The Workforce Lens

29/05/2026

For employers, the most important implication of the current shift is also the most uncomfortable.

The instinct is to preserve headcount and invest in literacy programmes. These are not wrong, but they address the wrong question.

The real challenge is task redesign:
📍 Identifying which parts of a role remain worth paying a human to do
📍 Deliberately restructuring workflows around those human-centric tasks
📍 Moving beyond familiarity with tools to positioning workers where the technology cannot go

A workforce that understands the technology but whose day-to-day tasks remain identical is not meaningfully less exposed. We must be the architects of our own workflows.

https://zurl.co/TFSPJ

Closing the gap between visible AI adoption and the structural shift in how work is actually performed

26/05/2026

We often talk about "soft skills" as if they are a secondary concern. In the age of automated systems, they are the hard target that our training systems have not yet learned to aim at precisely.

Judgement, coordination, and the kind of human-facing work that requires reading a situation rather than processing it—these are the skills that remain differentially valuable.

Yet, we continue to retrain people for roles rather than building capacity in the specific skills that the technology cannot replicate. We are moving people between job categories without addressing the skill-level variation that actually determines their future.

How do we shift our education systems to focus on what truly remains human?

https://zurl.co/5Lv7g

Closing the gap between visible AI adoption and the structural shift in how work is actually performed

20/05/2026

We are measuring the wrong thing
Most workforce planning is currently built on a signal that misses the reality of how work is changing. We are watching for visible disruption while the real shift is already embedded in how work is structured at the skill level.
This is not a minor oversight; it is a structural blind spot that renders most current responses inadequate.

If you are responsible for the future of your organisation, you need to look at what is happening beneath the surface:
📍 The gap between visible adoption and actual capability.
📍 Why job titles are a poor way to judge risk.
📍 The quiet absorption of tasks that define professional value.
📍 Why training alone is not the answer.
We must move beyond monitoring headcount and start architecting the unique value that remains human.

https://zurl.co/CQsT5

Closing the gap between visible AI adoption and the structural shift in how work is actually performed

17/05/2026

Are you tracking the right signals in the age of AI?

Governments, employers, and educators are making critical decisions about the future of work, investing billions in strategies to navigate the AI revolution. But what if those decisions are based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of where AI's true impact lies?

My latest article introduces The Iceberg Index, a ground-breaking framework that reveals a profound mismatch in how we perceive AI's influence on the labour market. While visible disruptions like layoffs in tech roles grab headlines, they represent only a fraction of the transformation already underway.

The uncomfortable truth? The real shift is happening quietly, incrementally, at the skill level—absorbing the cognitive and administrative components of professional work without necessarily eliminating jobs. This means traditional metrics are structurally blind to most of what's actually happening, leading to misallocated resources and missed opportunities.

👉 In this deep dive, you'll discover:
✅ Why current workforce planning is designed for a labour market that no longer exists
✅ How AI is changing jobs without eliminating them, making its impact harder to see and respond to
✅ The critical difference between occupational-level and skill-level exposure, and why it matters for every professional
✅ Why your current AI strategy might be missing the most significant signals

The core insight: Most decisions are calibrated to where AI is visible, while the real shift is already embedded in how work is structured at the skill level, which means the response is being designed for a signal that captures only a fraction of the change underway.

This isn't about predicting doom; it's about providing a clearer lens to understand the present. The Iceberg Index offers a measurement correction, making the gap between what's visible and what's structurally present impossible to ignore.

Read the full article to understand the true scale of AI's impact and what it means for your strategy.
https://zurl.co/ctyak

14/05/2026

Why who delivers the news matters more than most organisations realise

There is one decision in a redundancy process that consistently determines how much damage it does — and it is rarely treated as a decision at all.

Employees strongly prefer to hear the news from their direct manager. When that conversation gets handed to a consultant or an HR specialist brought in for the occasion, perceived psychological contract breach increases — for the person receiving the news and for every colleague watching how it unfolds.

Training managers in structured bad-news delivery measurably reduces that damage. The skill is learnable and the investment is modest. Outsourcing the conversation, by contrast, is one of the most expensive decisions an organisation makes during a restructuring — and it appears on no cost analysis.

My latest piece in The Workforce Lens looks at this and the other decisions that determine whether an organisation comes out of a restructuring with its people's trust still intact.

https://zurl.co/HrJ4C

When hundreds of people are watching every move you make, good intentions are not enough

12/05/2026

What surviving a layoff actually demands

There is an assumption buried inside most redundancy processes — that keeping your job means the difficult part is over. For the people who stayed, it is frequently where the difficult part begins.

The research on this is three decades old and remarkably consistent. What survivors experience in the months after a restructuring shapes organisational performance far more than most leadership teams account for — and far longer than anyone plans for.

What would change if organisations designed redundancy processes with the people staying in mind, not just the people leaving?

https://zurl.co/NDy1h

When hundreds of people are watching every move you make, good intentions are not enough

06/05/2026

The part of a redundancy process nobody plans for

Somewhere in the planning of every redundancy process, a silent assumption gets made — that the people who kept their jobs are the resolved part of the equation. The difficult work is over. Attention can shift.
That assumption is where the real cost hides.

The people who stayed are not resolved. They are watching, assessing, and drawing conclusions about the organisation they are still part of — conclusions that determine what that organisation gets from them in the months and years that follow. Nobody briefs them. Nobody plans for them. And by the time the consequences surface, the window to do something about it has long closed.

My latest piece in The Workforce Lens examines what happens in that window and what it would actually take to address it.

https://zurl.co/BRgVl

When hundreds of people are watching every move you make, good intentions are not enough

03/05/2026

Losing your job is brutal. Keeping it might be worse.

Not in the way that sounds — nobody is arguing survivors have it harder than the people who were let go. But the morning after a redundancy announcement, the people still in their seats are carrying something organisations have no plan for and no language to address. That absence compounds in ways that take months to surface and years to fully cost.

Most redundancy processes are engineered around the exit. The legal requirements, the severance terms. All of it built around the people leaving — which means almost none of it is built around the people who stayed, who are now sitting in a quieter office drawing their own conclusions about the organisation they are still part of.

Those conclusions are rational rather than sentimental. When the implicit deal between an employer and an employee visibly collapses, people recalibrate what happened, whether they were told the truth, whether the decisions made sense. And what they conclude in that assessment changes everything the organisation gets from them going forward.

💡 This is what my latest piece examines — and here is what you will find in it:
✅ The mechanism nobody names — why survivor syndrome runs along a specific, predictable chain of cause and effect, and what that means for how organisations should respond to it
✅What the numbers actually show — organisational commitment drops by 13.5% following a layoff, and employees with low commitment are 2.5 times more likely to leave voluntarily — among the people the organisation specifically chose to keep
✅The knowledge problem — why uncertainty turns colleagues into competitors for their own job security, and what that costs an organisation running leaner than it was before
✅The fairness calculation — what surviving employees are measuring in the weeks after a restructuring, and why getting most of it right is not the same as getting it right
✅The conversation that cannot be outsourced — why who delivers the news matters as much as what is said, and what happens to every survivor watching when organisations get this wrong
✅What good actually looks like — the specific decisions that determine whether an organisation comes out of a restructuring with its people's trust still intact

The organisations that come out of a restructuring with their performance and their people's trust intact are the ones that understood the exit was only the beginning and planned accordingly.

https://zurl.co/CIJrm

When hundreds of people are watching every move you make, good intentions are not enough

30/04/2026

What the people staying need during a layoff — not just after
The silence between a layoff announcement and its conclusion is not neutral. It fills with rumour, anxiety, and conclusions the organisation would never choose for them.

What survivors need is not a town hall. It is honest answers about timelines, clarity about their own roles, and regular contact from people they actually know and trust.

The research on this is consistent: the quality of communication during the process shapes what comes after it as much as anything else. Most organisations treat it as a logistics problem. It is a trust problem.

What has your experience been — on either side of this?

https://zurl.co/yzMPZ

When hundreds of people are watching every move you make, good intentions are not enough

22/04/2026

Fairness in a mass layoff is not about tone or intention. It is about who is in the room, what they say, and whether what happened can be explained to the people who stayed.

Thirty years of organisational justice research identifies four dimensions through which everyone — those leaving, those staying, those watching from outside — judges whether a process was handled well.

Most organisations pass on two or three. The research is clear that a weak point in any one of them shapes the perception of the whole.

What those four dimensions are. Why criteria-based selection outperforms percentage cuts on every one of them. And what the legal requirements actually look like across the UK, Europe and beyond — because they are significantly more demanding than most international organisations expect.

https://zurl.co/nfaeV

When hundreds of people are watching every move you make, good intentions are not enough