City St George's Organisational Psychology Group Blog

By Caroline White (24-25)

Why Leadership Well-Being Matters

In today’s high-speed, always-connected working world, leaders are under immense pressure. They’re expected to meet ambitious business goals, manage dispersed teams across time zones, and stay calm under strain — all while modelling resilience and compassion. Over time, this relentless pace can erode well-being, leaving even the most capable leaders drained and disengaged.

Research consistently shows that leadership behaviour is one of the most powerful influences on employee mental health, motivation, and performance (Arnold, 2017; Skakon et al., 2010). Leaders not only shape the psychological safety of their teams — that shared sense of trust that makes it safe to speak up, make mistakes, and learn (Edmondson, 1999) — but also set the tone for recovery and balance. How a leader behaves, communicates, and manages pressure creates ripple effects across the organisation (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017).

Recognising this, Company-X introduced Thrive — a two-day leadership development programme designed to help leaders promote psychological safety and healthy recovery from work. Grounded in organisational psychology and occupational health research, Thrive combines evidence-based teaching with practical reflection to encourage well-being-centred leadership. But training alone doesn’t always guarantee change. My MSc dissertation explored what actually happens when leaders return to work: what enables or prevents them from applying what they learned?

About the Research

I interviewed fifteen leaders from different divisions of Company-X. in a fast-paced, international, remote-working environment. Using qualitative analysis, I identified five key themes that reveal the real-world barriers and enablers that shape whether training translates into meaningful, sustained change.

What We Found

1. Thrive Felt Like a Cultural Turning Point

For many participants, Thrive was more than a training course — it was a statement. Leaders saw it as a visible symbol of Company-X’s commitment to employee well-being and a shift towards more “human” leadership. One participant described it as “a licence to prioritise well-being,” while another said it “gave us permission to lead with empathy.”

This echoes existing research showing that training acts as a signal of organisational values and strengthens employees’ sense of psychological contract — the unwritten expectations that shape trust and engagement (Manuti et al., 2015; Collins & Beauregard, 2020). By dedicating time and resources to Thrive, Company-X communicated that well-being wasn’t just rhetoric — it was an organisational priority.

2. The Delivery Design Really Worked

Thrive’s delivery format — interactive, reflective, and psychologically safe — was one of its strongest assets. Participants described it as “one of the best training experiences” they’d had, praising its blend of group discussion, practical exercises, and personal reflection.

The “letter to self,” where participants wrote a message to revisit months later, was frequently cited as transformative. One leader said:

“I’ve gone back to that letter several times when things felt overwhelming — it reminded me why this mattered.”

This experiential approach aligns with constructivist learning theory, which emphasises that people learn best through active participation, reflection, and real-world relevance (Bell & Kozlowski, 2009; Salas et al., 2012). The social dimension mattered too. Leaders valued connecting with peers across departments — an opportunity rarely available in their busy, siloed roles. These cross-company conversations built shared understanding and reinforced a sense of belonging.

3. But Pressure Didn’t Disappear Outside the Classroom

Despite enthusiasm, most leaders admitted that implementing Thrive principles was challenging once they returned to daily demands. Persistent workload pressures, client expectations, and lack of time made it difficult to sustain new behaviours.

As one participant reflected:

“Thrive told us it’s okay to recover, but the workload hasn’t changed.”

This tension between intent and systemic constraint was a recurring theme. The course encouraged recovery, reflection, and openness — but without corresponding structural support, many found these ideals difficult to sustain. These findings echo broader occupational health research: job demands, limited control, and lack of recovery opportunities can erode well-being and block transfer (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Gonzalez-Mulé & Cockburn, 2020).

4. Leadership Follow-Through Is Everything

If one factor determined whether Thrive’s lessons endured, it was leadership modelling. Teams thrived when managers actively demonstrated what the programme taught — showing vulnerability, taking recovery seriously, and talking openly about well-being.

One participant noted:

“It helps when you see your boss doing it too. It makes it real.”

This aligns with decades of evidence showing that supervisor support and role-modelling are the most powerful predictors of training transfer (Blume et al., 2010; Grossman & Salas, 2011). In Company-X, when senior leaders consistently reinforced Thrive’s principles, positive momentum spread. Conversely, when managers ignored or contradicted the messages, participants felt disillusioned.

Authenticity emerged as key: “If leaders don’t live it,” said one participant, “people see right through it.”

5. One-and-Done Training Isn’t Enough

Even the most inspiring training fades without reinforcement. Many leaders described how enthusiasm dissipated after a few months due to the absence of follow-up, feedback, or accountability mechanisms.

“We started strong, but then it just stopped — no refresher, no reminder, no check-in.”

This pattern is well documented in research on “skill decay.” Without ongoing support, newly learned behaviours decline sharply over time — sometimes by as much as 90% within a year (Arthur et al., 1998; Wang et al., 2013). Participants suggested several solutions: shorter, spaced-out sessions; peer discussion groups; and integration of Thrive principles into performance reviews and team rituals.

Turning Insight into Action

So, what can organisations learn from this research? The findings paint a clear picture: training can spark awareness and signal care, but sustained change requires alignment across individual, leadership, and systemic levels.

For Organisations

• Make well-being visible and continuous. Offer structured follow-ups, refreshers, and feedback loops that reinforce learning over time.
• Reward what you value. Align recognition and promotion systems with well-being-supportive leadership behaviours.
• Empower leaders to act. Give managers realistic autonomy and time to practise well-being principles.
• Model from the top. When executives visibly prioritise health and safety, others feel permitted to do the same (Dollard & Bakker, 2009).

For Leaders

• Create psychological safety. Encourage open dialogue and compassion, especially in high-pressure environments (Edmondson, 1999).
• Model recovery. Show that taking breaks and setting boundaries isn’t weakness — it’s sustainable leadership.
• Reflect often. Revisit your learning goals and use reflection tools (like Thrive’s “letter to self”) to stay accountable.

Final Thoughts

Thrive represents a promising step towards embedding psychological safety and recovery into leadership practice. Participants described it as “refreshing,” “human,” and “necessary” — a sign that the organisation is serious about well-being. But as this study reveals, training alone cannot change culture. True transformation happens when learning is reinforced by systems, supported by leaders, and sustained over time.

Or, as one participant eloquently put it:

“It’s not the course that changes culture — it’s what we do next.”

Image from reallearning.com

By Dilanaz Ercan (24-25)

We’ve all been there. You wake up Monday morning, and your first thought is either “I’m excited to tackle this week” or “How can I get through another day with this manager?” The difference often comes down to one crucial factor: leadership style.

Recent research reveals a stark reality about UK workplaces. According to Gallup’s 2024 State of the Global Workplace report, only 21% of employees globally feel engaged at work, while in the UK specifically, employee engagement sits at just 10% (Gallup, 2025). Even more concerning, 82% of UK employees don’t trust their manager to tell the truth (People Insight, 2025). These statistics paint a troubling picture, but they also highlight an enormous opportunity for organizations willing to invest in better leadership.

The Research Behind Leadership Impact

My recent study, conducted with 15 UK employees across various industries, explored how different leadership styles impact day-to-day work experiences. What emerged was a clear pattern: the way managers lead doesn’t just influence productivity—it fundamentally shapes employee well-being, creativity, and job satisfaction.

The research identified three primary leadership approaches that employees encounter: transformational leaders who inspire and develop their teams, democratic leaders who involve employees in decision-making, and transactional leaders who focus on clear targets and rewards. Each style creates dramatically different workplace experiences.

Transformational Leadership: The Clear Winner

Transformational leadership consistently produced the most positive outcomes. These managers don’t just assign tasks—they create meaning. They help employees understand how their work contributes to something bigger and support individual growth through what researchers call “individualized consideration” (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

One participant described their transformational manager: “She doesn’t just tell us what to do, she explains why it matters and how our work contributes to something bigger. When I’m stuck on a problem, she asks questions that help me think differently rather than just giving me the answer.” This aligns perfectly with Self-Determination Theory, which shows that when employees feel autonomous, competent, and connected to others, they experience higher levels of intrinsic motivation and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Transformational leaders naturally support these psychological needs.

The Democratic Advantage

Democratic leadership showed strong positive effects, particularly in building psychological safety. When employees feel their voices are heard and their expertise valued, they become more invested in outcomes. The Job Demands-Resources model explains why this works: democratic leadership acts as a crucial job resource, helping employees manage workplace pressures while feeling empowered rather than controlled (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). However, employees noted that while democratic leadership created steady engagement, it sometimes lacked the inspirational spark of transformational approaches.

The Limits of Transactional Leadership

Transactional leadership usually generates good results in the short term. There are clear mechanisms, that mobilize employees towards certain goals. Goals and rewards are completely clear to workers. However, most respondents indicated that there was an increase in workplace stress. They also had much lower personal control. One participant commented on transactional leadership patterns as follows: “You are always asking for desired results and responses.” Sometimes the approach seems overly mechanistic, however. This system doesn’t allow for a lot of creative thinking either. Transactional leadership clarifies and applies discipline to the workplace. At the same time, it reduces motivation and creativity. This result is consistent with motivational research. Extrinsic control takes away motivation and creativity (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Transaction systems can boost short term results in the long term, commitment, and sustainable performance decreases. Interior drives are weakened by being controlled from the outside.

The Context Matters

One interesting result of the study is that effectiveness of leadership is not only a matter of style, but heavily influenced by context. Experiences in leadership are affected by organizational culture, external pressure, and by individual preference. Transactional leadership can introduce order and predictability which may be useful in stressful situations (e.g., emergency services or finance). In contrast, workers in creative areas such as design or technology will have the optimal working conditions when leaders provide autonomy, inspiration, and the opportunity for creativity. Lastly, the best leaders are never distinguished by just one leadership style. Instead, they learn how to exercise the translation of transactional clarity to inspirational transformation in every colleague event and need. Leadership is therefore not a static model to be studied, but an elastic process that is dynamic and contextual.

What This Means for Organizations

Organizational context is critical to leadership effectiveness. Individual preferences and outside pressures are all important. Organizational culture can have a powerful impact on leadership style effectiveness. Transactional leadership is mostly effective in crisis situations. Emergency services and finance deal with predictability Creative industries need an entirely different style of leadership. Design and technology workers must be working autonomously. They work well under inspirational and transformational leadership. Great leaders never use one technique. They adjust their style to meet the needs of a colleague. They transform clarity of transaction to clarity of transformation. Leadership is a changing and situational process. It cannot be studied as a static model. The best leaders are agile and reactive.

The Bottom Line

With managers accounting for 70% of the variance in team engagement (Primeast, 2025), leadership isn’t just a nice-to-have—it’s a business-critical capability. The cost of poor leadership extends far beyond individual dissatisfaction. Disengaged employees are less productive, less innovative, more likely to leave, and more prone to stress-related health issues.

But here’s the encouraging news: leadership can be learned and improved. The employees I interviewed didn’t want superhuman managers—they wanted leaders who showed genuine interest in their development, communicated clearly about expectations and changes, and treated them as whole people rather than just resources.

In an era where talent retention is crucial and employee well-being is finally being recognized as fundamental to sustainable performance, investing in leadership development isn’t optional—it’s essential.

References

Bakker, A.B. & Demerouti, E. (2007) ‘The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art’, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), pp. 309-328.

Bass, B.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1994) Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2000) ‘The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior’, Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), pp. 227-268.

Gallup (2025) State of the Global Workplace: 2025 Report. Available at: https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx (Accessed: 29 August 2025).

People Insight (2025) Employee engagement statistics 2025. Available at: https://peopleinsight.co.uk/employee-engagement-statistics/ (Accessed: 29 August 2025).

Primeast (2025) 59 employee engagement statistics for 2025. Available at: https://primeast.com/insights/employee-engagement-statistics/ (Accessed: 29 August 2025).

Real Learning. (2022, November 15). What is your leadership style and how is it impacting performance? [Image]. Real Learning.      

What is your leadership style and how is it impacting performance?

By Natalie Giles (24-25)

Introduction

Career change has become increasingly common in today’s working life.  Many people aim to leave established careers in the hope of working in jobs that offer greater meaning, satisfaction and align better with their personal values.  Postgraduate study is often viewed as a route into these new careers, which offers the opportunity to gain new learning, professional integrity and entry into expert jobs.

Organisational Psychology (OP) is a growing area that attracts many people who are trying to make a career change from fields such as human resources, recruitment and management.  It is recognised to offer a combination of intellectually inspiring, evidence-based practice, with the opportunity to improve employees’ wellbeing and performance.  Although there is limited research that examines how postgraduate students actually experience this career change and whether the expectations they hold are met with the realities of entering OP roles.  

Exploring the Lived Experience

A qualitative research design was used to explore the lived experiences of people transitioning into OP through postgraduate study.  Ten students participated in semi-structured interviews consisting of 10 questions.  This consisted of seven women and three men, aged between 30 and 60, who had graduated more than five years ago. The interviews encouraged participants to reflect on their motivations, expectations, challenges and the realities of their career change.  The findings revealed three main themes, Career Change Expectations, Traversing the Career Change and Career Change Reality.

Key Findings

Career Change Expectations

Participants began their postgraduate study with optimism.  Many expected an easy, straightforward career change into OP where they could use their new learning to help organisational challenges, especially in areas including learning and development, wellbeing or culture change.  Student motivations were frequently based on values, authenticity, purpose and alignment with their personal and professional identity.

Some of the postgraduate students were seeking a resolution to unhappiness in previous careers, particularly in roles which lacked depth or meaning. The qualification was expected to provide knowledge and a new professional identity, which would lead to accessing new professional opportunities.  However, the student’s expectations often underestimated the challenges, including the ambiguity of OP roles and the competitiveness of the job market.

Traversing the Change

The students experienced the process of career change as difficult and complicated.  Participants recalled substantial financial implications, including loss of income, reduced job security and challenges regarding balancing study with family or prior work commitments.  Even after completing their postgraduate studies, many were confronted with few job opportunities or low-paid entry-level positions.

The barriers which the students faced were both structural and social.  A significant difficulty was the lack of clarity in OP job descriptions, with job titles differing largely and rarely referencing OP skills.  The role requirement of prior experience also created an issue due to candidates needing to gain OP experience to gain OP roles, yet there were limited opportunities to gain that experience.

Additionally, some participants reported encountering sexism, classism and contempt from employees with more experience in OP.  Those without an undergraduate degree in psychology sometimes felt particularly marginalised.  These barriers contributed to frustration and self-doubt, extending the career change period and challenging the participants’ sense of legitimacy.

Career Change Reality

The eventual reality was characterised by less straightforward entry into OP positions and more creative adaptation.  Many participants entered adjacent roles in HR r consultancy and then sought to incorporate OP principles into their work.  This process of job crafting allowed them to shape their responsibilities to reflect their training and interests.

Identity reconstruction was gradual.  While some initially avoided using the title Organisational Psychologist most eventually became more comfortable identifying with it.  Identity development was often internally validated through the application of OP concepts and values in practice, instead of externally recognised job titles.  Over time, the participants developed a stronger sense of belonging to the discipline, though often through indirect routes.

Practical Recommendations

This study carries important implications for stakeholders in education, employment and career development.

Universities and Educational Providers

Postgraduate programmes could provide realistic career examples, including up-to-date job market information, the variations in OP job titles and illustrations of typical career development routes.  Practical learning opportunities, including placements and consultancy projects, are vital in helping students bridge the gap in experience.  Supporting students with professional identity development could also be included in the programmes.

Employers and Professional Organisations

More clarity is required in defining OP roles and creating a structured process for entry into OP.  Employers need to recognise the importance of postgraduate training while guaranteeing fair access to opportunities for everyone.  Professional organisations could support new recruits through mentoring, networks and clearer communication about the opportunities in this field.

Prospective Students and Career Changers

Students need to anticipate indirect career change and be equipped for financial and professional challenges.  Having resilience, adaptability and job crafting skills will be crucial for success in this career change.  Building relevant experience during study, through internships, voluntary work or applied projects can help to bridge the gap between qualification and employment.

Conclusion

This research shows that changing career into OP through study is a complex and often non-linear process.  While participants were strongly motivated by values and a desire for meaningful work, their expectations of straightforward entry were rarely realised.  Alternatively, the career change needed financial awareness, resilience and the ability to craft roles.

This research explains that professional identity in OP is not only achieved through academic qualifications but is slowly created through practice, adjustment and reflection.  For postgraduate students, success is achieved by gaining knowledge and the ability to navigate ambiguity, overcoming structural barriers and developing a professional identity over time.

By highlighting both the difficulties and the strategies for overcoming career change, this research provides important recommendations for universities, employers and students.  It emphasises the requirement of realistic preparation, clearer routes into OP and inclusive practices to ensure that postgraduate study can be more closely associated with the realities of career changing into OP.

Bibliography

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.

Carless, S. A., & Arnup, J. L. (2011). A longitudinal study of the determinants and outcomes of career change. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2010.09.002

Cohen, L., Duberley, J., & Mallon, M. (2004). Social constructionism in the study of career: Accessing the parts that other approaches cannot reach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(3), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.12.007

Foo, M., & Green, A. (2021). Developing professional identity: The role of work placements in postgraduate psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(3), 512–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000506

Ibarra, H. (2005). Identity transitions: Possible selves, liminality and the dynamics of voluntary career change. INSEAD Working Paper.

Jackson, D., & Tomlinson, M. (2020). Career values and proactive career behaviour among contemporary higher education students. Journal of Education and Work, 33(2), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2020.1719568

Mainiero, L. A., & Sullivan, S. E. (2005). Kaleidoscope careers: An alternate explanation for the “opt-out” revolution. Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 106–123. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2005.15841962

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954

Mussagulova, A., Kanar, A. M., & De Vos, A. (2023). The reality gap in career transitions: A longitudinal study of career expectations versus outcomes. Career Development Quarterly, 71(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12314

Petriglieri, G. (2011). Identity workspaces for leadership development. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(4), 644–663. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0205

Riordan, C. M., & Goodman, E. A. (2007). The social psychology of career success: A dual process model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8), 1101–1126. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.449

Savickas, M. L. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 42–70). John Wiley & Sons.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378011

Zhang, F., & Parker, S. K. (2019). Reorienting job crafting research: A hierarchical structure of job crafting concepts and integrative review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2332

By: Thomas M. Hayward (24-25

Topic Background

It is no secret that artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing the landscape of work and organisational functions. One organisational function which AI has begun dramatically developing is selection and assessment. 2025 estimates from the World Economic Forum find 88% of organisations to now be using AI to screen job candidates, and with the current graduate job market at its worst in 7 years, it is essential to consider the impact that AI evaluations have on job candidates. One especially important way that AI implementation is impacting candidates is their fairness perceptions. While any good organisation should consider fair and equal treatment of their job applicants, candidate fairness perceptions of selection processes can make crucial differences to successful acquisition of top talent. This is because poor candidate fairness perceptions can increase attrition rates, reduce job offer acceptance, create litigation risk, and cause reputational damage that deters future applicants.

Current research within this area indicates that AI implementation within the selection process poses a threat to candidates’ fairness perceptions because of some key differences between the ways that AI and humans operate. Firstly, while AI presents opportunities for more consistent and objective evaluations than humans, it also has to quantify all information. This reductive process can lead to concerns over AI’s ability to appreciate contextual information, with candidates feeling less opportunity to demonstrate their unique strengths, personality, and interpersonal skills, ultimately reducing their sense of control over how they are perceived. Furthermore, candidates also have concerns about the low levels of transparency around how AI operates. This is known as the black box problem, whereby, as humans, we can see what AI is given and what it produces, but we cannot easily see or understand the decision-making process in between. This makes it hard for candidates to trust the fairness and accuracy of AI evaluations within a selection process.

Additional cause for concern comes from recent research indicating that, while AI appears to be seen as equal to or fairer than humans when making data-intensive evaluations, this is not the case when it comes to more subjective evaluations, such as hiring decisions.  Although the research is mixed, multiple academic studies indicate that when AI is used within selection processes, it is perceived as less fair than humans. However, clear gaps remain in the current research. Little attention has been paid to how the outcomes of selection processes influence AI fairness perceptions. Many studies rely on hypothetical vignettes rather than simulations or real selection scenarios. Additionally, the use of situational judgment tests (SJTs), one of the most widely used assessment methods in recruitment, has been largely overlooked. Therefore, this study aimed to further add to the field of research by addressing these gaps and helping to reconcile conflictual findings.

Study Design

170 participants were recruited for the two-part study, 61% of which were female, with a mean age of 33. In part one participants completed a simulation of a job application, in which they were asked to imagine they were applying for a desired job. This part involved a professional profile (brief description of their most recent job or qualification), an SJT, and demographic information. At the end of part one they completed a short questionnaire which assessed their fairness perception of the process, known as procedural justice. 24 hours later, participants received part-two of the study, in this they received an outcome from part-one (successful or unsuccessful), and they were told that their application had been evaluated by either AI or a human. These two pieces of information were both randomly allocated and fictional, however participants were not made aware of this to enhance the realism of the simulation. This created four experimental groups: AI-Successful, AI-Unsuccessful, Human-Successful, Human-Unsuccessful. Finally, to assess any changes in procedural justice, they completed the same procedural fairness questionnaire, and an additional questionnaire which assessed their fairness perception of the outcome regardless of the process, known as distributive justice.

Key Findings

Analysis of the data indicated that outcome type had a significant effect on both measures of fairness. Unsuccessful participants showed both a significant reduction in procedural justice and lower distributive justice. While the type of evaluator did not matter for fairness perceptions of outcomes, it did for perceptions of the process. This was shown by a significantly larger decrease in fairness perceptions of the process for the AI-Unsuccessful group compared to the Human-Unsuccessful group. Additionally, procedural justice scores did not change for successful participants in either the AI or human group. This indicates that evaluator type may be less important when delivering favourable outcomes, however, when delivering unfavourable outcomes, candidates may view the selection process as less fair if evaluated by AI compared to a human.

Key Implications

The findings from this study highlight key implications for the use of AI within selection and assessment. Importantly, it appears that candidates’ fairness perceptions of AI are not static, they depend on the type of fairness being assessed and, crucially, the favourability of the selection outcome. The damage to procedural justice perceptions within the AI-Unsuccessful group demonstrates the potential risk that organisations are exposed to when utilising AI evaluations, therefore, to maintain high-quality talent acquisition, steps should be taken to mitigate these impacts on fairness. Firstly, as a core element of AI fairness perceptions, organisations should take steps to improve transparency around AI use; this could be done through communication of when and how AI is used. They could also share information, such as an audit, that verifies their AI models’ accuracy and unbiased decision-making. Organisations should also carefully decide how unfavourable outcomes are communicated to candidates, good practice would likely include detailed explanations of how rejections were decided. Furthermore, selection processes should be piloted and tested to ensure candidates demonstrate acceptable perceptions of fairness before implementation, organisations should also continually monitor fairness perceptions to ensure they are maintained at a good standard.

By Maria Alejandra Mussfeldt Rizzo (24-25)

Work–life balance has become one of the biggest challenges facing employees today (Brough et al., 2022; Kalliath & Brough, 2008). It is common for employees to go home after a long day only to find out that work has followed them back through emails, unrealistic deadlines, and the constant pressure of unfinished work (Kelly et al., 2020; Maslach, 2003). At the same time, family and personal responsibilities, and the need for rest continue to demand attention. This ongoing struggle to meet the expectations of both work and personal life can have a serious impact on how satisfied people feel in their jobs (Kossek et al., 2011; Haar et al., 2014).

Most existing research on work-life balance has focused on developed Western countries, where supportive labour policies are more common (Eiffe, 2021; Lapuerta et al., 2011). But in places like Ecuador, long working hours, limited flexibility, and traditional gender expectations often shape people’s experiences in ways that aren’t usually studied (Idrovo Carlier et al., 2012; Chioda, 2016). My research set out to compare these two contexts. My aim was to understand how culture and workplace practices influence both work-life balance and job satisfaction. 

I conducted an online survey with 133 employees across both countries. The survey asked how satisfied they felt with work-life balance, how often work interfered with family, whether they had flexibility to take time off, and how frequently they were contacted about work outside (ISSP, 2012; ISSP, 2024). I also asked participants about work centrality, meaning how important work was to their identity (Paullay et al., 1994; Kanungo, 1982). For some people, work is the most important thing in their lives and gives them a lot of meaning. For others, it is not a main priority (Moser & Ashforth, 2021).

Employees who were more satisfied with their work-life balance also reported being more satisfied with their jobs (Haar et al., 2014; Noda, 2020). When people felt that work was constantly interfering with their family or personal responsibilities, their job satisfaction dropped. However, those who felt supported in managing both roles were more positive about their jobs and more engaged with their roles. Moreover, this did not mean that balance was less important. Even the most work-focused individuals experienced lower satisfaction when balance was poor, suggesting that valuing work does not make someone immune to the strain of competing demands.

The differences between genders were not as obvious as expected. Nevertheless, cultural context was important. Women in Ecuador reported worse work-life balance than men, reflecting strong traditional gender roles and expectations (Chant, 2002; Basham, 1976). Many felt they could not find balance because of this double responsibility, also referred to as the “double burden” (Horner, 1990; Berniell et al., 2023). The difference between men and women was smaller in Spain, potentially because of more progressive policies and changing ideas about mutual parental responsibility (Escobedo & Wall, 2015). It is interesting that there were not any statistically significant differences in overall job satisfaction between men and women, but the results still show how cultural expectations affect how employees feel about balance (Meeussen & Van Laar, 2018).

Work-life balance is not just a personal issue for employees to solve. It is a workplace issue that directly affects job satisfaction, wellbeing, and productivity (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985; Allen et al., 2013). Organisations who ignore this can risk having employees who are disengaged, stressed, and unhappy (Maslach, 2003). Organisations who take it seriously will see better moods, engagement, and stronger performance (Boamah et al., 2022).

Companies can take real steps to help. One way is to set clear rules about working hours and limit after-hours communication to what is necessary (De Bloom et al., 2015). Studies show that workers who can properly disconnect come back more motivated and productive. Flexible work arrangements are another valuable tool (Lewis, 2003; Wheatley, 2017). Allowing employees to adjust their hours or location helps them balance responsibilities, lowers stress, and increases satisfaction. It is equally important to offer inclusive parental leave and childcare support, especially to help women who often face greater family responsibilities (Haas & Rostgaard, 2011; Bainbridge & Townsend, 2020). Making sure that both mothers and fathers can take time off without stigma encourages equal sharing of responsibilities and supports long-term gender equality at work (Grotto & Andreassi, 2024).

Organisations should also encourage employees to use their annual leave and disconnect fully during holidays (Schwartz & McCarthy, 2010). Coverage systems, where coworkers share duties, can reduce the anxiety of work piling up while people are away (Randell et al., 2010). Lastly, managers need to recognise that not all employees see work as the most important thing in their lives. Some thrive on career development opportunities, while others value flexibility more (Eccles, 2009). Tailoring support to these differences can make workplaces more inclusive and supportive (Anttila et al., 2015).

The comparison between Spain and Ecuador shows why context matters (Idrovo Carlier et al., 2012). Policies and workplace cultures cannot simply be copied from one country to another without considering cultural expectations (Aycan, 2008). In Spain, laws protect workers, but culture can sometimes make it hard to benefit fully (La Barbera & Lombardo, 2019). In Ecuador, policies are less developed, and traditional values mean women in particular still face greater difficulties (Chioda, 2016). One-size-fits-all solutions rarely work. Strategies need to be adapted to cultural and gender dynamics to foster real balance and satisfaction (Brown et al., 2021).

My research confirms that work-life balance is related to job satisfaction for both men and women and across different cultures (Haar et al., 2014). It also shows that valuing work highly can make people happier at work, but this does not replace the need for balance (Mannheim et al., 1997). By supporting employees to meet both professional and personal demands, organisations can improve satisfaction, engagement, and long-term performance (Brough et al., 2022). In a world where stress, burnout, and disengagement are common, supporting work-life balance is a necessity (Maslach, 2003). Every company should remember that when work-life balance gets better, so does job satisfaction.

References

Allen, T. D., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2014). Work–family conflict among members of full-time dual-earner couples: An examination of family life stage, gender, and age. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(3), 376–386.

Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 278–308.

Allen, T. D., Johnson, R. C., Kiburz, K. M., & Shockley, K. M. (2013). Work–family conflict and flexible work arrangements: Deconstructing flexibility. Personnel Psychology, 66(2), 345–376.

Anttila, T., Oinas, T., Tammelin, M., & Nätti, J. (2015). Working-time regimes and work-life balance in Europe. European Sociological Review, 31(6), 713–724.

Aycan, Z. (2008). Cross-cultural approaches to work-family conflict. In K. Korabik, D. Lero, & D. Whitehead (Eds.), Handbook of work-family integration (pp. 353–370). Academic Press.

Bainbridge, H. T., & Townsend, K. (2020). The effects of offering flexible work practices to employees with unpaid caregiving responsibilities. Human Resource Management, 59(5), 483–495.

Basham, R. (1976). Machismo. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 1(2), 126–143.

Berniell, I., Berniell, L., de la Mata, D., Edo, M., & Marchionni, M. (2023). Motherhood and flexible jobs: Evidence from Latin American countries. World Development, 167, 106225.

Boamah, S. A., Hamadi, H. Y., Havaei, F., Smith, H., & Webb, F. (2022). Striking a balance between work and play: The effects of work–life interference and burnout on faculty turnover intentions and career satisfaction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(2), 809.

Brough, P., Timms, C., Chan, X. W., Hawkes, A., & Rasmussen, L. (2022). Work–life balance: Definitions, causes, and consequences. In T. Theorell (Ed.), Handbook of socioeconomic determinants of occupational health (pp. 473–487). Springer.

Brown, H., Kim, J. S., & Faerman, S. R. (2021). The influence of societal and organizational culture on the use of work-life balance programs: A comparative analysis of the United States and the Republic of Korea. The Social Science Journal, 58(1), 62–76.

Chant, S. (2002). Researching gender, families and households in Latin America. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 21(4), 547–575.

Chioda, L. (2016). Work and family: Latin American and Caribbean women in search of a new balance. World Bank Group.

De Bloom, J., Kinnunen, U., & Korpela, K. (2015). Recovery processes during and after work: Associations with health, work engagement, and job performance. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 57(7), 732–742.

Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89.

Eiffe, F. (2021). Eurofound’s reference framework: Sustainable work over the life course in the EU. European Journal of Workplace Innovation, 6(1), 67–83.

Escobedo, A., & Wall, K. (2015). Leave policies in Southern Europe: Continuities and changes. Community, Work & Family, 18(2), 218–235.

Grotto, A. R., & Andreassi, J. K. (2024). When it’s better than expected: A quasi-experimental study of firm-provided paid parental leave and employee organizational commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 36(1), 80–102.

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76–88.

Haas, L., & Rostgaard, T. (2011). Fathers’ rights to paid parental leave in the Nordic countries. Community, Work & Family, 14(2), 177–195.

Haar, J. M., Russo, M., Suñe, A., & Ollier-Malaterre, A. (2014). Outcomes of work–life balance on job satisfaction, life satisfaction and mental health: A study across seven cultures. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85(3), 361–373.

Horner, M. (1990). The changing challenge: From double bind to double burden. New England Journal of Public Policy, 6(1), 47–64.

Idrovo Carlier, S., Leon Llorente, C., & Grau, M. (2012). Comparing work-life balance in Spanish and Latin-American countries. European Journal of Training and Development, 36(2/3), 286–307.

ISSP. (2012). Family and Changing Gender Roles IV Questionnaire. International Social Survey Programme.

ISSP. (2024). International Social Survey Programme source questionnaire.

Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(3), 341–349.

Kelly, M., Soles, R., Garcia, E., & Kundu, I. (2020). Job stress, burnout, work-life balance, well-being, and job satisfaction among pathology residents and fellows. American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 153(4), 449–464.

Kossek, E. E., Pichler, S., Bodner, T., & Hammer, L. B. (2011). Workplace social support and work–family conflict: A meta‐analysis clarifying the influence of general and work–family‐specific supervisor and organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 64(2), 289–313.

La Barbera, M., & Lombardo, E. (2019). “The long and winding road”: A comparative policy analysis of multilevel judicial implementation of work–life balance in Spain. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 21(1), 9–24.

Lewis, S. (2003). Flexible working arrangements: Implementation, outcomes, and management. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 18, 1–28.

Macdonald, S., & MacIntyre, P. (1997). The generic job satisfaction scale: Scale development and its correlates. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 13(2), 1–16.

Mannheim, B., Baruch, Y., & Tal, J. (1997). Alternative models for antecedents and outcomes of work centrality and job satisfaction of high-tech personnel. Human Relations, 50(12), 1537–1562.

Maslach, C. (2003). Job burnout: New directions in research and intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 189–192.

Meeussen, L., & Van Laar, C. (2018). Feeling pressure to be a perfect mother relates to parental burnout and career ambitions. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2113.

Moser, J. R., & Ashforth, B. E. (2021). My network, myself: A social network approach to work-based identity. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 41, 100155.

Noda, H. (2020). Work–life balance and life satisfaction in OECD countries: A cross-sectional analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(4), 1325–1348.

Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(2), 224–228.

Randell, R., Wilson, S., Woodward, P., & Galliers, J. (2010). Beyond handover: Supporting awareness for continuous coverage. Cognition, Technology & Work, 12(4), 271–283.

Schwartz, T., & McCarthy, C. (2010). The way we’re working isn’t working: The four forgotten needs that energize great performance. Simon & Schuster.

Snir, R., & Harpaz, I. (2004). Attitudinal and demographic antecedents of workaholism. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(5), 520–536.

Wheatley, D. (2017). Employee satisfaction and use of flexible working arrangements. Work, Employment and Society, 31(4), 567–585.

A study on how perfectionism affects career decision-making and anxiety in students

By: Lior Tweg (24-25)

Deciding on which career path to go down is a challenge faced by many students, but for perfectionists, it can be even more emotionally exhausting and high-pressure. Many different factors will influence a student’s choice-both individual and circumstantial (Savickas, 2002; Chen et al., 2023; Rudolph et al., 2019). In today’s digital age, it becomes even harder to avoid comparison to peers and feelings of inadequacy and anxiety, despite the individual’s own successes (Chakraborty, 2024). Influences of social media will mean an individual with perfectionistic tendencies already will experience heightened pressure to perform and make the “perfect” career choices. What is supposed to be an exciting time in a student’s life-entering the professional world, becomes one riddled with anxiety and negative emotions. 

A brief history of Perfectionism:

The definition of perfectionism is striving for flawlessness, having high personal standards for performance and being concerned over mistakes and expectations of parents (Flett & Hewitt, 2002). The concept of perfectionism has often been seen in terms of being “good” or “bad”, and the different definitions used in research has not helped decide whether perfectionism is positive or negative (Stoeber & Otto, 2006). Instead, it is better understood as a layered concept, which can be both positive and negative depending on the individual’s experience of it. The original research paper framing perfectionism as a complex concept, made up of different types of perfectionism was from Hamachek (1978), who argued perfectionism has two types: adaptive and maladaptive. These different types had different experiences associated with them, such as having high but realistic standards for adaptive perfectionists, while maladaptive perfectionists battle constant dissatisfaction and fragile self-esteem. Different distinctions between types of perfectionism have since expanded to account for whether the behaviours are directed outward or towards oneself (Hewitt & Flett, 1991), multiple different elements (Frost et al., 1990), as well as more recently, introducing a new model that can be applied to individuals from different cultures and backgrounds (Smith et al., 2016; Rahman et al., 2025).

This study

To understand how perfectionistic students experience career decision-making and anxiety in light of their tendencies, we interviewed nineteen Master’s students and one recently-graduated Undergraduate student about their experiences. The participants’ ages ranged from 22-47 and had a variety of different educational and occupational backgrounds. 

Findings

Through analysis of the interview data, we found that participants mentioned having high standards and wanting things to go according to the way they planned, and feeling distressed when this did not happen. Furthermore, participants mentioned procrastinating, either putting off tasks by doing something unrelated (yet still productive, such as cleaning) or something purely for comfort (such as watching a favourite TV show). Perfectionistic students mentioned wanting to show their superiors at work that they were capable in order to maintain a positive reputation, but also potentially to gain financial security (in the form of bonuses or better salaries). In their academic lives, the students mentioned the heightened pressure they faced to perform and get the best grades possible, while also mentioning that being in charge of their own schedules and timings increased their perfectionistic tendencies as they only relied on themselves. When asked about their job search experiences, participants mentioned struggling to find the “right fit”, either due to feelings of being underqualified or waiting for the “perfect” job, or due to feelings of indecisiveness. The students also mentioned that while on their hunt for jobs, the emotions associated with pre-and post-applications. During the pre-application phase, participants mentioned overthinking and anticipatory anxiety, causing them to spend extra time and devote extra energy into the application process. While post-application was riddled with rumination and threats to self-worth if they were rejected. 

What this means/Future directions

This research shows the importance of understanding lived perspectives of students in an understudied population (predominantly Master’s students), as they may feel heightened pressure and distress when choosing their career path compared to a non-perfectionist population. Understanding the way perfectionist students experience this stage of life can help us help them in future, by encouraging universities and other institutions to provide specialised careers advice and more effective coping strategies for students who experience career anxiety and distress (Kang et al., 2020). By aiding those students to overcome their internal challenges and understand that rejections and ambiguities are a natural part of choosing a career path, as well as knowing nothing needs to be permanent, this may help students with perfectionistic tendencies to alleviate some of their stress and see it for what it could be—a time full of promising potential. 

Final summary

In summary, the study showed that students with perfectionistic tendencies spoke of having high standards, but procrastinating on tasks sometimes, wanting to be seen as competent and gain financial security and recognition, while also balancing demands of their studies, such as having control over their schedule. When applying for jobs, these students mentioned feeling demoralised when receiving rejections, while some people said they were put off from applying if they did not feel they met all the criteria in the job applications, or did not apply because they were waiting for the perfect fit. Higher education institutions and careers services could help alleviate the added pressure students put themselves under (often unprovoked and unnecessarily) by helping students face these internal challenges and by helping them understand this is a natural part of the job search process.­

Blog References

Chakraborty, A. (2024). Navigating Career Anxiety in the Modern Age: Understanding Its Roots and Remedies. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Approaches in Psychology, 2(1), 13-24.

Chen, H., Liu, F., & Wen, Y. (2023). The Influence of College Students’ Core Self-evaluation on Job Search Outcomes: Chain Mediating Effect of Career Exploration and Career Adaptability. Current Psychology, 42(18), 15696–15707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02923-4 

Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2002). Perfectionism and maladjustment: An overview of theoretical, definitional, and treatment issues. In G. L. Flett, & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfectionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 5-31). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10458-001 

Frost, R. O., Marten, P., Lahart, C., & Rosenblate, R. (1990). The dimensions of perfectionism. Cognitive therapy and research, 14(5), 449-468.

Hamachek, D. E. (1978). Psychodynamics of normal and neurotic perfectionism. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 15(1), 27–33.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1991). Perfectionism in the self and social contexts: Conceptualization, assessment, and association with psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 456-470. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.456

Kang, M., Lee, J., & Lee, A. (2020). The effects of college students’ perfectionism on career stress and indecision: Self-esteem and coping styles as moderating variables. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(2), 227-243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09609-w

Rahman, S. N., Allen, L. K., & Natoli, A. P. (2025). Predictive Invariance of the Big Three Perfectionism Scale (BTPS) Across Race when Predicting Mistake Rumination. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 07342829251334269.

Rudolph, C. W., Zacher, H., & Hirschi, A. (2019). Empirical developments in career construction theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 111, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.12.003 

Savickas, M. L. (2002). Career Construction: A Developmental Theory of Vocational Behavior. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career Choice and Development (4th ed., pp. 149–205). Jossey-Bass. 

Smith, M. M., Saklofske, D. H., Stoeber, J., & Sherry, S. B. (2016). The big three perfectionism scale: A new measure of perfectionism. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34(7), 670-687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916651539

Stoeber, J., & Otto, K. (2006). Positive conceptions of perfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges. Personality and social psychology review, 10(4), 295-319.

By Benjamin Finbow (24-25)

Reports suggests that nearly a quarter of all UK employees will have left their roles voluntarily by the end of 2025. This reads more than just a statistic, this is a costly drain of resources and finances, let alone the affect that this has on a teams morale, for graduates who often see their graduate scheme as a strategic step into the professional world, the retention risk is even higher. 

Hiring graduates into your company is a huge investment! On average companies spend upwards of £5000 on a graduate, before a single day of training or the managers’ lost time is factored in. Immense resources are poured into developing this young talent pipeline through these graduate schemes, yet so often these graduates do not stay beyond their graduate scheme.

So, what’s going wrong?

If companies are offering competitive salaries, what makes these early in career, talented individuals, look to leave so early?

This study looked to answer this very question, by sitting down with 12 graduates on graduate schemes across different business sectors, including finance, defence, automotive and recruitment to understand their experiences as to why they would stay. 

The findings were clear and powerful. A good salary was an important factor for many of the graduates; however it is rarely the main reason that they stay.  The real drivers of why people stay tended to be far more human centric. Below are the main experiences that the graduates reported. 

1. The psychological contract: a broken promise makes for broken trust

Before the graduate even signs the physical contract, an unspoken agreement is formed. In the academic world this is called the “psychological contract”, but this can just be thought of as a collection of promises and expectations set during the interview process. 

According to the graduates in this study, this is where the companies first go wrong, recruiters often find themselves over promising on exciting career development, hands-on-training and a fantastic work-life balance. However, once the graduate is in the position and these promises aren’t met, the trust in the graduate scheme is ruined – the psychological contract, broken. 

The study heard directly from graduates whose trust was broken: 

• One participant spoke to how they were promised a 6-month training program with rotations throughout the business, just to be told when they arrived that it was 2 months with no rotations at all. 
• Another was lured in by the recruiter on the promise of upwards of £100,000 in commission, only to be told when they arrived that no-one has ever made that much in their first year. 

When the psychological contract is broken, it’s not just disappointment for the graduate, it feels like a breach of their trust in the company. Once the trust is gone, good luck getting it back! 

• Where am I going here? 

You might think that career planning is an issue for people in their 30s and 40s, however, this study found how important career development planning is from day one for the graduates, they don’t just want a job – they need clear guidelines and a trajectory! 

Non-negotiable: A clear career path 

The graduates who were happiest on their schemes and most likely to stay were those who could see a clear path forward in their careers. One of the participants spoke excitedly about a linear progression from “assistant to underwriter to senior underwriter”. Another participant appreciated the clearness of their company policy, “Five years until you get a promotion, if you don’t get it then you’re not going to get it ever” – while harsh this did provide clear trajectory. 

In complete contrast, graduates at companies without a clear structure felt lost and ready to leave. They expressed fears of being “stuck in middle management”, or felt their career would be “stunted” if they stayed too long. One summed up their future slightly bleakly “I don’t really know, I guess I just won’t be a graduate at the end of the 18 months”. 

Learning cannot be an afterthought 

Aligned with a clear career path is the need for quality training to help the gradates progress. The most positive experience came from companies that truly invested in learning. One graduate described their scheme as “one continuous cycle of learning”, where the company would pay for “any course, be it sporting , professional or literally any scope of things”. 

However, many participants reported a frustrating conflict. They were told training was essential but were given no time during the workday to get it done. Instead, they were expected to learn on their own time, which meant that the training either wasn’t done or it was done with very minimal effort. 

• The old saying rings true: You don’t quit a job, you quit your boss 

The single biggest influence on a graduates day-to-day experience is their direct line manager. This relationship, more than any company policy, determines whether the graduate feels supported, valued and engaged.

A good manager is a game changer: 

• Hold regular meetings and be invested in the success of your graduate 
• Provide actionable feedback that actually helps the graduate improve 
• Make them feel valued! Listen to what they have to say 
  

Conversely, a poor or absent manager was a major cause for graduate dissatisfaction.  One participant revealed “We’re supposed to have a weekly or bi-weekly meeting, my manager hasn’t set one up this year”, with another participant saying “You just have to assume you’ve done a good job” because feedback was non-existent. 

So, how do you keep your graduates?

1. Draw a clear map – graduates need to see the journey ahead.
   
   Don’t let them try and figure it out and don’t leave it to chance. Create clear career ladders that show exactly what it takes to get to the next level. In addition to this, add a competency framework that outlines the specific skills they need to develop 
   
2. Protect their time to learn – not just a login to an eLearning platform!
   
    Block out time in their calendars specifically for training and development. Treat it as a core part of their job, not an extra task to be squeezed in at home. 
   
3. Train your managers!
   
   The most impactful change you can make is to train your manager. Teach them how to give useful feedback, how to mentor and how to support someone at the beginning of their career. Even, consider reverse mentoring to make the graduates feel heard and allow them to share their expectations with the graduate schemes.  

Graduate schemes are a brilliant investment in your talent of tomorrow, don’t waste them!  

By Paige Williams (24-25)

The existing body of literature focusing on career success is often based on older generations whose careers more typically follow clear, linear steps up the career ladder. Generation Z (‘Gen Z’, 1997-2012), however, is joining the workforce during a time marked by shifting norms, technological advancements, and a general sense of instability (Francis & Hoefel, 2018). More modern studies focusing on Gen Z indicate that the generation prioritizes different things for a number of reasons (Schroth, 2019). By understanding how Gen Z is currently operating at work, as well as the existing career theories, frameworks, and ideas, we can piece together Gen Z’s motivations and priorities in terms of ‘career success’.

Prior research distinguishes objective and subjective markers of career success, showing they are linked but unique in their own ways (Ng et al., 2005). Contemporary frameworks, such as Hall’s (2004) protean and Arthur’s (1994) boundaryless career, predict a stronger emphasis on values and autonomy than pay and title, but psychological lenses such as Deci and Ryan’s (2000) Self-Determination Theory, Demerouti el al.’s (2001) Job Demands-Resources, and Kristof’s (1996) Person-Organization Fit explain the importance of objective gains in the chase of subjective ends. Current research, however, lacks the breadth and depth of qualitative research, as many are completed with surveys as opposed to first-person narratives. We also know less about the specific competencies and conditions Gen Z believes they need in order to achieve their version of career success. Guided by this gap, this study asks a simple question with complex implications: How does Gen Z conceptualize career success?

Three focus groups, each consisting of 11 recruited participants, were conducted to answer the research question. Semi-structured interviews were run alongside photo elicitation, in which each participant was asked to bring an image that represented their conceptualization of career success (see the figure to the right for the images). From these conversations, three main themes (each with its own subthemes) were developed to explain how Gen Z defines career success.

1. Career Success as Well-being First: The first major theme developed is career success represented by prioritizing well-being over more traditional success markers, especially when individuals feel supported in and out of the workplace. Participants described success in felt, everyday terms: coming home without dread, having energy for life, and being treated as a whole person.
2. Career Success as Financial Gain: How Much is Enough?: The majority of participants associated monetary gain with career success, but the degree to how much money is desired varied among participants. Some had dreams of ‘being super rich one day’ and owning $300 million penthouses in New York City, while others found success in ‘get[ing] what I want without having to look at the price tag’. Across accounts, money was treated as instrumental; valued for what it enables (security, options, comfort), not as an end in itself.
3. Career Success as the Freedom to Choose: The third dimension of career success, according to the Gen Z participants, is having genuine control and freedom; whether it be time and place of work, over the pace and shape of roles, and/or over the path their careers take. Pauline simply stated, ‘I like freedom within my job’. Instead of being framed as an unrealistic, unrestricted freedom, the freedom was presented as manageable choices: enough control to balance work and life and to adjust when opportunity arises or values change.

Traditional, objective markers of success, such as pay, title, or promotion mattered because they enabled the subjective conditions participants counted as success. When forced to trade off, participants protected their well-being, livability, and agency and rejected opportunities that would threaten those conditions even if they promised higher status or income.

Implications

• Gen Z individuals need to define their ‘enoughness’
  • Set a concrete baseline for things like income, benefits, and scheduling that removes chronic stress from these factors. Writing down what ‘enough’ is is a beneficial skill that can be worked on and revisited throughout entire careers. As people change so do priorities, so constantly knowing and working on one’s ‘enough’ can help sustain success throughout all stages of careers.
• Run a Jobs Demands-Resources audit on any roles/offers
  • By knowing what features of the workplace may be obstacles instead of enhancers, contracts can be drawn up more efficiently and conversations around changes in the workplace can be more structured and evidence-based. A good offer/environment is one with a resource-demand balance, if not excess resources. This skill is not only helpful when negotiating contracts, but also throughout the role. Keep the audit alive and renegotiate when the balance feels off.
• Design a positive work environment that enables choice and supports relational goals
  • Offer time/location autonomy alongside clear deliverables and objectives to keep the flexibility within healthy, enforceable boundaries.
  • Monitor JD-R at the team level and adjust staffing or objectives before the overload leads to chronic strain.
  • Train and select for humane management, as well as have a form of checks and balances in the workplace.
  • Support the relational goals of their Gen Z employees by having systems in place that support familial obligations when needed (paid parental leave, job protection, caregiving leave)

The Way Forward

Looking forward, two key design changes can be made to extend this study. First, researchers should test the same question across subgroups of Gen Z (gender, culture, socioeconomic status) and individuals following non-traditional career paths (apprenticeships, community college, gig work, entrepreneurship). Doing so would clarify which themes generalize and where they may vary systematically. Second, adopt mixed-methods, longitudinal designs. Pairing the focus groups with solo interviews with additional diary entries to track how daily conditions change how career success is conceptualized would contribute richer data to analyze.

In closing, Gen Z’s conceptualization of career success is not anti-tradition/objectivity; it is using tradition to shape and mold to modern, subjective markers of success. Success is having the resources and autonomy to build a sustainable, values-aligned career, and the freedom to change when feeling stagnant or unsuccessful.

References

Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A new perspective for organizational inquiry.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 295-306. https://doi.org/10.2307/259107

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and

the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job

demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

Francis, T., & Hoefel, F. (2018). ‘True Gen’: Generation Z and its implications for companies.

McKinsey & Company.

Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 65(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.006Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,

measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49(1), 1–49.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x

Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and

subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367–408.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x

Schroth, H. (2019). Are you ready for Gen Z in the workplace? California Management Review,

61(3), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619841006

By Lola Goldstein (24-25)

Gen-Z are facing a mental health crisis unlike any previous generation. Research shows that one in six Gen-Z experience depression and two in five experience anxiety, while the overall incidence of psychological distress has almost doubled in comparison to the two generations before. At the same time, Gen-Z consistently ranks mental health as one of the most pressing issues facing their generation, making it an issue that organisations cannot afford to ignore.

Born between 1996 and 2012, Gen-Z were the first generation to grow up with smartphones in hand. While this brought new opportunities, it also disrupted critical developmental experiences, including by limiting social learning and increasing sleep deprivation, ultimately resulting in significant changes in mental health. The first iPhone was released in 2007, and most homes had access to social media by 2012. This coincided with a peak in mental illness, with rates of teen depression more than doubling between 2010 and 2015. However, these mental health challenges have not been left behind in adolescence but now shape Gen-Z’s working lives, creating severe implications for employers.

Employee well-being has received growing attention in recent years, with organisations acknowledging the far-reaching impact this can have. Work well-being involves both the physical and psychological health of employees in the workplace. Low employee well-being can be highly costly for organisations, resulting in higher turnover intentions, reduced retention, absenteeism and presenteeism. On the other hand, organisations that invest in well-being can experience productivity gains of up to 20%, as employees who handle workplace stress better show greater levels of creativity, engagement, and innovation. Therefore, investing in employee well-being is not just ethically important, it also creates a competitive edge. 

Gen-Z already make up 27% of the workforce, and by 2035, they are projected to be the most dominant cohort. Therefore, it is crucial that organisations understand what drives this generation’s well-being at work. 

The Study

This research set out to explore various contributors to Gen-Z’s work well-being in order to determine which are the most important. These results provide valuable insights that can help organisations to direct their resources more effectively, supporting the well-being of this generation while strengthening organisations as a whole.

Several workplace factors were explored with established links to employee well-being including: a combination of high job demands and low job control (job strain), social support, and an imbalance between the effort expended at work and rewards received. Factors specifically associated with Gen-Z were also investigated, including work-life balance, the alignment between an individual and their job (person-job fit), the alignment between individuals and organisations (person-organisation fit), and psychological safety. 

To establish these findings, 104 Gen-Z employees (aged 20-29) were recruited to compete and online survey assessing their levels of work well-being and scores on each workplace factor. 

What the Research Found

The results were clear: the strongest predictors of Gen-Z’s work well-being were person-job fit, person-organisation fit and social support. After these was work-life balance, followed by psychological safety. Meanwhile, traditional stressors like high job demands and low job control or imbalances between effort and reward were less influential for this generation. Interestingly, working in the education sector is also linked to higher well-being among Gen-Z employees.

What This Means for Organisations

These findings emphasise the vital role of “fit” for Gen-Z’s well-being, highlighting the need for harmony beteen an employee and their work environment. By putting energy into improving this alignment, organisations are likely to see positive improvements in the well-being of these employees.

To enhance person-job fit, organisations should ensure they are matching their Gen-Z employees with roles that reflect their skills, abilities and interests. This can be done through recruitment and selection processes that prioritise this alignment, helping to place people where they can thrive. On-the-job training should also be tailored to help employees to meet the required skills for the role, further promoting person-job fit. 

Person-organisation fit can also be improved through the hiring process, including by clearly and openly communicating the organisation’s mission, values, and culture to candidates in order to attract employees with similar priorities. For instance, showcasing corporate social responsibility efforts that go beyond typical business goals can attract Gen-Z candidates who are looking for meaningful work. 

The results also highlight the importance of creating supportive work environments. This can be achieved through initiatives as mentoring programmes, peer networks, and management practices that provide guidance, feedback, and encouragement. Providing this kind of social support can help employees combat job stress and is therefore a powerful way to improve Gen-Z’s work well-being.

Beyond these three essential elements, work-life balance is also another valuable focus for organisations, given its key role in supporting Gen-Z’s work well-being. This generation are thought to have re-defined work-life balance, viewing this as an integration of professional and personal life that enhances their psychological well-being, rather than treating them as completely separate entities. Therefore, organisations can help maintain this balance by providing more flexible work options, like hybrid or remote arrangements, along with clear boundaries around work-related communication.  

Why It Matters

Overall, these findings points to generational nuances in the predictors of work well-being, specifically highlighting the importance of “fit” and social support for this generation. This reflects Gen-Z’s greater emphasis on intrinsic motivators, such as meaning and values alignment, as well as positive relationships at work, over more traditional drivers like financial rewards alone. Therefore, this provides a useful guide for organisations looking to improve the well-being of the newest generation to enter their workforces. Organisations that understand and act on these priorities are likely to see notable improvements in the well-being of their Gen-Z employees, ultimately strengthening their organisation as a whole. 

By James Holden (24-25)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming workplaces at an astonishing pace. Tools like ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and automated decision-making systems are reshaping how we recruit, communicate, and measure performance. For some employees, these tools feel exciting and liberating. For others, they spark anxiety, confusion, or fear of being replaced.

As organisations race to adopt AI, an important question arises:  what does the introduction or increasing use of AI mean for the wellbeing of employees?

This research explored this question by looking at flourishing, a broad measure of workplace wellbeing. Flourishing is more than the absence of stress; it is about employees feeling good and functioning well: being engaged, connected to others, finding meaning in what they do and being able to grow and contribute at work. In today’s competitive landscape, flourishing employees are more innovative, more productive, collaborate more and are more likely to stay. In short, flourishing isn’t a “nice to have”, it’s vital for organisational success.

But flourishing is under pressure in the age of AI. The very tools designed to make work easier can create new kinds of stress, often called  technostress. This research examined how AI-related technostress affects workplace flourishing, and whether personality plays a role in how employees cope with it.

The stress side of AI

When we think of ‘stress at work’, we might imagine long hours or difficult bosses. But technology itself can be a major stressor. AI brings some unique challenges:

• Techno-complexity  – when systems feel confusing, constantly changing, or difficult to master.
• Techno-insecurity  – when people fear that AI could replace their job or devalue their skills.
• Techno-overload  – when technology speeds up the pace of work and volume of information, creating pressure to do more in less time.

Most of us have felt at least one of these recently. Learning a new system that seems baffling. Wondering if AI will make your role redundant. Or feeling pressured to be ‘always on’ because technology never rests.

This study set out to see whether these stressors predict lower flourishing at work, and whether some people are more vulnerable than others.

Personality matters

Psychologists often point out that stress is not just about what happens to us, but how we interpret and react to it, thus this study looked at  neuroticism, one of the “Big Five” personality traits. People high in neuroticism tend to experience negative emotions more strongly and worry more about potential threats.

What the research covered

Almost 200 working adults in the UK from a broad range of industries  were surveyed and asked three simple things:

1. how much they were  flourishing at work  (feeling good and functioning well),
2. how much  AI-related pressure  they felt in three areas—complexity  (hard to learn),  insecurity  (fear of being replaced), and  overload  (AI pushing the pace), and
3. their  personality, focusing on  neuroticism  (tendency toward worry/negative emotion).

Everyday background factors like  age, education, income comfort, industry, and  risk tolerance  (how comfortable people feel taking risks) were also recorded. Then standard statistical models were run to see what actually predicts flourishing, and whether neuroticism  changes  the impact of those AI pressures. 

What were the results

• No direct AI-pressure hit to flourishing. When the background factors, were accounted for, none of the three AI-related stressors (techno-complexity, techno-insecurity, or techno-overload) directly predicted lower flourishing.

• Personality mattered. People higher in neuroticism reported lower flourishing overall. Meanwhile, people with higher risk tolerance  reported  higher flourishing. These were  direct  links with flourishing (i.e. how people felt and functioned at work); they weren’t tied to higher or lower AI stress per se.

• No “amplifier” effect.  When it was tested whether neuroticism  amplified  the impact of different AI-related technostressors, it didn’t. The interaction terms were not significant.  

In short: in this mixed UK sample, current AI pressures didn’t knock flourishing down, but who you are (especially lower neuroticism and higher risk tolerance) did relate to how well you felt you were thriving at work.  

Why this matters for organisations

A common assumption is that “AI stress will undermine wellbeing.” These data suggest: not necessarily—at least not for flourishing. Flourishing reflects resources such as support, meaning, growth, and connection. Removing stressors is helpful, but it is often  not sufficient; flourishing grows where resources are deliberately built.

• If your goal is to protect flourishing, don’t focus only on “removing stressors.” Instead, build resources around people and teams (e.g. clarity, support, autonomy, learning, recognition). These are the soil flourishing grows in.  

• Neuroticism  is a reliable risk flag for lower flourishing. That doesn’t mean “the person is the problem”; it means they’ll benefit more from  predictability, reassurance, and quick access to support. 

• Risk tolerance  looks like a quiet  asset. People comfortable with uncertainty tend to  flourish more  during change. Harness that, without glorifying unnecessary risk.  

Practical steps leaders can take (now)

1. Resource first, tech second.
   Pair AI rollouts with  short, targeted training, easy help channels, and  manager check-ins. Don’t just deploy tools, deploy  support. 

2. Tune your comms to different people.
   • For employees higher in worry/uncertainty: give  clear roadmaps, timelines, and “what this means for your role” briefings; signpost  emotion-regulation/mindset micro-skills  (10–15 minutes is enough).
   • For higher risk-tolerance staff: involve them in  early pilots  as  AI champions  and co-designers.  

3. Protect boundaries.
   AI can speed everything up. Set norms for  notification management, response times, and  right-to-disconnect practices so pace doesn’t quietly become overload.  

4. Make flourishing visible.
   Track simple, actionable indicators (e.g.,  learning progress,  team belonging,  manager support). Celebrate  human strengths (e.g. judgement, empathy, creativity), so people feel valued alongside AI.  

Final thought

AI is here to stay, but its people impact is not fixed. In this study,  AI didn’t automatically erode flourishing. What mattered more was the  human side: stable dispositions like neuroticism and risk tolerance, and the  resources  organisations provide. If leaders invest in clarity, capability, and care, employees can keep flourishing, even as AI evolves. That’s not just good for people; it’s good strategy.