Q1: As the number of young people NEET continues to rise, how should HR respond?

We have allowed entry-level recruitment to become extraordinarily complex at precisely the moment we need it to be accessible. Multi-stage processes, automated screening, recorded video interviews – these tools were designed to manage risk and improve efficiency, and there are legitimate reasons for using them. But there is a real danger that the system has overcorrected.

84% of NEET young people surveyed by the Milburn Review said they wanted to work or do an apprenticeship. The barrier is not aspiration – it is access. The most consistent complaint from young applicants is not rejection, but silence. That alone should prompt every HR team to examine its own candidate communication practice.

• Register now for The HR World’s webinar on this subject: The Lost Generation – the challenge and opportunity for HR: 19 August, Free and online.

The practical steps available immediately are not complicated. Audit your entry-level recruitment processes for unnecessary barriers. Remove the requirement for prior experience where it is not genuinely needed. Reduce reliance on automated screening for junior roles. Introduce a meaningful commitment to communicating with every applicant. None of these require government action or significant investment, they just require employer decision.

Q2: Does this crisis lie outside HR's consideration, or are there genuine challenges and opportunities in providing meaningful early careers?

It would be wrong to lay all of this at the door of employers. Increases in employer National Insurance contributions, the extension of the National Living Wage to younger age groups, and the costs of compliance and onboarding all weigh disproportionately on the economics of casual and entry-level hiring. As employment protections expand via the Employment Rights Act, compliance expectations increase and greater scrutiny is placed on employment practices like probationary periods, casual working arrangements and zero-hours contracts, employers inevitably become more risk-conscious about hiring decisions. 

The CIPD has been direct about this: the government must recognise the link between the Employment Rights Act and employers' ability to invest in jobs for young people. That is not an argument against employment protection – it is an argument for policy coherence. You cannot simultaneously expand the cost and complexity of taking on a young, inexperienced worker and then express surprise when fewer employers are willing to do it. 

Milburn himself, however, pushes back on those who use this as the primary explanation. This crisis is structural and long-term – 1.6 million first-rung jobs have disappeared from the economy over the past two decades. That is not something that can be attributed to the legislative programme of the last two years. Both things can be true: the structural problem is deep and pre-existing, and the current policy environment is not helping.

Q3: How does the NEET issue connect to early careers as organisations introduce AI to take over entry-level roles?

Administrative roles are down 56%, sales roles down 44%, customer service roles down 59% since 2022. If AI is removing the jobs that used to bring young people in, what replaces them? 

Those figures should give every HR leader pause. The entry-level roles that historically absorbed young people into the workforce, e.g. basic administration, first-line customer contact, data processing, are precisely those most susceptible to automation. We are simultaneously lamenting the rise in young people who cannot find work and accelerating the removal of the roles that would have taken them on.

At a recent board meeting, an icebreaker discussion about people's first jobs revealed a strikingly consistent picture - shop work, hospitality, warehouse shifts, paper rounds. Those roles provided not only income, but an early introduction to responsibility, workplace culture and confidence. The sobering question that followed was what the next generation of leaders will say when asked the same question in twenty years' time. For many young people today, those accessible, flexible entry points simply may not exist in the same way.

The concern is that we are using young people to fill gaps in the current labour market, rather than building pathways into the economy of the future."

That does not make AI the villain, businesses have a legitimate interest in technology that improves efficiency. But GoodWork, which submitted formal evidence to the Milburn Review, made a point worth taking seriously: AI career support tools must never replace human intervention for young people who are NEET. They need more contact with the world, not less. The organisations automating entry-level functions have a particular responsibility to ask what they are creating in its place, and early careers strategies need to evolve alongside technology strategies, not lag behind them.

Q4: Are we looking at a workplace revolution, and will the future eventually work itself out?

Looking back to look forward to the future, the Milburn report identifies over 20 years of government youth employment schemes, e.g. New Deal, Future Jobs Fund, Kickstart, Traineeships – and describes them as a record of failure. 

I think, an important passage in the Report in paragraphs 666 and 667 is that Britain has not ignored youth unemployment in the past. Miburn sets out that the twenty years of youth employment schemes is not a record of passivity and it is a record of sustained policy effort. However, despite it all, the structural NEET rate has barely fallen below 10% in twenty-five years. The test for the government's response must be whether it is fundamentally different to what has been tried before because constantly repeating the same non-impact initiatives is not going to help here. 

The immediate response from the government to the Milburn Report is 300,000 work placements focused on hospitality, health and social care and construction. This is a welcome commitment, but it conspicuously omits the sectors identified in the government's own Modern Industrial Strategy: AI, life sciences, the green economy, creative industries. The concern is that we are using young people to fill gaps in the current labour market, arguably following past initiatives that have not made a strong enough impact, rather than building pathways into the economy of the future.

Learning from the past and designing initiatives that will tackle this structural NEET rate now and in the future is what is needed. The autumn recommendations will be the real test.

Q5: Is the NEET crisis a chance to find untested talent, or is it simply the natural result of AI and an out-of-touch education system?

There is genuine opportunity here. Many young people who lack formal experience, polished CVs or confidence in structured interview settings still possess the adaptability, resilience and aptitude that businesses say they are struggling to find. The employers building relationships with young people before they are job-ready, engaging at 14, 15 and 16, not waiting for an application, will be better placed in a labour market that is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate for young people and businesses alike. But that opportunity will not be realised by accident. It requires deliberate choices about how employers assess potential, how they design access, and who they regard as worth investing in.

It could be easy to dismiss Alan Milburn’s Young People and Work: Interim Report as something HR could worry about but be unable to act upon. After all, more than a million young people not in employment, education or training is surely first and foremost a failing of the education and welfare system rather than anything to do with the workplace? And as for their own part in this scenario, organisations could be seen on the one hand as subject to enormous pressure from AI use and the demand for efficiency to cut back on personnel – and particularly those who may take a while to bring ROI to a business, while on the other hand, if they are looking for early career talent are they actually able to find candidates with the aptitude, experience and skills they need?

In any case, at this point in time it may also be reasonable for employers to sit tight – Milburn’s current report is only the ‘discovery phase’ of the process – ‘solutions’ are to follow.

• Register now for The HR World’s webinar on this subject: The Lost Generation – the challenge and opportunity for HR: 19 August, Free and online.

However, the crisis identified here comes at the start of the talent pipeline. That means it’s not just about what those young people are doing now, it’s about what they might be able to offer in the future. Therefore there are implications here for all employers considering their future workforce. A dearth of experienced new workers today might mean a dearth of experienced talented managers and leaders tomorrow.

“As HR leaders, we can no longer afford to sit passively at the end of the education pipeline,” says Suzanna Kemal, Head of HR at Reward Gateway/Edenred. “If the system is broken, employers have to stop being mere consumers of talent and start becoming co-creators of it.”

The HR function may not be able to influence classroom teaching – nor should it necessarily – but Kemal indicates the use of initiatives such as up-scaling non-graduate pathways, opening internships to those who need them, and offering coaching for people to achieve their potential. Through these initiatives, she says, “Corporate UK can stop the conveyor belt to unemployment.”

Workforce Planning

“This warning should not be treated as a separate youth issue as it is also a workforce planning issue for employers that are struggling to find people with the right skills,” says Imran Akhtar, Head of Academy at talent and training organisation mthree. “There’s too much focus on whether early career professionals are work-ready, but employers also need to assess their routes into work.” Again, as the traditional routes into employment evaporate and evolve the emphasis falls on reconsidering pathways to work – what kind of experience should employers be looking for before they welcome young people into their organisation? HR may not have control of the young talent pipeline, but they do hold the keys to the door of employment. 

Akhtar highlights the use of Hire Train Deploy models to give employers the ability to train emerging talent against job requirements, and young people a clearer route into work. “The priority now is to turn potential into capability, quickly and deliberately,” he says.

Jeanette Wheeler, Chief People Officer at MHR, notes that 45% of young people who are NEET now report having a disability – more than double the proportion recorded just over a decade ago. “While HR teams cannot address every underlying cause of young people identified as NEET, this does not exempt them from playing their part in addressing the issue, especially given the ongoing skills gap conversations,” she says.

Keeping young people in work is as much a part of the NEET conversation as helping people into it.”

Wheeler warns against recruitment practices that prioritise experience over potential, or the tendency for employers to avoid young candidates due to economic uncertainty. These are barriers which HR teams can do something about.

“AI is undoubtedly contributing to the decline of entry-level roles,” says Wheeler. “Many of the routine tasks once assigned to graduates and apprentices, such as compiling reports, summarising documents and data entry, are now automated. As a result, employers increasingly expect new hires to contribute in different ways from day one, making it harder for inexperienced candidates to get a foot in the door.”

Ambiguity and Uncertainty

Rebecca Rodger, Apprentice & Talent Development Manager at Ricoh UK worries that UK businesses are being ambiguous about their investment and strategy for optimising AI within their organisations. This uncertainty plays forward to the young/early careers market, creating confusion for young people about where they should invest their development time and what the roles of the future might look like. “If that’s because we just don’t know what we don’t know, organisations need to get clear on that fast,” says Rodger. 

“Bring intelligent, invested young people along on the journey,” she advises. “Accelerate rapidly by investing in upskilling young people to help us do that thinking. They’re more digitally aware and already contextualising AI in their day-to-day lives with ease – they’re prime placed to accelerate how organisations do the same.”

Rodger says Ricoh UK already have programmes to train Digital and AI Support Associates, and this resource is ready to be scaled.

“Businesses should recognise early years as valued, pipeline talent and not a nice-to-do social value activity,” she says. “Be strategic about early-career investment and have a plan to push those young people through the business to become the Digital Leaders of the future. By having real progression plans, it prevents stagnation at early or middle leadership levels and ensures new, diverse talent is constantly coming through the business.”

Looking to the Future

Vicky Walker, Chief People Officer at health and wellbeing provider Westfield Health warns that organisations – and the government – should not be looking for short term fixes to this issue. “Keeping young people in work is as much a part of the NEET conversation as helping people into it,” she says. For her, ensuring young people stay fit and healthy enough for work is core to meeting the challenge. As with Jeanette Wheeler she is aware of the health challenges that are sometimes preventing young people from making a full and continuous contribution to the workplace.

“Health, and particularly mental health, is the primary and fastest growing driver of young people leaving work altogether,” she says. Walker believes employers can have an impact here – they see their people every day, and are therefore well placed to notice when someone is struggling. They also have the opportunity to do something about it. “Early intervention can be beneficial both for the employee and the business in equal measure,” she says.

Westfield’s own research found that over half (53%) of 18 to 24-year-olds experience burnout all the time or quite often – a fact that Walker says should give HR leaders pause for thought. “Young workers entering the job market are doing so carrying significant stress, and in many cases that isn’t being picked up or addressed until it becomes a much bigger problem,” she says. 

If you are not investing in young people today, you’re not investing in your business long-term.”

Westfield also found that only 7% of 18 to 24-year-olds used workplace support when seeking help for their mental health – one of the lowest of any channel available to them. This raises questions about whether provision is visible enough, accessible enough, or feels safe enough for younger workers to use.

“Retaining younger talent has a direct bearing on productivity, on retention costs, and on the long-term health of the business,” notes Walker. “They make up part of a workforce which requires specific attention rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.”

Joint Responsibility, Joint Action

Advania’s COO Nick Isherwood calls on both the government and businesses to act now in order to slow down NEET numbers, adding that his company are proud to be supporting school leavers and graduates as they take their first steps in the world of work. “Many of our peers also claim to be tech companies with people at their heart, but if you’re not investing in the people who will one day be your leaders, this is a false claim,” he says. “Young people bring fresh ideas and approaches that move businesses forward, especially in the era of AI. If you are not investing in young people today, you’re not investing in your business long-term.”

Isherwood believes that the increase in minimum wages is closing the gap between experienced and non-experienced hires: “Businesses are forced to derisk the hiring challenge by paying marginally more but not having the training costs and the threat of the minimum wages being forced up and above affordable ranges verses experience offered,” he says. “The trade-off is getting too difficult to justify. Businesses need more government support to make it make sense again.” Isherwood says increasing wages at such a rate every year is a key cause of this kind of unemployment as employers don’t have the time or resources to pay the high wage bills and then also offer the required training.

Dr Marcia A Dawkins, Senior Research Scientist at Center for Creative Leadership feels that the NEET issue is a signal that the traditional pathways connecting education, work and opportunity are being rewritten, in part due to the contribution now being made by AI. “To me, the question for HR isn’t whether NEETs are ‘untested,’” she says, “It’s whether organisations are still testing for yesterday’s definition of readiness with today’s tools.”

A re-definition of easy career talent is therefore required. One which, according to Dawkins moves away from viewing the issue as a crisis to one which sees it as “an opportunity to identify resilient, adaptable and curious leaders and rethink how they assess human potential in an AI-enabled world.”

At Freeths, people genuinely matter. We are proud to have achieved Gold Investors in People, and we work hard to create a workplace where colleagues feel supported, included and able to thrive. But however strong that environment is, we are not separate from the wider world. During a period of heightened social and geopolitical tension, colleagues across the firm were experiencing uncertainty, anxiety and a growing need for connection and support.

Wellbeing and Equity, Diversity and Inclusion are important priorities for us, and over the past few years we have built a number of staff networks shaped by what our colleagues tell us they need. These networks create connection, support and a stronger sense of belonging across the firm. They include REACH, our Race, Ethnicity and Cultural Heritage network, and Rise, a network for Black colleagues and allies. Last year, membership across our staff networks grew by an average of 43%, demonstrating colleagues’ appetite for connection, support and opportunities to shape our culture. 

Because we want our people to help shape the culture of the firm in ways that matter to them, it was natural that REACH and Rise responded when they saw what members of their networks and colleagues across the firm were experiencing. Together, they created a series of safe spaces across our 12 offices to support trust, belonging and honest conversation at a time when many people felt unsettled, isolated or unsure how to respond.

At a time when some businesses are rethinking or scaling back commitments in areas such as EDI and sustainability, we believe it is important to stay grounded in our values and to respond with clarity, care and integrity.”

The need for the project was clear. Colleagues affected by racial or religious marginalisation spoke about feeling increasingly vulnerable and disconnected, while allies were often unsure how best to offer meaningful support. Because REACH and Rise were already trusted and well-established networks, they were able to draw on real insight from members and shape a response that felt timely, thoughtful and relevant.

Supportive Sessions

REACH and Rise worked together to support members of their networks and the colleagues around them. We know how important it is to create opportunities for people to come together with others who share similar experiences in a safe and supportive environment, so they feel heard, seen and supported. Holding space sessions were open to colleagues directly affected, offering a trauma-informed setting to share experiences and find solidarity. Reflection sessions for allies were open more widely, giving people who wanted to play a positive role the chance to build their confidence, reflect on practical allyship and think about how to respond with empathy and care.

1: More than half of colleagues invited chose to engage with the initiative, with over 100 attending live discussions across our offices. The level of participation demonstrated both the need for the sessions and the trust colleagues placed in the networks facilitating them. What made the initiative especially powerful was the way it was designed. REACH and Rise brought their perspectives together to create sessions grounded in cultural understanding and designed to include everyone. Different needs were recognised, leaders were involved in ways that helped build trust, and participant feedback was used to shape what came next.

2: Impact

Our approach to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) is grounded in listening and evidence, and this project was no different. Feedback was overwhelmingly positive. More than 90% of participants rated the sessions as excellent or very good, highlighting the clarity of purpose and the sense of trust they experienced. Colleagues directly affected described the sessions as validating and healing, while allies spoke about a stronger understanding of how to respond in inclusive and practical ways.

Across the feedback, the same themes came through again and again: safety, visibility, belonging and a strong appetite for continued conversation and learning. The sessions gave people permission to speak openly, to listen more carefully and to understand one another better.

3: The sessions also helped strengthen trust in leadership. That trust is critical to engagement, retention and organisational resilience, particularly during periods of uncertainty. Senior leaders were present, listened with care and showed visible support, which mattered. It signalled that these conversations were important and that colleagues would be met with empathy rather than silence. In turn, that helped normalise more inclusive behaviours across the firm.

 4: Supporting our networks to lead this initiative was the right thing to do, and it also reinforced the kind of culture we want to build at Freeths. By creating space for psychological safety and emotional support during a difficult time, we strengthened colleague wellbeing. By encouraging inclusive leadership and making allyship part of everyday practice, we also moved our EDI commitments forward. Open communication and visible support from leaders helped build trust and confidence across the organisation.

5: The sessions showed the value of listening well and creating space for shared experience. They reminded us that belonging is built in moments like these, when people feel heard, supported and able to be themselves at work.

6: Next steps

The sessions led by REACH and Rise are already shaping our next steps. They are informing how we continue to invest in our staff networks, how we develop allyship and inclusive leadership, and how we make sure our values are lived consistently across the firm.

Organisations cannot solve everything happening around them, but they can choose how they respond.”

7: We want to build on this by creating more opportunities for safe and honest conversation across all our networks, alongside structured support for allyship and inclusive leadership. Our aim is simple: to keep building a workplace where every colleague feels psychologically safe, valued and able to thrive.

A Call to Action

Our staff networks have proved to be strategic assets. They provide opportunities for colleagues to connect, support one another and help shape the culture of the firm. In doing so, they strengthen belonging, engagement and trust. This initiative and sense of inclusive culture showed what can happen when that support is trusted, visible and backed by the organisation, driving engagement and retention.

That matters all the more in the context of our recent Corporate Conscience report, which explored how organisations are responding to growing ethical pressure and public scrutiny. One clear theme was the importance of visible leadership and values-led decision-making. At a time when some businesses are rethinking or scaling back commitments in areas such as EDI and sustainability, we believe it is important to stay grounded in our values and to respond with clarity, care and integrity.

For me, that is the real lesson. At times of uncertainty and division, organisations cannot solve everything happening around them, but they can choose how they respond. By listening to their people, creating space for honest conversation and standing by their values, organisations can strengthen trust, support wellbeing and build cultures where people and businesses thrive together.

As a CIO, I am used to thinking about the risk and return of an investment. And when I look at most UK organisations, the return on DEI investments don’t look great: the gender pay gap is still alive and well, with men continuing to outnumber women significantly in the plum senior roles. Yet women outnumber men in the population as a whole, so if we can’t get this right for the ‘diverse’ majority, what hope is there for a diverse minority? My diagnosis is not that the project has failed, but that the investment has been misdirected. Perhaps it’s time to move it.

Across UK organisations, DEI spend has risen steadily for a decade, manifesting in training programmes, awareness sessions and board commitments, with HR teams building out programmes to deliver against them. But the metrics that should be moving, from women’s progression to minority retention to sentiment data, have barely shifted. What is causing the disconnect?

Training as a token gesture

There are numerous conventional explanations, and all of them feel plausible and ring true. Even before the US-led DEI reversal, some leadership teams were half-hearted, resulting in training as a token gesture, inadequately supported by a convincing business case championing the decision-making and social benefits of a more representative workforce. None of them, in my view, fully explains why the gap between investment and outcome remains so stubborn.

A more useful explanation is structural, that DEI architecture as currently designed, is frequently aimed at the wrong layer. This results in money being spent at the top and the bottom of the organisation, whilst the layer that actually determines daily employee experience receives the least support, the least training and the least attention. That layer is middle management.

Often, the DEI order of events starts with senior leaders attending bespoke programmes, designed to build commitment, sponsor change and frame culture for the rest of the organisation. Employees receive awareness sessions, online modules and the occasional away day. The middle is treated as a relay station, expected to absorb messages from above and transmit them downwards, with little dedicated investment of its own. The problem is that culture does not move that way.

 In the 250+ interviews I have conducted with senior professionals across financial services for my On Motivation series, the most consistent finding is this: when people describe their experience of culture at work, it is directly shaped by their line manager. Not the values poster in reception, or the online DEI module they completed last quarter. Their manager. The person who responded, or did not respond, when something happened in a meeting. The person who put their name forward in a closed-door conversation – or did not. The person who treated their bias concern as a real issue – or as background noise. That layer is sitting on the thinnest budget per head in the organisation, with the heaviest operational load, the least protected development time, and the least psychological safety to admit it does not know what to do. We then ask it to be the engine of inclusion. That architecture is wrong. 

How bias shows up at work

My work is to address under-investment in management, and the need to do so has sharpened over the years. To see why this matters, let’s consider how bias actually shows up at work.

I find it helpful to map incidents along two axes. The first is intention. Was the behaviour deliberate, or unintended?

The second is degree. Was it mild, or egregious? The four resulting quadrants give very different prescriptions.

For example, intentional egregious behaviour – a deliberate insult, a hostile remark, a targeted exclusion – tend to be escalated, often correctly. HR processes are designed to handle these, escalating to formal complaints and disciplinary records. Conversely, mild and unintended behaviour, such as an assumption, a casual aside, a moment of being overlooked, tend to be absorbed silently. Few employees raise them and they sit below the threshold for HR action. 

Bias should be treated as a skills issue, not a values issue.”

The interesting space, and the one where culture is formed, is the territory in between. The intended but mild. The egregious, but unintended. These behaviours are not severe enough to escalate, yet not mild enough to ignore. The ones where someone needs to make a judgement call about whether and how to intervene. That judgement call almost always sits with the line manager. Whether a comment in a meeting gets named or absorbed is a manager’s call. 

Whether a misattributed idea gets corrected is a manager’s call. Whether a junior woman gets put forward for the project that builds her profile is a manager’s call. Whether the bias she experiences gets framed as a real issue or as a sensitivity is a manager’s call.

These are not values problems: the managers I have interviewed often know what is right and fair and what good looks like. But they cannot always do it: because they do not have the language, or the time, or the skills. Or the explicit criteria for what good performance looks like in this dimension. They have not seen senior leaders model the behaviour and survive it intact. They are not sure whether intervening will make them look weak, political, or both.

HR has spent a decade telling them what to value, but has spent far less time equipping them with the specific capabilities required to act on it.

There is no shortage of useful interventions. The architectural shift, in my view, is to stop treating middle managers as the audience for DEI training and start treating them as its delivery mechanism. And that changes what you invest in. 

What to look out for:

Bias should be treated as a skills issue, not a values issue. Most managers know what they should not do, but lack practise for the specific actions that disrupt bias in the moment: redirecting a misattributed question, naming a pattern without making it personal, raising someone’s contribution in a forum where they were not credited. These can be taught, rehearsed and assessed. Most DEI training does not do this.

Most managers have no framework for great, fair sponsorship, and no expectation that they will be held to account for it.”

Sponsorship should be a measurable management responsibility, not an informal cultural ask. When who progresses in any organisation is largely linked to who has been sponsored behind closed doors, it can be hard to get transparency on this. Most managers have no framework for great, fair sponsorship, and no expectation that they will be held to account for it.

Feedback structures should be explicit and criteria based. The single most reliable intervention against both imposter syndrome and bias in performance review is making the criteria visible, comparable and consistently applied. Administratively boring, it can be culturally transformational.

Managerial uncertainty should be normalised. The phrase ‘I don’t know how to handle that’ should be a sign of capability, not of weakness. In most organisations, it is seen as the latter.

The organisations that move on this will see measurable results. Retention will improve, because employees leave their manager and not their company, and a better-equipped manager produces better-treated employees. Progression data will start to shift, because the gatekeeping decisions made in closed-door conversations will be more consistent. Sentiment data will follow.

These are not soft outcomes. They are commercial ones. The cost of replacing a senior employee, the cost of a damaged team, the cost of a public DEI failure, are all measurable. The cost of getting middle management right is measurable too, and a lot, lot lower.

AI is everywhere right now – in board presentations, product roadmaps, vendor pitches, and every conference agenda worth attending. Executives are talking about transformation, analysts are publishing reports, and somewhere in the middle of it all, HR leaders are trying to work out what their actual responsibility is, both to their organisations and to their people.

Accenture’s new AI Impact Report makes the scale of that uncertainty concrete: UK workers now expect their job to be unrecognisable or gone entirely by the end of the decade, double the share from eighteen months ago, while only 7% of executives believe their workforce is fully prepared for agentic AI.

• Jill Gates is a speaker on our forthcoming webinar: The Lost Generation – the challenge and opportunity for HR. Find out more and register to attend here: The Lost Generation 

Across many boardrooms, the instinct is to reach for restructuring and displacement gets framed as the inevitable. That framing does serious damage to trust, retention, and to the organisations that will need skilled, engaged people to make AI work.

The tractor replaced the horse and plough but not the farmer – the job changed, the skills changed, and the farmer remained central to what the farm produced. AI is doing the same thing to knowledge work.

Know where your workforce stands

A genuine skills audit, built as the foundation for a real dialogue about where the organisation is heading, is where most organisations should start. Investing in AI capability before fully understanding what your people already bring, which skills transfer naturally, and where development is genuinely needed, leads to decisions made on incomplete information. Getting that picture first changes the quality of everything that follows.

Technological advancement has historically driven overwhelmingly positive change.”

Across most organisations, the people best placed to grow into AI-adjacent roles already exist inside the business – they understand the culture, the clients, and the complexity of the work in ways that take years to build. It’s an area we’ve invested significantly in, and we now have dedicated AI teams focused on helping the business redesign processes and ways of working where AI can add the most value. Many of the people leading this work transitioned from other roles within our business, bringing deep organisational knowledge alongside new AI expertise.

Getting there takes deliberate investment, active role redesign, and a clear signal from leadership that this kind of growth is valued.

Accountability cannot be delegated to an algorithm

Building a culture of responsible experimentation means helping people understand why human judgement remains central to decisions informed by AI outputs, and giving them the confidence and permission to question those outputs without that reading as resistance. Where organisations have made real investment in guidance, training, and psychological safety, people engage with AI more openly and more responsibly.

Embed learning, don’t schedule it

We fully recognise that AI capabilities are not a one-off training exercise – the speed of change makes that approach obsolete before the ink is dry. Integrating AI learning into leadership development, role-based training, and performance conversations on an ongoing basis, treating it as infrastructure rather than an event, is what builds genuine, lasting capability. Curiosity must be modelled from the top, not just encouraged in a policy document as norms and best practices evolve.

Hold the uncertainty without abdicating responsibility

The broader economic picture is uncertain, and leaders who acknowledge that openly tend to earn more trust than those who paper over it. People are looking for clarity about values and direction: a credible sense of where the organisation stands and how it intends to navigate what comes next. Technological advancement has historically driven overwhelmingly positive change, from medical breakthroughs to waste reduction, and AI will be no different.

The work right now is to resist the pull toward false clarity, and it’s hard work. HR leaders who stay in that harder place, and bring their people with them, are doing something worth doing regardless of how the technology evolves.

Cultures that lack openness, trust and accountability are not simply uncomfortable to work in; they are detrimental to your organisation’s success. They drain energy, stifle innovation, waste the diverse talent you have worked so hard to attract, and drive your best people out the door.

The cost of low trust cultures

When authenticity, openness, and trust aren’t present, people go into self‑protection mode. They stop asking questions, stop sharing concerns, and certainly stop challenging the status quo. Instead of focusing on doing their best work, they are watching their backs, second-guessing how things will land, and trying not to get it wrong.

This shows up as:

• Decisions being escalated upwards that could easily be made closer to the work;
• Over engineered email trails written for cover, not clarity; and
• Meetings where people nod along in public and disagree in private.  

Where accountability is inconsistent or absent, the cost goes up again. If poor behaviour and underperformance are quietly tolerated, psychological safety is nowhere to be found. One person’s unchecked arrogance, rudeness, or bullying can stop an entire team from achieving success.

In such an environment, the message is clear – it doesn’t matter how you behave, as long as you deliver. This erodes standards, damages wellbeing, and sabotages your culture from the inside out.

The risk of ignoring psychological safety

In psychologically unsafe environments, people learn that it isn’t safe to make mistakes or speak up when they have concerns. They know exactly which topics are taboo and which leaders punish the messenger. So, issues are downplayed, sugar‑coated, or simply never raised at all.

Risks do not disappear because no one talks about them. They just surface later, when they are more difficult, costly, public, and painful to fix.

Innovation suffers in the same way. Without some degree of interpersonal risk, there can be no creativity, collaboration, or fresh ideas. Suggesting a new idea means being willing to be wrong, to be challenged, or to challenge others. In low-trust cultures, people keep their best thinking to themselves, as the personal cost of speaking up feels too high.

The result is an enormous waste of talent and potential. If only a narrow range of voices feel safe to contribute, you are paying for diversity you are not actually using.

How diversity and inclusion amplify culture

Diversity is often misunderstood as a compliance exercise, confined to tick‑boxes, targets, and reporting. True diversity is far wider than any single human characteristic. It’s about having a workforce that reflects the society you operate in and the communities and customers you serve. It’s also about diversity of thinking, approaches, perspectives, professional disciplines, ways of working, seniority, backgrounds, and experiences.

In cultures that lack openness, trust, and accountability, this richness is squandered. People who are already more likely to have faced discrimination or marginalisation learn very quickly whether it’s genuinely safe for them to be seen and heard. If the environment isn’t fair, equitable, and inclusive, they will either adapt by hiding who they truly are, or they will just leave.

Inclusion is a subset of culture and lives in the day‑to‑day experience of your people, across the entire employee lifecycle. It determines whether people feel seen, heard, valued, respected, and part of something bigger than themselves.

If openness and trust are absent, inclusion cannot thrive. People may be “in the room” but not really in the conversation. 

Accountability with care: the cultural sweet spot

A great culture isn’t one where everyone is always nice and no one disagrees, where leaders are endlessly positive, but never clear, or where giving people voice means that every single opinion is acted upon. It’s one where accountability sits alongside care.

This is where:

• Standards, productivity and performance remain high;
• People have reasonable workloads, the right resources, and realistic deadlines; and 
• Mistakes are used for learning and growth, not as opportunities for blame and shame.

In this environment, people are treated as individual human beings; they are given the autonomy they need to own their roles, balanced with the guidance, support and resources they need to thrive. It’s where:

• Giving constructive and celebratory feedback in support of continuous improvement is a behavioural norm;
• Development and progression opportunities are available to everyone, and
• People can navigate change and challenge without having to compromise their values or their wellbeing.

This is where you get the best return on your investment in people. Engagement rises, risk is spotted earlier, innovation increases, and your reputation as an employer of choice grows.

Building a culture of openness, trust and accountability

The good news is that none of this is accidental. Cultures where openness, trust, and accountability flourish are built intentionally, skillfully, and consistently, one interaction at a time. HR has an enormous part to play, but building a great culture must be led from the top.

So, how do you do it? Let’s get practical…

1. Make culture a leadership responsibility, not an HR initiative

Ownership of culture sits firmly with senior leaders. It cannot be delegated to HR.

Work with your executive team to:

• Position culture as the heartbeat of the organisation, not a side project;
• Make expectations around openness, trust, inclusion, and accountability explicit; and
• Build these expectations into leadership objectives, feedback, and performance reviews.  

HR can guide, support and challenge, but the ownership must sit with leaders at every level.

2. Bring values and behaviours to life

Organisational values sitting in a drawer or on a website are unhelpful. They must be woven into everyday language, decisions and behaviours. It’s essential to:

• Involve as many people as possible in defining or refreshing your values and the behaviours that bring them to life;
• Be clear about the behaviours that are absolutely unacceptable; and
• Integrate values and behaviours into recruitment, onboarding, promotion, recognition, and performance management.  

When people see that behaviour really matters, and that there are consistent consequences when it doesn’t align, trust increases.

3. Build psychological safety on purpose

Psychological safety is the shared belief that it’s safe to take interpersonal risks at work – to ask questions, raise concerns, make mistakes and challenge the way things are done. It’s the foundation of openness and trust.

Leaders and managers will need to learn to:

• Show vulnerability – owning their mistakes, asking for help, and saying “I don’t know” when they don’t have all the answers; 
• Be consultative – taking an empowering and supportive approach rather than command and control; and
• Have high-quality conversations – be curious, respectful, open, and honest.  

Alongside this, reinforce that psychological safety and accountability are not opposites. They must coexist for teams to be high‑performing.

 4. Treat diversity and inclusion as central to culture

Stop treating diversity and inclusion as something that only applies to certain groups. Inclusion is for every single one of your employees.

• Make sure your employer brand is an honest reflection of your culture, not a fantasy aspiration;
• Review your processes across the employee lifecycle for fairness, accessibility, and equity; and
• Encourage leaders to stop trying to be experts in every characteristic and instead ask people what they need to thrive.

When people see that they can be themselves, be treated fairly, and have a voice that matters, openness and trust grow. When they see that different ways of thinking and working are genuinely valued, accountability becomes shared and understood as a vital component of learning, growth, and ultimately success.

A growing global patchwork of tighter pay reporting and transparency related requirements means that global employers should be vigilant about monitoring current pay practices and adhering to the differing obligations placed upon them globally. 

From 7 June 2026, the EU Pay Transparency Directive will introduce significant changes in relation to transparency, imposing a plethora of duties on employers, from the initial recruitment stage to throughout the full cycle of the employment relationship. While the Directive’s requirements are subject to local implementation by each EU member state (the progress of which is fragmented, with certain member states confirming delays, and others not having not taken any substantive steps to implement the requirements), the overarching requirements imposed in the EU Pay Transparency Directive itself raise the bar for pay transparency related practices. 

Transparency on hire related requirements and greater scrutiny of recruitment related practices are two key aspects of the Directive’s requirements which will significantly impact the recruitment industry. As a result of the Directive, employers (including third party recruitment agencies) will no longer be able to ask candidates in the EU about their pay history. In addition, candidates will gain rights to be informed of the applicable pay range or salary for the role they are applying for, either in the job advertisement, prior to interview, or in another form, subject to local legislation provided in each EU Member State. Training for internal recruiters on what can and cannot be said to candidates and the information they are required to receive in a relevant country will be important to ensuring compliance with the Directive’s requirements. Organisations should also seek confirmation from their external recruitment partners that they are aware of the Directive’s requirements and will ensure compliance.

The variance in these laws, coupled with the lack of guidance in certain laws regarding the geographic scope of their applicability, has made compliance an increasingly complex exercise.”

To comply with the Directive, employers should also be aware of the following key obligations designed to promote pay transparency and pay equity:

• Equal work and work of equal value: Member States must ensure that employers implement pay structures that guarantee equal pay for equal work or work of equal value, supported by accessible analytical tools, methodologies and structures designed to help assess and objectively compare the value of work, based on gender-neutral criteria.

• Rights to information: Employers of all sizes (regardless of headcount) must be prepared to provide all workers with written information, upon request, about their individual pay and the average pay levels, broken down by sex, for workers performing comparable work or work of equal value. 

• Gender Pay Reporting: Employers must provide information regarding the mean and median gender pay gaps, including: (a) those based on complementary and variable pay components (such as bonuses), (b) the proportion of men and women receiving these pay components, (c) the gender distribution within each pay quartile and (d) pay gaps across worker categories broken down by basic salary and complementary or variable pay. (a) – (c) must be reported to the relevant authority and shall be made publicly available. (d) must be provided to workers and workers’ representatives, as well as the labour inspectorate and the equality body upon request. The thresholds are as follows: 1) Employers with 100-149 employees: Must publish the report by 7 June 2031 and every three years after; 2) Employers with 150-249 employees: Must publish the report by 7 June 2027 and every three years after; 3) Employers with >250 employees: Must publish the report by 7 June 2027 and annually (and, it should be noted, that some individual countries propose to introduce lower headcount thresholds for reporting).

• Joint pay assessments: Employers subject to the reporting obligation must conduct a joint pay assessment if their report shows a gender pay gap of 5% or more in any worker category that cannot be justified by objective, gender-neutral criteria and remains unaddressed six months after reporting. Additionally, employers are required to remedy unjustified pay differences promptly in cooperation with workers’ representatives, with possible involvement from the labour inspectorate and equality body.

Prepare now – wherever you are

Employers should not underestimate the preparation required to comply with the Directive’s requirements and are encouraged to make preparations in and advance of local implementing legislations coming into force in each country.

Where different standards and competing obligations exist across an organisation’s global footprint, employers may wish to consider whether to implement greater standards of transparency across their global operations. As awareness of the Directive’s requirements grows across employee populations employers may wish to be prepared to respond to employee’s expectations when it comes to pay transparency and pay equity related issues.

Employers with a presence in the United States also should remain mindful of the evolving patchwork of US pay transparency laws, as well as the increasing legal scrutiny of DEI-related practices.  

From a pay transparency perspective, while no comprehensive federal pay transparency statute currently exists, a growing number of US state and local jurisdictions – including California, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, and Washington – require employers to disclose compensation ranges in job postings and, in some cases, provide pay information to employees upon request. Certain jurisdictions impose further disclosure obligations on employers, including additional compensation details, benefit information, job descriptions, and application deadlines. Critically, the laws vary widely in terms of whether they apply only to positions within that jurisdiction, and whether the law expressly addresses applicability to remote positions or out-of-state positions. The variance in these laws, coupled with the lack of guidance in certain laws regarding the geographic scope of their applicability, has made compliance an increasingly complex exercise.

Multinational employers in the US also should remain cautious of the increasing scrutiny and legal challenges to DEI-related practices, both from government agencies and the plaintiffs’ bar. This evolving US landscape creates notable tension with the EU’s expanding equal pay and pay transparency framework, which increasingly requires employers to collect demographic data, analyse systemic disparities, and implement corrective measures designed to advance substantive equality outcomes. Multinational employers must therefore navigate potentially conflicting expectations regarding workforce equity governance and permissible remediation strategies.

Louise Skinner is a partner at Morgan Lewis based in London. Louise provides strategic advice on all aspects of employment law, with a particular focus on equality and pay transparency matters.

Aaron Grant is an associate at Morgan Lewis based in London. Aaron advises multinational employers on a range of employment law issues. 

Margaret (Maggie) McDowell is an associate at Morgan Lewis based in Philadelphia. Maggie advises clients on a wide range of workplace matters, with a focus on employment disputes.

Artificial intelligence has rapidly moved from future ambition to present day imperative. Organisations across industries are investing heavily in AI tools, expecting transformative gains in productivity, innovation, and decision-making. Yet, despite this enthusiasm, many are finding that AI adoption is failing to deliver on its promise.

Is the issue with the technology itself, or is it with how organisations are implementing it?

From a people and operating model perspective, fragmented workflows and disconnected systems are quietly undermining progress. Rather than simplifying work, AI is, in many cases, adding complexity, driving tool-switching, duplicative tasks, and increased cognitive load for employees. If we want AI to truly unlock productivity, we need to rethink how work gets done.

The hidden cost of disconnected workflows

In many organisations today, employees operate across a multitude of systems, HR platforms, CRM tools, project management software, messaging apps, and more. Each system holds valuable data, but rarely are they seamlessly connected.

AI thrives on context. Fragmented environments lead to missing context, which in turn leads to poorer results. 

Instead of a single flow of work, employees are forced to reconcile conflicting outputs from different tools or redo work due to incorrect conclusions delivered. AI-generated insights may be useful in isolation, but without context or integration, they can create additional work rather than reducing it.

Hands on usage is the best way to build competence.”

In addition, even when AI tools are connected to multiple systems, e.g. using MCP, the way of working with these tools is fundamentally different. Requests are initiated, and the requester waits for the request to complete or for more information to be requested – often switching to another task in the interim.

This leads to four critical challenges:

• Context-switching fatigue: Constantly moving between platforms and activities breaks concentration and reduces efficiency.
• Duplicative effort: The same work is repeated or needs to be redone due to a lack of integration, data and context.
• Cognitive overload: Employees must interpret and validate fragmented AI outputs, increasing mental strain. People are also reporting cognitive overload based on the higher pace of work and the increased need to deploy high functioning critical thinking skills.
• Recipient overwhelm: Generative AI can make it easier to generate work. The outputs can often be overly generic and lacking substance, and tend to be much longer than a person would have produced. This makes the output easier to create for the person generating the content; however, it makes it less easy and slower to consume for the recipients of the content.

The result is a paradox: the more tools organisations introduce in the name of productivity, the harder it becomes for employees to work effectively.

Where organisations are going wrong in AI rollout

From my perspective, the root cause lies in how organisations deploy AI. Too often, it is treated as a technology deployment rather than a transformation of work.

There are three common missteps:

1. Leading with tools, not outcomes

Many organisations start by deploying AI solutions without fully understanding the workflows they are meant to improve. This creates a proliferation of point solutions that fail to connect meaningfully into the employee experience. Organisations and individuals need to really understand what they are trying to achieve through using AI tooling, and then structure the use of such tools accordingly. Organisations also should consider whether they wish to use AI to generate or complete work on a person’s behalf, or be an enhancement to a person’s thinking (by being a thought partner, helping to spot patterns, helping to spot risks etc.).

2.  Not properly considering the operating model

AI changes how work is structured, how decisions are made, and how teams collaborate. Roles are starting to merge together. Yet organisations often attempt to overlay AI onto existing ways of working without redesigning roles, processes, or governance. Equally, organisations should be cautious of making decisions about their operating model that will become unsustainable in the future. For example, eliminating early careers programmes will likely cause a talent gap and wage inflation in 2-5 years for experienced talent. Fully replacing large volumes of roles with AI may provide short-term profits, however if AI consumption becomes more expensive than employee salary costs, that operating model becomes financially untenable.

3. Underestimating the human factor

AI adoption requires behavioural change. Employees need clarity on when to use AI, how to interpret its outputs, and when human judgment is essential. Without this, adoption is inconsistent and impact limited. Organisations should define what is it that they want only a human to do – this could range from decision making to crafting the narrative or perspective that summarises insights.

The case for more connected environments

To unlock the true value of AI, organisations must move beyond fragmented systems and towards more connected environments, where workflows, data, and intelligence come together seamlessly.

In practice, this means creating more unity across the organisation that brings together data from multiple systems and applies AI in context, rather than in isolation. We are guiding our customers in this direction, using our Intelligent System of Work, IQ, to connect workflows and surface insights where work is actually happening.

What matters here is not the system itself, but the principle: AI is most effective when it is embedded within the flow of work, not sitting alongside it.

In a connected environment:

• Data becomes more consistent and accessible
• AI outputs are contextual and actionable
• Workflows are streamlined rather than fragmented

The experience for employees shifts from managing systems to improving outcomes, with AI quietly providing better insights and supporting faster execution.

HR’s critical role in AI adoption

As organisations make this shift, HR has a pivotal role to play, not just in adopting AI, but in shaping how it is implemented across the business.

Designing work for the AI era

HR must take the lead in redefining roles and workflows to fully leverage AI. This includes identifying where tasks can be augmented, where processes can be simplified, how teams should operate differently, and how skills need to evolve.

Building capability and confidence

AI will only deliver value if employees are equipped to use it effectively. HR should focus on building AI literacy, providing clear guidance, and creating space for experimentation. Hands on usage is the best way to build competence. Educating not just on the technology is also important – people should be educated on the ethical and responsible elements of AI to properly understand risks and where to apply their human judgment. Finally, it’s also important to educate people on how to efficiently use AI tools, e.g. how to optimise token consumption so that costs are sustainable for the organisation.

Establishing governance and guardrails

As AI becomes embedded in decision-making, organisations need clear frameworks around its use. HR plays a key role in ensuring ethical, consistent, and transparent practices. I would caution organisations from including any type of consumption metrics as a substitute for performance – consumption does not mean effective usage or impact.

Strengthening HR itself

AI also presents an opportunity to elevate the HR function. By automating administrative work and enhancing access to insight, HR teams can spend more time on strategic priorities—organisational design, workforce planning, and employee experience.

When, how, and why to use AI

A key barrier to adoption is a lack of clarity around the problem the organisation is trying to solve using AI , with many organisations failing to define when, how, and why it should be used. To unlock value, businesses need to be explicit that AI is best applied to repetitive, data-heavy, or time-intensive tasks; that it should act as a complement to human judgment rather than a replacement, keeping the human in the loop; and that its purpose is to improve outcomes, not simply to introduce new tools. Leaders involved in implementation and design play a critical role in bringing these principles to life, ensuring AI is grounded in real workflows and employee needs so that it is both practical to use and capable of delivering meaningful impact.

Moving from experimentation to impact

Many organisations remain in the experimentation phase, testing tools, piloting use cases, and exploring capabilities. The challenge now is scaling beyond pilots to achieve meaningful impact.

This requires a shift:

• From fragmented solutions to connected ecosystems
• From deploying technology to redesigning work
• From short-term wins to long-term transformation
• From content generation to meaningful insight

Connected environments, whether enabled through systems like IQ or broader integration strategies are central to this shift. They provide the foundation for AI to operate not as a collection of tools, but as a cohesive capability embedded across the organisation.

A people-first approach 

Ultimately, the success of AI will not be determined by the sophistication of the technology, but by how well it integrates into the human experience of work.

Disconnected systems and fragmented workflows are not just operational inefficiencies they directly impact adoption, engagement, and performance.

In the people function, we have a responsibility to address this. By championing more connected ways of working, aligning operating models with technology, and keeping employee experience at the centre, we can ensure AI delivers on its promise.

The opportunity is to create an environment where work flows more seamlessly, decisions are better informed, and employees are empowered to focus on what matters most.

That is where real productivity gains will be realised.

For HR leaders, leadership development has always required a careful balancing act. Senior leaders need time and space to build the judgement, confidence and perspective required to lead effectively, but stepping away from the day-to-day operations is never easy, and it must deliver real value. 

This tension is particularly acute when it comes to directors, who are accountable for decisions that carry significant strategic, financial and reputational weight. And as businesses increasingly operate across geographical borders, those decisions have much wider-reaching implications. 

We live in an era of accelerating global interdependency. Supply chains cross continents, regulatory frameworks are shaped by international precedent, and geopolitical risk is increasingly landing high on the boardroom agenda. And yet, director development for many organisations remains rooted in a single domestic context – across one legal landscape, one set of market assumptions and one cultural frame of reference. 

While this is no doubt valuable, it doesn’t sufficiently prepare boards with the skills needed to interact and compete on a global scale. 

The risk of domestic-centred development

When learning is too narrowly domestic, it can leave boards underprepared. Directors may become fluent in the governance norms of their own market, but lack the comparative perspective needed to understand and learn from how similar issues are approached elsewhere. That matters because many of the challenges facing today’s boards aren’t confined by national boundaries. 

Directors may be considering expansion into new markets, managing suppliers across several regions, responding to international investor scrutiny or assessing risk in an increasingly volatile geopolitical environment. In each case, they need more than technical knowledge of their own system. They need to understand how governance, accountability, regulation and board behaviour vary across jurisdictions – which many director development programmes simply don’t deliver. 

This isn’t only relevant to multi-national organisations. Even organisations with a largely domestic footprint can be exposed to international dynamics through supply chains, customers, funding, technology, regulation or workforce expectations. For HR leaders, that means global awareness shouldn’t be seen as a specialist requirement for a small group of internationally mobile executives. It’s increasingly part of the baseline capability required at board level. 

Why comparative perspective matters

The value of international learning isn’t simply in directors acquiring knowledge of other regulatory regimes. Its deeper value lies in helping leaders to question assumptions and avoid defaulting to familiarity. 

When directors learn only with peers who share the same legal environment, market norms or cultural expectations, certain ideas can go unchallenged. But what feels like ‘the way boards work’ may in fact be only the way boards work in one particular context.  

Learning alongside directors from different jurisdictions can disrupt that. It allows leaders to hear their own environment described from the outside and to see familiar problems reframed through a different lens. That experience can be uncomfortable, but it’s also where some of the most valuable development happens.

A director wrestling with short-term performance pressure, for example, may find that the same tension between immediate results and long-term value creation exists across multiple markets. Another may discover that a governance challenge they’ve considered primarily through a domestic regulatory lens has been approached differently, and perhaps more effectively, elsewhere.

They need leaders who are not only technically capable, but also curious, adaptable and alert to the limits of their own assumptions.”

For boards, this breadth of perspective can sharpen decision-making. It encourages directors to look beyond inherited assumptions, test their thinking more rigorously and consider a wider range of consequences, before reaching a conclusion. In complex environments, that ability isn’t a soft benefit, it’s a core governance capability.

The role of peer learning

While formal content is important, some of the most powerful learning at director level comes from peer-to-peer interaction. 

A room of experienced directors, from different sectors, regulatory environments and organisational cultures, offers a kind of conversation and learning that simply can’t be replicated through theory alone. Every participant brings real boardroom judgement, practical dilemmas and lived experiences. 

For HR leaders deliberating development for senior leaders, this point is critical. The value of a programme isn’t only in the curriculum, but in the environment it creates. Who’s in the room? What perspectives are represented? Are participants being exposed to people who will challenge their assumptions, or only to those who will reinforce them?

The strongest peer learning environments allow directors to engage openly and honestly. IoD’s Global Certificate in Company Direction, as an example, is designed specifically to enable global leaders to share both expertise and experience in this way, which also creates professional networks that endure long beyond the programme itself. 

Adopting a more global approach to director development 

The gap between where boards operate and where they’re being developed is becoming harder to ignore. A domestic-centred approach may once have been sufficient for many organisations, but it’s increasingly misaligned with the realities of modern business operations. 

Boards need directors who can think across borders, understand different governance contexts and learn from peers whose experiences challenge their own. They need leaders who are not only technically capable, but also curious, adaptable and alert to the limits of their own assumptions. This is exactly what the IoD’s Global Certificate in Company Direction was designed to tackle. 

The boardroom may still be physically located in one place, but the decisions made there are shaped by forces that extend far beyond it. 

To find out more about IoD’s Global Certificate in Company Direction, visit: https://www.iod.com/professional-development/chartered-director-programme/global-certificate-in-company-direction/

Yet according to research only 18% of women say their workplace has a menopause policy in place(2). This is likely to change, however, as employers with over 250 employees are now being encouraged to design and implement a Menopause Action Plan, with the expectation that such a plan will be mandatory next year.

According to Dr Lucy Mather, GP and Founder of women’s healthcare and training specialists Jaya Life, the need for action around the impact of the menopause recognises that many companies employ women between the ages of 45 and 60 and that these individuals frequently hold important positions for their businesses. Many women affected by menopause issues have built significant careers, often they have been with their employer for some time and do excellent work, holding high profile roles, retaining important knowledge and skills for their businesses. And yet they can quickly find themselves struggling with work, their performance compromised through fatigue and brain fog, through absence or even through the negative impact of presenteeism.

“You need to have early recognition, proactive management and to offer women treatment options,” says Mather. “You need to allow the conversation to happen and to allow the conversation to happen, recognise it, remove embarrassment and create a culture where we are comfortable discussing how we feel.”

“Raising awareness is all well and good,” Mather continues, “but you need to be able to take the next steps – what can you do to get better and what can your employer do to help you access the support you need?”

Indeed even something as simple as visiting the GP can be a challenge for some working women, given inflexible working hours and the scarcity of appointments. Moreover, the consulting time offered by GPs may be inadequate to fully understand the individual’s experience and determine the kind of support or treatment they might need. Mather’s own approach allows for an hour long consultation which gives her patients the chance to fully explore what’s happening in their lives, to cover their health holistically and to explore treatment options.

Raising awareness is all well and good, but you need to be able to take the next steps.”

Valor Hospitality are currently developing their Menopause Action Plan, which will ultimately sit alongside their Gender Pay Gap action plan. Both of these initiatives are set to be embedded in the business prior to the mandatory date in 2027. 

Their employees split with 54% women, 16% of whom are in the age bracket of 45-55, so the company recognises it has a real responsibility to ensure this significant part of their workforce have the same opportunities to excel in their careers as others.

“We want to offer understanding to team members experiencing menopause and perimenopause, making sure we make adjustments where we can to support their needs to enable them to continue to excel in the workplace,” says Moira Laird, People and Culture Director at Valor Hospitality. “It isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach – we highlight a variety of potential options Valor Hospitality can support, with team members retaining control over the best course of action for them.”

Central to the company’s policy is the creation of a wellbeing action plan. This is a template that helps individuals identify symptoms, effective management strategies, and necessary support. Once made, the plan is reviewed periodically to ensure adjustments remain effective.

At wealth management and employee benefits service Mattioli Woods, Neelam Gill, Senior People Business Partner explains their Menopause in the Workplace Policy is grounded in employment law, recognising that menopause symptoms may trigger legal protections relating to sex, age, disability and gender reassignment under the Equality Act. “The policy sits alongside a suite of existing Mattioli Woods policies,” says Gill, “including our Health and Safety, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, Flexible Working, and Sickness Absence policies to ensure a consistent, legally informed and joined-up approach across the organisation.”

Gill states that the policy covers all employees regardless of role, working pattern or gender identity, and provides a clear framework for support at every stage – perimenopause, menopause and post-menopause.

“Employees can raise concerns confidentially with their line manager, HR, or another manager if they feel more comfortable doing so,” she says. “Where appropriate, they can also be referred to occupational health or our employee assistance programme.”

In terms of practical workplace adjustments, the policy includes provision such as temporary flexibility in working hours, start/finish times, break patterns, hybrid and home working where the role allows. These is also provision for access to cool drinking water, desk fans and improved ventilation. The company will also commit to temporary adjustments to duties, workload or performance targets wherever this helps the employee.

It is clear that employers must now go beyond simply raising awareness of menopause and instead implement real actions that will make a difference for those affected. As Mather points out real menopause action means training management in recognising and responding to employees who may have menopause related symptoms. “It’s not just another tick-box,” she says. “You need to realise the significant impact this has on employees, but also how women can benefit from getting the right kind of support at the right time.”

1. UK Government’s Menopause and the Workplace report: https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=9672cf45-5f13-4b69-8882-1e5e643ac8a6
2. Serenova: https://www.serenova.co.uk/blog/menopause-report-which-sectors-feel-most-supported?utm_source=press+release&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=menreportpress