The Career Ladder Is Finished. Here’s What Gen Z Are Building Instead

For decades, career success had a shape everyone recognised. You started at entry level, you climbed, and you measured your progress in titles, pay rises, the size of your team and the size of your office. It was linear, hierarchical, and – for the generations who grew up with it – deeply motivating. Status was the incentive, and the ladder was the route.

That model is collapsing. In a recent #FromXtoZ podcast chat myself and Danielle Farage talked about some of the findings from a Deloitte survey of nearly 23,000 young workers across 44 countries.

Gen Z and Millennials aren’t mourning the loss of the career ladder. They’re building something entirely different in its place.

From Ladder to Web

The Deloitte research is striking not just for its scale but for the clarity of its findings. When asked about their career goals, only 6% of Gen Z respondents cited reaching a leadership role. Let that sit for a moment. The entire architecture of the traditional workplace – the management tiers, the promotions, the performance reviews oriented around “progression” – has been built on the assumption that people wanted to move up. For most of Gen Z, that assumption is simply wrong.

What they want instead is harder to map on an organisational chart but no less purposeful: a web of experiences that weaves together skills development, wellbeing, financial security, and meaningful impact.

Success, for this generation, isn’t a destination at the top of a structure. It’s a living, evolving combination of things that matter – and that combination looks different for every person.

This isn’t aimlessness. It’s a rational response to the world they’ve inherited.

The Incentive Has Changed

Previous generations climbed because climbing worked. A promotion meant more money, more status, a bigger car, a better postcode. The rewards were tangible and socially legible. You knew you’d arrived because other people could see it.

For Gen Z, many of those rewards have either diminished or disappeared entirely. Housing markets have made the traditional milestones of adulthood feel remote for many young workers. Corporate loyalty has eroded in both directions – companies have spent decades demonstrating that employees are expendable, and Gen Z has noticed.

Why sacrifice your wellbeing climbing up a ladder when there’s no guarantee the rungs won’t be pulled out from under you?

Into that vacuum has come a different kind of motivation. This is a generation that grew up knowing that careers in purpose-driven organisations, with values-led work, are not just idealistic fantasies – they are real, viable options. The awareness of what’s possible has fundamentally reshaped what people are willing to work towards.

Learning as a Lifestyle, Not an Event

One of the most revealing findings from the Deloitte research concerns how Gen Z approaches learning. 70% say they develop skills on a weekly basis, and 67% invest time outside of work to keep pace with their field. This is not a generation waiting to be trained. It’s a generation that has internalised the reality of working in a world where the skills required today may be obsolete in eighteen months.

Context matters here. Gen Z is entering the workforce knowing they are likely to have around thirteen different careers across their lifetime. They are also the first generation to build their careers during a genuine AI revolution, with two thirds worried that automation will eliminate jobs and 61% concerned it will close off traditional entry-level pathways. The anxiety is real. But so is the response: learn constantly, broaden relentlessly, and never assume that what you know today is enough for tomorrow.

Alongside technical and digital skills, the research is clear that soft skills are considered essential by this generation. 85% identify communication, empathy, leadership and networking as must-haves – a recognition that in a world where AI handles more and more of the tactical work, distinctly human capabilities become more – not less – valuable.

The Management Gap Nobody Is Talking About

While most of the discussion around Gen Z at work focuses on what young people want, the Deloitte research also finds something equally important on the other side of the relationship: managers are failing the people who report to them – not out of indifference, but because the system won’t let them do otherwise.

The data shows that managers currently spend around 40% of their time firefighting and only 13% on developing their people. This is a structural failure with generational consequences. Gen Z is the cohort most openly hungry for mentorship, guidance, and the kind of hands-on development that comes from working alongside someone who will bring you into the room, explain the dynamics, and help you navigate the complexity. That “second row” learning – sitting in on a client meeting, being invited into a senior conversation not because you’re needed but because you’ll grow from it – is increasingly rare, and its absence is felt.

What This Means for Organisations

The companies that will thrive with Gen Z talent are those willing to retire the ladder as their primary organisational metaphor. That means rethinking how progression is defined and communicated, building genuine flexibility into career pathways, and investing in managers who have the time and skills to actually develop people rather than simply manage output.

It also means taking seriously the values that young workers are looking for. Purpose is not a soft extra that Gen Z want alongside their salary – for many, it is the primary reason they choose one employer over another, and the first thing that erodes when the day-to-day reality of a job fails to live up to its promise.

The Career Ladder had a good run. But the Career Web is already being built, whether organisations choose to support it or not.

You can check my full podcast chat with Danielle here – https://open.spotify.com/episode/26Bau1QR1cnMQIBUfQNWS8?si=cbce79a111e345f9 or through the image below:

Workplace Absence Isn’t Laziness – It’s a Mirror of a Changing Workplace

Workplace absence is one of those topics that quickly becomes emotionally charged. Leaders worry about productivity. Employees worry about being judged. And somewhere in the middle sits a collection of generational stereotypes that rarely stand up to scrutiny.

In a recent episode of our From X to Z podcast, Danielle Farage and I explored the generational dynamics behind workplace absence. What emerged wasn’t a story about laziness or entitlement. It was a story about context, life stages, and a workplace that hasn’t quite caught up with the reality of modern lives.

So let’s start with the data. Research from edays found that Gen Z actually take the fewest average sick days per year (2.7), while Boomers take the most (6.1). Gen X and Millennials fall somewhere in between.

That finding alone flips the common narrative. Gen Z are often criticised for taking “too many mental health days”, yet statistically they are absent less frequently than older colleagues.

So what’s really going on?

First, life stage matters. Boomers are more likely to experience age-related or musculoskeletal issues. Gen X are often part of the “sandwich generation”, balancing careers with caregiving for both children and ageing parents. Millennials report financial stress and mental health pressures. Gen Z cite anxiety, stress and headaches as key drivers of unproductive days.

These are not moral failings. They are human realities.

Second, visibility of mental health has changed. Older generations didn’t avoid stress or emotional difficulty; they simply dealt with it differently. Mental health wasn’t openly discussed. Taking a “mental health day” would have been viewed as weakness. Today, younger employees are more likely to name what they’re feeling and expect some degree of understanding.

This shift can create tension. Some older leaders interpret openness as fragility. Some younger employees interpret scepticism as hostility. The result? Reduced psychological safety.

And that’s where the real risk lies.

When people don’t feel safe explaining why they need time off, they are more likely to hide the truth. A mental health day becomes a “migraine.” A miscarriage becomes “back online as normal.” Personal struggle becomes silence.

Absence management then turns into suspicion management.

The irony is that many organisations are still applying one-size-fits-all absence policies designed for a nine-to-five, office-based era. But the workplace has fundamentally changed.

Hybrid and remote work mean absence is no longer binary. Someone with a cold might work from home. Someone caring for a parent might adjust their hours. The line between “off sick” and “working differently” is increasingly blurred.

At the same time, younger generations are contributing in ways that often go unrecognised. Informal tech support. Digital fluency. Social media expertise. Helping senior leaders navigate platforms and presentations. This invisible labour can create resentment, especially if absence policies are rigid while expectations of contribution remain flexible.

There is also a deeper dynamic at play. Many older leaders grew up in more autocratic workplaces. Power flowed downwards. Attendance equalled commitment. Showing up despite illness was rewarded as loyalty. That mindset does not automatically translate into today’s more fluid, digitally enabled environment.

But this isn’t about one generation being right and another wrong. It’s about understanding context.

Workplace absence today reflects:

  • Physical health realities
  • Mental health awareness
  • Caregiving responsibilities
  • Financial pressures
  • Hybrid working norms
  • Shifting expectations of empathy

The danger lies in oversimplifying it.

If leaders default to stereotypes like “Gen Z are soft” or “Boomers are hypocritical” then they create exactly the disengagement they fear.

If they lean into curiosity instead, asking “What’s driving this?” or “How can we support?” then they create trust.

Kindness is free, as Danielle rightly put it. But it’s also strategic.

Managing absence in 2026 and beyond requires subtlety. It requires HR and leaders to move from policing attendance to understanding wellbeing signals. It requires recognising that absence data is not just an operational metric, but a cultural barometer.

The question isn’t “How do we stop people taking time off?”

It’s “What does this pattern tell us about our people – and what do they need?”

Because ultimately, absence isn’t about weakness. It’s about humanity.

And organisations that understand that will build cultures where people don’t just show up – they stay.

Check out the full podcast conversation here –https://www.purpleacornnetwork.com/podcasts/from-x-to-z – or through the image below

Enhancing the Human Experience at Work

The pace of workplace technology evolution has never been faster. AI has moved from experimentation to everyday use seemingly almost overnight, promising productivity gains, efficiency, and scale. But as these tools become more powerful, a crucial question sits at the heart of the future of work: how do we ensure technology strengthens rather than replaces the human experience at work?

This question was at the centre of a recent conversation I had with Martin Jackson from Insights, a company long recognised for its work in behavioural science and personality preferences. What emerged was a compelling reframing of what HR and workplace technology should be optimising for.

From efficiency to human effectiveness

For decades, workplace technology has been designed primarily to make things faster – automating tasks and streamlining processes – delivering quicker solutions. But that efficiency-first mindset is increasingly at odds with how people experience work today.

Satisfaction with technology – particularly satisfaction with HR technology – seems to be falling with teams not feeling they are getting the value they were promised. Tools often fail not because they lack features, but because they don’t align with how people think, communicate, or make decisions. When that happens, technology can stop feeling supportive and start feeling intrusive. The opportunity now is to pivot away from pure efficiency and towards human effectiveness – helping people explore problems, communicate with clarity, and exercise better judgment.

Technology should sharpen judgment, not remove it

One of the most important distinctions Martin made was this: organisations shouldn’t try to automate human judgment away. Instead they should be trying to sharpen it.

The most valuable technologies are not those that replace interaction, but those that enhance it – helping people prepare for conversations, understand others’ perspectives, and adapt how they show up at work. This is where personalisation becomes critical.

We’re already seeing this shift amongst major technology players. Personalised assistants, adaptive AI responses, and context-aware tools are becoming priorities. The goal is no longer “more productive humans”, but better humans at work – more aware, more connected, and more effective in the moments that matter.

Behavioural intelligence as the missing layer

Insights’ long-standing personality model is built on a simple but powerful idea: giving people a shared language to understand how they prefer to think, communicate, and decide. That shared understanding can help reduce friction and build patience – especially when the work gets complex or pressured.

What’s changing is how this intelligence can now be used. By digitising the model through the Insights Discovery API, behavioural preferences can be embedded directly into the tools people already use every day.

This unlocks practical, human-centred applications:

  • Coaching nudges that adapt to how someone best receives feedback
  • Onboarding experiences that help new hires communicate more effectively from day one
  • AI-assisted communication that reframes messages so they land better with the recipient
  • Mentor and coach matching based on behavioural compatibility, not guesswork

Rather than generic experiences, work becomes contextual, personalised, and relevant.

Engagement, trust, and change fatigue

Much of what we see as ‘engagement’ really comes down to whether people feel seen and understood. Change fatigue, miscommunication, and disengagement often stem from messages that don’t resonate – not because they’re wrong, but because they’re delivered in the wrong way.

Behavioural intelligence embedded into workflows allows for just-in-time support: prompts before a difficult conversation, guidance before a feedback session, or subtle nudges that help encourage reflection or action depending on the individual.

The result? Fewer misunderstandings, higher relevance, better uptake – and a compounding effect on trust and engagement over time.

Human-centred AI is the real differentiator

AI today can be extraordinarily powerful – but also emotionally clumsy. Large language models can boost productivity, but without behavioural context they often lack empathy, nuance, and emotional intelligence.

Injecting behavioural insight into AI helps to change that dynamic. AI becomes less of a black box and more of a thought partner – something that challenges thinking, improves framing, and supports better decisions without eroding autonomy.

Looking ahead, the most successful workplace technologies won’t win because they’re the fastest or cheapest. They’ll win because they’re the most engaging – the ones that understand users best and adapt accordingly.

Designing technology that earns trust

For HR leaders who worry that new technologies might dilute culture, the answer isn’t to slow down innovation – but to design more deliberately. Test tools in small pilots. Be transparent about what you’re trying, why you’re trying it, and what success looks like. Share what works – and what doesn’t.

Culture only survives if it’s practised. Technology should reinforce that practice, not distract from it.

Enhancing the human experience at work isn’t about resisting AI. It’s about embedding humanity into it – intentionally, ethically, and visibly. When technology supports how people think, communicate, and connect, it doesn’t replace the human experience at work. It elevates it.

You can check out my full conversation with Martin Jackson here https://www.hrhappyhour.net/episodes/enhancing-human-experience-in-the-digital-workplace/

How Falling Housing Affordability Is Changing How People Work and Save

Across many developed economies – including the US, UK and Western Europe – owning a home has long been treated as a cornerstone of financial security and adulthood. Yet for younger generations, that cornerstone is now rapidly crumbling. A new research paper by Seung Hyeong Lee and Younggeun Yoo, published on SSRN in November 2025, gives us one of the clearest explanations yet of how declining housing affordability is changing not just financial outcomes, but people’s behaviour, motivation, and economic decision-making across their entire working lives. And this has a profound impact on how we attract, hire, develop and compensate emerging generations in the workplace.

Using a calibrated life-cycle model matched to decades of U.S. data, the research show that younger cohorts face dramatically reduced prospects of ever becoming homeowners. Individuals born in the 1990s, for example, are projected to enter retirement with homeownership rates almost 10% lower than previous generations. But the real insight from the study lies not only in the declining numbers – it lies in how people respond when homeownership slips out of reach.

The authors identify a critical psychological and economic tipping point they call the “giving-up” threshold. When individuals perceive that buying a home is no longer an attainable goal, their entire set of financial behaviours changes:

  • Higher consumption: People spend more in the present instead of saving for a future down payment
  • Lower work effort: Reduced motivation emerges when long-term financial goals fade from view
  • Riskier investments: Those who abandon homeownership often turn to higher-risk assets to compensate for lost wealth-building opportunities

Instead of saving diligently for a down payment, they tend to consume more of their income in the present. Rather than increasing work effort to boost earnings, they pull back – particularly renters with lower wealth, whose work patterns resemble those who have already abandoned homeownership ambitions.

So how does this impact HR and Talent professionals?

The link between personal finances and financial goals is clear – home ownership, family, personal development, learning, promotion and achievement are all impacted when they seem unattainable

These behaviours compound over time, widening wealth inequality and reducing economic resilience. Importantly, the study found that current renters with lower wealth already exhibit these patterns, confirming the model’s predictions.

The traditional pathways to growth and development become blocked.

Work becomes more about the experience – with leadership, learning, mentorship, job design, wellbeing, mental health, meaning and purpose all  combining to create ‘good work’. It needs to be fulfilling and to lead somewhere better.

Whilst the research paper called for restoring a sense of attainable homeownership – which would be hugely significant – it is up to organisations in the mean time to find ways to give work a sense of meaning and purpose.

(Also check out my recent post on Work vs Welfare)

Three Conversations HR and Talent Leaders Can’t Avoid in 2026

The future of work isn’t short of opinions. What it’s often short of is honesty and research-based insight.

As 2026 begins, there are three conversations that I think HR and talent leaders keep circling – not because they’re fashionable, but because they expose where systems, assumptions and practices are under strain. I’ve been writing about these in my Friday newsletters through 2025 and will continue into 2026….and beyond!

1. Rehumanising AI at Work

AI is no longer experimental. It’s embedded. The question is no longer can we use it, but how – and at what human cost. In 2025, I spent a lot of time researching and writing about how AI is reshaping early careers and decision-making, and why governance, trust and human judgment matter more than ever. The most interesting conversations weren’t about tools – they were about accountability.

(“How AI Is Transforming the Early Career Experience”)

2. Workplace Mattering, Not Just Engagement

Engagement remains a priority, but many employees still feel invisible. Recognition exists – yet often fails to translate into motivation, loyalty or sustained contribution.

The organisations that will thrive in 2026 are those that understand mattering: how people experience value, fairness and opportunity day to day, not just in surveys, and how this links to sustainable performance cultures.

(“The Workplace Advantage We’ve Overlooked: Why Mattering Comes Before Performance”)

3. Generational Change as a System Signal

Gen Z continues to be described as difficult, disengaged or demanding. That misses the point.

Whether it’s CV dishonesty, resistance to rigid office mandates, or shifting definitions of success, these behaviours tell us far more about broken hiring and career systems than about attitudes.

(“Why Is Gen Z the Most Miserable Generation?”)

(“What Gen Z & Millennials Want from Work“)

Across all three themes, the common thread is this: people are responding rationally to systems that no longer feel fair, transparent or human.

Throughout 2026, I’ll be exploring these ideas through writing, research, podcasts and conversations with practitioners who’ve learned the hard way. My aim is simple: to reduce noise, challenge lazy narratives, and help leaders talk about the future of work with credibility and clarity.

If you’re grappling with any of these questions, you’re not alone – and these are the conversations I’ll be continuing here.

Recogdemption: Turning Recognition into Retention and Real Loyalty

Most organisations try to recognise their people, but fewer are successful converting that recognition into loyalty though. That conversion moment is what recognition and reward specialists BI WORLDWIDE EMEA call Recogdemption – the point where recognition, the redemption of a meaningful reward, and employee retention & performance, all intersect to create a self-sustaining cycle of engagement.

It’s actually a deceptively simple idea with big implications: if employees are recognised but rarely redeem or receive anything of value, their emotional momentum stalls. If they can redeem or receive something that feels really worthwhile – and are able to do so early and often in their time with an organisation – then a positive loop accelerates: I feel seen → I can act on it → I feel valued → I want to stay and contribute more.

I’ve written, researched and spoken a lot about recognition and retention over the years, and I’m really interested in the concept of Recogdemption, which is based on behavioural analysis from almost 1 million employees across more than 100 countries. It certainly feels a lot like the flywheel concept popularised in the book ‘Good to Great’ – putting the employee at the centre.

So What Exactly is “Recogdemption”?

Keeping with the flywheel concept, if Recognition is the spark, then redemption is the action that turns the spark into movement, and retention is the forward motion that compounds value.

When recognition and redemption are designed to connect, then the flywheel keeps spinning. When they’re not, you’re left with isolated “thank-yous” and small rewards that feel good in the moment but fade quickly and offer no lasting impact.

I see three design truths at the heart of the Recogdemption concept:

  1. Timing matters. Early recognition – especially in the first six months – has an outsized impact. It anchors belonging before habits (good or bad) harden.
  2. Redemption isn’t trivial. Being able to redeem something meaningful soon after recognition is what makes the experience tangible. Research points to a “first redemption” sweet spot: something not so small that it feels tokenistic, but also not so large that it seems unattainable. The exact number and size will vary by market and pay bands, but the principle holds – make the first conversion both visible and achievable.
  3. Not everyone redeems the same way. Some people are spenders who redeem more frequently after a handful of recognitions; others are savers who wait longer and prefer bigger, more aspirational rewards. Treating everyone like a spender – or everyone like a saver – may leave value on the table, so all redemption patterns and aspirations should be catered for.

Why Does Recogdemption Matter Now?

There are three emerging business realities that I think make Recogdemption more than just a clever label, but a concept that needs to be embraced.

Firstly, retention pressure has shifted from something that happens periodically to becoming something more structural. Labour markets are tightening, there are rising skill shortages, and employee absence is increasing. The impact of losing the people you want to keep puts more pressure on the business and its leaders. Recognition alone might not fix that – but recognition that converts can.

Secondly, employee expectations have matured, and so have their expectations from recognition. People don’t just want to accumulate points; they want proof – clear signals that their efforts are seen, and that they can translate into something tangible, such as choice, experiences, time or money-equivalents.

Thirdly, budgets are under scrutiny. HR needs a line of sight from spend to outcomes. Recogdemption can give you the measurables that leaders care about: early-tenure recognition rates, time-to-first redemption, redemption frequency by segment, and the retention differential for frequent redeemers.

How Recogdemption Should Work in Practice

  1. Front-load recognition. It’s a mistake to wait for periodic, or annual, cycles. Try to design onboarding and early-tenure routines in a way that encourages contributions quickly – eg. peer shout-outs, manager notes, cross-team “thank yous”. These should be tied to points or credits that can actually be redeemed.
  2. Engineer the first redemption. It’s important to build clear – and easy to use – pathways from recognition to action. Nudges like – “You’re 20% away from your first reward” – are useful encouragers. Also aim for a meaningful first redemption within the early months – enough to feel real, but not so high it becomes a distant mirage.
  3. Segment redemption behaviour – identifying spenders and savers early. For spenders: you should keep the catalogue fresh, accessible, immediate – low friction, quick delivery, everyday delight. For savers: make aspiration visible – progress bars, limited-time goals, experiences or higher-value items that justify waiting.
  4. Mix frequent recognition with occasional signal rewards. Small, frequent wins are useful for maintaining momentum. Periodic high-signal rewards – which are fewer but more meaningful – can help emotionally (eg. “you really matter here”)
  5. Enable managers to try and normalise the habit. Programmes don’t deliver; managers do. You should give managers and leaders prompts, examples and a short monthly routine to follow: eg. “Who went above and beyond? Who helped onboard faster?” Recognition should be specific, timely and authentic – and also connected to values or outcomes.
  6. Measure more than clicks. Looking beyond “how many points issued” to track metrics like time-to-first recognition, recognitions in first six months, time-to-first redemption, redemption frequency, repeat redeemers, and especially monitor the retention rate of high-frequency redeemers versus others.

Common Recogdemption Failures (and how to avoid them)

There are 5 common types of failure

Tokenism – If employees need dozens of recognitions to reach anything redeemable, they’ll disengage. Ensure the first redemption is within reach

Catalogue fatigue – A static selection erodes excitement. You should rotate items, add experiences, and localise choices. Also give people some agency in different types of gift cards, charitable options, or time-off equivalents

Manager inertia – Leaders often “mean to” recognise and then get busy and distracted. Bake recognition into cadence – such as one agenda item in team meetings, a monthly reminder, prompts tied to project milestones.

Equity blind spots – If only extroverted, customer-facing work gets recognised, you’ll end up amplifying inequity. Use peer nominations, manager audits and analytics to ensure that invisible work (eg. documentation, mentoring, maintenance) gets its share of spotlight.

No pathway to meaning – Recognition without redemption feels like applause without an encore. Make the path obvious, the steps short, and the win will be felt.

Why Recogdemption is a strategic lever – not a “nice to have”

When Recogdemption is designed well, you will get more than happy moments. You build predictable retention effects that can be seen in the data – frequent redeemers stay longer, contribute more, and advocate louder.

You can also build a culture that catches and amplifies people doing the right things – early and often – so that standards rise without burnout. And you earn credibility with Finance by linking budgets to measurable outcomes: reduced turnover cost, faster ramp-up, fewer hiring cycles, stronger productivity.

In short, Recogdemption reframes recognition from acts of kindness to acts of design. It’s the shift from “we thank people sometimes” to “we’ve engineered a culture where being seen leads to taking action, which leads to feeling valued, which leads to staying.” In a labour market where loyalty has to be earned – not assumed – that design advantage is hard to copy and even harder to ignore.

If your organisation already invests in recognition but isn’t seeing the retention lift you expect, don’t scrap the effort – connect it. Make the path from recognition to redemption short, meaningful, and visible. Segment it for spenders and for savers. Give managers a simple habit to follow. Then measure what matters and scale what pays back.

Recogdemption is how you can turn appreciation into advantage.

Health, Work and the New Reality: Thoughts on the 2025 CIPD Survey

The 2025 CIPD Health & Wellbeing at Work survey gives us a fairly clear picture of how employees across the UK are really feeling – physically, mentally and emotionally – and how their working lives are shaping that experience.

While many organisations have invested heavily in wellbeing initiatives over recent years, the data is showing a far more complex and nuanced reality. Some indicators are moving in the right direction, but others highlight systemic issues that employers cannot afford to ignore.

A Workforce That’s “Mostly Fine” – But With Warning Signs

At first glance, the findings are reassuring. Around two-thirds of employees say that their mental and physical health is good or very good. This suggests that most workers feel able to cope with day-to-day demands and maintain a baseline of resilience.

But that headline masks a significant minority who are struggling. Around 14–16% of employees say their health is poor, and almost a fifth feel neither positive nor negative – a sign of stagnation rather than wellbeing. When scaled to the UK labour force, these figures translate to millions who feel their health is deteriorating or stuck.

The emotional landscape at work is similar: many employees regularly feel enthusiastic and immersed in their work. But behind this lies a substantial group experiencing exhaustion and excessive pressure. These two factors – energy depletion and sustained pressure – are among the strongest precursors to stress, burnout and declining productivity.

When Work Makes People Unwell

Perhaps the most concerning finding from the survey is that a quarter of employees say work has a negative impact on both their mental and physical health. This represents around eight million people who feel that their job is actively damaging their wellbeing. Given the pressures of the past few years, from economic uncertainty to rapid organisational change, this figure may not be surprising – but it is concerning.

Only a third of workers feel that work positively affects their physical health, and fewer than half say the same for mental health. In other words, for many people, work is at best neutral – and at worst, harmful.

What’s Driving Poor Health at Work?

The survey points clearly to the underlying factors. Employees reporting negative health impacts are far more likely to experience:

  • High workloads and the sense of having far too much to do
  • Excessive pressure from the organisation
  • Consistent exhaustion
  • Poor relationships with colleagues
  • Weak or unsupportive management

This reinforces a crucial truth: wellbeing is not an “HR programme” – it is the lived experience of work. No number of mindfulness apps can offset an environment where people feel overworked, unsupported or poorly led.

The Organisational Costs Are High

Employees who feel that work harms their mental health behave very differently from those who feel supported. They tend to be:

  • Less satisfied in their roles
  • More likely to quit
  • Less likely to recommend their employer
  • Less motivated to give extra effort
  • Less likely to share innovative ideas

This is not just a wellbeing issue; it’s a performance, retention and cultural issue.

A Mixed Picture on Workplace Support

The survey finds that 69% of employees view their line managers as open and approachable about mental health. This is a significant cultural shift and shows progress in destigmatising conversations at team level.

Across organisations, however, support is patchier. Only 55%-59% feel their employer encourages open dialogue or supports mental health. This gap suggests that managers are often carrying more of the emotional load than the organisation around them.

Hybrid Working: The Healthiest Balance

One of the clearest patterns in the data is the relationship between working location and health. Employees with access to hybrid work report:

  • The best mental health (66% rate it as good)
  • Strong physical health outcomes — significantly better than those working fully remotely

Fully home-based workers appear most at risk of declining physical health, while those with no access to home-working report lower mental health outcomes than hybrid workers.

The takeaway? Flexibility remains a powerful enabler of wellbeing – but the healthiest model appears to combine autonomy with connection.

What Employers Need to Take Seriously

The 2025 CIPD survey sends a clear message: wellbeing is not achieved through standalone initiatives. It emerges from workload design, management capability, team relationships, organisational culture and the conditions in which people work.

If employers want healthier, more resilient and more engaged workforces, they must focus on:

  • Reducing chronic workload pressure
  • Equipping managers to lead with empathy and clarity
  • Strengthening social connection and psychological safety
  • Designing work that energises rather than drains
  • Maintaining flexible work options, with hybrid as the sweet spot

Work can be a force for good – but only when organisations take responsibility for shaping it in ways that support, rather than undermine, employee health.

The Rise of the Career Situationship: Why Gen Z Is Redefining Commitment at Work

A recent survey claimed that nearly half of Gen Z plan to leave their jobs within a year, and more than half admit they took their current role knowing it would be temporary. The headline is designed to shock – a generation with “commitment issues.” And a headline that myself and Danielle Farage recently explored on our From X to Z podcast. This isn’t about a lack of loyalty. It’s about a new understanding of work itself.

Every generation has gone through periods of restlessness at work. When the economy is uncertain and the world feels unstable, people naturally think short-term. From my perspective, this has always been cyclical – periods of growth bring career ambition, whilst instability sparks pragmatism. The difference today is that the traditional reasons to stay in a job – home ownership, pensions, predictable progression – have all but disappeared for many younger workers. In their place instead is a simple question: “Does this job give me something meaningful right now?”

For many of Gen Z, the answer often changes – and that’s not a sign of flakiness, but of realism. They are navigating a volatile economy, rising living costs, and a job market transformed by AI and automation. It’s hardly surprising that their focus is on the present, not the promise of a distant reward that may never materialise.

Danielle framed this shift as a broader redefinition of success. For Gen Z, money is a means to an end – a tool to support a life that feels authentic – and not necessarily a goal in itself. They’ve grown up watching countless models of success play out on social media: creators, entrepreneurs, activists, freelancers. The lesson they’ve absorbed is that there isn’t one consistent, right career path. Their 20s are for exploration, not lifelong contracts. Stability is less important than learning, autonomy, and purpose.

This mindset is giving rise to what Danielle calls the “career situationship” – a term borrowed from the language of dating – to describe a relationship where neither side is fully committed. The employer offers just enough reward or recognition to keep someone around, and the employee gives just enough engagement to get the job done – all the while scanning for better options. It’s a fragile dynamic, and one that’s becoming increasingly common.

The root cause isn’t entitlement or impatience; it’s disconnection. Many younger employees simply don’t feel recognised or valued in their roles. They crave feedback, development, and honest conversations about growth – but too often encounter bureaucracy or indifference. Without that sense of progress and belonging, even a well-paid job starts to feel hollow.

Management is a skill – not a title – and one that’s often overlooked. It seems too many managers are being promoted without necessarily having the right tools – or skills – to lead, connect and inspire their teams. Leadership today requires empathy, curiosity, and communication – qualities that build trust and make people want to stay. It’s not about enforcing loyalty, but about earning it through genuine care and clarity.

Ultimately, Gen Z’s attitude to career commitment is not a rejection of work; it’s more of a demand for meaning. They want work to fit into a life that feels purposeful, rather than the other way around. That may look like job-hopping on the surface, but beneath it is a search for belonging, respect, and growth.

The challenge for organisations is to meet that search with authenticity. Recognition, dialogue, and development aren’t “nice to haves” – they’re the foundation of modern retention. Because whether in careers or relationships, people stay where they feel valued. Which is something that every generation can understand.

Check out our full conversation here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbZmlkDq9RI – or through the image below, and you can also visit Purple Acorn From X to Z to check out all our intergenerational podcast chats.


Fostering Intergenerational Harmony: Turning Age Diversity into Team Strength

Workplaces are becoming more age-diverse than ever before, leaving organisations with a different kind of diversity challenge – how to ensure different generations collaborate effectively without friction.

Regular followers will know I debate these topics on an ongoing basis with Danielle Farage on our From X to Z podcast, but for today’s newsletter I’m looking at recent research published by the The British Psychological Society which looked at how age-related tensions develop – and more importantly – how they can be reduced through meaningful contact, inclusive culture, and thoughtful team design.

The Roots of Intergenerational Conflict

With up to five generations now sharing workplaces, it’s no surprise that tensions can arise between older and younger employees. The BPS study defined intergenerational conflict as disagreement, friction, or tension between employees of different age groups –  and links it to reduced team performance, wellbeing, and satisfaction.

But these conflicts aren’t simply about differences in work habits or communication styles. They’re rooted in social categorisation – the instinctive way humans group people into “us” and “them.” When workers feel that their age group is undervalued or discriminated against, this perception – known as Perceived Age Discrimination (PAD) – tends to heighten awareness of generational divides.

This usually results in defensiveness, stereotyping, and more frequent clashes – both about tasks (how work should be done) and relationships (how people relate day-to-day).

The researchers emphasised that both younger and older employees experience Perceived Age Discrimination – younger workers may feel dismissed as inexperienced, while older ones may feel sidelined or outdated. Either way, the sense of unfair treatment fuels tension.

When Work Structures Make Things Worse

Conflict doesn’t occur in isolation – it’s how work is structured that matters. The study found that task interdependence (the extent to which employees rely on one another to complete their work) can intensify conflict when Perceived Age Discrimination is present. In highly interdependent teams, employees have no choice but to collaborate closely. When age-based discrimination or mistrust already exists, this enforced co-operation can magnify frustration and disengagement.

However, interdependence isn’t the enemy – it can also become a powerful connector, provided the right conditions for collaboration are in place. The key lies in the quality of contact between colleagues.

The Power of Positive Contact

The BPS researchers highlight good quality, cross-age contact as one of the most effective ways to foster harmony. This means natural, voluntary, and respectful interactions between age groups – allowing people to learn more about each other as individuals, and not as stereotypes. Positive contact helps break down what’s known as “ingroup” and “outgroup” thinking, reducing perceived discrimination and strengthening trust.

Unsurprisingly (well, to me anyway!) the study found that when cross-age contact is high in quality, the benefits of task interdependence are amplified. Working closely together under these conditions doesn’t heighten conflict – it actually deepens mutual understanding and cooperation.

What Organisations Need to Do

The takeaway for HR and business leaders is clear: you can’t manage intergenerational dynamics through policy alone – you need to build connection. This means:

Creating structured opportunities for intergenerational collaboration that go beyond task assignments – for instance, mentoring partnerships, reverse mentoring, or cross-age project teams.

Training managers to spot signs of perceived age discrimination and address them through inclusive communication and recognition practices.

Celebrate age diversity as a strategic asset, not a challenge – blending experience with fresh perspectives creates stronger problem-solving and innovation.

The researchers concluded that the goal isn’t to minimise differences, but to turn them into a source of strength.

When employees of all ages feel respected and connected, organisations gain not only workplace harmony but also resilience and creativity – which are the hallmarks of a truly multigenerational workplace.

How are you approaching intergenerational harmony in your organisation? Let me know…

Hybrid Working: Why Policy Isn’t the Problem – Leadership Is

It’s become a familiar story within organisations. A CEO or senior leader returns from a conference or forum convinced that really getting everyone back to the office will fix culture, collaboration, and performance.

But as recent research from MIT Sloan Management Review involving Brian Elliott, Nick Bloom and Prithwiraj Choudhury has highlighted, this focus is misplaced. Hybrid work isn’t a policy problem – it’s a leadership capability problem.

The most successful organisations aren’t arguing about office attendance. They’re building the skills, systems, and trust to help people work effectively – wherever they are. Here are some of my thoughts on the research and, in particular, what they mean for HR and business leaders.

1. The Policy Trap: RTO Mandates Miss the Point

Many leaders are treating hybrid work like a compliance issue: set a rule or guidelines, communicate it, and measure adherence. Yet despite the rise in return-to-office mandates – up 12% last year alone – actual attendance increased only by 1-3%.

Managers are quietly prioritising performance over presence. Faced with losing high performers or bending rigid rules, most choose results. The real cost of these mandates isn’t absenteeism – it’s the wasted leadership energy spent enforcing policies that don’t solve the real challenge: how to enable effective collaboration across distance.

2. What the Research Actually Shows

Despite much debate and rhetoric – in magazines, books, forums and from the conference stage – the evidence doesn’t support rigid office mandates. Peer-reviewed studies have shown:

  • Hybrid work does not reduce productivity and can lower attrition by a third, saving millions in turnover
  • Remote work can increase productivity (by up to 10% in call-centre studies) and broaden workforce diversity
  • When teams spend 23% – 40% of their time together, they perform best. What matters isn’t where people work – it’s how purposefully they connect.
  • Hybrid arrangements consistently boost engagement and innovation by expanding perspectives and increasing psychological safety.

The conclusion is clear: effectiveness comes from flexibility and clarity of purpose, not from counting badge swipes.

3. The Four Capabilities That Define Hybrid Success

The companies thriving in flexible work environments share four core leadership capabilities – none of which depend on fixed policies.

Know Your Talent Edge

Start with strategic clarity. Hybrid work should serve the organisation’s competitive advantage – whether that’s attracting hard-to-find talent, fostering creativity, or offering flexibility competitors can’t.

Allstate, Airbnb, and the European Central Bank have each tailored hybrid models to suit their unique needs. The best approach isn’t uniform; it’s fit for purpose.

Measure Results, Not Presence

This is the leadership mindset shift. High-performing companies judge employees on outcomes, not hours.

Synchrony and Atlassian are two organisations that have used transparent goal-setting systems so everyone can see progress and impact. This approach strengthens trust, reduces bias, and helps retain diverse talent – particularly women, who are disproportionately penalised by rigid in-office demands.

Let Teams Lead the Way

The most effective hybrid models are designed at the team level. Teams know their collaboration rhythms better than executives do. Atlassian empowers teams to agree on shared norms – like guaranteed overlap hours or quarterly in-person sprints. Microsoft and Teradyne are businesses that use similar flexibility within a broad corporate framework.

Uniform policies flatten nuance. Empowered teams create alignment and accountability.

Invest in Getting Better

Hybrid work isn’t a one-time policy shift – it’s an ongoing capability build. Leading companies are investing in:

  • Spaces: redesigned for collaboration, not occupancy
  • Resources: budgets for purposeful team gatherings, not daily commutes
  • Skills: manager training and playbooks for leading distributed teams

Hybrid success depends less on where people work and more on how leaders build trust, alignment, and capability across boundaries.

4. The Leadership Imperative

Research consistently makes it clear: hybrid is here to stay – and it’s working. The organisations moving ahead today are those that stopped treating flexibility as an HR issue and started treating it as a core leadership discipline.

The real question isn’t ‘how many days in the office’ – it’s ‘how effectively do we create connection, clarity, and accountability across teams’?

Leaders who master that shift will build organisations that can flex with whatever comes next. Because the future of work isn’t about place – it’s about how we work together to create value.

(This post originally appeared in my twice-weekly newsletter HR Means Business – subscribe to make sure you don’t miss my latest conversations, thoughts and writing)