David Ducheyne Algorithms are quietly reshaping how organisations manage performance. From real-time dashboards and predictive analytics to automated feedback and rankings, algorithmic performance management is becoming reality. The promise is compelling: more objectivity, greater efficiency, and decisions based on data rather than gut feeling. But there is a catch. Recent research shows that the success of algorithmic performance management has far less to do with the quality of the algorithm than with the quality of leadership around it. The Myth of the Neutral Algorithm Algorithmic systems are often introduced as neutral and objective tools. By analysing large volumes of data (KPIs, behavioural patterns, productivity metrics) they are supposed to remove bias and standardise decision-making. Yet employees rarely experience these systems as neutral. Algorithms are typically not very transparent. People do not know exactly how decisions are made, which data points matter most, or how m

Employees rarely leave organizations for a single reason. Research consistently shows that turnover is driven by an accumulation of organizational, job-related, and personal factors. Poor work environments, limited growth opportunities, misalignment of values, and sustained stress or burnout emerge most frequently across studies. Core Categories of Turnover Drivers 1. Work Environment and Organizational Culture A weak or toxic organizational culture is one of the most powerful predictors of employee turnover. Experiences of bullying, unfair treatment, low organizational justice, and psychologically unsafe environments significantly increase intentions to leave (Sulastri et al., 2025; Sun et al., 2025; Ak, 2018; Barak et al., 2001). Leadership quality plays a critical role in shaping these experiences. Poor leadership, limited supervisory or organizational support, and rigid, inconsistent, or unclear policies are strongly associated with higher resignation rates (Sulastri et al., 2025;

The 56th World Economic Forum Annual Meeting took place in Davos, Switzerland, under the theme “A Spirit of Dialogue.” It drew one of the highest ever turnouts of world leaders—about 60 + heads of state and government—alongside major business figures, against a backdrop of deep geopolitical tensions, economic uncertainty and technological shifts. Core messages from leaders: Global unity and cooperation: Swiss President Guy Parmelin emphasized the need for collective action and dialogue to address global challenges. Geopolitical shifts: Leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron called for robust multilateralism and resistance to coercive power in the world. Economic strategy: Chinese Vice-Premier He Lifeng stressed that economic cooperation remains essential and that protectionism harms all. Europe’s stance: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen highlighted Europe’s efforts to adapt to new trade realities and shifting security dynamics. Security concerns: Ukrainian Pres

Eurofound Research Pay gaps between men and women – that is, when women earn less than men for doing the same work or work of equal value, or when the set-up of pay structures and career progression disadvantages one gender over another ‒ can arise for a variety of reasons, including direct and indirect discrimination. They can also stem from an undervaluation of work traditionally carried out by women. The Pay Transparency Directive goes some way towards addressing this by requiring companies to ensure that their pay structures are based on objective, gender-neutral job evaluation that supports the implementation of the work of equal value principle. It also encourages the social partners to take pay equity for the same or equivalent jobs into account in collective bargaining. This article reflects on this principle and how social partners can support its implementation. Introduction The principle that workers shall – irrespective of their gender – receive the same pay not only for th

Hrpro.be Much of the public debate about AI and work focuses on a blunt question: which jobs will disappear? A more interesting—and more uncomfortable—question is what happens after a job is disrupted. Who actually manages to land on their feet, and why? Two recent academic studies offer a useful lens on this. Together, they suggest that labour-market transitions are shaped not only by economics or skills, but also by psychology, identity, and unequal starting positions. The first study, by Sam Manning and Tomás Aguirre from GovAI, looks at how exposed different occupations in the US are to AI—and, crucially, how capable the people in those jobs are of adapting if disruption occurs. The researchers assessed 356 occupations along two dimensions: how easily AI could perform the tasks involved, and how “adaptable” the workers in those roles are. Adaptability here is not a vague personality trait, but a composite of concrete factors such as age, geographic mobility, financial buffers, and

The European Association for People Management is the umbrella organisation for HR in Europe. We bring together 36 national associations, from Iceland to Azerbaijan and from Norway to Malta. This diversity of cultures, labour markets, and legal traditions strengthens our profession and creates opportunities for shared learning. It may not be immediately clear what connects such a varied community. Differences are real, but what unites us is a common focus on the human side of working life and the ongoing task of balancing productivity with people-related considerations. During the DAAM, representatives from across Europe discussed the challenges ahead. These challenges are significant, but they underline the relevance of our profession and the contribution HR can make in supporting organisations and societies. HR has an essential role in shaping the future of work. Enjoy the read.