Happy Tuesday, 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 🌀
Three signals this week, all pointing to the same thing: work isn’t just changing, it’s becoming harder to read, from AI strategy at the top, to early careers at the bottom:
🤖 AI giants are reshuffling… but HR is sticking with what works
Microsoft and OpenAI are loosening their exclusivity, opening the door to more competition across AI platforms. But most HR teams aren’t chasing the “best” model, they’re using whatever is already embedded in their workflow, prioritising convenience and use cases over tech headlines.
👉HCA Mag📉 AI may already be flattening entry-level hiring
Former UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak says companies are quietly hiring fewer young workers as AI starts to replace early-career tasks, with some leaders believing they can grow without increasing headcount. The concern is that this may already be happening, not something off in the future.
👉BBC News🎓 Grads are trading salary for security
New data shows 67% of graduates would accept lower pay in exchange for job security, reflecting a more cautious, long-term mindset in an uncertain market. It’s a shift away from chasing the highest offer, toward finding something that feels stable enough to hold onto.
👉SHRM
And sitting underneath all of this is a shift in how people are positioning themselves at work, not just what they do, but how they’re seen…
🤝 This edition is kindly brought to you by Metaview
AI has blown up inbound applications. More volume. More noise. More right candidates getting missed.
Metaview's Application Review surfaces the 8% worth your time — and gets sharper with every decision your team makes.
"I picked it up fast and it kept getting sharper as I gave it feedback. It's a no-brainer." — Amandeep Shergill, TA Leader at Automattic
It has been a part of my role more times than I can count to run team days. Which, more often than not, means some version of a personality-style exercise or quiz.
You know the type: I’m a strategic, people-focused thinker who thrives in ambiguity, brings energy to teams, is working on boundaries, and is a proud cat mum.
I joke, but they’re actually very fun because there’s something genuinely satisfying about seeing yourself reflected back in a neat little framework.
What I’ve become more interested in though, isn’t the output of the personality exercise (sidenote: the MBTI is rarely a good choice), but how quickly the labels become part of how people are seen.
A few weeks later, you start to hear it woven into everyday conversation. “Jenny’s such a classic introvert.” “Pete’s a big picture person.”
At first, it sounds helpful, like a kind of shorthand. But over time, it starts to seep into culture in more subtle ways. No one explicitly decides that Jenny shouldn’t run the seminar, it just feels more natural to ask someone more extroverted. Pete gets pulled into all the visible stakeholder meetings, but is rarely asked to shape things when they are still being set up.
No one is making these decisions deliberately, they just start to feel obvious.
Used well, these kinds of insights should open things up. They should highlight where someone is comfortable, and where they might be ready to stretch. That’s the intention, anyway.
But in practice, they often end up narrowing the range instead.
🧠The behavioural science lens
There is a strong behavioural science explanation for why these tools, while useful in theory, can have unintended effects in practice:
Labels shape behaviour, not just describe it: Once a label is applied, it rarely stays neutral. What behavioural science refers to as labelling effects means those descriptions start to influence both how others interpret behaviour and how individuals see themselves. Over time, people often begin to align with the label, because it is easier than constantly pushing against it. “Tends to be” very quickly becomes “is,” and then quietly becomes expectation.
We treat personality as more stable than it actually is: Research shows that behaviour is highly context-dependent, even if we like to believe personality is fixed. The same person might be quiet in one setting and completely different in another where they feel more confident or in control. But once personality is formalised and shared, it tends to get treated as something stable, rather than something that shifts depending on the environment.
Confirmation bias reinforces the story we have already decided is true: Confirmation bias means we notice the moments that support what we already believe and overlook the ones that do not. If someone is seen as “not strategic,” their strategic contributions are more likely to be missed or discounted. Over time, the label starts doing most of the thinking for us.
Expectations quietly shape outcomes: The idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy explains how expectations shape behaviour in ways that make those expectations come true. If you are not seen as a natural presenter, you are less likely to be asked to present, which means you have fewer chances to build that skill. What starts as a description can gradually turn into a very real trajectory.
🚀What this means for leaders
Personality tools are not the problem. In many cases, they are genuinely useful. The difference comes down to how they are used. The best managers treat them as a starting point for development. Most workplaces, however, treat them as a shortcut for decision-making.
Use personality to stretch, not settle: A strong manager pays attention to where someone is most comfortable and uses that as a baseline, not a boundary. The goal is not to keep people operating within type, but to gradually expand what they are capable of.
Watch how quickly language turns into decisions: It is worth paying attention to how often personality becomes shorthand in everyday choices. Who presents. Who leads. Who gets asked to step in. These decisions often feel natural, but they are rarely neutral.
Create range, not just role clarity: People don’t need to become completely different versions of themselves, but they do need opportunities to operate outside of how they have been labelled.
Interrogate patterns, not just preferences: If the same people consistently take on the same types of work, it is worth asking whether that reflects genuine preference or simply reinforced expectation over time.
Have personality labels at work ever shaped what you get asked to do?
💬 Final thoughts
Personality frameworks are meant to expand how people show up at work.
At their best, they give people language, confidence, and a starting point for development. But that only works if they are used to stretch people, not sort them.
The moment a label starts shaping opportunity, it stops being insight, and starts to become a ceiling.
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.
