Happy Thursday, everyone. I'm Frank Richardson, an organisational psychologist observing the workplace with curiosity and care. Each week, I share insights to help HR leaders better understand the people behind the processes and build cultures where both individuals and organisations can thrive.
This week in workplace whiplash 🌀
The workplace chaos machine kept spinning this week, serving up new scandals, legal drama and a few “HR cannot catch a break” moments:
💸 SHRM Hit With an $11M Jury Verdict
A jury found SHRM liable for racial discrimination and retaliation, awarding a former employee more than $11 million in damages. A catastrophic credibility moment for an organisation that literally trains others on workplace fairness.
👉 HR Dive🏢 Amazon Pays to Settle Flex Program Dispute
Amazon has agreed to pay $3.7M to resolve claims that its Seattle Flex Program violated worker protection laws. Thousands of workers are expected to receive compensation from one of the world’s most closely scrutinised employers.
👉 HR Grapevine US📊 NYC Expands Pay Transparency After Veto Override
New York City lawmakers have officially overridden Mayor Eric Adams’ veto, clearing the way for expanded pay reporting requirements that significantly step up transparency obligations for employers. HR teams in New York just received a major new compliance deadline.
👉 HR Dive
And all of it points to the same truth: people are paying far closer attention to how organisations behave than those organisations realise… starting with how they hire.
A friend of mine recently landed her dream job. But the part no one saw was how it started: with a rejection.
It wasn’t the usual corporate breakup message (“thank you for your interest… goodbye forever”), but a genuinely thoughtful note. It named what she’d done well, where she fell short and, crucially, what she could work on if she wanted to come back stronger. And she did.
She spent the next year building the exact skills the company had flagged, not because she was trying to impress them, but because the feedback made sense. She reapplied. This time, she got the job.
So when I read this piece in the Behavioral Scientist about how a firm called Affective Advisory rebuilt their hiring practices around trust, it all clicked. A rejected candidate literally went on LinkedIn to praise the firm Affective Advisory’s hiring process for being clear, respectful and well-run. Imagine liking a company enough to post about them after they say no. Their founder shared how they built a system where even unsuccessful applicants walked away feeling informed and valued.
Leaders often focus on the final hire, while candidates notice everything leading up to it. The experience they have along the way tends to paint a far more accurate picture of your culture than the offer letter at the end.
🧠The behavioural science lens
Trust in hiring isn’t a warm, fuzzy HR idea, it’s deeply behavioural:
Clarity is the first trust signal: Affective Advisory started by doing what 90% of organisations avoid: defining the role properly. Clear responsibilities, essential vs. desirable skills and transparent criteria all increased perceived fairness. This aligns with research showing that transparency boosts trust and commitment.
Structure beats gut feel: The science is ruthlessly consistent: structured interviews and work samples outperform unstructured chats every time. Research shows that structured methods are way more predictive and less biased. Think anonymised CVs, scoring candidates independently, and using consistent assessment tasks.
Real tasks reveal more than polished performances: Work samples are among the strongest predictors of future performance, especially when closely tied to the role. They cut through charm, nerves and interview theatre, giving you a glimpse of how someone actually thinks when no one is performing.
Silence is not neutral, it’s negative: Research shows that uncertainty intensifies how unfair a process feels. If candidates aren’t sure what’s happening, they assume the worst, not the most generous explanation. Affective Advisory flipped this on its head by clearly outlining timelines and updating candidates proactively.
Thoughtful rejection shapes both future behaviour and your reputation: When feedback is specific, actionable and fair, candidates are more likely to go away, build the skills you highlighted and come back stronger
🚀 What this means for leaders
Build hiring processes that people can navigate, not decode: Complex, inconsistent or unclear steps drain trust fast. When candidates spend more time interpreting your process than demonstrating their ability, you’re not actually assessing talent, you’re assessing tolerance. Clean, transparent workflows signal competence and respect long before an offer is made.
Don’t confuse candidate performance with candidate potential: Interviews reward confidence, polish and verbal dexterity, not necessarily the ability to learn or adapt. Leaders who separate “impressive in the room” from “effective in the role” make better long-term hires. Use methods that reveal how someone thinks, not how well they perform a script.
Treat every hiring round as feedback on your organisation: Candidates talk about how your process made them feel. Their stories shape your employer brand, maybe even more than marketing will. When the data (or the whispers) shows frustration, slow steps or uneven experiences, people won’t assume it’s a one-off.
Treat rejections as part of your talent pipeline: A thoughtful “no” today might be the reason someone comes back next year with sharper skills, deeper experience and perfect alignment with your needs. If you want long-term recruitment wins, build systems that help candidates understand where they missed, not just that they missed.
💬 Final thoughts
Hiring is one of the fastest ways people work out your real character. Candidates pick up on every tiny cue: the timing, the tone, the clarity, the chaos. They walk away with a story about you, and they repeat it far more often than you think.
I’ve seen candidates take clear feedback, upskill, and come back as the person you wish you’d hired the first time. Trust is built quietly, but it lasts.
How's the depth of today's edition?
If something here speaks to you, I’d love to hear it.
Until next week,
Frank
P.S. If you want to get a feature about your own story, reply to this email. If you’d like to reach our newsletter audience (founders, creators, and marketers), click the button below.
If you’re new here, I’m over the moon you’ve joined us! To help me craft content that’s actually useful (and not just noise in your inbox), I’d love it if you took 1 minute to answer this quick survey below. Your insights help shape everything I write.
✨ Insane Media is more than one voice
💡 Dive into our other newsletters - where psychology meets the founders, creator economy, e-commerce marketing, and AI founders.
