

Their responses reveal real-world challenges, from reinforcing existing biases to misjudging candidate potential, alongside proactive strategies like transparent algorithms, diverse training data, and human oversight.

Join us as we explore the risks of AI in hiring and the innovative solutions organizations are deploying to ensure fairness.

Discover how these leaders are navigating the delicate balance between technology and equity to shape a more inclusive future for recruitment.

Read on!

Ger Perdisatt
CEO & Founder, Acuity AI Advisory

Ger Perdisatt – Acuity AI Advisory

When AI optimises for what worked before, it quietly filters out the people you actually need next.

The real risk in AI-driven hiring isn’t traditional bias — gender, race, or education. It’s corporate success bias: the tendency of AI systems to replicate what has historically worked in your organisation, even when that’s exactly what won’t move you forward.

Trained on past hiring data, these tools surface “safe” candidates who mirror your existing top performers. Familiar degrees. Recognisable companies. Predictable experience. It looks like consistency — but it’s actually stagnation.

          If you’re trying to evolve, these systems quietly optimise against change.

In industries that demand fresh thinking and strategic agility, this creates dangerous blind spots. AI won’t challenge your hiring assumptions — it validates them. At Acuity, we’ve seen how even well-intentioned systems can entrench sameness when they’re designed without forward-looking intent.

The mitigation playbook:

1. Define hiring success forward, not backward.

2. Audit inputs and outcomes, not just interfaces.

3. Use AI to assist, not decide.

4. And remember: culture makes the final call.

There’s justified focus on codified bias in AI systems. But here’s the uncomfortable truth:

      AI screens who you see.

      Culture decides who you pick.

Screening algorithms may be sophisticated — but they’re optimising for yesterday’s success criteria. In a period of transformation (which describes most organisations today), that’s the wrong objective function.

Until we acknowledge this, the risk isn’t just in our tech stack. It’s in our strategic blind spots.

Because real change means hiring for who you’re becoming — not who you’ve already been.

Margaret Buj
Principal Recruiter, Mixmax

Margaret Buj – Mixmax

One serious risk of AI in hiring is that it can reinforce existing biases. If an algorithm is trained on past hiring data-and that data has skewed toward certain backgrounds, schools, or demographics-then the AI will replicate those patterns.

At Mixmax, we don’t rely on automated decision-making. As a recruiter, I use AI tools to help draft outreach or summarize candidate feedback, but I still review every application manually. Our hiring is structured, but human.

In my coaching work, I advise clients to write resumes and LinkedIn profiles that are both ATS-friendly and human-readable. But ultimately, no algorithm should replace thoughtful hiring decisions grounded in context.

Tech should support fairness, not shortcut it.

Ydette Macaraeg
Marketing Coordinator, ERI Grants

Ydette Macaraeg – ERI Grants

In the nonprofit sector, one serious adverse consequence of AI-driven hiring is the perpetuation of systemic inequities that directly contradict our mission-driven values.

AI algorithms often reflect historical hiring biases, potentially screening out candidates from underrepresented communities who bring essential lived experiences to our work. This is particularly damaging in grant-funded organizations where diversity, equity, and inclusion aren’t just buzzwords—they’re often funding requirements and core to our effectiveness.

Our organization mitigates this risk through a hybrid approach: using AI for initial resume screening while ensuring human reviewers from diverse backgrounds evaluate all candidates who advance.

We’ve also implemented bias audits of our AI tools, partnering with local universities to analyze our hiring data for disparate impact. Additionally, we maintain structured interview processes with standardized questions and diverse interview panels to counteract algorithmic bias.

The key is treating AI as a tool to enhance, not replace, thoughtful human judgment in building teams that truly reflect the communities we serve. That’s how impactful grants fuel mission success.

Ishdeep Narang, MD
Child, Adolescent & Adult Psychiatrist, Founder, ACES Psychiatry

Ishdeep Narang, MD – ACES Psychiatry

Our work in psychiatry is built on a foundation of human connection. That’s why I see the biggest danger of AI in hiring as its inability to gauge a candidate’s therapeutic presence. An algorithm can screen a resume for keywords like ’empathy’ or ‘compassion,’ but it can’t detect the genuine warmth, clinical intuition, and unwavering stability a person projects in a room.

That felt sense of safety is the bedrock of a therapeutic relationship, whether you’re working with a child who’s too scared to speak or an adult who has lost all trust in others. It’s this intangible quality that allows a patient to feel seen and begin to heal.

To mitigate this risk, I’ve made our hiring process deliberately human. While technology can handle the initial application, its role ends there. I personally meet with every candidate we seriously consider, not just to review their experience, but to understand who they are as a person. I’m looking for the things an AI simply can’t quantify.

I’m reminded of a colleague I once worked with. An AI screening their resume would have likely passed them over for someone with more prestigious credentials. But I saw firsthand the incredible humility and deep care they showed when discussing a challenging past case. That’s the kind of genuine empathy you simply can’t program an algorithm to spot.

In a field built entirely on human connection, the ultimate hiring decision must be a human one. For me, that approach is non-negotiable.

Andrew Peluso
Founder, What Kind Of Bug Is This

Andrew Peluso – What Kind Of Bug Is This

One serious risk I see with AI-driven hiring is over-reliance on pattern recognition that unintentionally filters out qualified but non-traditional candidates.

In digital marketing, some of our best hires didn’t have agency backgrounds or traditional degrees—they came from journalism, teaching, even theater. However, many AI screening tools heavily weigh resume keywords, which tends to reward individuals who already know how to “speak the language” of the industry. That creates a feedback loop where the same types of profiles continue to rise to the top, and you miss out on diverse perspectives that often lead to stronger creative and strategic work.

To mitigate this, we made a conscious decision to keep our first-round screening partially manual, especially for content and strategy roles. We use tech for volume management—like filtering for basic writing skills or location—but we don’t let AI decide who moves forward. We also include blind writing assessments early in the process.

That levels the playing field and allows us to evaluate candidates based on output, not just their resume history. It takes more time, but it’s helped us build a team with a broader range of thinking—and in our industry, that’s a competitive edge.

Joe Spisak
CEO, Fulfill

Joe Spisak – Fulfill

One serious adverse consequence of AI-driven hiring is algorithmic bias that can perpetuate workforce homogeneity. When AI systems are trained on historical logistics industry data, they risk reinforcing existing workforce patterns rather than promoting diversity.

The logistics industry already faces challenges with representation across different demographics. If AI hiring tools learn from this historical data, they may inadvertently screen out qualified candidates from underrepresented groups who don’t fit the “typical” profile, limiting perspectives and innovation potential within our partner network.

At Fulfill, we’ve implemented a hybrid approach to mitigate this risk. Our AI tools assist with initial candidate screening for our network of 650+ fulfillment partners, but we never allow them to make final decisions. Our human experts review recommendations, applying contextual understanding that algorithms lack. We’ve also invested in diverse training datasets and regular algorithmic audits to detect potential bias patterns.

I’ve personally witnessed how diverse teams deliver superior results for our eCommerce clients. One of our most successful partners initially struggled with staffing challenges until they revamped their hiring practices to be more inclusive. They now maintain a culturally diverse workforce that brings unique perspectives to problem-solving, particularly valuable when handling fulfillment for clients with global customer bases.

The real value in matching eCommerce businesses with the right partners comes from understanding nuanced needs that pure algorithms might miss. That’s why we’ve built our platform to combine technological efficiency with human expertise – creating more opportunities while ensuring fairness in an industry that depends on diverse talent to solve complex logistics challenges.

Rae Francis
Counselor & Executive LifeCoach, Rae Francis Consulting

Rae Francis – Rae Francis Consulting

One of the most serious risks of AI-driven hiring isn’t just bias in data – it’s the erosion of human connection. While AI can be helpful in screening resumes, it can’t assess presence, empathy, or emotional intelligence – qualities that shape not just how someone performs, but how they connect, communicate, and contribute to a team.

Culture isn’t built through credentials alone. It’s built in the in-between – the way someone responds to pressure, the rhythm of conversation, the energy they bring into a room. Those things can’t be captured in data, but they’re often what determine whether someone strengthens or destabilizes a company’s culture.

And when it comes to bias, we need to be honest: if overcoming our own internal biases is hard, imagine the risk of an algorithm trained on decades of biased data – one that operates at scale, without reflection or accountability. Bias isn’t just maintained through AI, it’s multiplied.

Steve Ollington
ADHD Researcher, ADHDworking

Steve Ollington – ADHDworking

Back in 2022 the BBC ran a documentary called ‘Computer Says No’, which suggested the programming behind AI interviews was discriminatory towards neurodivergent people – for example, tracking eye content and facial expressions, which would be biased against people with Autism.

The program suggested AI interviews could be made more inclusive, if the companies and people behind the technology learned about neurodivergence so they could factor that in.

That was three years ago, but unfortunately the issue still doesn’t seem to be on the developers radars. That’s a shame, because it could be used to go the other way, removing some human biases and making recruitment fairer.

Hopefully some of the businesses using this AI will begin having neuroinclusion as part of their criteria for purchase soon – which will lead to the developers of the technology ensuring the (neuro)diversity of their training data.

Martin Weidemann
Owner, Mexico-City-Private-Driver.com

Martin Weidemann – Mexico-City-Private-Driver

One of the most serious risks I’ve seen with AI-driven hiring is how easily it can codify human bias under the illusion of objectivity.

Early on, we tested an AI-based screening tool to help preselect drivers. On paper, it seemed perfect—fast, data-driven, and consistent. But within a few weeks, we noticed a trend: local applicants from low-income neighborhoods in Mexico City were being filtered out disproportionately.

The algorithm had learned to prioritize “punctuality” using proxies like previous job addresses, but what it really did was penalize people who lived further from wealthier zones—where traffic is unpredictable and transit infrastructure lacking. The system had no context for the realities of commuting in Mexico City.

We immediately pulled the plug.

Since then, we’ve gone back to human-led screening, but with one key upgrade: we now use AI only as an assistive tool—not a gatekeeper. It flags applications for review, but final decisions always rest with a trained human who understands local nuance and context. And we track the demographic impact of every hiring round to ensure we’re not repeating mistakes behind the scenes.

For us, tech is there to scale human empathy—not replace it.

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

Hard-Won Wisdom: Early Career Lessons That Shaped Leaders’ Paths

by

Hard-Won Wisdom: Early Career Lessons That Shaped Leaders' Paths

Think back to your first “real” job. 

The lessons you learned—whether from a supportive mentor, a challenging project, or a memorable mistake—likely still resonate with you today. 

These early experiences are more than just memories; they are the foundational principles that shape who we become as professionals.

With this in mind, we asked leaders from the HR Spotlight community:

What’s a lesson that you learned at a job early in your career that you still apply today?

From simple words of advice to career-altering learnings, their stories reveal the profound and lasting impact of our foundational years and offer invaluable guidance for anyone navigating their own journey.

Read on!

Robyn Davis Sekula
Vice President of Communications and Marketing, Presbyterian Foundation

Robyn Davis Sekula

In my mid-20s, I worked for someone who was fond of minimalistic notes, expecting us to do whatever it was he wanted that day by just a word or two in the note.

In one case, I didn’t know what he wanted, or when, so I ignored it because I didn’t want to look dumb and ask.

When it wasn’t complete by day’s end, he was not happy.

Once that note hit my desk, it was up to me to ask questions to ensure I knew what he wanted.

It’s not your fault the instructions weren’t clear – but it is your responsibility to make up for lack of clarity by asking clarifying questions.

Understanding the assignment is crucial.

Danny Ray
Founder, PinnacleQuote

Danny Ray

Early in my career, I worked in sales for a small insurance agency, and one lesson has stuck with me ever since, listening is more powerful than talking.

Above all, I learned that understanding a client’s needs is the foundation of building trust.

For example, instead of rushing to pitch a product, I focused on asking thoughtful questions and truly hearing the answers. In fact, this approach helped me not only close more sales but also build lasting relationships.

Furthermore, it taught me the value of patience and empathy, two traits that are essential in leadership.

Overall, this simple yet profound lesson has shaped how I connect with clients, lead teams, and grow my business today.

Listening isn’t just a skill; it’s a superpower.

Shane Skwarek
Founder & Chief Technologist, S-FX.com Small Business Solutions

Shane Skwarek

When I started my first job at the age of 14, my boss would often preach that “you never gyp a good worker.” 

He’d often go out of his way to make sure that everyone was appreciated for their hard work, even if it was only giving you an extra $5.  

At the time, it didn’t mean much – until I’d later start employing people myself. 

When someone works hard for you, reward them in any way they can. Whether it’s monetarily, a gift card, or just a note of appreciation – people respond well when they know they’re valued.  

More importantly, it’s a better investment to reward those who already work hard for you than it is to try and find someone to replace them.

Allison Jackson
Communication & Wellness Strategist, FractionX

Allison Jackson

My first job out of college was as a copywriter for a major insurance company. There were about 10 of us on the team.

As you might imagine, writing, proofreading, and editing was essential for the role.

We quickly learned the “Six Eyes Rule.” That meant in addition to your eyes, two other people needed to review your work for errors.

This rule has stuck with me for two decades — and has prevented many mistakes!

Genevieve Piturro
Founder, Genevieve Piturro

Genevieve Piturro

Early in my career in the TV syndication business in NYC, I worked for a very creative and bold man. 

I was reserved and hard-working and never wanted to make a mistake. 

We had an opportunity to market new TV movies, and I watched as his imagination fueled him with new promotional ideas. He wasn’t afraid to take a chance and I think he saw something in me that needed to wake up to that same attitude. 

He took me aside one day and said, “Genevieve, I know you’re holding back – GO FOR IT!”  

His words propelled me to dig deep for what I now call MOXIE. I picked up the phone and made a big ask. To my shock, the answer from the other side of the phone was, “I like it, YES let’s do it!” 

And I have been best friends with my Moxie ever since!

Simon Royston
Founder and Managing Director, The Recruitment Lab

Simon Royston

My first Managing Director preached to me that one should ignore the client! 

He argued that you should ignore the client, deliver on what was agreed and save a lot of procrastination and energy.  

In today’s world in certain circumstances, it really can help.  

Too often clients can be closely examining your methodologies and question your every move. Ultimately, the client came to you to solve a problem and that above all else is what matters. 

That is not to say the client journey is unimportant.  

One should always communicate and report progress or maybe seek further information in specific cases. Just be mindful that time is money, and you are paid to deliver on time and within budget.

Lisamarie Monaco
Co-Owner, InsuranceForBurial.com

Lisamarie Monaco

A lesson that I learned long ago and that is valuable to me still to this day is to approach a job by learning it from the back end forward. 

I learned it is important to understand the behind the scenes processes, systems and workflows first so you gain a deeper understanding of how everything works and functions. 

This allows you to have the tools you need independently in that role. And helps avoid relying on others to fill in any gaps or to even fix something when there is a bump in the road. 

This lesson has served me well in my career and in everything I have done since implementing this in my life!

Michael Puck
Founder, Global Dog Art Gallery

Michael Puck

A lesson that I learned early in my career is to challenge everything.  

After eight years in the German military, I moved into HR and transferred to the US. I had no experience with HR in the US, and when I learned how different the US healthcare system works from what I was accustomed to, I designed a model that would give employers more control over healthcare costs. 

In the beginning, I was told many times that this model could never work. Even the Chief Medical Officer of our health insurance carrier told me not to waste my energy. 

After considerable initial resistance (I even got laughed out of the boardroom by my peers on the leadership team), I got the green light to implement the program. 

Right from the start the program engaged over 92% of the employees and even 70% of the spouses. As a result, the company did not receive any healthcare premium increases for five consecutive years, and we reduced the average number of health risks from 2.8 to 1.5. The underwriter calculated our net cost avoidance at over $7 million. 

All of this only happened because I challenged the status quo. The skill of asking probing questions and challenging everything that doesn’t feel right or looks outdated has become the hallmark of my HR career. 

Today, I am working for an HCM think tank where we take on the most pressing challenges today’s business and HR, in particular, face. 

My professional focus these days is based on this early lesson in my career: Challenge Everything.

Karen Southall Watts
Author, The Solo Working Day

Karen Southall Watts

Early in my career I learned to prepare for inappropriate interview questions, because they will happen. 

As a young woman I was often asked about pregnancy, potential pregnancy, and my children. Shockingly, these questions usually came from female interviewers and were often prefaced with remarks like, “I know I’m not supposed to ask this” or “Just between us women” as ways for interviewers to excuse their inappropriate and illegal behavior. 

When the job market is tough, these types of questions increase, because employers know candidates are desperate and can be tricked or coerced into answering. 

Later in my career as an educator and coach I advised clients and students to prepare for questions to pop up on age, religion, family issues, or national origin. 

It’s important for candidates to know in advance how they will handle this—confront, deflect, or answer—and what these kinds of questions mean about an employer.

Craig Attiwill
Founder & CEO, Peloton Technologies

Craig Attiwill

A lesson I learned early in my career can be summed up in one quote: “Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.” 

It’s not a quote from anyone in particular (I don’t think!), let alone anyone famous for their quotes. It’s just a life lesson from the collective.  

It’s not just about learning quickly from your mistakes and moving on. It’s remembering that others have likely made these mistakes, and the result is not going to be any different for you. 

One way to avoid the expensive learning process is to spend more time reading, researching and learning from peers  – understand how others in your role or in your industry have tripped along the way, and then choose another path.

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

Combating Employee Burnout: Industry Insights and Organizational Strategies

by

Combating Employee Burnout: Industry Insights and Organizational Strategies

Employee burnout has evolved from a wellness topic to a multi-billion-dollar operational risk for businesses worldwide.

Defined by severe physical and emotional exhaustion, it directly degrades productivity, increases absenteeism, and inflates healthcare expenditures, posing a significant threat to organizational performance.

The profound impact on individual well-being is clear, but the systemic nature of its causes—from unmanageable workloads to a lack of organizational support—demands a strategic, not just a tactical, response.

Acknowledging burnout as a systemic business problem, rather than an individual failing, is the critical first step.

And a problem understood is a problem half-solved.
To learn more about the other half of the equation, we reached out to HR experts and business leaders from the HR Spotlight community, posing to them the question:

What is the most prevalent contributing factor to employee burnout in your industry? What initiative or strategy does your organization implement to address this issue?

Read on!

Lucila Russo
Human Resources Director, Roar Media

Lucila Russo – Marketing

As the HR director for Roar Media , a multinational integrated marketing with 65 team members, I’ve noticed employee burnout often stems from the onslaught of tight deadlines and the “always-on” nature associated with this industry.

Which is why the agency addressed these challenges by systematically re-hauling our human capital management programs, listening to and prioritizing our team member’s individual needs.

As such, we developed programming and HR policies that offer flexible schedules, a “work away from office” policy that allows employees a degree of geographic autonomy, and 28 days of PTO in their first year.

In addition, we provide paid time off during the period of Chrismtas to New years and a Roar Media team employee appreciation day falling on the last day of spring break. We also initiated “No-meeting Thursdays” that ensures uninterrupted focus time.

We have also created a champion program across wellness, professional growth, team building and recognition. Our wellness champion’s program enables our team members to have access to year-round the a wellness and progressional development budget and resources that supports the team’s mental and physical health, as well as professional growth.

All these things work together to prevent burn out and foster a culture of collaboration and wellbeing.

Kevandre (Dre) Thompson
Director, Dre Thompson

Kevandre (Dre) Thompson – Recruitment

One of the most prevalent factors contributing to employee burnout in my opinion, is being stretched too thin within a lean team or having an overwhelming workload. 

When workloads consistently exceed the capacity a manager, team, or individual contributor can deal with  a multitude of things begin to happen. For example, stress levels rise, leading to exhaustion and decreased productivity in managing tasks, day to day duties, as well as other job functions. 

Without proper support, employees struggle to maintain a healthy work-life balance, which ultimately impacts engagement and retention overall.

To address this, I encourage employees to utilize their organization’s Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs), PTO, and mental health days to recharge,regroup, and refocus. 

Having regular check-in calls with managers fosters open communication, allowing employees to voice concerns before burnout escalates (and coming up with solutions to prevent burnout). 

In addition, team-building activities help strengthen morale and create a supportive work environment. 

Prioritizing well-being isn’t just a strategy, it’s imperative to sustaining a high-performing and engaged workforce.

Sara Thomas
Advisor, Mother Cover

Sara Thomas – Recruitment

One big reason employees burn out is the blurred line between work and personal life when a coworker goes on parental leave. When someone takes maternity or paternity leave, their work is usually spread across teammates who are already busy. This can lead to longer hours, constant emails, and difficulty unplugging from work.

Mother Cover solves this problem by bringing in skilled professionals to step in during parental leave. This keeps workloads balanced, helps teams avoid burnout, and allows new parents to fully disconnect without worrying about overloading their coworkers. It’s a simple but effective way to support both employees and businesses.

Sanju Zachariah
Owner and President, Portiva

Sanju Zachariah – Healthcare

In the healthcare industry, one of the most prevalent contributing factors to employee burnout is the relentless pace and emotional toll of patient care.

Staff often deal with long hours, high patient volumes, and the stress of ensuring quality service in an environment where resources can be stretched thin.

At Portiva, we address this issue by focusing on employee well-being through a combination of flexible work schedules, access to mental health resources, and fostering a culture of open communication. We prioritize creating a supportive environment where team members feel valued and heard.

Regular training on stress management and offering opportunities for professional growth are also key aspects of our strategy, ensuring our staff remains engaged and resilient in their roles.

Jean Christophe Gabler
Publisher & Founder, Yogi Times

Jean Christophe Gabler – Wellness

Burnout is frequently underestimated in the wellness sector, yet it can strike in unexpected ways. Long hours aren’t the only aspect of the job.

Holding emotional space for others is what it’s all about. Deep energy production is necessary for the profession, whether it involves coaching individuals through change, teaching a class, writing about personal development, or assisting someone in overcoming stress.

That emotional commitment and ongoing presence adds up.

Because their work is so closely linked to assisting others, many people in this field feel as though they are unable to move away. It is more difficult to pause when they are more concerned about their work.

We deal with this at Yogi Times by integrating rest into our daily routine.

Simply working too much does not cause burnout. They burn out because they never fully recover. Because we organize our work in cycles, there is real rest following bursts of creative activity.

When there are no outside interruptions during deep concentration hours, the work itself feels less taxing. Intentional communication keeps people from becoming overwhelmed by notifications. Because pointless chatter quickly depletes energy, meetings are kept to a minimum.

Simplified decision-making reduces mental exhaustion. People can remain involved without feeling exhausted when minor stressors are lessened because they accumulate over time.

Burnout isn’t usually immediately apparent. It develops when people repeatedly push past fatigue. Instead of waiting until someone hits a wall, the best approach to prevent it is to incorporate recovery into the process.

Richard Robbins
Owner, TheTechnologyVault.com

Richard Robbins – Technology

Burnout comes from employees working on things they don’t enjoy for long hours without feeling appreciated or valued for what they contribute. To combat this, we have fun employee gatherings where people can get to know each other and feel more connected.

We also try to consistently have our employees set goals that motivate them. Those goals are matched with incentives for achieving them. 

For instance, we set a goal to take our management team on a cruise if we achieved a particular sales goal over the Christmas season. 

Although that season was very busy, with many people working nearly twice as many hours as they were used to, achieving the goal and booking the cruise made it feel as if there was no burnout, and the time off while at sea was the perfect reset for our team.

Josh Norman
Principal & Chief Creative Officer, Texas Creative

Josh Norman – Marketing

Ad agency life is so often synonymous with the term burnout. Ask anyone in the industry. It often stems from the  need for creativity on command, which means grueling 80-hour work weeks that blur all boundaries between professional and personal life. The constant pressure to produce innovative campaigns while managing client relationships and unrealistic deadlines leads to exhaustion no matter what area of the agency you work in. Pair that with the industry’s “always-on” culture of responding to emails at midnight and working weekends, a lot of people in our profession find their initial passion for creative work slowly replaced by fatigue and disillusionment.

After 40 years, our ways of working at Texas Creative have evolved over time. But one of the ways we currently combat burnout is with a simple Venn diagram that determines the type of work we’re willing to take on as an agency. We don’t accept every client that comes our way, but instead we look for clients that fit our culture.

In the three circles of the Good Client Venn Diagram we have the qualities that make a client GOOD — good work, good people, good value. At the center is the perfect client that meets all three. Good work means projects that we enjoy and can be proud of. It’s the fun tasks and the portfolio pieces that make us feel fulfilled. Good people is just that — kind, collaborative, good clients with excellent boundaries who we genuinely enjoy working with. Good value means that the amount of effort we put in is financially well-rewarded.

To have all three is ideal, but we won’t take on a client without an overlap of at least two. If it’s good work and good value, then we can handle a more difficult client. If it’s good people and good work, then the value lies in the feeling of joy we have in the project. And if it’s good people and good value, we can find joy in the most mundane of tasks when doing the work.

At the end of the day, we want our agency work culture to spark joy, not flames. So to avoid burnout, we just have to make sure the things we do at our agency are good.

Marco Manazzone
CEO, Zzone Homes Inc

Marco Manazzone – Construction

The most prevalent contributing factor to employee burnout in the construction industry is often long hours and high stress due to tight project deadlines and safety concerns. This can lead to both physical fatigue and mental stress.

To address this issue, our organization has implemented several initiatives, such as flexible scheduling to help workers manage their time, regular breaks to reduce fatigue, and access to mental health resources. We also  conduct training sessions focused on stress management and resilience, empowering our employees to cope with the demands of the job effectively.

Gerard Virga
Founding Attorney, The Virga Law Firm, P.A.

Gerard Virga – Legal

At my firm, we lead with compassion for both our employees and our clients. Our approach to training new team members and junior attorneys goes hand in hand with a compassionate workplace culture. We’ve created a robust mentorship model that includes extensive shadowing opportunities. 

New attorneys are paired with experienced team members, allowing them to observe real-world legal practice, client interactions, and courtroom strategies. This hands-on approach bridges the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical application. It also enables junior attorneys to learn how more senior staff members manage their caseloads and create healthy boundaries between their work and personal lives.

We cannot assume that employees automatically know how to have a strong work-life balance, especially in industries known for being fast-paced and demanding. Regardless of what opportunities you offer your team to combat burnout, you need to also ensure that everyone knows how to access and implement these opportunities into their lives. 

For example, unlimited PTO is great, but it only works if your team knows how to take a vacation – do they know how and whom to shift their responsibilities so they have coverage while they are out? If they don’t, they won’t use the PTO. 

In short, our firm prioritizes compassion in client service and workplace culture, ensuring new attorneys receive hands-on mentorship. We recognize that work-life balance isn’t intuitive, so we actively guide our team in effectively utilizing resources like PTO, helping them integrate healthy boundaries into their professional lives.

Josh Boardman
Founder, Hewes House

Josh Boardman – Creative

While many managers may think time off is the solution to employee burnout, I have found that time “on”, if directed towards a fulfilling creative task, can be just as rejuvenating. 

My company has offered inspiring creative writing programs to put the pep back in the step of professionals who may feel robbed of creativity by the rigor of their jobs. 

Not everybody needs a vacation — sometimes starting a new novel, the first steps of a memoir, or exploring poetry and short stories can occupy the mind and excite people even more effectively. 

You’d be surprised how many people are experiencing burnout behind desks, people who once dreamed of being successful writers!

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

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