Solution: Talent & Market Insights

The Human Advantage: 5 Talent Strategy Lessons from FutureWorks 2026

Posted on by lloftus

By Alexis Medina
Director of Client Delivery

I recently had the opportunity to attend Indeed’s FutureWorks 2026 conference, where talent leaders, economists, and industry experts came together to explore the forces shaping the future of work. AI understandably dominated many of the conversations, but one of my biggest takeaways from the conference wasn’t about technology. It was about people—and whether employers will have enough of them, with the right skills, to do the work ahead. 

Today’s U.S. labor market is often described as “low-hire, low-fire,” with employers remaining cautious about adding headcount while layoffs and quits are also relatively minimal. But beneath that relative stability is a longer-term challenge: labor supply. Aging populations, retirements, reduced labor force participation, and skills mismatches are creating pressure within the available workforce, while demand for more skilled and senior talent continues to grow.  

At the same time, AI has changed what people can accomplish, how candidates and employers are evaluating each other, and how recruiters are spending their time.  

Taken together, these shifts should change the question talent leaders are asking from “How will AI replace work?” to, “How can we use technology to expand what people can do—while finding, attracting, and keeping the talent the future of work requires?” 

Here are five key concepts discussed at FutureWorks that talent leaders can use to shape their workforce planning.  

1. A slower hiring market doesn’t mean talent is easy to find. 

When hiring slows, it’s easy to assume recruiting should be easier. More available candidates plus fewer open jobs should mean less competition for talent, right? 

Not necessarily. 

National labor market data can tell us a lot about the overall environment, but it can’t tell an employer whether the right person exists for a specific role, skill set, shift, wage, or location. FutureWorks highlighted that demand isn’t shifting uniformly. Competition remains stronger for certain skills and more senior talent even as other parts of the market stay relatively flat.  

That distinction matters because the obstacle to successful hiring isn’t always at the top of the funnel.  

Before investing more in attraction strategies, employers should diagnose where the constraint actually sits. Do enough people know about the opportunity? Are qualified candidates interested but dropping out? Have job requirements narrowed the available pool unnecessarily? Or is there genuinely not enough talent with the required capabilities in that market? 

Each of those challenges requires a different response—from stronger attraction or process improvements to rethinking requirements or addressing a true supply gap. 

For talent leaders, that means looking below the macro headlines. Local market data, role-level supply and demand, compensation, schedules, and candidate behavior can tell a very different story from national hiring trends. 

Flat demand doesn’t mean unlimited talent. And when supply is the real constraint, simply sourcing harder won’t solve it. 

2. Expand the talent pool by rethinking role requirements. 

One question came up repeatedly at FutureWorks: What does someone truly need to bring to the job on Day 1, and what can the employer teach them once they’re there? It’s a simple question with potentially significant implications for talent supply. 

Job descriptions have a tendency to accumulate requirements over time. Experience in a particular industry. Familiarity with a specific system. A certain number of years in an equivalent role. A credential that may have historically been useful but isn’t necessarily predictive of someone’s success today. 

In a tightening labor market, every role requirement has a cost: it removes people from the potential talent pool. 

That doesn’t mean compromising on talent quality. It means being more precise about which requirements are truly necessary. FutureWorks attendees were challenged to look at what candidates can do in practice rather than relying solely on what appears on paper.  

Consider a hard-to-fill technician position. An employer may traditionally look for someone who has already performed that exact job in the same industry. But often, industry-specific knowledge can be taught. Someone with a strong mechanical foundation, problem-solving ability, and willingness to learn is likely to succeed in the role, even if they haven’t held the specific job title before.  

That’s where skills-first hiring becomes more than a sourcing tactic. It becomes a workforce strategy. Hire for what must be present. Train what can be built. 

3. Use AI to return capacity—not simply increase output.  

One of the AI themes explored in FutureWorks sessions that resonated most with me was the importance of using AI to create capacity. Put simply: Don’t give people more work. Give them more tools. 

The AI in recruiting conversation often begins with automation: Which tasks can the technology perform? How much time would be saved by automating those tasks? What additional output can we generate?  

Those are useful questions, but I think there’s another one that matters just as much: What do we want people to do with the capacity AI gives back to them? 

If AI or an automated workflow saves a recruiter 10 hours each week and we immediately fill those 10 hours with more administrative work, we’ve increased throughput, not value. 

The greater opportunity is to use technology to absorb repeatable tasks so people can spend more time on work that benefits from human judgment—relationship building, strategy, creativity, and problem-solving. In talent acquisition, technology can and should support activities like scheduling, screening, and content development while creating more room for meaningful human interaction.  

Surprisingly, despite the enormous amount of conversation about AI among TA practitioners, employers still aren’t adopting it consistently—or aren’t talking openly about it with candidates. Indeed Hiring Lab reported that only 6% of U.S. job postings mentioned AI or an adjacent keyword as of July 2026, and PeopleScout’s recent candidate experience research found 65% of candidates heard nothing about AI from any employer they applied to. This suggests that many organizations are still determining where and how AI fits into their recruitment process, which creates an opportunity to be intentional about adoption. 

Instead of starting with “What can we automate?” talent leaders should be asking “Where could technology return capacity to our people—and where would we create the most value by reinvesting that time?” 

The goal isn’t more work. It’s more capacity for the work that matters. 

4. AI is reshaping your employer brand narrative. 

Traditionally, candidates have visited the employer’s career site, read employee reviews, and searched social channels, to see what current and former employees say, evaluate the visibility and credibility of company leaders, and determine whether a company’s promise matches the lived employee experience. And so, for years, employers have invested in making their career sites easier to find, building compelling employer value propositions (EVPs), and creating recruitment marketing content that shows candidates what it’s like to work for them. 

But AI has changed search behavior, giving employers less control over their brand narrative. Instead of visiting a career site and navigating through employer-created content, a candidate can ask a specific question and receive an answer synthesized from multiple sources. The employer may no longer get the first—or only—opportunity to frame the story.  

Your employer brand isn’t only what you say about yourself. Increasingly, it’s what candidates—and the technology helping them research you—can verify. 

For talent leaders, this means broadening your employer brand efforts beyond the career site. Monitor reviews and third-party conversations. Consider leadership visibility and employee advocacy. Think about the questions candidates are likely to ask AI about your organization—and whether the answers they’ll find match the experience you’re promising. 

Recruitment marketing can create awareness, but it won’t compensate for a disconnect between the EVP and the lived employee experience. 

5. Consider your hiring process from the candidate’s perspective. 

Employers naturally measure recruitment outcomes from the organization’s perspective: How long did it take to fill the role? When did the candidate accept? When did they start? How quickly did the new hire become productive? 

At FutureWorks, we explored a small but distinct shift in perspective—measuring success from Apply to First Paycheck. 

For employers, an employee’s start date marks the beginning of productivity. But for the worker, particularly in hourly or high-volume roles, the economic benefit of taking the job doesn’t begin until the first paycheck arrives.  

This small shift illustrates a larger point: What changes when we design and measure the hiring experience from the candidate’s side rather than our own? 

Suddenly, process speed isn’t just an efficiency metric. Communication isn’t simply a recruiting task. Compensation, scheduling, flexibility, development opportunities, manager interactions, and job requirements aren’t separate considerations—they’re all part of the talent proposition. 

What does this mean for talent leaders? If candidate fallout is a challenge within your hiring process, it may not be a recruiting problem. 

Before investing in another source or adding more candidates to the top of the funnel, ask why people aren’t choosing—or staying with—the opportunity being offered. Is the schedule competitive? Is compensation aligned with the market? Are requirements unnecessarily restrictive? Is the process asking too much of candidates? Can they see a future for themselves in the organization? 

The goal isn’t simply to move candidates through the process faster. It’s to design an opportunity—and a hiring experience—that gives them a stronger reason to choose you. 

Designing for the human advantage 

The real value of a conference like FutureWorks isn’t any single trend, statistic, or new technology. It’s seeing the connections between the changes happening at the same time. 
 
Based on these key takeaways from FutureWorks, I challenge talent leaders to ask themselves these three questions: 

  • What do employees truly need to know or be able to do on Day 1—and what can be taught post-hire? 
  • What tasks should AI take off recruiters’ plates, and what higher-value work should replace it? 
  • Are we designing jobs and hiring experiences around the talent available today—or adapting hiring models built for a different labor market? 

Talent supply is tightening over the long term.  Candidates have more ways to evaluate employers. Expectations around trust, respect, and transparency are rising. And AI-powered tools are enabling people and teams to accomplish more with the capacity they already have.  

The opportunity is to redesign work so technology expands human capability—and redesign talent strategies to support tomorrow’s workforce. 

Q3 2026 U.S. labor market insights: The hiring slowdown and the rise of self-taught AI skills 

Posted on by akessler

The U.S. labor market closed Q3 2026 adding jobs at a modest and uneven pace, but without the layoffs that usually come with a slowdown. July delivered the quarter’s only monthly decline, August beat forecasts by a wide margin, and September added just 29,000 jobs. After revisions, payroll growth averaged roughly 51,000 jobs a month. Unemployment ended the quarter where it began, at 4.2%, and layoffs stayed near historic lows.

The defining story of Q3 was a market that slowed down but didn’t get any easier for employers. Organizations added fewer workers but held on to the ones they had, and the skills they need most remain hard to find. Meanwhile, more workers are building AI skills on their own, faster than employers are training them.

Q3 2026 by the numbers

  • Unemployment: The rate dipped to 4.1% in July, held there in August, and rose back to 4.2% in September. The September increase came from more people joining the labor force rather than from rising layoffs, according to EY-Parthenon. Participation recovered to 61.8% after falling to 61.4% in July, its lowest level since early 2021.
  • Job creation: Payroll growth swung sharply from month to month. July was first reported as a loss of 23,000 jobs. August’s initial gain of 162,000 came in at nearly triple what was forecasted. September added 29,000, and revisions removed a combined 60,000 jobs from July and August, turning July into a 10,000-job loss in July, and making the three-month average roughly 51,000.
  • Wage growth: Annual wage growth cooled every month of the quarter, from 3.2% in July to 3.1% in August and 3.0% in September. With inflation around 3.4%, real wages are now falling behind.
  • Job openings: Openings were little changed at 7.4 million in June, while the hiring rate (3.4%) and quits rate (2%) stayed low, a sign of a market where few people are changing jobs.
  • Sector standouts: Construction and Manufacturing posted steady gains, with Manufacturing now up 72,000 jobs since December 2025. Leisure and Hospitality swung from a 40,000-job loss in July to a 62,000-job gain in August. Healthcare kept adding jobs, but well below its pace of the past year. Information and Financial Activities continued to shed jobs and have lost more than 200,000 combined since the start of the year.

Top 4 trends shaping Q3 2026

1. Slower hiring doesn’t mean easier hiring

Q3’s most important signal was what didn’t happen. Hiring slowed, but employers largely held on to their workforces. LinkedIn’s hiring rate was 6.5% lower than a year earlier in August and remains 25% below its pre-pandemic pace. Yet, initial jobless claims fell to 197,000 in September, and announced layoffs reached their lowest September level since 2022. EY-Parthenon described a labor market that has settled into a “lower-growth equilibrium,” where modest job gains are still enough to keep unemployment broadly stable.

These factors can make talent harder to find, not easier. Workers who have jobs are staying in them, and the pool of available workers is shrinking. The civilian labor force has declined since the end of 2025, according to Indeed Hiring Lab, and Baby Boomer retirements will remain at their peak through 2028, according to KPMG. For employers, that means fewer candidates moving between jobs and fewer new workers entering the market to replace them.

2. Healthcare’s engine downshifts

Healthcare and Social Assistance carried the labor market through Q2, but its pace slowed noticeably in Q3, with 22,600 jobs added in July, its smallest gain since February. With just 13,000 in August and 16,700 in September, the sector was well below its average of more than 30,000 a month over the past year.

Healthcare’s slowdown may reflect constraints on funding and labor supply more than a drop in demand. Economists on Indeed’s Labor Market Outlook panel named personal care, home health, and nursing among the occupations most likely to see the largest gains in job postings over the next year.

3. The white-collar squeeze lands on junior roles

Information and Financial Activities have shed more than 200,000 jobs combined since January. EY-Parthenon attributes the losses to cost-cutting, restructuring, and weak hiring demand, possibly tied to greater AI integration in work processes. Professional and Business Services lost jobs for three consecutive months.

The pressure falls hardest on early-career workers. Revelio Labs’ AI Labor Market Tracker found that, “Employment for younger workers in the most AI-exposed occupations is down by 20% relative to the least exposed occupations, since pre-ChatGPT — compared with just 6% for older workers.” Organizations that have adopted AI are growing their workforce faster than those that haven’t, but the gains are in senior roles (32%) rather than junior ones (6%).

The picture isn’t one of simple replacement. KPMG cautions that weak hiring for new college graduates is more a product of the current “low-hire, low-fire” market than a clear indication of AI eliminating jobs. Some employers are already reversing course, with organizations like Ford and IBM reportedly rehiring for the same or similar positions they eliminated because of AI.

4. The AI skills gap goes DIY

In Q1, the AI story was a training gap. In Q3, workers took things into their own hands. A ICIMS survey found 47% of job seekers worked on their AI skills in the past six months, up from 41% a year earlier. The share of those teaching themselves rose from 22% to 30%, while employer-provided training stayed flat at about 16%.

That self-teaching has limits, with 43% of workers saying their AI skills are behind what they need to stay competitive. More than half (52%) say they aren’t getting the AI training they need from their employer and only 22% of employers require AI training for all employees.

This is shaping how candidates choose employers—42% of job seekers said an employer offering AI training would be more attractive than a similar employer that didn’t, and 14% would accept lower pay in exchange for it.

What this means for TA leaders

Q3 delivered a market that is creating fewer jobs without making the talent employers need any easier to find. Talent strategies have to account for both.

Plan for a smaller talent pool. Low layoffs and a shrinking labor supply mean critical roles won’t fill faster just because hiring has cooled. When fewer candidates are available, keeping the talent you already have should become part of your hiring strategy. With wages not keeping up with the cost of living, Gartner research shows employees are prioritizing rewards that offer financial stability over work-life balance and career growth. Reviewing total rewards with that in mind can help organizations hold on to critical talent.

Don’t mistake Healthcare’s slowdown for easier hiring. Slower job growth in Healthcare appears to reflect pressure on funding and labor supply, not a surplus of clinical talent. Organizations that depend on clinical, allied health, or home care roles should keep investing in proactive pipelines and internal mobility pathways, and plan for further supply constraints.

Protect the early-career pipeline. If junior roles are the first to go in AI-impacted functions, organizations risk a shortage of the experienced talent they will need in five years. With major organizations reportedly rehiring for roles they cut because of AI, redesigning entry-level work is a safer bet than eliminating it. Early-career programs that develop both critical thinking and AI skills help close that gap.

Make AI training part of the offer. More workers are teaching themselves AI skills, and many weigh development opportunities when comparing employers. Building AI training into the employee value proposition can help organizations stand out to candidates and hold on to the employees they’ve invested in.

Q3 showed that a slower labor market isn’t necessarily an easier one to hire in. For talent leaders, the advantage will likely go to those who invest in retention, pipeline depth, and skills development to compete for the talent that remains hard to find.

Q1 2026 UK Labour Market Insights: A Surface Freeze and Shifting Foundations

Posted on by akessler

The UK labour market began 2026 under sustained pressure. Unemployment reached 5.2% in March—a four-year high—with an employment rate of 75% and an inactivity rate of 20.7% among those aged 16–64. A significant number of jobs were cut following the Chancellor’s Budget, and businesses froze recruitment amid tax uncertainty and rising employment costs.  

Yet beneath this cooling, significant shifts are emerging: young workers are abandoning white-collar careers for skilled trades, AI is creating roles in unlikely industries and the apprenticeship-versus-degree debate is fundamentally reshaping talent pipelines. 

Q1 2026 By the Numbers 

  • Unemployment: Rose to 5.2% in March 2026, sustaining a four-year high.
  • Employment Rate: 75% for those aged 16–64 (Q4 2025).  
  • Economic Inactivity: 20.7% for the 16–64 age group.  
  • Job Vacancies: Fell to 734,000 by March 2026, an 8.6% year-over-year decline.  
  • Wage Growth: Average weekly earnings growth decreased from 4.6% in January to 4.2% by March.  
  • Redundancies: Approximately 180,000 job losses followed the Chancellor’s Budget, with 84% of finance chiefs citing rising employment costs as their primary concern.  
  • Graduate Market: Graduate roles fell below 10,000 for the first time since 2016, marking a significant tightening at entry level.  

Top 4 Trends Shaping Q1 2026 

1. The Post-Budget Hiring Freeze 

Job growth in the private sector collapsed by 1.8% in November 2025 as businesses laid off staff at the fastest rate since the pandemic. The CBI Growth Indicator (Dec 2025) noted that private sector employers are accelerating job cuts and freezing recruitment in response to uncertainty around tax increases and spending cuts. In fact, 84% of finance chiefs cite rising statutory employment costs, including National Insurance increases, as their top concern. Despite this, there’s a glimmer of optimism: 13% of firms still plan to hire in the coming months, signaling a potential rebound. 

2. Apprenticeships are Out-Earning Degrees 

Young British workers are increasingly choosing manual and skilled trades over traditional white-collar careers, driven by two forces: AI displacement anxiety and superior economics. One in six employers expects AI tools to reduce headcount within the next year, pushing young workers toward roles less vulnerable to automation. 

For early careers talent, the financial case is compelling. Level 4 apprentices earn an average of £37,300 five years after qualifying (roughly £5,000 more than median graduates), without student debt. In fact, analysis shows that half of UK graduates would have earned more through higher-level apprenticeships. The squeeze at entry level makes this shift even more stark: in Q1, graduate roles fell below 10,000 for the first time since 2016. 

It’s no surprise then that the UK has slipped to 27th among OECD nations for youth employment, with youth unemployment at 15.3%—the highest since 2015. The government is responding with an £820 million investment to support nearly one million young people classified as not in education, employment or training (NEET), with Sir Keir Starmer calling for apprenticeships to be valued as highly as university degrees. 

3. The AI Implementation Gap Widens 

While AI continued to dominate headlines throughout Q1, the reality on the ground was sobering. According to Deloitte’s Finance Trends 2026 report, based on a survey of over 1,000 finance leaders, 63% have deployed AI solutions, while only 21% report seeing measurable value. More than half of firms have seen no revenue or cost benefits from AI to date. 

The UK sits at the sharp end of this paradox. Where AI is delivering, it’s delivering hard—the UK leads international peers in AI-driven productivity gains at 11.5% but also records the highest rate of net job losses due to the technology at 8%, double the international average. In other words, the organisations seeing returns see them at significant human cost, while the majority are still waiting to see any returns at all. The government’s response—training 10 million citizens in AI skills by 2030—signals recognition that the workforce implications can’t be left to employers alone. 

4. The Energy-AI Job Convergence 

Q1 revealed an unexpected source of job growth: the intersection of AI infrastructure and renewable energy transition. UK electricity network owners are hiring at their fastest pace since the 1950s to support the shift from fossil fuels and meet the power demands of AI data centres. 

Big Tech firms increased recruitment of energy specialists by 34% as electricity access becomes vital for expanding AI infrastructure. Skills in power procurement and grid interfacing are now in high demand as companies like Google and Amazon secure their energy future. Demand for specialists in AI, regulation and data reporting pushed UK financial sector vacancies up 12% in 2025 and continued into Q1 2026.  

What This Means for TA Leaders 

The apprenticeship-versus-degree debate has already been settled by the market. Graduate roles have fallen, while vocational talent is increasingly out-earning graduates. Your qualification filters (especially if they default to degrees) could be quietly narrowing your talent pool and handing an advantage to competitors who’ve already moved on. 

AI restructuring is a workforce planning problem, not just a technology one. The cuts already underway at major firms aren’t a warning of what’s coming—they’re evidence of what’s here. Organisations without proactive upskilling pathways for at-risk roles are already behind the curve. 

Energy and AI infrastructure skills are converging into a new talent scarcity. The intersection of renewable energy and AI data centre demand is creating competition for specialists that most organisations aren’t yet set up to hire for. Power procurement, grid interfacing and energy data skills are on the radar for organisations in sectors you wouldn’t expect.  

The hiring freeze is creating a talent access window that won’t stay open. With unemployment at a four-year high and 84% of finance chiefs in cost-containment mode, strong candidates are available now who weren’t six months ago. The organisations that move while competitors remain paralysed by uncertainty will emerge with significantly stronger teams. 

The UK labour market isn’t simply cooling—Q1 2026 demonstrated a fundamental restructuring around employment costs, AI capabilities and alternative career pathways. The organisations that recognized these shifts early and adjusted their talent strategies accordingly will be positioned for success as the market stabilises. 

Q1 2026 U.S. Labor Market Insights: The Hiring Recession and the AI Training Gap 

Posted on by akessler

The U.S. labor market concluded Q1 2026 in a state economists describe as a “hiring recession”—a period where economic growth persists but job creation remains historically subdued. While March delivered a stronger-than-expected rebound of 178,000 jobs, signaling renewed momentum after early-quarter weakness, the broader landscape remains defined by structural shifts in AI and sector-specific contractions. 

Q1 2026 By the Numbers 

  • Unemployment: In March, unemployment edged down slightly to 4.3% after holding steady at 4.4% for much of the quarter. 
  • Job Creation: While March’s 178,000 jobs marked a significant recovery from the dismal start of the year, with a combined net increase of only 27,000 jobs in January and February. This falls well below the 200,000+ monthly average typically categorized as healthy growth.  
  • Wage Growth: Over the past year, wages rose 3.5%, representing a cooling momentum compared to prior years. 
  • Job Openings: After falling to 6.54 million in late 2025 (the lowest since 2020), openings recovered modestly to 7.15 million by the end of Q1. 
  • Sector Declines: Professional and Business Services saw the steepest quarterly declines (-257,000), followed by Retail (-195,000) and Finance (-15,000). 

Top 4 Trends Shaping Q1 2026 

1. The “Jobless Boom” and Weakness in Hiring 

Q1 crystallized a troubling paradox: the economy is growing yet actual hiring remains weak. While March’s numbers were buoyed by the resolution of February’s winter weather and labor strikes, underlying fractures remain. Healthcare (+76,000) and Construction (+26,000) led the quarter’s growth. Conversely, federal government cuts and financial services restructuring continue to offset these gains. 

The quits rate told the story of worker confidence: rising to 2%, it remained well below the 3%+ levels seen during the Great Resignation, indicating workers feel less confident about finding better opportunities. 

2. The AI Investment-Results Chasm 

The quarter’s most striking finding was the significant gap between AI investment and measurable returns. Over half of CEOs (56%) reported no revenue or cost benefits from AI despite widespread deployment. Only 30% reported seeing ROI, with most still struggling to move beyond pilot phases. 

The disconnect stems from a critical imbalance: companies are spending 93% of AI budgets on technology and only 7% on people and training. This skewed approach has created a “shadow AI” problem where 43% of employees use unauthorized tools because they don’t trust approved systems. 

Achieving ROI requires approximately 81 hours of training per employee and significant organizational redesign. Workers must shift from performing tasks to supervising AI-driven processes—a transition most organizations haven’t yet invested in supporting. 

The success stories provided a stark contrast: companies that quickly scaled AI adoption saw up to three times more revenue per employee, with 12% of American workers now using AI daily (up significantly from 2023). PwC’s global AI head emphasized “the experimentation phase is over”—businesses must embed AI broadly or risk falling behind. 

3. The Entry-Level Work Transformation and Gen Z Anxiety 

Q1 data revealed that entry-level roles are being fundamentally reshaped, driving anxiety among younger workers. A striking 80% believe AI will soon affect their daily workplace tasks, with Gen Z emerging as the most concerned demographic. Job vacancies requiring “AI agent” skills surged 1,587% year-over-year. 

Major employers responded by redesigning early-career programs. PwC launched training to help new associates integrate AI into daily tasks, with leadership believing the role will be “elevated by blending technical AI skills with human judgment.” McKinsey piloted a recruitment overhaul asking graduate candidates to complete tests using “Lilli,” their internal AI assistant, with BCG and Bain expected to follow suit. 

The white-collar market generated new business models, including the rise of “reverse recruiting” where job seekers pay recruiters for assistance—either monthly fees or a percentage of first-year salary once placed. 

4. The Brick-and-Mortar Divergence 

Q1 revealed a sharp split in physical retail and service strategies. While some brands like Papa Johns and Walgreens closed hundreds of locations, others are doubling down on “face-to-face” value. 

JPMorgan Chase announced plans for 160 new branches throughout 2026, and Target increased frontline staffing to improve customer experience, even as they cut back-office and distribution roles. 

What This Means for TA Leaders 

Entry-level roles are shifting from task execution to AI supervision. Auditing which early-career responsibilities can be handed to AI—and redesigning onboarding to focus on the judgment and oversight skills that remain—is becoming a core TA competency. PwC’s model of integrating intensive AI training into onboarding—enabling new hires to immediately work at a higher level by blending AI and technology capabilities with human judgment—offers a roadmap for this transition. 

The organizations seeing AI returns are investing in people, not just tools. The gap between companies succeeding and those falling behind comes down to whether training and organizational redesign are treated as core to implementation—not an afterthought. To see AI-driven ROI, budget and headcount should be allocated accordingly. 

“Reverse recruiting” signals opportunity for employer brand enhancement. When candidates are paying out of pocket for job search help, organizations with a compelling career growth narrative have an advantage. Now is the time to lean into what differentiates you from your competitors. 

Frontline growth and back-office contraction are happening simultaneously in the same organizations. This restructuring trend risks slowing down high-volume hiring where it’s actually needed. Sharp workforce segmentation and parallel playbooks separate reactive TA teams from strategic ones. 

Q1 delivered mixed signals—a market that’s recovering but not rebounding, investing but not yet seeing returns, growing but not hiring. In this environment, the advantage will go to talent acquisition leaders who act quickly and decisively. 

Early Careers Recruitment Strategy: Enhancing Candidate Experience & Skills Assessment

Posted on by akessler

Early Careers Recruitment Strategy: Enhancing Candidate Experience & Skills Assessment

How to attract, assess and retain Gen Z talent effectively

Generation Z candidates demand authentic employer brands, meaningful work experiences, and transparent values that align with their social consciousness. But this generational shift is also creating unprecedented opportunity for organizations: strategic early careers recruitment, compelling employer value propositions, and transformative assessment experiences that turn talent competition into sustainable advantage.

This ebook, Early Careers Recruitment Strategy: Enhancing Candidate Experience & Skills Assessment, is your roadmap to building a magnetic Gen Z talent attraction strategy now and into the future.

In this ebook, you’ll discover:

  • What’s driving the shift from qualification-based to skills-based early careers recruitment
  • Why your current candidate experience is capturing only a fraction of available Gen Z talent
  • Emerging strategies for building authentic employer brands that resonate with digital natives
  • Techniques to balance AI-powered efficiency with meaningful human connection in assessment
  • Data-driven approaches to creating inclusive, bias-free selection processes
  • Proven frameworks for transforming candidate dropout into strategic self-selection

Download your copy today and position your organization at the forefront of early careers recruitment innovation for years to come.

The Employer Brand Reality Check: How to Leverage Benchmarking Data to Outthink the Competition

Posted on by akessler

The Employer Brand Reality Check

How to Leverage Benchmarking Data to Outthink the Competition

Is your employer brand strategy falling behind?

Whether you’re actively managing your employer brand or not, candidates are forming opinions about your company every day. Through search results, social media, career pages, and employee content—your brand is working for you or against you.

This comprehensive research report, based on analysis of over 230 organizations from the Outthink Index by PeopleScout and insights from 500+ active job seekers, is your roadmap to building a magnetic employer brand that consistently attracts exceptional talent.

In this report, you’ll discover:

  • Which digital touchpoints candidates actually care about—and which ones are wasting your resources
  • Why high-performing companies across industries share specific, measurable employer brand characteristics
  • How top performers treat employer branding as a strategic imperative, not a nice-to-have
  • Concrete benchmarks and competitive intelligence to identify your biggest opportunities
  • Actionable strategies used by employer branding leaders to outthink their competition

Download your copy today and transform gut instincts into competitive advantage with the first comprehensive employer brand benchmark study.

5 Signs Your Recruitment Strategy Needs Modular RPO 

Posted on by akessler

Many organizations mistakenly believe Recruitment Process Outsourcing (RPO) solutions are only for large enterprises with ongoing, high-volume hiring needs. While full-scale RPO might seem out of reach for some organizations, a modular RPO approach offers the flexibility to address specific recruitment challenges without overhauling your entire talent acquisition infrastructure. 

Modular RPO can deliver value to organizations of any size, including small- to medium-sized enterprises or those with short-term or specialized hiring requirements. Here are five key indicators that your current recruitment strategy might benefit from a modular RPO solution. 

1. Your Internal Team Is Struggling to Keep Up with Demand  

When your organization faces sudden spikes in hiring demand—whether for seasonal recruitment, rapid expansion, or project launches—your internal team can quickly become overwhelmed. These periods of increased volume often require you to scale up recruitment efforts quickly without the luxury of permanently increasing your internal headcount. 

Maintaining quality while meeting aggressive timelines becomes nearly impossible with existing resources. Your team may resort to rushed screening processes, extended working hours, or compromised candidate experiences, all of which can lead to poor hiring decisions and damage to your employer brand. 

Modular RPO provides the surge capacity you need during these peak periods. Specialized teams can quickly ramp up to handle the increased volume or hiring for a new project while maintaining consistent quality standards. Once the hiring surge or project is complete, you can scale back the support without the ongoing costs and complications of permanent staff additions. 

This approach is particularly valuable for organizations with predictable seasonal patterns, such as retail companies preparing for holiday seasons, or those opening new facilities that require rapid team building. 

2. You’re Managing Specialized Skill Requirements with Different Candidate Experiences 

When you need to hire for roles requiring niche expertise or hard-to-find skills, your internal team may lack the specialized knowledge, professional networks or sourcing strategies needed to identify and attract the right candidates. The talent pool may be limited, candidates may be passive and not actively job searching, or the role may require specific credentials that are difficult to assess without industry expertise. 

Different specialized roles also demand vastly different candidate experiences. A software engineer’s journey differs significantly from a marketing manager’s or a specialized researcher’s expectations. Each requires tailored communication, specific assessment methods, and industry-appropriate processes that your recruitment team may struggle to deliver consistently. 

Case Study: Infrastructure Company Ecologist Role 

An infrastructure company struggled to fill a newly created ecologist role due to low brand recognition in the environmental sector and poor response to the job ads. The company’s internal recruitment team lacked the specialized knowledge and networks needed to proactively approach environmental professionals. 

PeopleScout’s Talent Sourcing solution provided specialized headhunting, screening, and shortlisting services, allowing the client to retain their usual interview and offer management processes. We led a targeted search across industry governing bodies, environmental societies and networking groups, reviewing over 700 profiles. We proactively reached out to passive candidates to inform them of the role and gauge their interest, dispelling misperceptions about the transport industry at the same time. 

The result was a shortlist of two qualified candidates, resulting in a successful hire within 11 weeks—a significant improvement over the client’s previous unsuccessful attempts. 

👉 Read the full case study. 

3. You Need to Scale Rapidly in New Markets or Unfamiliar Territory 

When entering new markets, launching new product lines, or expanding into unfamiliar territories, your organization faces unique recruitment challenges that require rapid scaling capabilities. You may lack local market knowledge, employer brand recognition, or understanding of regional compensation and cultural expectations, all while needing to build teams quickly to capitalize on new opportunities. 

Modular RPO solutions, like PeopleScout’s Talent Mapping or Organizational Culture & EVP Diagnostic, can support recruiting in new geographic markets by helping you understanding local talent pools, competition, regulatory requirements, and how to adapt your employer brand for cultural nuances. Without this expertise, you risk extended time-to-fill, higher costs, and poor candidate experiences that can damage your reputation in the new market before you’ve even established yourself. 

Case Study: Consumer Goods Brand Transition 

A consumer goods brand splitting into two companies needed to optimize their talent acquisition strategy to support the transition and future growth. The challenge involved not just managing the launch of the two companies but also improving their ability to compete for talent in competitive rural markets. 

PeopleScout’s Talent Diagnostic solution team assessed their entire talent lifecycle, including conducting over 20 stakeholder interviews. The diagnostic focused on improving access to high-quality candidates in competitive rural markets, and provided recommendations for process streamlining and technology optimization to create consistent candidate experiences and diverse talent pools. 

The client praised the expertise, partnership and flexibility during this critical transition period. Based on the diagnostic recommendations, they engaged PeopleScout for a full-cycle RPO implementation, demonstrating how modular solutions can evolve into broader partnerships when they deliver value. 

👉 Read the full case study. 

4. Time-to-Fill Metrics Are Consistently Missing the Mark 

If your average time-to-fill has stretched beyond industry benchmarks and continues to climb, it’s often a symptom of deeper resource constraints. Your internal recruitment team may be overwhelmed with current demands, but a full RPO solution seems excessive or costly for your organization’s size or hiring volume. This is a common scenario where modular RPO provides the perfect middle ground when adding permanent headcount may not be possible. 

Modular RPO allows you to augment your internal team’s capacity in specific areas where you’re experiencing the greatest strain. From initial candidate sourcing to onboarding, you can add specialized support without the commitment and cost of full-service RPO.  

This approach is particularly valuable for small to mid-sized organizations that have outgrown basic recruitment methods but aren’t ready for enterprise-level solutions. It provides access to advanced recruitment technologies, methodologies, and expertise that would be cost-prohibitive to develop internally. 

5. When Drop Offs and Early Turnover Has Increased  

If you’re experiencing high drop-off rates during the hiring process and increased early turnover among new hires, it’s a clear sign that specific parts of your recruitment process are consistently underperforming or creating bottlenecks. High drop-off rates may stem from poor candidate communication, lengthy or confusing application processes or misaligned expectations. Early turnover often results from inadequate candidate assessment methods, poor cultural fit evaluation or lack of communication to keep new hires warm before their start date.  

Leading modular RPO providers can conduct process diagnostics or EVP diagnostics to identify specific areas where candidates are dropping out and implement targeted solutions. Some providers also offer technology diagnostics which can identify areas to improve your recruitment tech stack to find efficiencies. 

By addressing these process gaps, you can improve overall recruitment efficiency and effectiveness without disrupting the parts of your process that are working well. This surgical approach often delivers better ROI than attempting to fix everything at once. 

Are You Ready for Modular RPO? 

Modular RPO isn’t about replacing your internal recruitment function—it’s about strategically augmenting it to address specific challenges and gaps. The beauty of modular RPO lies in its flexibility and scalability. So, how do you know if you’re ready for a modular RPO solution? 

Signs You’re Ready for Modular RPO 

  • You’re looking to scale recruitment efforts without increasing permanent talent acquisition headcount
  • Your recruitment process is underperforming, and you need a targeted and/or short-term solution 
  • You need specialized expertise for specific roles or markets 
  • You want to maintain control over certain aspects of hiring while improving others 
  • You want to test RPO services before committing to a full solution 

The goal is to create a hybrid approach that combines the strengths of your internal team with specialized external expertise. By partnering with modular RPO providers for specific challenges, you maintain control over your overall hiring strategy while accessing the tools, technologies, and expertise needed to compete effectively in today’s talent market. 

You can start with a focused pilot program targeting your most pressing recruitment challenge. As you see results and build confidence in the partnership, you can expand the scope to address additional needs or role types. 

In an environment where the right hire can make or break business initiatives, organizations that strategically leverage modular RPO gain a significant competitive advantage. If any of these signs resonate with your current situation, it may be time to explore how modular RPO can transform your recruitment outcomes. 

Skills-Based Hiring: Moving Beyond the Hype

Posted on by akessler

Skills-based hiring has become an established part of the talent acquisition conversation. But as more organizations explore what it means in practice, it’s worth looking beyond the buzzwords to understand where it can genuinely improve hiring—and where the conversation can oversimplify the reality.

Skills-based hiring is often framed it as revolutionary step forward—a clean break from “outdated” methods like focusing on academic qualifications. But as usual, we want to take a more critical look.

Let’s step away from the hype to examine the real pros and cons of skills-based hiring. More importantly, let’s figure out how skills-based hiring can work for you.

Skills-based hiring: Looking beyond the common myths

There are three common myths that continue to shape the narrative about skills-based hiring:

Myth 1: Educational qualifications have been the main barrier to good hiring decisions.

The argument goes that recruiting teams rely too heavily on degrees and don’t think enough about skills—and if they just focus on skills instead, all their hiring issues would be solved.

This misrepresents how most employers make hiring decisions. While education requirements do exist in job descriptions, they’re rarely the primary factor in final hiring choices. Most recruiters already consider multiple factors including experience, cultural fit, and demonstrated abilities. Skills-based hiring has its positives and certainly feels more inclusive than rigid degree requirements, but it’s not a revolutionary shift from degree-centered hiring.

Myth 2: Everyone talking about skills is talking about the same thing.

Interpretation of skills-based hiring varies; largely because there’s no clear, consistent definition of what constitutes a “skill.” In the context of skills-based hiring, a skill could be a competency, strength, or motivation—anything that enables a person to do the job well. The landscape is far more nuanced and complex than the term itself might suggest.

The reality is that defining skills is a lengthy process and requires careful consideration of context. But the broader conversation can sometimes gloss over this complexity, feeding the perception that skills are simple and universally understood. This creates the illusion that organizations should be able to easily incorporate skills-based approaches without doing the hard work of actually defining what they mean by “skills” in their specific context.

Myth 3: Skills-based hiring and talent management requires starting from scratch.

Skills-based hiring is sometimes positioned as a fundamental reinvention of how organizations recruit and manage talent. However, that doesn’t really reflect most hiring processes.

Even if you’re not actively thinking about skills-based hiring, it’s likely that it is embedded—at least partly—into your hiring process already. Today, recruiters rarely just think in terms of hiring somebody because their qualifications line up to the “essential” section of the job description.

So, skills-based hiring isn’t necessarily a wholesale change in practice. For many organizations, the opportunity is to make an existing focus on skills more intentional, consistent, and measurable.

The real question isn’t whether organizations should suddenly “switch” to skills-based hiring, but how they can apply it more deliberately and effectively within their existing talent strategy.

Getting started with skills-based hiring when time and budgets aren’t huge

If you do want to embrace skills-based hiring, here are some practical steps:

1. Start with an audit

If you’re keen to implement skills-based hiring, first of all, feel reassured that it’s likely already part of your approach, even if you don’t call it that. Start by establishing where you are along the skills-based continuum.

Diagnostics come into their own here. Assess your hiring processes in a structured way, identifying gaps, strengths, and opportunities for improvement. It can be beneficial to bring in an external partner like the PeopleScout Assessment Design team, to provide robust, evidence-based, unbiased feedback to maximize impact.

2. Defining your skills

Then it comes down to defining skills—for now and the future. These can’t be vague; they need to be carefully defined so that they can be accurately applied. You’ll build these from research, both internally and by looking externally. If you want to have an organization-wide approach, you’ll need to consider skills relevant for leadership and entry level roles, and across departments. Engage your department heads and hiring managers to map these.

3. Look at your non-skills criteria

You don’t have to remove academic qualifications from your hiring process entirely. However, if there are instances where you’re using an academic qualification as a stand-in for a skill—say, a humanities degree as a signifier of good written communication skills—you can probably move away from it and start focusing more explicitly on the skill itself.

Skills-based hiring can open doors for many candidates—and expand your talent pool. Perhaps your ideal candidate does not have a college degree, but their written communication skills are more than adequate for the role.

4. Kick off a pilot

Even without a big budget to fund an overhaul of your recruitment processes, it’s still possible to move toward a skills-based approach. To make it manageable, begin with a small pilot. Your audit can help you identify the best starting point—perhaps for a particular department or role type.

Once you’ve started, you’ll want to closely monitor it to ensure that the benefits are genuine. Rather than investing significant time, money, and resources all at once, make changes bit by bit, turn to evidence, and stay reflective.

The bottom line

Look beyond the buzzwords. In all likelihood, skills-based hiring has been a part of your process for a while now. If you want to concentrate more on skills-based hiring, start small, remain skeptical of the hype, get external insight, be evidence-based, and keep evolving your approach.

The Truth About Gen AI & Job Seekers: 3 Insights from Our Latest Research 

Posted on by akessler

The intersection of generative AI (Gen AI) and job seeking has garnered significant attention, with numerous tools available to help candidates with résumés, CVs, cover letters and interview preparation. Media coverage suggests widespread adoption, but actual prevalence isn’t that clear. 

To move beyond the hype and establish a clearer picture of the use of Gen AI across the broad population of job seekers, PeopleScout commissioned a comprehensive survey of 1,000 members of the UK public who had changed jobs within the previous 12 months. Our new research report, The AI-Enabled Applicant: How Candidates Are Really Using Gen AI in Recruitment, aims to provide clarity on real usage patterns and to better understand the potential implications for recruitment—especially amongst concerns that candidates might use these technologies to misrepresent their skills and experiences. 

This article is the first in a series exploring the data and grappling with the implications of Gen AI use amongst candidates. Read on for three key findings from our report. 

1. Gen AI Usage Amongst Candidates Isn’t as Prevalent as You Might Think 

While media narratives often portray Gen AI usage as nearly universal among job seekers, our research indicates a more measured reality. Our study reveals that fewer than one in five people (18%) who changed jobs in the UK in the last year used Gen AI at any point in their job search.   

This is considerably lower than media reports have suggested, and it’s lower than we were expecting given Gen AI tools have been freely available since November 2022. This calls for a reality check on the hype.  

It’s easy to see how employers could see media content—alongside indicators of Gen AI use in their own candidate pools—and overestimate the frequency of Gen AI-enhanced applications. However, at this point the evidence suggests that the vast majority of job seekers from the general population are not using Gen AI to assist their job search or applications.   

2. Interviews Seem Safe…For Now 

Just 9% of those using Gen AI at any point in the recruitment process used it to support their pre-recorded interviews. This was unexpectedly low, given the number using it to help with résumés, CVs and applications. It may be that its value in helping to prepare and practice for interviews is less well understood or harder to achieve. For example, Gen AI tools may need more sophisticated prompting to get high quality support for interview preparation.   

For candidates who used Gen AI at some point and who had a live virtual interview as part of their selection process, only 8% used Gen AI to help with this but, significantly, almost half of this group disclosed that they had used it for live support during the interview. Live interviews were previously a protected space from Gen AI use, and although this is reported by just handful of job seekers, it clearly suggests that real-time assistance during live virtual interviews is happening—and we would assume this is likely to increase.    

It isn’t evident from our survey exactly what type of live Gen AI assistance candidates were using, but newer Gen AI capabilities of ‘listening’ and responding in real time with a conversational style could allow candidates to deliver inauthentic answers without detection. This is something employers are likely to want to keep under observation and consider acting on, redesigning interview questions to make it harder to use Gen AI for deceptive purposes. Despite this, our survey indicates that this kind of potentially disruptive use is low amongst job changers and not a major cause for alarm at this point.   

3. No One’s Talking About It 

Perhaps most revealing for employers is that of those applicants who used Gen AI, only 38% would be willing to disclose their use to employers. The remaining 62% either wouldn’t disclose or are uncertain about whether they would—a concerning reality check for employers attempting to protect the integrity of their recruitment process.  

It begs the question—could this behaviour be driven by employers? According to our survey, employers rarely mention Gen AI usage in their communications with candidates. Only 5% of all job changers said their future employers spoke to them about Gen AI during the recruitment process. And for the few who did hear about it during recruitment,, 35% were told not to use it.   

The number of employers failing to communicate about AI in recruiting may contribute to candidates’ reluctance to discuss their Gen AI usage with employers due to an assumption that employers’ silence on the matter indicates that Gen AI use is inappropriate or unacceptable, and to reveal use of it would negatively impact their chances of getting an offer. 

Gen AI Opportunities & Risks 

Navigating this complex landscape effectively often requires specialized expertise and support. Working with a talent partner with deep assessment expertise can provide crucial advantages in maintaining recruitment integrity while achieving business objectives.  

As leading providers of talent assessment solutions, PeopleScout’s Assessment Design & Delivery team offers a Gen AI Opportunity & Risk Assessment Audit to provide organizations with a comprehensive review of their recruitment processes, identifying both vulnerabilities and opportunities related to generative AI throughout the candidate journey. This independent audit, grounded in psychological expertise, stress-tests each assessment element within your specific recruitment context to determine how Gen AI might impact selection accuracy and diversity outcomes. The resulting evidence-based recommendations allow employers to strategically focus resources on critical vulnerability points while potentially leveraging beneficial AI uses, enabling informed decisions about whether to accept, prevent or adapt to candidates’ use of Gen AI tools based on your organizational values and objectives. 

For more Gen AI insights, download the full The AI-Enabled Applicant: How Candidates Are Really Using Gen AI in Recruitment report. 

You may also be interested in: 

Mental Health in the Workplace: A Strategic Imperative  

Posted on by akessler

One out of every two people in the world will develop a mental health disorder in their lifetime, according to a large-scale study co-led by researchers from Harvard Medical School and the University of Queensland. It’s not hard to understand why workplace mental health has become a larger part of our collective consciousness.  

For employers, it means the global workplace is experiencing a mental health crisis that directly impacts business performance. According to Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace report, in 2024, employee engagement fell to a 10-year low of 21%, matching the decline witnessed during COVID-19 lockdowns. Meanwhile, burnout symptoms affect one in five workers globally, with certain demographics and industries experiencing significantly higher rates. 

Today, more than 3.5 billion working adults each spend roughly 90,000 hours (or about 45 years) of their lives at work, underscoring the workplace’s potential to profoundly influence health. The business case for workplace mental health support has never been clearer—or more urgent. 

The State of Workplace Mental Health 

In the last five years, the typical organization has experienced disruption at every level. From pandemic turnover to a hiring boom then bust. From remote work to the return to the office. We’ve seen rapidly restructured teams, disrupted supply chains and shrinking budgets—not to mention eye-watering advancements in AI technology.  

It’s no wonder the global workforce is experiencing unprecedented levels of mental health challenges. According to the same Gallup report, two-thirds (58%) of the global workforce is “struggling” and 9% are “suffering.” Just a third of global employees (33%) class themselves “thriving.” 

Behind these data points are significant variations in the day-to-day emotional experiences of employees. When asked which negative feelings they experienced “a lot of the day yesterday,” 40% of global employees reported feeling stress, 23% sadness, 22% loneliness and 21% anger. 

The Demographic Divide 

Mental health challenges affect the workforce unevenly, creating targeted opportunities for intervention. 

Age 

According to a study from the World Economic Forum, the youngest workers (18-28) report burnout symptoms at three times the rate of older workers—27% versus 9% for those over 60. Nearly half (47%) of young workers report that their job negatively affects their mental health. This divide is further reflected in today’s multigenerational workforce—younger employees have reduced their weekly working hours by nearly two hours since 2019, compared to just one hour for older workers. 

Gender 

WEF also reports that women experience disproportionate mental health challenges at work. Female managers saw a seven-percentage-point drop in wellbeing in the past year. Women are 8 percentage points more likely to report exhaustion symptoms than men (46% versus 38%) and report higher rates of poor or fair mental health than men (23% versus 15%). Working women under 30 carry the greatest burden, with over a third (36%) reporting fair or poor mental health. 

Other Key Demographics 

  • LGBTQI+ individuals score 9 percentage points lower on overall health than heterosexual employees. 
  • Neurodivergent employees are 24 percentage points less likely to report “faring well” compared to neurotypical peers. 
  • Employees with financial stress show dramatically lower overall health (41% versus 76% for those with good financial status). 
  • Remote workers consistently report higher levels of negative emotions across all categories: stress (45%), sadness (30%) and loneliness (27%). 

The Hidden Productivity Crisis of Workplace Mental Health

The economic implications of poor mental health in the workplace are staggering. According to WEF, enhanced mental health for employees could generate up to $11.7 trillion in global economic value.  

The costs of poor mental health are evident in absenteeism, turnover and productivity losses which account for $2 to $9 trillion in losses globally every year. 

  • Workers with fair or poor mental health average nearly 12 days of unplanned absences annually versus 2.5 days for other workers—a $47.6 billion annual productivity loss in the U.S. alone.  
  • Organizations lose 15-20% of total payroll in voluntary turnover costs due to burnout 
  • Employees with untreated insomnia cost approximately $2,280 more for employers per year 

Despite these alarming figures, the gap between recognizing the problem and effectively addressing it remains wide. While 23% of CHROs now rank wellbeing among their top organizational priorities, only 21% of employees strongly agree that their organization cares about their wellbeing—matching a record low. 

The Layoff Effect 

The trend of large-scale layoffs has created significant mental health implications. In 2025 alone, over 51,000 tech employees and 61,000 U.S. government employees have been laid off. The ripple effects of layoffs impact entire organizational cultures, undermining engagement and productivity, as the fear of layoffs erodes motivation and contributes to anxiety and depression. Job insecurity leads to adverse mental health effects, with 45% of employees experiencing high job insecurity reporting burnout symptoms. 

The Connection Between Engagement and Wellbeing 

Record-low engagement is costing organizations billions in lost productivity. Gallup estimates the global cost of disengagement at $9.6 trillion annually (9% of global GDP). Employees who aren’t thriving report 61% higher likelihood of burnout and 48% higher likelihood of daily stress. 

Gallup’s recent data reveals a critical relationship between engagement and wellbeing: 

  • 50% of engaged employees are thriving in life overall, compared to just one-third of disengaged employees. 
  • Engaged employees report fewer daily negative emotions, including stress. 
  • Only 30% of employees feel connected to their company’s mission/purpose—a record low. 

These findings suggest a virtuous cycle: improving engagement enhances wellbeing, which in turn supports sustained engagement and productivity.  

So, what can organizations do to boost employee engagement and wellness in the workplace? 

Strategic Approaches for Supporting Workplace Mental Health 

Invest in Manager Development 

Manager burnout correlates directly with declining team performance, increased absenteeism and turnover. Yet less than half of the world’s managers (44%) say they have received management training, making it one of the most effective wellbeing initiatives employers can invest in. 

According to Gallup, when employers provide management training, manager thriving levels improve from 28% to 34%. Thriving increases further to 50% when managers are encouraged to pursue personal development opportunities.  

Address Core Drivers of Burnout 

In 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) included burnout in its International Classification of Diseases, defining it as an occupational phenomenon, rather than a medical condition. Burnout is driven by much more than just hours worked. Workplace factors contributing to burnout include: 

  • Toxic workplace behavior 
  • Role ambiguity 
  • Being treated unfairly 
  • Unclear communication 
  • Lack of manager support 
  • Unreasonable time pressure 

Organization-wide, addressing factors like this that might be affecting mental health can have a more profound impact than generic wellness initiatives.  

Implement a Holistic Approach to Workplace Mental Health

Effective mental health strategies require interventions at multiple organizational levels. Providing access to support resources and mental health awareness training for managers can help support employees at an individual level. In addition, encourage managers to look at various roles to find ways to enhance employees’ autonomy and ensure they have reasonable workloads. At the team or department level, leaders can influence the ways teams work together and create space for recovery by ensuring employees are cross-trained and workloads can be transferred. Organization-wide structural changes are equally essential, addressing systemic issues like compensation equity, career development paths and recognition programs that reinforce psychological safety.  

Research shows that organizations taking this multi-level approach see significantly better outcomes than those implementing isolated wellness programs. According to the WEF report, comprehensive interventions targeting structural issues, leadership behaviors and individual support tools simultaneously can deliver up to three times the return on investment compared to fragmented approaches. The most successful organizations treat mental health not as a separate initiative but as an integrated consideration in every business decision, from office design to performance management systems. 

Focus on Presenteeism, Not Just Absenteeism 

While absenteeism is easier to measure, presenteeism (working while unwell) represents a larger economic impact. Many organizations track sick days but overlook the more substantial productivity drain of employees who are physically present but mentally struggling. 

According to WEF, conditions like depression cause productivity losses exceeding $300 per employee annually in the U.S., primarily through presenteeism. Employees experiencing mental health challenges often exhibit decreased focus, impaired decision-making, reduced creativity and diminished capacity for collaboration—all while appearing to be “at work” according to traditional definitions. 

Regular pulse surveys, performance analytics and team effectiveness assessments can help identify patterns of presenteeism before they translate into more serious issues like turnover or disability leave. Creating psychological safety for employees to disclose struggles before they become debilitating is equally important, as early intervention has been shown to significantly reduce both the duration and severity of mental health challenges. 

Building Resilience with Workplace Mental Health 

As organizations navigate economic uncertainty, technological disruption and evolving workforce expectations, they must also keep in mind that their employees are also impacted by these factors. In order to keep your workforce healthy and productive, mental health support must shift from a peripheral benefit to a core business strategy. 

The data is clear: organizations that invest strategically in mental health create competitive advantage through higher engagement, reduced turnover, increased productivity and stronger organizational culture. Few investments offer comparable returns. Building mental health resilience isn’t just about supporting employees—it’s about securing your organization’s future performance and sustainability in an increasingly complex world.