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 🌀
From human quotas to leadership illusions, the world of work is spinning through another week of bold claims and quiet reckonings.
🌐 Will “Human Quotas” Be the Next Frontier in Workforce Diversity?
Gartner analysts predict that by 2032, major economies could require minimum levels of human involvement in AI-driven roles. It’s a provocative idea that reframes diversity to include humans themselves.
👉 SBAMBeware the “Romance of Leadership”
The Economist warns that our obsession with charismatic leaders can backfire. When followers idealise a “super-leader,” scrutiny fades, accountability slips, and groupthink sets in, leaving organisations blinded by charm.
👉 The Economist😂 Laughing All the Way to the Top
New research shows humour isn’t just a personality perk, it’s a leadership asset. Teams led by people who use humour effectively report stronger engagement, trust, and performance.
👉 RBJ
All this talk of leadership, loyalty, and accountability feels familiar, and nowhere is that tension playing out more publicly than in the royal family.
I once worked in a team with someone who was, by all accounts, a disaster with people.
Brilliant at his technical niche, yes. But he was rude, belittling, and so notorious for burning through direct reports that HR quietly made it official: he wasn’t allowed to manage anyone.
We all knew it. Leadership knew it. And somehow, he stayed.
What didn’t stay was everyone else. One by one, the decent people left. Not because of the workload. Because of him.
Watching the royal family finally cut Prince Andrew loose had that same energy: a powerful insider whose presence had become reputationally expensive, culturally corrosive, and impossible to justify in public. After years of scandal and internal pressure, Prince Andrew has reportedly agreed to relinquish his Duke of York title and give up remaining honours as the monarchy moves to protect its brand. He denies wrongdoing, but his quiet removal is less about performance than it is about power and ego being shielded for too long.
Different scale. Same pattern. Eventually, a team has to decide: do we keep protecting the powerful, or do we protect everyone else?
So why do so many companies get that decision wrong for so long?
🤝 Supported by Leapsome
The 2026 Workforce Trends Report distills insights from 2,400 employees, managers, and HR leaders into practical strategies you can act on. Learn how to address disengagement behind retention, close critical skills gaps, enable AI adoption, and rebuild organizational trust. Stay ahead of what’s shaping HR in 2026 with research-backed guidance for People teams.
🧠 The Behavioural Science Lens
Before we scream “leadership cowardice,” it’s worth naming the psychology at play. There are a few repeatable patterns here.
The “too valuable to fire” trap: Leaders often believe they can’t touch the difficult high performer because “we need them.” There’s always a story: they’re close to the client, they know the systems, they bring in money. Harvard Business Review calls this the “toxic rockstar” problem. Companies tolerate someone who hits numbers while wrecking morale. Short-term output gets overvalued; the social cost gets ignored.
Moral licensing and legacy ego: We tell ourselves, “Yes, he’s difficult, but look at everything he’s done for us.” That’s classic moral licensing: past contributions or status are used to justify present-day behaviour. Legacy becomes a shield, especially when removing the person would expose leadership’s own blind spots.
Toxicity spreads faster than talent: The uncomfortable truth: it’s cheaper to lose one powerful figure than to lose everyone they alienate. A MIT Sloan Management Review study found toxic culture was 10 times more predictive of turnover than pay. People don’t leave for money first, they leave because the environment feels unsafe, unfair, or hypocritical.
Silence looks like safety to leadership (and like surrender to everyone else): Executives often convince themselves they’re “containing” the problem. They quietly pull the person out of sight, limit their exposure, or redefine their role. That’s essentially what the palace is doing now with Andrew: reducing visibility to preserve credibility. Forbes notes that leaders avoid confrontation because they fear escalation, but avoidance creates a slow leak of trust across the organisation. What feels “strategic” at the top feels like surrender everywhere else.
🚀 What This Means for Leaders (and HR)
Don’t confuse power with value: Influence and tenure can look like irreplaceability, but they rarely are. Protecting someone because they’re loud, long-standing, or politically connected corrodes fairness faster than any scandal will.
Make accountability visible, not whispered: Teams judge fairness by what happens to the people everyone knows are toxic. Quietly moving someone sideways without naming why signals that bad behaviour is survivable if you’re powerful enough.
Contain (if you have to), but don’t coddle: Sometimes you don’t fire them; you limit their reach. This isn’t a favour, it’s about setting limits that protect everyone else. People need to see that consequences still exist, even when the person is powerful, or technically brilliant.
💬 Final Thoughts
Most workplaces have their own Prince Andrew. The “untouchable” whose behaviour is tolerated because of money, power, history, or ego.
The longer leaders ignore a problem person, the clearer the message becomes: loyalty matters more than integrity. And eventually, everyone else takes that message as their cue to leave.
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.
