productivity

Everyone Learned AI. That’s the Problem.

May 22, 2026 by Ananth

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

May 20, 2026 by HRSAdmin

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

May 15, 2026 by HRSAdmin

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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

Why Best Practices Hold You Back: When Yesterday’s Logic Meets Today’s Complexity

May 14, 2026 by HRSAdmin

May 14, 2026

Why Best Practices Hold You Back

When Yesterday’s Logic Meets Today’s Complexity

By Kursten Faller and Alan Weiss

Best practices are often viewed as the key to success in the business world. Certifications to prove practitioners are competent in accordance with a best practice make sense at the surface. However, they’ve become psychological cover that create mediocre results at best. It’s reassuring to be able to point at the protocol and say, “I followed the best practice. It’s not my fault.”

Take project management, for example. Most project managers I’ve met (my younger self included) come from technical backgrounds who love best practices. I genuinely thought project management was about following the best practice and forcing people to follow my plan. Spoiler alert: That didn’t work.

With today’s disruption and volatility, “business as usual” means little when there’s no “usual” anywhere in sight. Although Disruption and Volatility would make great names for a law firm, they require an adaptive approach to ensure survival and sustainability.

Best practices bring a false measure of certainty for keeping threats at bay. However, they’re largely irrelevant as they’re developed by looking in the rearview mirror according to what worked under the conditions at that time.

The solution is enhancing critical thinking to navigate complexity in real time.

These days, to be successful, you need to be adaptable. This requires developing the critical thinking skills to solve the unique challenges your situation presents. To do so, follow these tips:

Attending endless meetings, always agreeing with leadership, escalating decisions, and “checking the boxes” that show you observed the best practice are all compliance-based behavior. You feel like you’re providing value but are really providing only superficial benefit. Busy work consumes energy. It moves the needle little in terms of value delivered. This puts your organization and yourself at risk.

Mastery comes from thoughtful distillation to what matters. Condense your work down to its essence — the 1 percent that really moves the needle. This involves having the important coaching conversation to shift the thinking of a team member, sharing the contrarian viewpoint that no one else sees, or carving out time for learning and growth to build new thinking. These are all leverage plays that return far more over time than they consume.

I started my career in engineering and realized early on that the work I did was a “good enough” approximation of the real-world physics my designs operated in. This allowed me to build things that consistently worked at a reasonable cost.

Best practices are an approximation of what works in the real world. However, they’re only a snapshot of what worked at one point in time in the past. The business environment evolves rapidly at an ever-increasing rate of change. Best practices are backward looking and largely irrelevant to the modern environment in which we try to apply them.

This is why we talk of “better” practices and not “best” practices. You should always be getting better in the system in which you operate. Once you think you’ve arrived at the “best,” there’s no point to continue getting better. That leads to complacency.

Understand what the organization you work within truly values. I often find when working with clients that whatever leadership thinks provides value in terms of outcomes are in tension with what leaders actually show they value day to day. For example, they may say the organization needs to be the top innovator in its industry globally. Then, leaders micromanage, reinforce compliance, and criticize mistakes. You can’t get to innovation if you value compliance, shame risk-taking, and make it intimidating for people to pursue efforts that might come up short.

Success comes to those who are brave and can push back against the behavioral norms despite the daily rhetoric. Speak up when it feels uncomfortable. Have one high leverage conversation tomorrow that you’ve been putting off. I rarely meet leaders that don’t value results when you show them you can achieve them.

People who can do this write their own ticket. That means you need to be ready for some social discomfort on your journey to delivering the results your organization truly wants.

Best practices are misaligned with the needs of the modern business environment because they’re rooted in yesterday’s logic and provide convenient psychological cover. In a world that previously rewarded compliance, many professionals were never required to develop strong critical thinking. That world has shifted. Leaders must move beyond the comfort those practices once provided and focus instead on the high leverage work that creates real outcomes.

The willingness to think, question, and adapt is now what separates compliance from true leadership.

About the Author

Kursten Faller is an organizational advisor with more than 25 years of experience helping executives strengthen the human systems that drive performance inside complex organizations. As founder of Centric Business Consulting, he works with leadership teams to improve decision quality, accountability, and execution in environments where technological capability is accelerating faster than leadership adaptation.

About the Author

Alan Weiss is a globally recognized consultant, speaker, and author renowned for his expertise in organizational development and personal growth. As founder of Summit Consulting Group, Inc., he has advised more than 500 leading organizations worldwide including Merck, Hewlett Packard, GE, Mercedes Benz, and the Federal Reserve.

Their new book, The Hidden Project Drivers: Building Behavior that Drives Success (Business Expert Press, April 3, 2026), explores how human behavior, leadership maturity, and decision making determine whether projects deliver meaningful outcomes.

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

How to Avoid the Most Preventable Form of Employee Turnover

May 6, 2026 by HRSAdmin

May 06, 2026

How to Avoid the Most Preventable Form of Employee Turnover

Clark A. Ingram, Founder and President, People Profits, LLC

Finding the right people committed to staying with your organization starts with making sure that you and the job applicant are on the same page.

Many times, while working with an organization, I see employees who should never have been hired. Often it’s due to either the organization not identifying in detail their target candidate criteria or making unwise exceptions to their criteria. The excuse is always the same: “We need bodies — now.”

Job candidates make it even worse when they don’t have their own criteria for what they’re looking for in an employer. They say: “I need a job — now.”

It’s only a matter of time before the employee decides to move on or the organization decides they “don’t fit in.”

This is amazing to me. They decide six months later that the employee doesn’t fit in? The organization should have known back when they reviewed the candidate’s application or during the interview that the person didn’t meet their criteria. Both the organization and the employee are hurt for the same reason — trading a short-term problem for a long-term one — and they’ve wasted a lot of each other’s time.

In these cases, the organization has done a disservice to the employee by hiring them with a very real chance they won’t fit in. They’ve also damaged their organization by setting up a future problem that will need to be resolved.

Here are the real questions organizations need to address: What do our ideal candidates look like and how can we find them? Think of that old cliché that you can’t hit a target you can’t see.

Finding quality people becomes a lot easier once you’ve identified your candidate criteria in detail. Then it’s a matter of finding the appropriate sources and determining how to get their attention.

One company I knew of hired every Machinist Mate out of the Navy they could get their hands on. The reason was simple: given the skills those employees had obtained in the Navy, they already had most of the capabilities needed for the job when they started. They also had a work ethic and were revenue positive much quicker than other candidates.

On the flip side, what about the candidates’ criteria? What are they looking for? Not knowing is a related root cause to employee turnover.

Many candidates are looking for a “good job.” What does that mean? For that individual, it can mean many different things. The more information you can provide about your organization, the more the candidate can reflect. “Is what you’re hearing sound like something you want to do?” “Does the culture and environment feel comfortable?” Clarifying these aspects up front will help them think through what they’re looking for.

You should also look hard at their resumes and their answers to your questions. They may be giving you indirect clues as to what they’re after. If you get the feeling the candidate is just after a job, move on.

It’s much more prevalent now for people to try a job and then decide whether to jump. This means you must get them to see why they should stay.

On the other hand, the better candidates are looking at how they’ll fit in, grow, and be challenged in the future. They’re looking for a “value path” showing them how they can bring value to the organization and how their increased value is rewarded. Good employees expect the organization to articulate and then provide this path.

Many companies struggle with establishing how employees will be challenged beyond what they were hired for originally. Employees want a clearly defined, well-thought-out path, in writing — including the training, experience, and accomplishment standards for success. When your organization has this as a recruiting tool, you’re able to recruit, hire, and retain the type of employees you want and need.

This fundamental truth regarding good and unsuitable employees affects your employee turnover in so many ways. So how do you maximize the good and minimize the bad?

Be able to spot the differences before the time of hire.

Fully understand the multilevel cost of bad employees.

Know your organizational opportunities and sell them to candidates.

Recognize that hiring just to provide warm bodies is always detrimental in the long run.

Prevent employee turnover and gain control of your hiring process by clearly showing who you are. Be able to read between the lines of a resume and discover who candidates really are. Develop value paths to instantly show your candidates the opportunities available. Employing these strategies, you’ll begin to pull in who you need and fend off who you don’t.

About the Author

Clark A. Ingram is the Founder and President of People Profits, LLC, which focuses on the three greatest human capital problems affecting organizations: employee turnover, chronically open positions, and skills gap. He consults with a spectrum of companies and has consistently reduced turnover by more than 40 percent in the first year and achieved staffing at more than 90 percent. His new book is Churn: Proven Strategies to Overcome Failing Conventional Talent Management and Achieve Zero Turnover (People Profits, March 26, 2026). Learn more at peopleprofits.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

3 Myths That Will Derail Your Change Initiative

May 4, 2026 by HRSAdmin

May 04, 2026

3 Myths That Will Derail Your Change Initiative

Josh Cardoz, Chief Creative & Learning Officer, Sponge

In Formula 1, a pit crew can replace four tires in under two seconds. It’s a notorious example of precision, speed, and coordination.

But that level of performance doesn’t happen because someone simply tells the team to move faster. It works because every role is clear, every movement is rehearsed, and every person understands exactly how they contribute to the outcome.

Businesses are always looking to enhance their competitive advantage with that same level of speed and efficiency. With the rise of AI, constant digital transformation and pressure to do more means organizations expect employees to adapt as soon as possible.

But today’s workforce is navigating more change than ever before. Economic uncertainty, technology shifts, digital overload, and constant transformation have created what we call Generation Numb — a workforce that has become desensitized to constant disruption.

The success of any large transformation hinges on whether your workforce chooses to get on board or not. In this environment, what follows isn’t always resistance. Instead, it is something worse: apathy. People won’t push back. They’ll nod, attend the meetings, and continue delivering, but without real belief or energy behind the change.

In today’s Generation Numb workplace, which is shaped by constant change and unclear priorities, employees have seen too many initiatives come and go. Unless something feels meaningfully different, they default to going through the motions rather than engaging.

That’s why the first 90 days matter the most when introducing change or new initiatives. This is the window where leaders need to create clarity, relevance, and belief. If they don’t, the initiative won’t fail with fanfare. It will quietly stall, with teams appearing aligned but not truly changing how they work. Employees are 3.5 times more likely to be engaged when they understand how their work contributes to company goals.

#1 — KPIs Create Alignment

No doubt, metrics are important to every business. And most transformation efforts begin with defining the KPIs leaders want teams to hit. The assumption is this: if everyone understands the numbers, the actions they need to take to reach them will follow.

Wrong! The establishment of metrics alone rarely changes behavior. Rather, it ends up raising questions like: “What does success look like in my role?” and “What should I actually do differently tomorrow?”

Leaders need to shift from KPI metrics to behavioral clarity. Instead of solely defining outcomes, leaders need to define the lead indicators — the specific actions and behaviors that produce those outcomes. Leaders often default to announcing the destination but don’t provide a map on how to get there.

Alignment happens when strategy is translated into clear expectations employees can practice in real moments at work. When people understand what success looks like in their every day, momentum can start to build. But there’s more that comes along with it.

#2 — Resistance is the Risk

Resistance is not ideal during a time of transformation, but it’s also not the worst outcome you can get. In many ways, resistance is healthy. It shows your team is motivated enough to take a stance on something and have a conversation. Resistance allows you to be aware of where your people stand on certain issues – and it shows that they care.

What’s more dangerous than resistance is apathy. With apathy, you don’t get questions or resistance. There is no warning sign. Your people are quietly disengaging and disinterested in what’s going on around them. From a leadership perspective, this is much harder to detect and even harder to reverse.

The workers who are a part of Generation Numb report that they’re just surviving. Innovation, creativity, and customer experience require energy. And energy is the opposite of apathy. Leaders must consider whether teams actually have the capacity to deliver the transformation they’re asking for, because even the best strategy in the world won’t gain traction if their people are in survival mode.

#3 — Productivity Equals Performance

When transformation efforts start to ramp up, organizations start to push harder. More meetings, more reporting, more activity.

But activity doesn’t always equal performance.

Ever had a meeting about a meeting and nothing came from either conversation? In fact, employees spend nearly 60% of their time on “work about work” like meetings, emails, and status updates.

Think back to the Formula 1 pit crews or even Michelin-star kitchens. In both cases, teams perform under incredible pressure and speed. Every second counts. That speed is possible because the conditions are right. Roles are clearly defined. Teams move in sync. Everyone understands their part in delivering the outcome.

Leaders in those environments don’t simply demand results. They design systems that make high performance possible. As leaders, your job is to create the conditions for high performance, not simply demand higher productivity.

When those conditions exist, teams can naturally move forward and faster.

Clarity (The Me stage)– Employees need to understand their role and what success looks like in the new environment.

Connection (The Us stage) – Build true community, where people work collaboratively and teams are invested in each other as well as the task.
Conditions for performance (The It stage) – Once clarity and connection exist, teams can focus on the challenge itself.

Organizations often chase pace during transformation. But the most effective leaders do something different: they create the conditions that allow teams to move together. With clarity, connection and conditions in place, the pace sets itself – and productivity, outcomes and impact follow.

About the Author

Josh Cardoz is Chief Creative & Learning Officer at Sponge Group, where he leads The Practice consultancy and The Studio. A recognised authority in learning and development, he has partnered with a wide portfolio of Fortune 500 and Interbrand organisations – with roles
in digital learning strategy, solutions design, business development, and creative leadership. Josh blends a strong strategic lens for connecting L&D to performance, while championing
moments of human resonance in the workplace

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