Menu

leadership

The Overlooked Productivity Killer in the Office: Noise

by

July 27, 2026

The Overlooked Productivity Killer in the Office: Noise

By Todd Marshall, CEO, Versare

As organizations continue to refine their workplace strategies, conversations about productivity often center on technology, leadership, employee engagement, and flexible work policies. While these factors certainly influence performance, one workplace issue is frequently underestimated despite affecting employees every day: noise.

The modern office is expected to support many different types of work at once, often within the same shared environment. While open layouts encourage communication and teamwork, they also create a level of background noise that can make sustained concentration increasingly difficult, especially during video calls and focused work.

For HR professionals, workplace noise is more than a facilities concern. It directly influences employee productivity, cognitive performance, workplace satisfaction, and even overall well-being. As organizations look for ways to create healthier and more effective work environments, acoustic comfort deserves a place in the conversation.

  • Why Noise Matters

Not all workplace distractions are created equal. Interruptions such as emails or instant messages are visible and easy to recognize, while background conversations are often treated as simply part of office life. Yet surrounding speech is especially difficult to ignore. Even when employees are not actively listening, the brain continues processing nearby voices, making it harder to concentrate on mentally demanding tasks.

Knowledge workers spend much of their day solving problems, analyzing information, writing reports, developing strategies, or making decisions. These activities require sustained attention. Each nearby conversation or loud meeting across the room creates another interruption, pulling employees away from deep work.

The challenge isn’t simply the brief moment lost to a distraction. Regaining focus can take much longer, creating a cumulative effect throughout the workday. Multiple small interruptions can leave employees feeling mentally exhausted while accomplishing less than they intended.

Over time, excessive workplace noise contributes to frustration, increased stress, lower engagement, and reduced team efficiency.

  • The Hybrid Workplace Has Changed Office Acoustics

Hybrid work has changed the rhythm of the office. Rather than rows of employees quietly working at individual desks, today’s workplace often functions as a hub for collaboration. Employees come into the office specifically to attend meetings, brainstorm with teammates, and connect with colleagues. At the same time, many meetings now include remote participants.

It’s now common to see several employees participating in video calls from the same open workspace. Nearby teams may be holding impromptu discussions while others conduct client presentations or training sessions. The result is an environment where multiple conversations overlap throughout the day.

Ironically, efforts to encourage collaboration can also create distractions and undermine productivity for everyone sharing the space. This doesn’t mean collaboration is the problem. Rather, it highlights the importance of designing workplaces that support different types of work instead of expecting one environment to serve every purpose equally well.

  • Different Work Requires Different Spaces

One of the biggest misconceptions about office design is the assumption all employees work under the same conditions. In reality, employees shift between different modes of work throughout the day.

They may spend one hour collaborating on a project, another preparing financial analyses, followed by a performance review with a direct report or a virtual presentation with clients. Each activity requires a different level of privacy, concentration, and interaction.

A workplace optimized exclusively for collaboration can make focused work difficult. Likewise, an office designed only for quiet individual work may discourage teamwork and spontaneous problem-solving.

Instead of viewing workplace design as an either-or decision, organizations should consider how different environments support different activities. Quiet areas for focused work, collaborative spaces for team discussions, and semi-private areas for virtual meetings can coexist within the same office. Providing employees with choices allows them to select the environment best suited to the task at hand.

  • The Connection Between Noise and Employee Well-Being

The conversation around workplace noise often focuses on productivity, but employee well-being is equally important. Constant background noise contributes to cognitive fatigue because employees must continuously filter out competing sounds while trying to focus. By the end of the day, this ongoing mental effort can leave employees feeling drained, even if they haven’t completed physically demanding work.

Persistent distractions may also increase stress levels. Employees who struggle to find quiet places for concentrated work often compensate by arriving early, staying late, or taking work home to complete tasks requiring uninterrupted attention. Over time, these patterns can contribute to fatigue and disengagement.

Creating work environments that support concentration demonstrates respect for employees’ time and mental energy. It signals that organizations recognize productivity is not just about asking people to work harder, but about creating the conditions people need to perform at their best.

  • Practical Ways Organizations Can Reduce Noise

Improving workplace acoustics doesn’t always require major renovations or expensive redesigns. Many organizations can make meaningful improvements by evaluating how existing spaces are used and making thoughtful adjustments.

For example, creating designated quiet zones allows employees to complete focused work without constant interruptions. Reserving certain spaces for phone calls and virtual meetings helps reduce overlapping conversations in shared work areas. Adding sound-absorbing materials—such as acoustic ceiling panels, wall treatments, rugs, upholstered furniture, or other finishes—can reduce echoes and improve overall sound quality throughout the office.

Flexible dividers and movable partitions can also help separate collaborative spaces from quieter work areas without permanently changing the office layout. These solutions can create acoustic zones, giving employees clearer choices about where to take calls, collaborate, or focus. Because workplace needs continue to evolve, adaptable solutions often provide greater long-term flexibility than fixed construction.

Before making changes, organizations should first identify where noise is creating the greatest disruption. Look for areas where noise levels fluctuate throughout the day or where team movement and conversations frequently overlap. This assessment can help determine whether the best response is a change in space usage, furnishings, or physical separation.

  • HR Has an Important Role to Play

Although workplace design is often associated with facilities or real estate teams, HR leaders have valuable insight into how office environments affect employees. HR professionals regularly gather employee feedback, monitor engagement, oversee workplace policies, and help shape organizational culture. This broader perspective makes HR well-positioned to identify when physical workspace challenges are affecting morale or productivity.

Employee surveys and workplace observations can reveal recurring concerns about ongoing distractions or difficulty concentrating in open workspaces. Including questions about the physical work environment alongside engagement initiatives provides organizations with a more complete understanding of the employee experience.

Cross-functional collaboration between HR, facilities, and leadership teams can help ensure workplace decisions reflect both operational goals and employee needs.

  • A Better Workplace Balances Collaboration and Focus

The future of work isn’t about choosing between open offices and private offices. It’s about creating workplaces designed to support the different kinds of work employees move through each day.

Collaboration remains essential for innovation, relationship building, and organizational culture. Equally important, however, is providing opportunities for uninterrupted focus when employees need to think deeply, solve complex problems, or complete important projects. Organizations that intentionally balance these needs create environments where employees can do both effectively.

As companies continue investing in employee experience, acoustic comfort should be viewed as part of a broader workplace strategy rather than an afterthought. A thoughtfully designed office makes room for communication, concentration, and teamwork without allowing one to undermine the others.

Noise is not just a background issue. It shapes how employees focus, collaborate, and experience the workplace each day. For organizations focused on productivity and well-being, acoustic comfort is a practical investment in people. When the office supports both connection and concentration, productivity becomes less about pushing through distractions and more about giving employees the environment they need to succeed.

About the Author

Todd Marshall is the CEO of Versare, where he leads the company’s growth in flexible, design-forward space solutions for workplaces, schools, commercial environments, and more. With a background spanning McKinsey & Company, Target, Patterson Companies, and Shutterfly’s Lifetouch division, he brings deep expertise in scaling operations and translating customer needs into practical, high-impact design solutions. At Versare, Todd focuses on helping organizations adapt spaces quickly without costly renovations by using flexible walls, room dividers, and other reconfigurable solutions. He is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

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?

Individual Contributors:

Answer our latest queries and submit your unique insights: https://bit.ly/SubmitBrandWorxInsight

Submit your article: https://bit.ly/SubmitBrandWorxArticle

PR Representatives:

Answer the latest queries and submit insights for your client: https://bit.ly/BrandWorxInsightSubmissions

Submit an article for your client: https://bit.ly/BrandWorxArticleSubmissions


Please direct any additional questions to: connect@brandworx.digital

Reimagining Talent: Transforming Workforces for a Dynamic World

by

July 24, 2026

Reimagining Talent: Transforming Workforces for a Dynamic World

How shifting to skills-based models and fluid structures enables organizations to thrive amid uncertainty and a shrinking talent pool.

By Joe Sagrilla

For decades, large organizations have been trapped in a destructive antipattern: swelling staff during economic upswings only to resort to mass layoffs—sometimes in the thousands—when downturns hit. This boom-and-bust cycle is not merely a symptom of economic volatility but a consequence of outdated organizational design. Static roles, rigid hierarchies, and a lack of visibility into workforce capacity create inefficiencies that harm companies, shareholders, and employees alike. As technological and geopolitical disruptions reshape the global business landscape and a new generation of talent faces unique challenges, organizations must act decisively to break this cycle. By transitioning to skills-based models, rethinking organizational structures, and fostering outcome-driven cultures, companies can build resilient, agile workforces capable of thriving in an era of constant change

  • The Root of the Problem: Rigid Role Design and Overstaffing

Traditional organizational models, defined by fixed roles and rigid hierarchies, are ill-suited for today’s dynamic business environment. Employees are hired to fill specific roles, often sized for peak workloads—such as during annual budgeting cycles, when resource demands spike across departments. Yet, these peaks are temporary, and average workloads are often significantly lower. This mismatch leads to overstaffing, with some estimates suggesting that administrative roles in US companies are overstaffed by as much as 30%. During lulls, employees may engage in “make-work” projects to maintain the appearance of busyness, obscuring excess capacity from executive leadership. The result is a toxic cycle: overstaffing during good times, followed by abrupt, large-scale layoffs when economic pressures mount. This approach erodes trust, disrupts continuity, and undermines long-term performance.

  • The Talent and Disruption Imperative

Two converging forces amplify the urgency to rethink workforce strategies: a shrinking, less experienced talent pool and accelerating disruption.

 

NextGen Talent Challenges

The incoming generation of workers is smaller than its predecessors, with fewer individuals available to replace retiring baby boomers, who are exiting the workforce with decades of critical experience. Compounding this, the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted educational and early-career opportunities for younger workers. Many were unable to gain critical experience as baby boomers delayed retirement to rebuild depleted savings. Additionally, the rise of hybrid work environments has hindered the development of essential soft skills—collaboration, communication, and relationship-building—further limiting the readiness of emerging talent.

 

Disruptive Forces

Technological advancements, particularly in artificial intelligence (AI), are fundamentally reshaping the skills organizations require. AI is not only transforming how work is executed but also redefining the organizational capabilities needed to remain competitive. Simultaneously, geopolitical instability—evidenced by tariffs, supply chain challenges, and currency fluctuations—signals the start of a decades-long cycle of disruption. Organizations need agile, skilled employees capable of navigating these complexities with precision and foresight.

  • A New Approach: Three Imperatives for Talent Transformation

To break the boom-and-bust cycle and prepare for an era of disruption, organizations must adopt a forward-looking approach to talent and structure. Three imperatives stand out.

 

1. Transition to a Skills-Based Talent Model

The traditional role-based model locks employees into rigid job descriptions, limiting adaptability. A skills-based approach, by contrast, focuses on the competencies needed to address a spectrum of business challenges. Research indicates that 55% of organizations worldwide have already begun transitioning to skills-based talent models, with an additional 23% planning to start in 2025. Moreover, 81% of leaders agree that this shift drives economic growth by enhancing productivity, innovation, and agility. As of 2023, 70% of companies have adopted skills-based hiring methods, signaling a broader trend toward flexibility.

To operationalize this shift, organizations must invest in robust management systems for skill development. Self-service training platforms, flexible budgets for employee-driven learning, and results-focused mentorship programs can empower workers to acquire and refine skills as needs evolve. By prioritizing skills over roles, companies can better align talent with strategic priorities, reducing the risk of overstaffing and enabling rapid redeployment when disruption inevitably occurs.

 

2. Rethink the Organizational Chart

Static organizational charts, with their fixed roles and reporting lines, are relics of a less dynamic era. Organizations must reimagine their structures as fluid ecosystems of projects, where resources are allocated dynamically based on issues or opportunities. This requires identifying the skillsets needed for each initiative and establishing governance processes to reconfigure resources efficiently. To signal a commitment to leveraging breakthrough technologies, AI should be explicitly integrated into the resource pool or organizational chart—not as a peripheral tool but as a core enabler of operations.

Additionally, organizations must mature their approaches to sourcing external talent. Stronger partnerships with large consulting firms for major projects, combined with the ability to integrate solo advisors or specialized consultants into project teams, can address hard-to-fill skill gaps effectively without permanent headcount increases. Leading firms will configure teams to ensure internal employees learn directly from outside advisors, unlocking talent development value alongside expert advice and execution support.

 

3. Underpin with a Results-Driven Culture

A skills-based model and dynamic organizational chart will require a profound cultural shift in many organizations. Too often, managers prioritize inputs or the appearance of “busyness” over measurable outcomes. Leaders must refocus on business results, dismantling fiefdoms and territorial behaviors that hoard resources. A culture of collaboration, where skillsets are fluidly reconfigured to meet project needs, is essential. A shared foundation of beliefs and values enables employees to rapidly coalesce into new teams and collaborate effectively, delivering results through membership in multiple teams throughout the year. This cultural transformation is perhaps the most challenging imperative. It requires leaders to model accountability, reward outcomes over activity, and foster an environment where adaptability and collaboration are non-negotiable. Only then can organizations fully realize the benefits of a skills-based, project-driven model.

  • The Path Forward

Organizations face a critical juncture: they must rethink talent strategies to navigate a one-two punch of retiring baby boomers and a smaller, less skilled younger workforce unprepared to fill the gap under outdated organizational models. The boom-and-bust cycle of hiring and layoffs is merely a symptom of organizational designs that have not evolved to match the dynamism of today’s business environment. By shifting to skills-based models, companies gain the flexibility to build evergreen skills that remain relevant amid severe, discontinuous disruptions, unlike role-specific skills that are vulnerable to rapid obsolescence. Streamlined talent models that leverage outside advisors not only enable dynamic project execution but also upskill internal resources through collaborative learning, maximizing long-term value. This transformation positions organizations to turn talent scarcity and disruption into opportunities for innovation and sustained competitive advantage.

About the Author

Joe Sagrilla is an independent management consultant and business advisor, top business school faculty, board member, writer, and speaker. His specialties include business strategy, transformation, technology, process improvement, and organizational performance. He currently lives in Austin, TX.

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?

Individual Contributors:

Answer our latest queries and submit your unique insights: https://bit.ly/SubmitBrandWorxInsight

Submit your article: https://bit.ly/SubmitBrandWorxArticle

PR Representatives:

Answer the latest queries and submit insights for your client: https://bit.ly/BrandWorxInsightSubmissions

Submit an article for your client: https://bit.ly/BrandWorxArticleSubmissions


Please direct any additional questions to: connect@brandworx.digital

In Conversation with Michael Ang

by

In Conversation with Michael Ang is the CEO and founder of JobElephant

What is the most overlooked metric in recruitment, and why does it matter?

Michael Ang:

The most overlooked metric in recruiting is not time-to-fill or even cost-per-hire. It is source quality and source accuracy. Most organizations still cannot reliably tell you where their best candidates actually came from, and that creates a massive blind spot in hiring strategy and especially spend.

The fact that nearly every application still asks, “How did you hear about this job?” tells you everything you need to know. That question is a relic from the newspaper advertising era, yet it survives because most recruiting systems still struggle with true attribution. Over 50% of the applicants select a source that is not accurate. The result is that HR teams are often making budget decisions using incomplete or inaccurate data.

Clicks are easy to measure. Applications are measurable. But what actually matters is which sources consistently produce qualified applicants who interview well, get hired, perform and stay. Too many organizations optimize for volume because volume is visible, while quality is much harder to track.

The fix is straightforward, but it requires discipline. Treat every source as an investment, not a line item. Measure application starts, completed applications, qualified candidates, interviews and hires by source. Then compare those outcomes against actual spend.

Once organizations start looking at recruiting through that lens, the data becomes very revealing very quickly. Some sources that appear “expensive” produce exceptional hires. Others generate lots of activity but very little value. Without accurate source tracking, companies often continue funding channels that create noise instead of results.

Source of hire is not just another reporting metric. It is one of the foundational inputs for making smarter recruiting, marketing and workforce decisions.

When budgets get cut, recruitment advertising is often the first thing to go. What is wrong with that approach?

Michael Ang:

Cutting recruitment advertising under budget pressure is like turning off the lights to save money and then wondering why no one can find the door. The candidates you need do not disappear just because your budget did.

What many HR leaders miss is that reducing advertising does not reduce reach evenly. It reduces visibility selectively. Active job seekers on the major platforms may still find you. But many of the most valuable candidates, including faculty researchers, public health leaders, specialized engineers and other hard-to-reach professionals, are not spending their days scrolling large generic job boards. They follow niche publications, industry associations and specialized communities tied directly to their profession. The moment an organization cuts those channels, it often disappears from that talent market entirely.

The smarter approach is to audit before you cut. Identify which channels consistently produce qualified applicants, strong interviews and actual hires, then protect those investments first. High-traffic platforms with low conversion rates are often better candidates for reduction than highly targeted niche sources with smaller but far more relevant audiences.

Organizations that treat recruitment advertising as a measurable performance investment instead of overhead make better decisions under pressure. More importantly, they maintain access to the talent pools that matter most while competitors quietly disappear from view.

What do mission-driven organizations consistently get wrong about recruitment advertising?

Michael Ang:

Mission-driven organizations often make the mistake of treating recruitment advertising as an expense instead of an investment, and that mindset changes everything downstream.

These organizations usually have a real advantage because purpose matters. Strong missions attract attention and create emotional connection with candidates. But many HR teams mistakenly assume the mission alone is enough to carry the recruiting effort. They post jobs on a few large general platforms and expect the right people to find them. Then they are surprised when the applicant pool feels shallow, misaligned or lacks the diversity and specialization they hoped to attract.

The mission creates interest. The strategy determines who actually applies.

Every search is its own marketing campaign with a specific audience. A faculty role in marine biology requires a completely different outreach strategy than a nursing position, a public health leader or a public policy director. Different audiences consume information in different places, trust different sources and engage with different communities.

The organizations that consistently outperform are the ones that approach recruiting with precision. They define the target audience, identify the right distribution channels, measure performance and adjust based on outcomes instead of assumptions.

Mission is powerful. But mission without strategy is rarely enough to consistently produce the hiring outcomes organizations expect.

If you could describe the current mood of the workforce in 2026 using just one word, what would it be? Why?

Michael Ang:

“Cautious.”

That word captures what we see in real-time job ad data every single day. Across higher education, nonprofits and public agencies, the sectors we serve, hiring activity has not rebounded the way many predicted. In 2025, roughly one in eight of our clients posted no new roles at all. That is not a pause. That is a freeze. The last time we saw that level of decline was 2009, during the Great Recession.

The signals driving that caution are structural, not emotional. Policy uncertainty slows budget approvals. Grant delays stall research hiring. Tariff swings make workforce planning feel like a moving target. Even employers who want to hire are waiting for clearer signals before they commit. Optimism is healthy, but it has to match the operating environment. Right now, the data points to “wait and see,” not “go.”

We talk a lot about “gut feeling” in hiring. How are you using data to challenge your own biases, or the biases of hiring managers, when it comes to hiring, retaining, or promoting underrepresented talent?

Michael Ang:

Gut feeling is a luxury that underrepresented candidates cannot afford. When hiring managers rely on instinct, they tend to hire people who look and sound like them. Data is the antidote to that pattern.

At JobElephant, we use applicant tracking system integrations to evaluate how targeted, niche job boards perform compared with generic platforms, so hiring decisions rely on reach and results rather than assumptions. Our analysis of 439,599 job postings across 370 publications showed that ads placed in specialized publications generated 4.3 million impressions and 2.8 million clicks in 2024. Those numbers tell you exactly where your message lands and who is paying attention.

The business case for inclusive hiring is equally data-driven. Companies that build inclusive workforces report 19% higher innovation revenues and are 35% more likely to outperform their competitors. That is not a talking point. That is a competitive advantage hiding in plain sight. When hiring managers push back on broadening their candidate reach, the numbers move the conversation forward. Feelings fade. Data sticks.

What is the biggest myth about working in HR that you wish would die?

Michael Ang:

That posting a job means candidates will come. They will not. Not automatically, and not the right ones.

After 25 years of working alongside HR teams, the single most expensive assumption I see is that a job listing on a major platform is a hiring strategy. It is not. It is a starting point at best. The real work is understanding which channels reach the specific talent you need, how your message performs in real time, and what the data shows about where qualified candidates are actually coming from.

HR professionals deal with disconnected technology. Job boards and applicant tracking systems operate in silos, which means critical data falls through gaps. Organizations end up making hiring decisions based on incomplete or unreliable information, and they do not know why the right candidates are not applying. The question “How did you hear about this job?” remains standard in 2026 only because modern systems still cannot reliably track where candidates originate. That is a technology failure masquerading as a process.

The myth that posting equals hiring costs organizations time, money and top talent every day. The sooner HR leaders treat recruitment advertising as a living, data-driven campaign rather than a checkbox, the better their results will be.

What is one task AI will never be able to replace in your people strategy?

Michael Ang:

Trust. AI cannot build it, and it cannot repair it when it breaks.

Every interaction a candidate has with your organization creates an impression, from the first job posting they read to the final offer conversation. AI can optimize the language in that posting, predict which platform delivers the best reach, and score resumes with more consistency than a human reviewer. What it cannot do is make a candidate feel seen, heard and genuinely valued as a person.

The most telling moment in any hiring process is rejection. A candidate who receives a thoughtful, human response after being passed over can still walk away as a brand advocate, a future applicant or a referral source. A candidate who receives an automated form letter walks away with a story to tell. That story lives on Glassdoor, in professional networks and in every conversation they have about your organization going forward. No algorithm manages that outcome.

At JobElephant, we built our technology to handle the analytical heavy lifting, so our people have more time to focus on the relationships that data cannot build. That balance is not a feature. It is the strategy.

Michael Ang is the CEO and founder of JobElephant, a recruitment advertising technology company serving higher education, government, health care and nonprofits. Michael Ang launched JobElephant in 2000 and scaled it nationally by pairing proprietary ad tech with high-touch service. Michael Ang focuses on simplifying hiring through smarter job distribution, predictive recommendations and clear performance reporting, so HR teams can see what works and move budget accordingly. Michael Ang still works directly with accounts to ensure every campaign delivers measurable results.

Globe Linkedin

 

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?

Individual Contributors:

Answer our latest queries and submit your unique insights: https://bit.ly/SubmitBrandWorxInsight

Submit your article: https://bit.ly/SubmitBrandWorxArticle

PR Representatives:

Answer the latest queries and submit insights for your client: https://bit.ly/BrandWorxInsightSubmissions

Submit an article for your client: https://bit.ly/BrandWorxArticleSubmissions


Please direct any additional questions to: connect@brandworx.digital

Everyone Learned AI. That’s the Problem.

by

May 22, 2026

Everyone Learned AI. That's the Problem.

By Maryia Fokina, Content & Insights @ JobLeads

For the last three years, the message to every professional has been the same: learn AI or get left behind. And to their credit, millions of workers listened. They opened ChatGPT, took the courses, added the line to their resume, and started experimenting with Copilot in their workflow.

The market got the workforce it asked for. It just didn’t get the salary curve everyone expected.

New research by JobLeads features the analysis of 110,000 US job postings that explicitly required AI literacy in some form between January 2024 and December 2025. The headline number is staggering: demand for AI skills grew 1,300% in twelve months. By the end of 2025, the market was producing roughly 36,700 AI-related job postings per quarter, up from a few hundred at the start of 2024.

And yet the median salary for those jobs slipped about 4% year over year.

That gap between the demand explosion and the wage drop is the story of AI as a skill in 2026. It’s not that AI knowledge stopped being valuable. It’s that it stopped being scarce.

  • The Microsoft Office moment

There’s a useful historical analogy here. In 2010, being proficient in Microsoft Office was still a meaningful bullet on a resume. By 2015, it was assumed, and writing it down made you look slightly out of touch. AI literacy is making the same journey, except compressed into about eighteen months instead of five years.

Generative AI now appears in 21% of all AI-related postings. Natural language processing follows at 20%, computer vision at 15%. These aren’t specialist requirements anymore; they’re baseline expectations. Prompt engineering shows up in only 7% of postings, ChatGPT proficiency in 6%.

When everyone has the same skill, that skill stops paying a premium. That’s labor market mechanics.

  • Where AI still pays, and where it stopped paying

The averages hide a much more interesting story. Five industries saw salaries for AI-literate roles rise: Bio, Pharmacology & Health led the pack with an 18% jump (from $90K to $106K), followed by Sales (+15%), Consulting (+11%), HR (+4%), and Management & Operations (+2%). Engineering held perfectly flat at $140K.

Then there are the losers. Marketing & Media took the worst hit, with median salaries falling 7.5%. Legal dropped 4%, IT & Technology nearly 2%, Finance just under 1%.

The industries where AI pay rose are the where AI knowledge is expected layered on top of deep regulatory expertise, scientific training, or client-billable judgment. Healthcare and life sciences will pay for a computational biologist who can talk about both protein folding and machine learning. They will not pay extra for a generalist who can use ChatGPT, because everyone can use ChatGPT now.

  • The seniority ceiling nobody talks about

There’s another assumption worth retiring: that becoming “the AI person” on your team is a fast track to leadership. The data says otherwise.

About 74% of jobs requiring AI literacy are individual contributor specialist roles. Only 14% are team leads. Heads of Department, Vice Presidents, and Managing Directors combined account for around 11% of the market. The Managing Director slice alone is 0.8%.

The pattern is the same one we’ve seen with every prior technical wave: the technology gets distributed across many specialist roles, but leadership positions remain limited by the size of the company, not the size of the skill pool. AI literacy is necessary to get into a $100K-$200K specialist role, and 52% of postings sit in that band. It is not, by itself, sufficient to get you into the C-suite. Strategic judgment, team-building, leadership skills, and business acumen still are.

  • The remote work myth

AI is the most digital work imaginable. It’s done at a keyboard, against APIs, with collaborators who could in theory be anywhere. And yet 57% of jobs requiring AI literacy are fully on-site. Only 17% offer full remote work. Hybrid covers another 26%.

Marketing & Media is the most remote-friendly category at 25% fully remote. Engineering, the sector most associated with distributed work, sits at just under 16%.

The companies investing most heavily in AI tools are, on average, asking workers to come to the office to use them. Anyone who learned AI hoping it would unlock location independence should look at the listings before making that bet.

  • What's actually rare in 2026

If AI literacy is the new baseline, the next question is obvious: what’s the new differentiator?

Three things are pulling away from the pack.

The first is depth in a specific domain that AI is actively changing combined with the ability to apply AI inside that domain’s real constraints. Generalists cluster at $80K-$125K. Specialists with domain depth move into the $125K-$200K range. Executives who combine both with leadership skill hit the $200K+ tier, which still represents roughly 12,000 active postings.

The second is judgment about when not to use AI. Anyone can generate output. The scarce skill is recognizing when the output is wrong, when human taste is irreplaceable, and when a process should stay manual. We are heading into a market that rewards people who can validate AI work more than people who can produce it.

The third is the ability to integrate AI into operational workflows: what employers in JobLeads’ dataset called “AI integration,” which appeared in 13% of postings. Not prompting. Not using. Integrating. Designing how an AI system fits inside a real team, with real handoffs, real liability, and real downstream consequences.

Learning AI was absolutely the right move but it’s also no longer enough. The professionals who treated AI literacy as the destination are now competing in the crowded middle. The ones who treated it as the entry ticket and built something rarer on top of it are pulling ahead.

That’s where the next decade of career advantage gets built.

About the Author

Maryia Fokina is part of the Content & Insights team at JobLeads. Her focus is uncovering data-driven insights that can help job seekers understand and navigate the modern challenging job market.

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?

Individual Contributors:

Answer our latest queries and submit your unique insights: https://bit.ly/SubmitBrandWorxInsight

Submit your article: https://bit.ly/SubmitBrandWorxArticle

PR Representatives:

Answer the latest queries and submit insights for your client: https://bit.ly/BrandWorxInsightSubmissions

Submit an article for your client: https://bit.ly/BrandWorxArticleSubmissions


Please direct any additional questions to: connect@brandworx.digital

The Impact of H-1B Visa Changes on Corporate Mobility

by

May 20, 2026

The Impact of H-1B Visa Changes on Corporate Mobility

By Kelly Cruse, Vice President, Human Resources and Chief Diversity Officer at Atlas Van Lines

The H-1B process has always been complex, but recent changes have made it more difficult, confusing, and in some cases, significantly more expensive.

A Presidential Proclamation issued on Sept. 19, 2025, noted that certain H-1B petitions “filed at or after Sept. 21, 2025, must be accompanied by an additional $100,000 payment as a condition of eligibility.”

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) later clarified the $100,000 fee does not apply to most H-1B filings, such as extensions of stay or transfers. Rather, it is for a segment of cap-subject H-1B hires “who are outside the United States and will seek consular processing for an H-1B visa or those already in the U.S. who cannot obtain a change of status or extension of stay.”

Even with clarification, the hefty price tag has already directly impacted most companies’ relocation budgets. With remaining questions and pending litigation, this is far from a compliance issue – it is fundamentally changing how companies budget, plan, and justify global talent mobility.

  • The Data

Each year, Atlas Van Lines conducts its Corporate Relocation Survey to gauge talent mobility trends and corporate relocation policies and practices. The 59th annual survey was conducted between Dec. 15, 2025, and Jan. 16, 2026, with 549 decision-makers across 20 industries who are responsible for relocation at small, medium, and large companies globally.

The survey found that the H-1B visa fee had some level of impact on the relocation budgets of 94% of companies that relocate employees internationally. In response, 82% of those companies also adjusted their relocation policies in 2025 and anticipated further impact on company relocation policies in 2026.

Among external factors impacting relocation, political/regulatory considerations showed the largest increase from 2024 to 2025 at 9%. Relatedly, over half of companies surveyed (53%) agreed that economic conditions were the top external factor that impacted relocation in 2025.

  • The Impact

H-1B changes present challenges across companies’ operations. Not only does it impact cost and compliance, but it also affects talent acquisition and retention. H-1B visas are typically reserved for highly specialized roles that cannot be fulfilled by American workers. The snowball effect of an increased cost burden can slow hiring timelines and result in an unwillingness to relocate – for employees and employers.

For employees, shifts in hiring and visa status can reduce access to career-advancing opportunities that come with geographic mobility. Meanwhile, for employers, it introduces added friction in securing highly specialized or international talent, especially in industries where those skills are already in short supply.

  • The Challenge for HR Professionals

Global talent mobility plays a crucial role in addressing labor shortages across essential industries. Corporate relocation serves as a lever for accessing this international talent pool, and even modest changes to visa policies can have an impact on this pipeline.

Key industries such as manufacturing, IT/technology, and business services rely on international talent. Manufacturing, for example, is in need of 3.8 million new workers by 2033. Nearly half of those jobs are at risk of going unfilled, putting additional pressure on HR teams already working to secure specialized talent. This demand reinforces why international mobility remains a necessary tool for workforce planning.

Therefore, HR professionals find themselves at the center of visa confusion by representing both the employees’ and employers’ best interests. How they budget for relocations is an indicator of the balance they try to strike.

  • How Companies Are Adapting

Rather than adjusting relocation budgets as a reaction to markets, HR teams should pursue proactive policy changes to stay ahead of employees’ needs. Increasingly, that means shifting away from rigid policies in favor of flexibility, or risk losing employees. When asked, 52% of companies agreed that they lost good employees due in part to a relocation policy. Perhaps relatedly, 51% of companies also said they almost always or frequently make exceptions to relocation policies.

Cost-of-living adjustments were also the most common nonstandard incentive companies provided In addition to fixed and flexible benefits. Additional targeted nonstandard incentives included bonuses and housing benefits. They proved effective: In 2025, 89% of companies said nonstandard incentives frequently or almost always convinced an employee to relocate.

For companies that ultimately need to reduce costs, 30% said they planned to offer short-term, extended travel, or commuter arrangements in 2026 instead of relocating employees. Alternative assignments are also an effective way to lower costs, with 36% of companies using them to meet strategic business goals.

Finally, remote work is still a desirable perk for employees. The ability to work remotely (15%) or an employer’s policy limiting remote work (10%) were both cited as reasons employees declined a relocation. Alternative assignments and remote work could both be effective ways of working with international prospects when visas may be more difficult or expensive to obtain.

  • Final Thoughts

The impact of H-1B changes on relocation budgets underscores a longer-term shift in how companies are approaching global mobility from a routine function to a strategic advantage. Companies are being forced to weigh global access to specialized talent against budget constraints caused in part by evolving visa requirements. Yet, a majority are still choosing to expand their budgets and devise more tailored relocation packages to entice top talent. Corporate mobility is more about precision than volume in this environment, reserved for roles where cross-border relocation is essential.

Ultimately, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to corporate relocations. Companies that adapt their mobility strategies to promote flexible policies will be better positioned to compete for skilled workers and be better equipped to handle future policy changes.

Kelly Cruse

About the Author

With over 20 years of experience in human resources, Kelly Cruse serves as Atlas Van Lines’ Vice President, Human Resources and Chief Diversity Officer. She oversees the development and implementation of HR strategies, policies, and programs that align with the company’s vision, mission, and values. Cruse has a strong background in employee benefits, performance management, talent acquisition, and employee relations.

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?

Individual Contributors:

Answer our latest queries and submit your unique insights: https://bit.ly/SubmitBrandWorxInsight

Submit your article: https://bit.ly/SubmitBrandWorxArticle

PR Representatives:

Answer the latest queries and submit insights for your client: https://bit.ly/BrandWorxInsightSubmissions

Submit an article for your client: https://bit.ly/BrandWorxArticleSubmissions


Please direct any additional questions to: connect@brandworx.digital

The ‘Cockroach’ in Your Break Room Is Why Your Top Talent Is Quitting

by

May 15, 2026

The ‘Cockroach’ in Your Break Room Is Why Your Top Talent Is Quitting

By Tim Whitt

On paper, your team looks fine.

Revenue is steady, trucks are rolling, and nobody’s flipping desks or screaming in meetings. And yet, quietly, your best people are leaving. Not with a dramatic blowup, but with a polite two weeks’ notice and a vague “I found a better opportunity.”

You probably do what most owners do: blame the market, remote work, or “kids these days.” But there’s a good chance the real problem isn’t coming from the outside. It’s in your own building.

More specifically, it’s in your break room. Sitting at the same table. Drinking the same coffee. Doing the same bare minimum they’ve done for years.

I call this person the cockroach.

Just like real cockroaches, these employees don’t usually cause a big, obvious scene. They don’t scream at customers, they don’t steal trucks, and they don’t do anything spectacularly wrong. They just survive. They show up, contribute as little as possible, and retreat back into the shadows when things get tough.

Everyone knows they’re dead weight—except, apparently, leadership.

Here’s the hard truth: your top performers aren’t quitting because of one big disaster. They’re quitting because they’re sick of living in a house where cockroaches are allowed to roam the halls.

Let’s talk about how to spot a cockroach, why they’re so toxic to your best people, and what to do about it before you lose anyone else you’d actually fight to keep.

  • 1. Learn to Spot the “Harmless” Cockroach

Real cockroaches don’t strip your pantry bare; they contaminate everything they touch. The same is true in a business.

Your cockroach employee usually looks like this:

  •       They’ve “always been here” and are treated as untouchable.
  •       Their production is barely acceptable, but never quite bad enough to trigger formal action.
  •       When something goes wrong, they somehow weren’t responsible for that account, that route, or that file.
  •       When things go right, they’re standing in the group photo taking the credit.

They don’t rage. They don’t openly sabotage. And they rarely break rules in a way you can easily document. That’s what makes them so slippery. If you challenge them, they’ve got excuses ready: “The office messed that up,” “Dispatch didn’t tell me,” “The system is glitchy,” “The customer was unreasonable.”

From a distance, you may think, “Is addressing this really worth the headache? We’re busy. He’s not that bad.”

But your team sees something very different. They see a person who contributes the least and suffers the least. That gap between effort and consequence is what starts to poison your culture.

To find the cockroach employee, take these steps:

Over the next 30 days, carefully review employee metrics. Don’t just check gross production. Check the following:

  •     Average daily workload compared to peers.
  •     Callback rate, complaints, and rework others had to absorb.
  •     How often this person is somehow “not involved” when there’s a problem.

If the data confirms what your gut already knows, congratulations. You’ve found your cockroach.

  • 2. Understand Why Top Performers Take It Personally

Your high performers can live with hard work. They signed up for that. What they won’t live with is unfairness.

When your best techs, sales reps, or administrative staff see someone like the cockroach skate by for years, a few things happen:

  •     They start to question your judgment.

“If the boss can’t see this, what else is he missing?”

  •     They start to question the point of excellence.

“Why am I beating myself up if Carl makes the same paycheck doing half as much?”

  •     They start to question their future with you.

“If this is the standard here, maybe this isn’t where I want to build my career.”

That’s how you lose people who actually drive the business.

From the cockroach’s perspective, survival is the game. From your top talent’s perspective, the game is rigged. When they decide to leave, it rarely has anything to do with the last straw; they’ve been collecting straws for years while you were looking the other way.

 

Your next steps:

Have an honest, off–the–record conversation with one or two of your strongest people. Ask them one question:

“Who here gets away with the most while contributing the least?”

Don’t defend, and don’t explain. Just listen. If the same name comes up more than once, you’ve just witnessed how your culture actually feels from the inside.

  • 3. Turn on the Lights: Make Performance Transparent

Cockroaches thrive in the dark. They love vague expectations, fuzzy metrics, and leaders who prefer “not rocking the boat.”

So, flip the lights on.

You don’t need to shame people, but you do need to make contributions visible. That means:

  •     Clear standards: For every role, define what a full day of work looks like, the minimum that’s acceptable, and what true excellence looks like.
  •     Shared scoreboards: Production, callbacks, rework, and attendance shouldn’t live in a private spreadsheet that only you see. Your team should know where they stand relative to one another, not only to fuel competition but to make patterns obvious.
  •     Documented follow‑through: When someone consistently underperforms, there should be a visible sequence: coaching, written expectations, and real consequences if nothing changes.

Cockroach employees are masters at hiding behind ambiguity. The moment you define specific expectations and track them consistently, their cover starts to crack. Either they step up—unlikely, but possible—or their lack of contribution becomes undeniable.

 

Your next steps:

Pick three metrics that clearly define “pulling your weight” for one role, say, a field technician:

  •     Number of completed stops per day (adjusted for route complexity).
  •     Callback rate over a 90–day period.
  •     On time start and completion rates.

Share these with the team, start posting them weekly, and commit to talking with anyone who consistently falls below the line. You’ve just made the environment much more hostile for cockroaches.

  • 4. Stop Protecting “Institutional Knowledge” at the Expense of Culture

One reason cockroach employees survive so long is fear. Leaders are afraid of what will happen if they’re gone.

“They know all the legacy accounts.”

“No one else understands that software.”

“They’re the only one who knows where that information is.”

So you tolerate low effort, bad habits, and quiet resistance because losing them feels risky.

Here’s the reality: you’re already paying a steep price to keep them. You’re paying in morale, turnover, and trust. You’re paying every time a strong performer shoulders their work while cockroach employees coast. You’re paying every time you find yourself thinking, “I can’t let them go; they know too much.”

 

Your next steps:

Start a 60‑day “knowledge extraction” sprint:

  •     Have the cockroach document key processes, logins, and client details.
  •     Pair them, at least temporarily, with a stronger employee to cross‑train.
  •     Move any critical information out of their head and into your systems.

You’re not threatening them; you’re reducing the hostage value of what they know. Once that’s done, you suddenly have options: coach them up with clear expectations—or coach them out. Either way, they no longer hold your culture hostage.

  • 5. Send a Clear Signal: Survival Isn’t a Strategy Here

Eventually, you’re going to have to make a decision about your cockroach.

You can keep nudging, coaching, and hoping they magically transform into a high performer. Or you can accept that their greatest skill is survival and ask yourself a better question:

“What message am I sending everyone else by keeping this person here?”

When you finally remove a cockroach employee—even if it’s uncomfortable, even if there’s short term disruption—you send a shockwave through the team. And it’s not the shockwave you fear.

Most high performers don’t think, “Wow, that could have been me.” They think, “Finally. The boss sees what we’ve been living with.” Trust goes up, not down. People breathe a little easier. Standards make more sense. The house feels cleaner.

You don’t build a strong culture by giving big speeches. You build it with a few decisive moments where you prove, through action, what you will and will not tolerate.

 

Your next steps:

Look at your roster and ask: “If I were starting this company from scratch tomorrow, would I rehire this person?” If the honest answer is no, that’s your signal. Either start a real improvement plan with clear deadlines, or start planning their exit. Keeping them “because it’s easier” is exactly why your best people are polishing their resumes.

  • The bottom line

If you find a cockroach in your kitchen, you don’t debate how bad it is. You call it what it is and deal with it. Your business deserves the same urgency.

“If you won’t evict the cockroach in your break room, don’t be surprised when your best people decide to find a cleaner house.”

Tim Whitt

About the Author

Tim Whitt is an entrepreneur with 45 years in pest control: 30 in corporate leadership and 15 building Pied Piper Pest & Lawn from the ground up. A speaker, coach, and author, he offers field-tested wisdom and practical tools that help both new and established businesses. His newly released book is Infested: End Workplace Drama, Stop Toxic Employees, Build a Thriving Small Business. Learn more at TimWhitt.com.

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?

Individual Contributors:

Answer our latest queries and submit your unique insights: https://bit.ly/SubmitBrandWorxInsight

Submit your article: https://bit.ly/SubmitBrandWorxArticle

PR Representatives:

Answer the latest queries and submit insights for your client: https://bit.ly/BrandWorxInsightSubmissions

Submit an article for your client: https://bit.ly/BrandWorxArticleSubmissions


Please direct any additional questions to: connect@brandworx.digital