Menu

leadership

Workplace Stress Is Killing People. The Answer Isn’t Another Wellness Program.

by

September 09, 2026

Workplace Stress Is Killing People. The Answer Isn't Another Wellness Program.

Dr. Jonathan Thorp, CEO, Quantum Connections

The International Labour Organization released a report in April that should stop every executive and HR leader in their tracks. More than 840,000 people die each year from health conditions linked to workplace stress. 

When research uncovers a number that large, the instinct is to reach for structural fixes like workload audits and mental health benefits. These ideas have their place, but the problem is that most of them are applied after the stress has already taken hold. You’re treating symptoms rather than the source. And the research suggests the source is something most organizations have largely ignored, which is the daily quality of the relationship between an employee and their direct supervisor.

  • What Data Tells Us About the Source of Stress

Quantum Connections surveyed more than 12,000 employees in 49 industries to understand what actually drives engagement, retention, and performance at work. What they found is that the single most powerful predictor of how an employee experiences their job is whether they feel seen and heard by their direct supervisor. It turns out, compensation packages and job titles aren’t as important as the daily conversational quality of their relationship with their manager.

The effects are measurable and significant. Fully connected workforces are 38.7% more profitable than disconnected ones. Employees who feel seen and heard are 55% more likely to contribute ideas and 31% less likely to think about leaving each week. They stay an average of 9.5 months longer. Organizations spend millions trying to drive these metrics through engagement initiatives and retention programs. The research shows that the real driver is simpler and more direct than most of those programs assume.

  • Why Manager Connection Is So Meaningful

A manager who genuinely connects with their team changes how they experience work. Being heard changes how stress registers. When an employee believes their manager actually understands what they’re dealing with, the psychological burden of that load is different. When they believe no one is paying attention, the same load becomes isolating, and that isolation only grows over time.

Most managers aren’t indifferent to their teams. In my experience, the vast majority of managers genuinely want their people to feel valued. The issue is one of skill. Organizations need to invest in developing the skill of dialogue. Being able to listen in a way that makes the other person feel genuinely received, rather than processed.

There is a meaningful difference between a manager who holds regular one-on-ones and a manager who conducts genuine dialogue in those conversations. While the first is a calendar event, the second is a practice. In a genuine dialogue, the manager’s primary orientation is toward understanding what the employee is actually experiencing, asking questions that are motivated by curiosity rather than assessment, and reflecting back what they heard before moving to feedback or direction. That sequence of understanding first, and responding second isn’t the natural default under organizational pressure. It’s a learned behavior, and like any learned behavior, it requires instruction and practice to develop.

  • Training Managers for Dialogue

Teaching dialogue is where most manager training falls short. Organizations invest in communication skills programs that teach managers how to deliver feedback or handle conflict. They rarely teach the foundational behavior that makes that communication effective, which is how to make another person feel genuinely heard. That capability isn’t a personality trait reserved for naturally empathetic people. It can be taught, practiced, and measured.

The practical starting point for any organization serious about addressing workplace stress is examining the quality of the conversation happening in manager-employee one-on-ones every week. In most organizations, those conversations are either too infrequent or too transactional, think status updates and performance metrics. What’s missing is the space where an employee can say how they’re actually doing, and where a manager is equipped to receive that answer in a way that builds trust.

Training managers to conduct dialogue requires teaching them a small set of specific, practicable behaviors:

  • Mirroring, the act of reflecting back the essence of what someone said before responding, demonstrates reception in a way that a nod and a pivot to advice does not. 
  • Asking questions out of genuine curiosity rather than to gather information for evaluation changes the dynamic of the conversation in ways employees notice immediately. 
  • Staying present with discomfort rather than rushing to resolve it creates the psychological safety that allows honest exchange. 

None of these behaviors are complicated. All of them require deliberate practice to become reliable under pressure.

  • Preventing Stress Instead of Treating It

When hundreds of thousands of deaths per year are linked to workplace stress, the issue is more than a wellness challenge. It starts with leadership. The answer can’t be found in another benefits offering. It’s in the quality of attention their managers bring to the people sitting across from them every week.

That quality of attention is a skill. Teaching it to managers is among the most effective investments an organization can make in the health of their people and in the performance of their business.

About the Author

As the visionary leader of Quantum Connections, Dr. Jonathan Thorp spearheads Quantum Connections’ strategy to support its mission to bring the power of dialogue to workplaces and individuals while expanding the organization’s global influence. Under his guidance, Quantum Connections seamlessly integrates the Safe Conversations Dialogue Methodology with the dedication of its practitioners, significantly enhancing the company’s impact and reach.
 
Jonathan’s expertise spans three distinct career paths—naval aviation, corporate training, and academia—providing him with a wealth of insights into adult learning. His diverse experiences have honed his understanding of optimal learning patterns, effective leadership strategies, and the importance of nurturing curiosity in students for enduring impact.
 
Outside of his professional pursuits, Jonathan treasures family time above all else. He enjoys exploring the Texas outdoors with his wife and children, indulging in hobbies such as hiking, golfing, and landscaping, and embarking on road trips in search of unforgettable adventures.

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 Is Searchable. The Right People Still Rarely Meet.

by

September 08, 2026

Everyone Is Searchable. The Right People Still Rarely Meet.

By Sebastian Scott, CEO and Co-Founder of Clera

Building Clera, I keep seeing the same pattern: companies review dozens of plausible profiles without finding anyone they want to meet, while strong candidates ignore dozens of relevant-looking roles until one opportunity speaks to something they actually care about.

A hiring manager can look through thousands of profiles in an afternoon. A candidate can find thousands of open roles. Access is abundant.

But access is not the same as understanding.

In many cases, the difference is not the title or salary. It is direct access to founders, the chance to own something meaningful, or a team whose working style fits. None of that is obvious from a resume.

That contradiction is what I think of as the “discovery gap.” The internet made people easy to find. It did not make it easy to know who should talk.

  • Search solved visibility, not intent

A resume is useful. It tells us where someone worked, what they studied, and which skills they list. But it mostly describes the past.

It does not tell us why someone might move now. It does not show which tradeoffs they are willing to make, what kind of leader they want to work with, or whether they value ownership, stability, or compensation most.

A job description has the same problem from the other side. It lists responsibilities and requirements, but rarely captures what the hiring manager truly cares about, where they are willing to compromise, or what would make someone exceptional in that particular team.

Many hiring systems try to match these two incomplete documents. They compare job titles, years of experience, keywords, and credentials, then assign a score.

That can identify plausible candidates. It cannot determine whether a conversation will be worth having.

Real matching requires context from both sides: ambition, timing, working style, appetite for risk, and what each side wants next. Most of that only emerges through conversation.

  • More applications are making the signal worse

Instead of fixing this gap, the industry has spent years increasing volume.

Candidates are encouraged to apply to more roles. Companies add more sourcing tools and expand their talent pools. When the resulting volume becomes overwhelming, both sides automate even more of the process.

AI has accelerated this. Candidates can now tailor applications in seconds. Employers can screen and reject them just as quickly.

The result is a strange arms race: both sides automate access while learning less about each other.

One of the most useful things we have learned at Clera is that candidate preferences are often not static or perfectly stated at the beginning. Someone might say they want an early-stage startup, then realize that what they actually want is direct access to the founders. They might say compensation is the priority, but consistently engage with roles offering more ownership.

That signal appears over time. Each response, rejection, and change of mind adds context that a resume never contained.

That context should not become another hidden score controlled by the employer. The candidate should control it. AI should help people clarify and update what they want—not quietly make career decisions on their behalf.

AI can help maintain those ongoing conversations and notice when someone’s timing or priorities change. But AI should not be the reason two people meet. The reason should be that there is enough shared context to believe the conversation could matter.

  • The goal is fewer wasted conversations

Before making an introduction, both sides should be able to answer three things: Why now? What is non-negotiable? And why this specific opportunity?

Those answers should come from conversations with both sides—not from assumptions made about a profile or a job description.

Hiring managers should answer the same questions from the other side. What problem must this hire solve? Which requirements are truly essential? And why would the strongest person for the role choose this team over another one?

If neither side can answer those questions, it is not really a match. It is another guess dressed up as one.

The purpose of technology in hiring should not be to create more introductions. It should be to prevent the unnecessary ones and make the important ones happen sooner.

The right candidate should not need to submit a hundred applications to discover one relevant company. A hiring manager should not need to screen hundreds of resumes to find one person worth meeting.

The future of hiring will not be won by whoever creates the largest candidate pool. It will be won by whoever creates the fewest unnecessary conversations and makes the important ones happen sooner.

More profiles will not fix hiring. Better reasons to talk might.

About the Author

Sebastian Scott is the Co-Founder and CEO of Clera, an AI-powered talent platform rethinking how professionals connect with career opportunities. He leads the company’s strategy, fundraising and go-to-market efforts, having grown Clera to more than 60,000 represented professionals and over 500 startup clients in under a year. He personally onboarded the company’s first 100+ startup clients and developed a success-fee model. He also led Clera’s $3 million pre-seed round, backed by 1984 Ventures, Deel Ventures and angels from companies including OpenAI, LinkedIn, and more.

Sebastian founded his first company at 17, later building an on-demand tutoring platform that scaled to more than 15,000 users. He has also developed AI agent systems for German manufacturers seeking automation solutions. Sebastian studied at the Technical University of Munich (TUM), Columbia University and Tsinghua University. He was born in Singapore and is now based in San Francisco.

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 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