The American workforce peaked in November 2025. It hit 171.5 million people and started shrinking. That has never happened outside a recession in the modern record.

The workforce is getting smaller, and almost nobody is talking about it.

A few questions organize what follows. How is workforce participation actually calculated? Who is in the count, and who got left out? How do population and GDP connect, and what happens to the economy when the population stops growing? What does any of this mean for people who plan workforces for a living? And is the next decade a war for talent, or something stranger?

The short version goes like this. The participation rate is a fraction, and most people get the bottom half wrong. The count includes every worker in the country, papers or no papers, and excludes a third of America. GDP is workers times output per worker, full stop. A flat population means productivity has to carry the whole load. And the planning implications are bigger than the headlines suggest.

The data comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and the Congressional Budget Office. The forecasts are mine, built on their assumptions, which are printed on every chart. When a number is an estimate instead of a measurement, I say so.

1. How Workforce Participation Is Calculated

The participation rate is the most quoted number in labor economics. It is also the least understood. The math is one fraction.

The top of the fraction is the civilian labor force. That means everyone sixteen or older who is working or actively looking for work. One hour of paid work in the survey week counts as working, which tells you something about how generous the definition is.

The bottom of the fraction is the civilian noninstitutional population, age sixteen and up. It is not the total population. Getting this wrong is the most common error in workforce commentary, and it is not a small one.

In May 2026 the math ran like this. The labor force was 170.1 million. The eligible adult population was 275.1 million. Divide, and you get 61.8 percent.

Nobody counted anybody. Both halves of the fraction come from a survey of 60,000 households.

The survey is the Current Population Survey, run monthly by the Census Bureau. Every number here is an estimate with a margin of error. The definitions have held steady since 1994, which is the only reason fifty-year comparisons are honest.

Figure 1. The numerator: the civilian labor force, monthly, 1975–2026. The count peaked in November 2025.

The history reads differently once you know the math. Participation rose from 61 percent in 1975 to 67.3 percent in early 2000. Women entered the workforce and the boomers hit their prime years at the same time.

Then it fell, and the falling was mostly demographics. A retiring boomer stays in the bottom of the fraction and leaves the top. COVID knocked the rate to 60.1 percent in April 2020, and the recovery stalled at 62.5.

The past year shows a slide to 61.5 percent. That is the lowest sustained reading since the late 1970s. It is worth your attention.

Figure 2. The participation rate, monthly line over annual-average bars, 1975–2026.

One measurement problem matters right now. The population estimate on the bottom of the fraction runs on autopilot between annual Census corrections. When deportations and a closed border remove people, the denominator does not notice until January.

People leave the country. The population estimate keeps growing anyway. So the measured rate falls further than actual behavior explains.

Expect a downward correction in the January 2027 numbers, and do not let anyone sell it to you as news about worker motivation.

2. Who Is — and Isn’t — in the Count

America holds about 342 million people. The participation math only sees 275 million of them. The other 67 million are invisible to the statistic.

Children under sixteen sit outside the count entirely. So do about 3 million people in prisons, jails, and nursing homes. So do 1.3 million active-duty troops, which surprises people every time.

Measure against the whole country instead of the eligible adults and the picture changes. Less than half of all Americans are in the labor force. About 47.6 percent actually hold a job.

Figure 3. Where all 342 million Americans sit, mid-2026. The participation rate divides the blue slice by everything except children, troops, and the institutionalized.

Now look at the 105 million adults who are eligible but not participating. The commentary treats them like a mystery or a moral failure. They are neither.

About 54 million are retired. About 17 million are in school. About 16 million are too sick or disabled to work, 14 million are caring for family, and 3 million are everything else, including the few hundred thousand who wanted a job and gave up looking.

The people outside the labor force are not slackers. They are your parents, your kids, and your neighbor with cancer.

On immigration, the count is broader than most readers think. The survey never asks about legal status. Citizens, green-card holders, visa workers, and undocumented workers all get counted the same way.

Foreign-born workers were 19.2 percent of the labor force in 2024. What the survey cannot tell you is whether a missing person left the country or just stopped answering the door. Right now, some of each is happening, and nobody can split the difference precisely.

One more distinction completes the picture. Of the 170.1 million in the labor force, 162.8 million were working in May 2026 and 7.3 million were looking. Employment peaked in December 2025 and has given back 1.7 million jobs since.

3. The Churn Beneath the Surface

Here is the habit that ruins most workforce reporting. Everyone stares at the monthly net change. Almost nobody looks at the gross flows underneath it.

About six million people leave the labor force every month. Roughly as many come in. The famous net number is the tiny difference between two huge flows.

The workforce is not a reservoir. It is a river.

Over a year, the exits add up to about 73 million person-transitions. The net change in a good year is one to three million. That ratio should change how you read every jobs headline you see.

Two cautions about the exit numbers. They count transitions, not people, so a person who leaves twice counts twice. And the data simply does not exist before 1990, because the government did not collect it.

Figure 4. Annual gross exits (top) versus annual net change (bottom), 1975–2025. Check the scales: tens of millions versus single-digit millions.

Figure 5. The same story, monthly. April 2020 produced twelve million exits in one month.

Three companion charts finish the picture. The labor force nearly doubled from 93 million in 1975 to just over 171 million at the peak. Exits have been running at record levels through 2025 and 2026.

And the net-change chart shows 2026 on track to be the worst non-recession year in the whole fifty-one-year record. Sit with that for a minute.

Figure 6. Total labor force size, annual bars with monthly line, 1975–2026.

Figure 7. Gross exits, 1990–2026. The right axis is exactly twelve times the left, so the bars and the line compare directly.

Figure 8. Net labor force change, 1975–2026. The January spikes are Census paperwork, not hiring.

4. Who Is in the Workforce: Gender and Age

The gender story is a revolution followed by a stall. Women were 40 percent of a 94-million-person workforce in 1975. They are 47.7 percent of 170 million today.

Look closer and the revolution ended around 2000. The line has been flat for twenty-five years, five or six points short of parity. Any honest forecast holds the mix steady, because that is what the data says.

There is one wrinkle worth watching. Women’s share ticked up in early 2026. The immigration-driven decline is hitting men harder, because immigrant workers skew male.

Figure 9. The labor force by gender, 1975–2041. Hatched bars are the forecast.

Figure 10. The same shares as lines, zoomed to where the movement actually is.

The age story is a boomerang. The median worker was 34.6 years old in 1980, the youngest modern workforce America ever had. Then the same generation that made it young spent thirty years making it old.

The median hit 42.0 by 2014 and then, surprisingly, went flat. Boomer retirements started pulling old workers out as fast as everyone else aged. BLS says the climb resumes, reaching 42.4 by 2034 and roughly 43 by 2041.

One data caution here. BLS publishes the median age about once a decade, not annually, and it publishes the median rather than the average. The line between the dots is my interpolation, clearly marked.

Figure 11. Median age of the labor force, published BLS values with interpolation, 1975–2041.

5. The Outlook to 2041: Three Scenarios, One Lever

Workforce forecasting is arithmetic wearing a crystal ball costume. Everyone who will be forty in 2041 is twenty-five right now. The native-born workforce of 2041 is already born and already counted.

Only one input is genuinely adjustable, and it is immigration.

The official assumptions just moved violently. CBO says net immigration collapsed to 410,000 in 2025, down from over three million at the peak two years earlier. Meanwhile deaths start exceeding births around 2030.

After that, every net addition to the American population is an immigrant or an immigrant’s child. That is not an opinion. That is what the birth and death tables say.

The scenarios in Figure 12 spell it out. The baseline follows the government assumptions and reaches about 176 million workers in 2041. High immigration gets you 183 million, and near-zero immigration shrinks the workforce to 166 million.

Watch the heavy line, the growth rate. It ran 3.3 percent a year in 1978, about 1 percent in the 1990s, under half a percent since 2008, and negative in early 2026. The whole game for the next fifteen years is whether that line lives above or below zero.

Figure 12. Growth rate (heavy line, left) and size (right), with three scenarios to 2041.

What would prove me wrong? A surge of older workers staying on the job, a fertility recovery no rich country has managed, or a change in how the counting works. Absent those, the fan holds.

The shakiest assumption is political, not demographic. The baseline bets that labor scarcity eventually forces the immigration tap back open. That is a judgment about Congress, and you know what that is worth.

6. How GDP and Population Are Related

The chain from population to GDP has three links. Babies become workers sixteen years after they are born. Immigrants become workers the day they arrive.

Working-age people become the labor force through the participation rate. The labor force becomes GDP through productivity. Total output is workers times output per worker, and there is no third ingredient.

GDP growth equals workforce growth plus productivity growth. Write it on the whiteboard.

The last fifty years show the formula at work. The economy is 3.9 times its 1975 size on a workforce only 1.8 times as large. The gap between those numbers is a half century of machines, software, and better organization.

Figure 13. GDP and the labor force, both indexed to 1975 = 100. The wedge between the lines is output per worker.

The forecasters all live inside this formula, which is why they agree. CBO says 1.8 percent growth through 2036, easing to 1.6. The Fed says 2.0 for the long run, the IMF says 1.8, and private consensus sits in the same range.

Then there is the White House at 3 percent. That number requires either workers that current immigration policy forecloses or productivity America has not sustained since the dot-com years. Every administration does this, and it is a budget device, not a forecast.

Compound the difference to 2041 and the gap is an economy about 20 percent larger. Several trillion dollars are riding on which assumption you buy.

Figure 14. Competing GDP forecasts, 2026–2041. One of these lines is not like the others.

7. What a Zero-Growth Population Implies for GDP

Set population growth to zero and run the formula. Three things fall out, and none of them are optional.

First, the arithmetic. If the workforce stops growing, every point of GDP growth must come from productivity. A 1.8 percent economy needs 1.8 percent productivity growth, every single year, forever.

American productivity has averaged about 1.5 percent since 2005. So the standard forecast is possible, but it leaves zero slack. Miss on productivity, or get the shrinking-workforce scenario, and the projected economy simply does not show up.

This is not a thought experiment. Deaths pass births around 2030, and the workforce may have peaked already.

Second, the difference between total and per-person prosperity. Zero population growth does not mean your standard of living stalls. If productivity grows, income per person grows even while total GDP flattens, and Japan has been demonstrating this for thirty years.

What flattens is everything scaled to total GDP. Debt ratios get worse without any new borrowing. Social Security and Medicare run on the ratio of workers to retirees, and that ratio rots fastest exactly when population growth stops.

Look back at the pie chart in Figure 3. About 170 million people in the labor force are carrying about 172 million who are not. Every forecast in this paper says the carried half grows against the carrying half.

Third, what becomes valuable. In a labor-scarce economy, the premium moves to anything that raises output per worker. That means automation, better matching of people to jobs, and longer healthy working lives.

CBO put a machine-productivity dividend into the national forecast for the first time, worth about a tenth of a point a year. Whether that is timid or wildly generous is the biggest open question in American economics. The vendors will tell you it is timid, and the vendors are selling something.

8. What This Means for Workforce Planning

Workforce planning grew up in a world where labor supply was somebody else’s problem. You forecast demand, you posted requisitions, and the market delivered. That world ended in November 2025.

Supply is now the constraint, and the plan that ignores it is a wish.

Start with the arithmetic your own building. If the national workforce is flat, your net new hires come from someone else’s payroll. Every growth plan in your industry is a raid on a fixed pool, and the pool knows it.

That changes the economics of retention. When replacement is easy, turnover is a nuisance and retention programs are soft. When replacement means outbidding a competitor for scarce people, every point of retained turnover is headcount you did not have to buy at market price.

It changes the value of the workers you already have. The median worker is 42 and heading older. Health, ergonomics, flexible schedules, and phased retirement stop being benefits-brochure padding and become supply-chain management for labor.

It changes where skills come from. If you cannot hire the skill, you build it, and internal mobility becomes the cheapest labor market you have access to. The companies that treat their own people as the primary talent pool will out-staff the ones still waiting for applicants.

It changes the automation conversation. Automation used to be a cost play with a layoff attached. In a shrinking labor market it is a coverage play, and the honest question is which work should stop requiring a person at all.

And it changes planning horizons. Immigration policy can swing your local labor supply faster than any birth rate ever will, in either direction, on an election cycle. A workforce plan without policy scenarios is a plan for exactly one version of the future.

Plan the supply side. Demand was never the hard part.

9. A Meaner War for Talent — or Something Stranger?

Every shortage produces the same headline. The war for talent is back, and this time it is forever. Before you buy it, remember where the phrase came from.

McKinsey coined it in 1997 to sell consulting. It has been declared permanent in every tight market since, and repealed in every recession. Skepticism is the correct opening position.

The case for a hotter war is real, though. Supply is flat or falling for the first time in the modern record. The demographic engines are spent, the immigration tap is closed, and six million exits a month means your best people always have somewhere to go.

In that world, scarcity is structural, not cyclical. Wages ratchet. Poaching gets industrial. The talent war stops being a metaphor and starts being a line item.

Now the case against. A war for talent assumes demand for labor holds steady while supply shrinks. That assumption is doing a lot of unexamined work.

The same machine-productivity bet that props up the GDP forecast is a bet against labor demand. If the software does what its sellers claim, demand for whole categories of work falls faster than the workforce shrinks. You do not fight a war for people nobody is hiring.

Here is the uncomfortable middle: both cases can be true at once, just not for the same jobs.

The likelier future is not one war but violent weather. Scarcity in care work, skilled trades, and anything that requires hands and presence. Surplus in routine cognitive work that software eats. And the boundary between the two moving every year.

Volatility, not shortage, is the real forecast. Two unstable inputs drive the whole system, and both are set by people who do not answer to your workforce plan. Immigration policy swings on elections, and machine adoption swings on vendor promises meeting reality.

The old war for talent had one front and one weapon, which was money. The next one has a dozen fronts that open and close without notice. The winners will be the organizations that can redeploy, retrain, and re-plan faster than the weather changes.

Do not build a war machine. Build a fast one.

10. How to Stay on Top of These Trends

Everything in this paper came from free public sources. You can run this watch yourself with modest effort. Here is the routine.

The monthly habit is the BLS Employment Situation release. It lands at 8:30 a.m. Eastern, usually the first Friday of the month. One document carries the labor force level, the participation rate, employment, and unemployment.

The single best tool is FRED, the St. Louis Fed’s free data service. A handful of series codes are worth memorizing. CLF16OV is the labor force, CIVPART is the participation rate, CE16OV is employment, CNP16OV is the adult population, and LNS17800000 plus LNS17900000 are the gross exits.

FRED will email you when a series updates. The watch runs itself, and it costs nothing.

The annual calendar matters as much as the monthly one. Every January the survey absorbs new Census population controls, which is what caused the jumps in 2000 and 2025 and will likely cause a drop in 2027. Read January data knowing the break is coming.

Each winter, CBO publishes its Budget and Economic Outlook and its Demographic Outlook, which hold the immigration assumptions under every long-run number here. Each late summer, BLS updates the ten-year labor force projections. Each May, the foreign-born workers report updates the immigration picture, and the Fed publishes its growth outlook quarterly.

Three reading habits separate a serious watcher from a headline consumer. Watch levels and gross flows, not just rates, because a rate can fall for reasons that have nothing to do with behavior. Ask what happened to the denominator before you believe any ratio.

And learn to tell a measurement event from an economic event. A January revision, a survey change, or a shutdown data gap will masquerade as news to anyone who does not know the calendar. The October and November 2025 holes in these charts are exactly that kind of thing.

The numbers are good. They reward people who know how they are made.

Appendix A: Methods and Sources

Historical series are Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis data, pulled through FRED, the St. Louis Fed’s data service. All BLS series are seasonally adjusted. October and November 2025 are missing at the source for several series, and January values include annual Census population-control revisions, flagged on the affected charts.

· Civilian Labor Force Level — CLF16OV (BLS via FRED)

· Employment Level — CE16OV (BLS via FRED)

· Civilian Noninstitutional Population — CNP16OV (BLS via FRED)

· Labor Force Participation Rate — CIVPART (BLS via FRED)

· Civilian Labor Force, Women — LNS11000002 (BLS via FRED)

· Labor Force Flows, Employed to Not in Labor Force — LNS17800000 (BLS via FRED, from Feb 1990)

· Labor Force Flows, Unemployed to Not in Labor Force — LNS17900000 (BLS via FRED, from Feb 1990)

· Real Gross Domestic Product — GDPC1 (BEA via FRED, chained 2017 dollars)

Projections, official outlooks, and reference publications:

· BLS Employment Projections, median age of the labor force (2004–2034): bls.gov/emp/tables/median-age-labor-force.htm

· BLS Employment Projections program (labor force growth averaging 0.3 percent per year, 2024–34): bls.gov/emp

· BLS Monthly Labor Review, “Labor force change, 1950–2050” (historical median age): bls.gov/opub/mlr/2002/05/art2full.pdf

· BLS, Labor Force Characteristics of Foreign-Born Workers: bls.gov/news.release/forbrn.nr0.htm

· BLS, The Employment Situation (monthly release): bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

· CBO, The Demographic Outlook: 2026 to 2056 (immigration and population assumptions): cbo.gov/publication/61994

· CBO, The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036 (GDP projections): cbo.gov/publication/61882

· Federal Reserve, FOMC meeting calendar and Summary of Economic Projections: federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/fomccalendars.htm

· IMF, World Economic Outlook, April 2026: imf.org/en/publications/weo (April 2026)

· OMB, the President’s FY2027 budget (growth assumptions): whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

The scenario paths, the median-age extension past 2034, and the not-in-labor-force subgroup estimates are my calculations anchored to those sources, with methods stated in the figure notes. Gross flows count transitions, not people. The subgroup figures in Section 2 are good to plus-or-minus one to two million.

A closing note on hygiene. Everything here rests on a survey of sixty thousand households, under definitions last revised in 1994. The numbers are the best available, and they are good. They are not the economy itself. That distinction always matters. It matters more than usual now, when the gap between who is in the country and who is in the population estimate is the widest it has been in a generation

Everybody starts the story of HR technology in 1951. That was the year an electronic computer first ran a routine business job. It is a fine place to mark the electronic inflection.

It is the wrong place to begin.

Punched-card machines were running payroll, accounting, and personnel records for half a century before anyone switched on a stored-program computer. The longer lineage is worth understanding. It shows HR being shaped by data-processing capability before the computer existed.

Technology drives the evolution of HR. It was already doing the driving when the machines were still mechanical.

The punched-card era (1890s to 1940s)

The first large-scale human inventory in this country was the census. Herman Hollerith built punched-card tabulating machines to process the 1890 count. The machines replaced manual review with mechanized counting and sorting.

Hollerith founded the Tabulating Machine Company in 1896. It merged into the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company in 1911. CTR was renamed International Business Machines in 1924.

IBM went on to define corporate computing. The work to count people in the census made HR’s adoption possible.

For the first half of the twentieth century, large employers ran payroll, accounting, and personnel accounting on punched-card equipment. Railroads, insurers, and government agencies did the same. Keypunches, sorters, tabulators.

None of it was a computer in the modern sense. All of it was machine-readable employee data at scale.

That is the real ancestor of the HR database.

When electronic computers finally arrived, their first job was taking over the work the punched-card systems were already doing.

The electronic inflection (1951)

The first business application on an electronic computer was not payroll. It was not American.

In November 1951, J. Lyons and Company ran a job called Bakery Valuations. Lyons was a British tea-shop and catering business.

The machine was the Lyons Electronic Office. Lyons built it themselves.

People generally regard this as the world’s first routine business computer application. Payroll for Lyons’ own staff followed around 1953 or 1954. By 1956, LEO was running payroll as a bureau service for Ford UK and others.

A tea company built the first business computer.

The conventional history loses that detail. It is worth keeping, because it tells you something true about how this industry actually moves. The pressure to pay people and value inventory was concrete and recurring.

HR technology is almost always a use case for technology invented for other purposes.

American payroll went electronic in the mid-1950s. The UNIVAC I and the IBM 650 were reaching large employers.

General Electric ran payroll on a UNIVAC I at its Appliance Park facility in 1954. That run is usually cited as the first American business-payroll application.

There are two different firsts here. Most histories blur them.

Lyons was the first company to run its own payroll on a computer. Automatic Data Processing was the first payroll services company.

ADP was founded in 1949 as Automatic Payrolls, Inc. It processed payroll on behalf of clients. It eventually dominated the outsourced business.

From master files to the system of record (1958 to 1990)

Once payroll data existed in machine-readable form, personnel data followed. By virtue of being first, Payroll became the organizing principle for all HRTech. You can think of most HRTech/WorkTech as an extension of the payroll record.

Computerized employee master files showed up in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Integrated payroll-and-personnel systems came together through the late 1960s and early 1970s. Databases, disk storage, and management information systems made that possible.

Again, HR’s evolution follows the emergence of technology.

The first commercial HR software vendors arrived in the early 1970s. The term HRIS was in common industry usage by decade’s end.

The single system of record for the whole employee population is largely a product of the 1980s. That is what most people picture when they hear HR technology. PeopleSoft, founded in 1987, together with Lawson and SAP, brought client-server architecture and relational databases to the function.

For roughly its first four decades, HR technology answered three questions and not many more.

Who works here. What do we pay them. What benefits do they get.

It was record-keeping and transaction processing. It was good at it.

The internet, the cloud, and the shift to recruiting (1990s to 2010s)

From the 1990s the center of gravity moved from records to workflow and recruiting. Enterprise HCM suites, networked PCs, and graphical interfaces standardized HR across the organization.

Then the internet moved recruiting online through job boards and applicant tracking systems. The web let employees and managers serve themselves.

Cloud and SaaS architecture turned HR software into a subscription. Workday marked that shift in 2005. Cheap storage and machine learning made people analytics a discipline of its own.

The job changed from recording what happened to predicting what would happen next.

From records to prediction to judgment support (2022 to present)

The current inflection is generative AI. The cleanest way to frame it is as the fourth move in a long progression.

HR technology started as a record-keeper that told you what happened. It became a reporter that told you what was happening. It became an analyst that told you why.

Then it became a forecaster that told you what would happen next.

Now it is trying to become a participant in the decision itself. It wants to tell you what to do.

The difference between prediction and judgment is the whole game.

A prediction states a probability. This employee has a meaningful chance of leaving in the next six months. That is where it stops.

A judgment-support system goes further. It frames the decision. Here are the interventions worth considering, with the evidence behind each one, the cost, the risk, and the likely result.

A human still owns the call at the end.

Large language models are what make that possible. They can reason across different kinds of evidence. They can say their reasoning out loud in plain language.

The machine-learning models that came before could not do that.

The emerging applications run across recruiting, internal mobility, workforce planning, compensation, and employee relations.

A word of caution about the vendor names attached to this category. Treat them as directional rather than settled.

The space is moving fast. The line between a shipping product and a roadmap slide is still blurry.

Some of what’s getting sold is a prediction wearing a better interface. Some of what’s sold as an AI agent is employee self-service with a fresh coat of paint.

The buyer’s job is to tell the difference.

Here’s another way of thinking about it.

Read the whole history this way and the pattern is hard to miss. Each new capability arrived and opened a bottleneck or an opportunity. HR reorganized itself to handle what the machine made possible.

That engine has not stopped.

The interesting question now is not whether the software gets smarter. It will. The question is what stays human once the machine can assemble the evidence, weigh the alternatives, and draft the recommendation.

Accountability does not automate.

Somebody still has to own the decision. Somebody has to own being wrong about it. The history suggests that is the part of human resources that goes last, if it goes at all.

Share

My fascination with electronics started at about 7. That Christmas I got a crystal radio kit. If you’ve never seen one, it runs on nothing but the electricity in the radio waves themselves. No batteries, no plug. Six parts, headphone included.

It was like magic. You held the headphone to your ear and the sound arrived out of nowhere. Night was the best time. Radio waves move differently after dark.

The reason is the ionosphere. It reflects certain frequencies, and the waves bounce between the ground and that layer on their way around the planet. At night, with the sun gone, the layer behaves differently, and some distant stations come in that you’d never catch at noon.

Ten or so stations were licensed at 50,000 watts. From my bed in Virginia I could pull in the Grand Ole Opry out of Nashville and Cousin Brucie on WABC in New York. I stayed up listening.

Tuning was fickle. Weather changed everything. Some nights I got Los Angeles or San Francisco. Some nights I got nothing.

It was like having wings. When the house went quiet I could leave it, reliably, and go anywhere. That’s where my scattered taste in music came from. I knew there was a bigger world, and I knew I’d get to it.

The history runs the same way. Vacuum tubes were expensive, so cheap crystal sets are what actually put radio in front of the public in the early 1920s. People built them at home or bought them. Quaker Oats sold a kit for a dollar and two box tops.

Subscribe now

When tube prices fell, louder amplified sets pushed the crystal radio aside. Then the Depression brought it back. Broke people buy what’s simple and cheap, and quality loses to affordability every time the money’s gone.

So the crystal set was the gateway. Simple, cheap, no power required. It put receivers in millions of hands, and those hands became the audience that made commercial broadcasting a business in the first place.

New communication technologies always draw fire, and radio drew plenty. Two of the worries rhyme with what you hear about AI now, though I’d watch the rhyme more than I’d trust it.

The first was that reality would come apart. In the 1930s, critics treated radio as a machine for mass manipulation. The panic story around Orson Welles’ 1938 War of the Worlds broadcast got repackaged as proof that listeners could no longer tell broadcast fiction from fact. The current version says generative tools, deepfakes, and automated disinformation will wear away any shared sense of what’s true, until you can’t trust audio, video, or text.

The second was that somebody’s livelihood was finished. In the early 1930s the newspapers fought radio in the Press-Radio War, trying to choke off its access to the wire services because a fast, free medium looked like the end of print. The current version is the wave of lawsuits from writers, artists, and journalists who expect their work to be ingested, copied, and undercut.

The radio panic didn’t get answered. Television came along and the worry moved over to it by the mid-to-late 1950s. That is the pattern worth noticing. The dread attaches to whatever showed up last, which should tell you something about where it actually comes from.

All new technologies create negative blowback. While it’s not all misplaced, the shakeup of the status quo generates waves of fear as a part of the adoption process. In future articles, I’ll be digging into the evolution of technology and the associated fears.

Fear and panic are natural responses to new technologies. The certainty that relationships will be damaged, industries and jobs destroyed, and young people will be hurt echoes across hundreds of years of tech transitions.

In HR, HRTech, and WorkTech, the debates about the horrors of Ai will probably grow in intensity for a few more years. Then, the next thing will start taking the heat.

Share

Crystal Radio Parts List

1. Diode (Detector): Traditionally a galena or germanium crystal; it rectifies the alternating current radio signal into direct current audio pulses.

2. Ground Connection: Hooks to a cold-water pipe or metal rod to complete the antenna circuit safely.

3. High-Impedance Earphone: Piezoelectric or ceramic earbud which ran on the micro-amounts of electricity generated by the radio waves.

4. Antenna Wire: 50–100 feet to trap enough physical radio wave energy to power the system.

5. Tuning Coil (Inductor): Copper magnet wire wound tightly around a form to filter out overlapping frequencies.

6. Earphone: A single bakelite can holding a magnet, a coil, and a thin steel diaphragm.

I spend my days analyzing the intersection of HR tech, the job market, organizational culture and the sheer hysteria surrounding Artificial Intelligence. Vendors are running around with their hair on fire, pitching Large Language Models (LLMs) as the ultimate cure for workplace friction.

Using these tools feels like strapping on a mental exoskeleton. But the hard part about technological disruption is looking past the immediate magic to see the hidden tax. We are stumbling into a psychological trap.

It’s the hallucination of competence.

We worry constantly about AI hallucinating facts, but we miss the bigger problem: AI makes us hallucinate our own mastery. We are decoupling the painful, messy work of thinking from the final product. Here is how this illusion works.

Seduced by the Surface

Generative AI produces impeccable, authoritative prose. Historically, flawless text meant the author had put in the hard cognitive work to deeply understand the material. Because of this, our brains use a biological shortcut called the “fluency heuristic.” If it reads beautifully, we instinctively assume it’s true.

AI hacks this shortcut.

It hands a worker a perfectly formatted document. Because it looks so polished, the worker’s brain never engages the analytical gears required to check for underlying logic gaps. We mistake aesthetic perfection for conceptual reality.

The Ego and the Prompt

Then there is the blurred line of agency. A manager types a sloppy, ten-word prompt. Three seconds later, the AI spits out a comprehensive strategic analysis. Instead of realizing the machine’s statistical weights did 99% of the heavy lifting, the user unconsciously takes the credit. Over time, workers view the AI’s vast capabilities as a reflection of their own intellect. It’s a massive inflation of self-assessed competence.

Subscribe now

Confusing the Map with the Territory

Generative AI doesn’t just fetch links like a search engine; it instantly synthesizes them into a polished conclusion. Workers receive this highly competent document and commit a fundamental category error: they confuse access to synthesized information with internalized understanding.

Because they didn’t sweat over the logic, they haven’t built the mental scaffolding to actually comprehend the material. They possess the final product, but if asked to defend it in a meeting without their laptop, they fall apart. They have the presumption of wisdom with none of the baseline knowledge.

Engineering Out the Muscle Tone

From an HR and Learning & Development perspective, this is where things get truly dangerous. Real human learning requires friction—what cognitive scientists call “desirable difficulties.” Grappling with a complex problem physically changes your brain.

AI short-circuits this loop. It delivers a finished artifact—and a massive dopamine hit of task completion—for zero cognitive effort. It trains the workforce to view mental struggle as an annoyance to be bypassed. We are optimizing away the very friction that makes us smart.

The Illusion of Rigor

When a human writes from scratch, they know exactly where their logic gets fuzzy. The manual process leaves a transparent trail of their limitations. AI hides all of this. The machine doesn’t highlight its own uncertainty; it presents every claim with the exact same authoritative voice. Workers feel like they’ve conducted exhaustive research, when they’ve actually just outsourced their critical thinking to a black box.

The Strategic Advantage of Awareness

It’s easy to look at this intellectual decay and panic. But recognizing the hallucination of competence isn’t a reason to ban AI. It’s actually your greatest strategic advantage.

Once HR leaders and executives understand that frictionless output degrades human expertise, everything changes. Understanding this trap is the blueprint for using the technology correctly. It allows us to intentionally design workflows that reintroduce friction where it actually matters.

When you know the illusion exists, you stop training employees to be passive prompt-pushers and start developing them into rigorous editors, critical interrogators, and systems thinkers. You use the AI to gather and organize raw material, but you force the human to do the heavy lifting of logical vetting.

The organizations that win won’t be the ones that automate away all their cognitive friction. They will be the ones who understand this psychological trap and use that awareness to build a workforce where technology scales output, but the human brain retains its muscle tone.

Share

Photo by Raimond Klavins on Unsplash
Dunning-Kruger Model from AgileCoffee

For Frederick Taylor, management was about discovering the one best way to do a job. Work could be measured, standardized, and optimized. The manager’s role was to design the system and ensure that everyone followed it. Expertise lived at the top of the organization. Workers executed.

That idea worked well when organizations were primarily collections of routine work.

It fell apart as work became more specialized.

The growth of engineering, finance, marketing, software, medicine, and human resources created organizations in which no manager could possibly know enough to direct every important decision. Peter Drucker called these people “knowledge workers,” but his larger point was about management itself. Once knowledge became distributed throughout the enterprise, the manager’s job changed.

Managers no longer made decisions because they knew the answers.They made decisions by deciding whose answers mattered.

Every organization is a network of distributed expertise. No one, not the CEO, not the head of engineering, not the CHRO, understands enough about every discipline to resolve every question. Knowledge is scattered across the enterprise, accumulated through education, experience, and repeated exposure to problems that never appear in a manual.

That means managers rarely evaluate problems directly. They evaluate the people interpreting those problems.

Subscribe now

When a production line fails, the question isn’t simply how to fix the machine. It begins with identifying the engineer who understands this particular failure. When a key employee resigns, the issue isn’t merely how to replace them. It starts by determining which recruiter, manager, or colleague has the clearest understanding of the labor market. In every function, managers begin by locating expertise before they act on it.

Experience matters, but not because experts possess more facts. Experts recognize patterns.

They know which details deserve attention because they have seen similar situations unfold before. They remember the warning signs that preceded a customer defection, a project failure, or a hiring mistake. Much of that knowledge is never documented. It emerged through practice rather than instruction.

Organizations depend on experienced employees for another reason. They carry institutional memory.

They remember why a policy exists, why an acquisition failed, why a particular customer requires special handling, or why an apparently sensible idea has already been tried three times. Every organization contains knowledge that exists only in conversation and recollection. Managers rely on that memory far more than most organizational charts acknowledge.

The problem is that expertise cannot be observed directly. Managers see its shadows.

They infer competence from credentials, job titles, years of experience, reputation, previous results, and confidence. These are useful indicators, but they are only indicators. Long tenure can conceal complacency. Confidence can overwhelm evidence. Titles often reflect history more than current capability. Some of the most valuable experts are almost invisible because they are careful rather than charismatic.

The practical work of management is learning to distinguish demonstrated judgment from persuasive storytelling.

That challenge has become progressively more difficult.

Organizations now generate oceans of information. Dashboards, assessments, surveys, financial reports, labor market data, customer analytics, and predictive models all claim to reduce uncertainty. They do, but only partially. Data still require interpretation. Evidence still competes with evidence. Every important decision arrives before enough information exists to eliminate risk.

The manager’s responsibility remains unchanged.

Someone must decide which evidence deserves confidence, whose judgment carries the greatest weight, what risks are acceptable, and when enough certainty exists to move. Accountability cannot be delegated, even when analysis can.

This is why management has steadily moved away from supervision and toward judgment. Taylor’s manager optimized work. Drucker’s manager coordinated expertise. Today’s manager assembles evidence from multiple sources, weighs competing interpretations, and commits the organization to a course of action that will only later be revealed as wise or mistaken.

Management is often described as the allocation of capital, labor, and time.

Increasingly, it is the allocation of confidence.

The organizations that consistently outperform their competitors are not necessarily those with the greatest concentration of expertise. They are the ones that become better at identifying expertise, testing it against evidence, combining diverse perspectives, and knowing when to challenge even their most trusted authorities.

Managers do not make decisions because they know the answers.

They make decisions because they have learned whose judgment deserves to shape the future.

Share

Photo by Michelle Tresemer on Unsplash

Pattern Image by Arthur Mazi on Unsplash

It’s been awhile.

When I moved to California, my two oldest kids and I (they were 8 and 10) camped across the country. It was a reprise of my first cross country road trip… east coast to Denver to Tuscon to LA to San Francisco. It was a privilege to watch their faces as they saw the unimaginable geography and geology of our country.

As we left Arizona and headed to LA, we went from the darkness of the desert night into the bright lights of the megalopolis. The Beach Boys informed that leg of the trip. We ended up staying the night in Anaheim, across the street from Disneyland.

The next morning we tackled the amusement park. While there were a number of magic moments, Space Mountain stands out clearly in my memory. I’m quite tall and most of my height is in my torso. I slouched down in the seat so that I wouldn’t get decapitated on the ride.

That’s the kind of thing the ride’s designers hope you feel.

Space Mountain is all about disorientation. It is a fast, smooth indoor roller coaster that uses darkness, sound, and carefully controlled lighting to convince your brain that you are flying through space at impossible speed. The ride lasts only about two minutes, but the sensory experience makes it feel longer.

Your eyes never adapt because there is almost nothing to see. Tiny stars appear overhead. A comet flashes past. A spiral galaxy rotates off to one side. Your brain desperately tries to construct a horizon, but there isn’t one. The track twists left. Then right. You bank sharply. A small drop feels much larger because you cannot see it coming.

Occasionally a glowing planet appears close enough to seem reachable before vanishing behind you. Meteor streaks flash by. Blue-white stars whip overhead. Brief bursts of light reveal just enough of the track to heighten anticipation before darkness swallows everything again.

You see just enough to almost get oriented. Then it gets dark again. The glimpses of stars, planets, and (occasionally) the track create a sense of coherence that keeps escaping.

Subscribe now

AI feels just like that.

This morning ChatGPT spent a bunch of energy telling me how smart I am and how unique my ideas are. It glossed right over the inconsistencies and incoherence of my forming notions. Like Space Mountain, it harnessed my mind’s desire for clarity to create an illusion.

It takes serious work to see that the darkness is central to the illusion. It happens much faster in AI, but the trick is the same. Unlike Space Mountain, AI has no lines and wants to keep me on the ride for as long as possible.

I can’t begin to tell you how deeply I enjoy exploring ideas with all of the LLMs. It’s fast, responsive, and shallow. It spends its time looking for the fastest way to please me.

Unlike Space Mountain, I try to use LLMs for work. To do so, I have to continuously route ideas through all three of the tools I use regularly. I get an answer in one place and then ask a different LLM to review and critique the idea. Then I do it with a third LLM. What I gain from that process is a clearer understanding of what I’m missing.

What I’ve discovered is that using three LLMs isn’t really about getting a better answer. It’s about getting off the ride.

Each model has its own blind spots and its own ways of flattering me into believing I’ve reached clarity. When they disagree, the darkness becomes visible. The contradictions are the point. They tell me where I still have work to do.

Space Mountain ends when the lights come on and you roll back into the station. You realize that what felt like an impossible journey happened inside a carefully designed building. AI doesn’t have that moment. The ride has no natural ending. It will happily keep generating confidence long after it has stopped generating understanding.

The job isn’t to find the smartest model. It’s to build habits that make the darkness visible. Curiosity isn’t enough. Skepticism isn’t enough. You need a way to step outside the illusion and ask what you’ve missed.

That’s where the real work begins.

Share

Photo by Logan Voss on Unsplash

Most big changes arrive quietly, as paperwork. That is how work changed in 1949. No parade, no headline, just small moves that, stacked together, reshaped how we think about every job in America.

Before 1949, hiring was a bet on a person. A boss looked at you and asked whether you could learn, grow, and get better. You were hired for your potential. The person was the point, and the job formed around them.

After 1949, that question turned inside out. Instead of asking who a person was, employers began asking what a job was. The job became what mattered. The person became something you poured into it. Several forces drove it, all at once.

During World War II, the Army had to place millions of people fast, so it built a test that ranked each soldier by five levels of ability. When the war ended, its builders carried it into business. By 1947 you could buy a civilian version. Meanwhile the GI Bill flooded the workforce with graduates, stamped with degrees that proved what they could do.

Then two more pieces fell into place. Two brothers in New Jersey built a company that did one boring thing: it ran other companies’ payroll. You know it today as ADP. Payroll stopped being a clerk with a pen and became a service you bought.

The other piece was a law almost nobody outside government remembers, the Classification Act of 1949. The federal government was the country’s largest employer, and the law sorted nearly every federal job onto a ladder of fifteen grades. Each rung was defined by the job’s difficulty, responsibility, and required skills/qualifications. That system still runs, which is why a job is called a GS-9 or a GS-12.

Sit with what that meant. The job carried its grade and its qualification requirements before any human walked through the door. The slot came first. The person came second. We designed the box first, then went shopping for someone box-shaped.

Subscribe now

Once you see it, you see it everywhere: job descriptions, pay grades, “required qualifications,” each treating a job as a fixed slot the worker happens to fill today. It is where specialists come from. Once a job carries its own must-haves, you stop hiring people who can learn anything and hire only those who already match the list. Potential takes a back seat, and the checklist drives.

Intended to inhibit discrimination, the approach caused its opposite. Marginalized people without the ability to gain qualifications are inherently discriminated against.

The pattern peaked in the 1990s, when the reengineering craze urged companies to blow up their job structures and rebuild around how work flowed. People called it new, but it was 1949 reaching its conclusion. You can only blow up jobs that are already solid objects, and 1949 is what made them solid.

For seventy-five years the job won and the person lost, for a mechanical reason: no company could know its people one by one at scale, so it managed categories instead.

Artificial intelligence is dismantling that constraint.

For the first time, we can begin to see what a person actually knows, how fast they learn, and what they might become, across thousands at once. The very thing that forced the position to come first, our blindness to individuals at scale, is what AI will take away.

The early echoes are already here: skills-based hiring, the fading power of the college degree. As machines get better at reading people as individuals, the pre 1949 question becomes worth asking again: who is this person, and how far can they grow? The shift that once put the job first will now quietly put the person back ahead of it. And it will probably arrive the way the first one did, not with a bang but as paperwork.

Photo by Boston Public Library on Unsplash

Image: Army General Classification Test. First Civilian Edition © Smithsonian Institution/

Share

Agents wear out.

It happens in a variety of ways. And the closer your work is to agentic engineering, the more complex those ways become.

Subscribe now

Sidequest:

This diagram is how Google currently imagines the necessary components of agentic architecture (white paper, audio summary). They say, “Model = LLM (10%) + Harness (90%).” They mean that the integrated pieces of agentic design include:

• Specification

• Instruction

• Evaluation

• Testing

• Guardrails

• Orchestration

• Deployment

• Scaling

• Governance

• Security

• Memory

It’s where all of the development work lives. In the image, the LLM is in the center. Everything else is the harness.

This is a large and complex rabbit hole. At the frontier, agentic engineering is remarkably sophisticated, and getting more so. As it evolves, it looks less and less like hobbyist tinkering and more like a form of enterprise software development. Just because you can build using natural language doesn’t mean that you’ve figured out how to control the LLM.

Each of those eleven components also ages on its own clock, which is exactly why this gets complicated.

Back to the Mainquest:

Work, with the possible exception of high-volume, repetitive tasks, is an emergent phenomenon. As time passes and the world changes, so do processes, methods, tools, and outcomes. Even though organizational structure, team composition, and job titles remain somewhat fixed, the content of the work changes with circumstance. This is part of the reason that job descriptions and jobs so rarely match up.

It gets worse with agents. The harness drifts naturally while the underlying model gets better. Harnesses are partly built to compensate for a model’s specific blind spots and failure modes; when the model improves, those blind spots shift, and the guardrails, prompts, and evaluations built around the old ones quietly stop matching what’s actually in front of them. Each of the layers of the harness decays at different speeds. Sooner or later, the agent needs to be recalibrated, updated, repaired, or replaced.

This is in addition to the natural drift of the job itself.

Recalibration means re-running the evaluation suite against the new model to see which guardrails still catch real problems and which are now just ceremony. It means rewriting instructions and prompts that were quietly compensating for a weakness the model no longer has. It means reexamining and revising the fundamental specification. And it means deciding, layer by layer, whether to patch, replace, or retire, because not every part of the harness breaks for the same reason or on the same schedule.

That sounds like a job description.

Organizations already employ people whose entire function is to notice this kind of drift in software systems and correct for it: site reliability engineers (SRE) exist because infrastructure and demand evolve at different rates, and someone has to keep them aligned. Agents have the same problem on a faster clock with more dimensions, since the model underneath can change on a vendor’s release schedule rather than a depreciation schedule. Does that make “agent reliability engineer” a coming job title, the same way SRE became one for infrastructure?

Maintenance, in the end, is the process of keeping purpose and function aligned. For an agent, purpose changes faster than function does, which means maintenance isn’t a one-time setup cost. It’s the what you have to do for the agents you build. It’s the job.

Share

Photo by John Cardamone on Unsplash

This one’s a little different. It involves hiring, probable ATS rejections, and questions about bias in tech. But Swanson v. IBM (filed in Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas) is by a former employee against his employer, IBM. It’s not about an HR Tech Company, at least directly. Yet.

The reason why this matters is because the employer is the one on the hook no matter who gets sued. They are the ones who created the adverse employment action when a candidate gets rejected, no matter how the candidate gets rejected.

And even when the employer doesn’t get sued, they are still on the hook because they’re the ones with all the evidence. For example, in Mobley v. Workday, the plaintiff only sued Workday. That’s because they want to create a class action for as many people as possible who have been rejected by employers using Workday tech. Suing employers would limit the class and make things very messy. But it’s the employers who will get subpoenaed to produce their hiring data, tech settings, and other records relating to the rejections.

It’s part of doing business. But it sucks to deal with subpoenas all day. Ask Facebook who has a whole team of people who do nothing but respond to records requests for copies of people’s feeds for use as evidence in employment, custody, domestic violence, and injury disputes. Really. I don’t care how funny it was in the moment, if you’re off work for a back injury, don’t post the photos of doing belly flops off a cliff in the Bahamas. (The employment lawyers are all nodding and thinking, “I had a case like that.”)

Back to Mr. Swanson and IBM. He worked successfully at IBM for over 24 years and was let go. They specifically told him it had nothing to do with performance. He suspected that the company was trying to shed older, more expensive workers and prioritize “Early Professional Hires.”

After leaving, he started seeing postings for jobs surprisingly similar to the one he had left, which undermined any argument that his position was eliminated. So after a couple months, he applied for one. Why not? He was certainly qualified.

But he received a GLIYFE (good luck in your future endeavors) auto rejection within 2 days of applying. Hmmmm. We have a candidate with direct experience who was definitely qualified for the role but rejected without even an interview. It is not exactly surprising that now there’s an age discrimination suit.

IBM hasn’t answered the complaint, but all answers deny liability so we know what it will say. The real issue is what is the evidence?

There may have been a filter or setting on the ATS that created biased outcomes based on age. It may have even been a don’t-rehire-people-who-were-terminated filter, which seems wrong but may not be illegal. Or maybe the guy was a jerk to deal with and someone actually saw the application and said, “Oh hell no, not him again.” We’ll eventually find out.

In the meantime, I’m getting calls from older white men who think they might have been discriminated against based on age. They are fascinating discussions since most of these people have never experienced discrimination before in their lives; they’re often in shock that it actually happened to them.

The reality is that many investors don’t care. Money is more important than people to them. And it makes perfect sense, some even argue that they have a fiduciary duty, to get rid of more expensive employees if it increases profits.

The trouble is that it’s illegal under both state and federal employment law. Civil rights really are for everyone. And the minute it's okay to discriminate against anyone, then everyone is next.

Discrimination is also stupid and wrong. I guess it’s time to quantify the value of institutional knowledge, wisdom and good judgment.

Share

Subscribe now

The responsible deployment and use of AI begins with governance. Modeled (to some extent) on the ideas of financial accountability, AI governance looks to the future while its financial progenitor looks backwards. Financial governance is retrospective. It explains and controls the movement of money that has already been spent. AI governance is prospective. It establishes the boundaries within which future decisions, models, and deployments can occur.

Governance is the process of translating organizational values, risk tolerances, and authority structures into operational rules.

Financial accounting covers levels of financial authority and documentation requirements. Its sole focus is the management of cash and capital. It determines who can sign for what, what constitutes an acceptable invoice or receipt, how costs/budgets are allocated, and the elements of good reporting.

AI accountability is a couple of layers more complex. That’s because the underlying elements are dynamic and likely to change over time. Large organizations are likely to require dozens of policies. Many of the key pieces of AI governance remain to be understood and formalized:

• Data Governance

• Model governance

• Human oversight

• Security and compliance

• Vendor and license management

• Performance and productivity measurement

This is not exciting stuff.

But, attention to governance prevents a future of locking the gate after the horse has left. It’s easier to build in advance than it is to manage after the catastrophe. It requires the very hard work of navigating layers of approval levels for interdepartmental work.

And, we are learning what we need as we go. The Silicon Valley philosophy of leaping before you look is great for discovery and innovation.It’s also an excellent way to create risks that only become visible after the system is embedded in the business. Actually harnessing innovation and disruption demands clear repeatable constraints.

As dry as it is, AI governance is going to require the attention of our best minds. This is where the dryness of the arena is a significant problem. The sorts of people who are good at defining constraints are not the same people who succeed with discovery.

The challenge is not finding the perfect balance between control and innovation. The challenge is building institutions that can accommodate both. The people who discover new possibilities are rarely the people who define durable constraints. AI governance requires both disciplines, working together while the terrain continues to shift beneath them.

Share

Photo by T K on Unsplash

Youth unemployment is back in the headlines. Recent coverage often attributes young workers’ struggles to AI, return-to-office policies, corporate cost-cutting, or other contemporary forces. Before looking for new explanations, it’s worth asking a basic question: Is youth unemployment unusually high?

Today’s entry-level rate is roughly half of what it was when I entered the workforce in 1978 (17.8%). The unemployment rate for people between 25 and 54 (Prime-age unemployment) was about 8%. That gap persists over time. The entry level unemployment rate is always 2 to 2.5 times the Prime age rate.

The difference is structural and remarkably persistent across economic cycles.

Throughout this article, “entry-level” refers to workers ages 16-24, the age group most likely to be entering the labor market for the first time. It just takes longer for young people to find their place in the workforce. Today’s entry level unemployment rate is near an historic low. It’s actually falling slightly. So, what’s the fuss about?

In the following chart, it’s clear that the entry level unemployment rate starts to spike in advance of a recession (the grey vertical bars). Historically, youth unemployment often begins rising before recessions become visible in broader labor-market data. Entry level jobs are always hit harder and earlier.

Over the past 50 years, the entry-level unemployment rate has averaged 2.5 times the prime-age level. The most striking feature of the data is not the unemployment rate itself. It’s the relationship between youth and prime-age unemployment. For half a century, young workers have been roughly 2 to 3 times more likely to be unemployed than workers in their prime earning years.

If young people are supposedly unable to find work, we would expect them to be actively searching. Participation data suggest something different. The reason that the entry-level participation rate declined is a marked increase in college enrollment. Over the 50 years in the chart, the percentage of entry-level aged people who are enrolled in college nearly doubled! College attendance reduces labor-force participation because students are less likely to seek full-time employment while enrolled.

None of this means that today’s graduates face no challenges. Wage growth, housing costs, credential inflation, and changing employer expectations are real concerns. But the unemployment data do not support the claim that young workers are experiencing historically unprecedented difficulty finding work.

The real story is not that young workers suddenly face an unprecedented labor market. Youth unemployment isn’t a sign that the labor market is broken. It’s a reminder that entering the labor market has always been harder than being established in it.

=======================

Here are the relevant links

• Youth unemployment, ages 16–24 (series LNS14024887): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14024887

• Prime-age unemployment, ages 25–54 (series LNS14000060): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS14000060

• Labor force participation, ages 20–24 (series LNS11300036): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300036

• College enrollment stats: Full historical table (1970–2017), NCES Digest Table 302.60:https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_302.60.asp — direct Excel download: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/xls/tabn302.60.xls

• College enrollment stats: Current figures + methodology (NCES Condition of Education, “College Enrollment Rates”):https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cpb/college-enrollment-rate

Photo by Alpha Perspective on Unsplash

In 1949, Vitamix aired what is often considered the first infomercial. A 30-minute Vitamix demonstration from that era feels like a period piece. A W.C. Fields lookalike explains how the expensive blender can turn whole wheat, rice, soybeans, and corn into flour. The sales pitch is instantly recognizable: benefit after benefit, layered one atop another.

Value stacking is the technique of adding benefits one at a time as a sales process. It works because it reframes the decision. Instead of asking whether to buy, the prospect begins asking what they’ll miss if they don’t. This is the heart of an infomercial.

Rather than merely lowering prices, a company layers supplementary benefits, perks, or bonuses into a comprehensive package. Continuously adding complementary items—such as expert guidance, additional resources, templates, or cheat sheets makes the core price feel fair and highly compelling.

Modern SaaS marketing often uses the same technique: templates, playbooks, communities, coaching, and bonus resources are bundled around a core product to make the offer feel irresistible.

The same logic is beginning to shape online publishing.

Have you noticed that posted material is growing longer and longer and more and more frequent? There is a feedback loop between algorithmic engagement and texts powered by ‘AI as a performance enhancing technology.’ When quality is difficult to measure automatically, length becomes an easy substitute. It’s engagement versus information.

When length is confused with depth in this way, there is a big incentive to go longer. And, I see that in the increasingly long but shallow material that makes its way to my feed. I assume we are all buried in it.

They look like infomercials for personal brands. Like classic infomercials, they accumulate lessons, frameworks, anecdotes, and promises one layer at a time. Every additional paragraph functions as another bonus.

The rhetorical structure is familiar:

• “But wait, there’s more.”

• “And that’s not all.”

• “What could you possibly be waiting for?”

The goal is the same as it was in 1949. Keep the audience engaged long enough that the question changes from “Do I need this?” to “What might I miss if I stop paying attention?” The modern infomercial isn’t selling blenders. It’s selling attention.

Based on a study by the International Labour Organization, HR Executive Magazine recently reported that 840,000 people die each year from work related stress and its manifestations in our physical and mental health.

I also read a recent study by Bentley University’s Center for Health and Business and an organization called unBurnt who found that we are not just burned out, we’re crispy. Not only that, burnout diminishes innovation despite the fact that people often power through and can get things done.

The study of 554 participants across 15 industries found that:

• 86% reported moderate to high workplace burnout, Managers were ~1.7x more likely to report high burnout than individual contributors (38% vs 22%)

• Caregivers were ~3x more likely to report high burnout vs. non-caregivers (51% vs 17%), with caregiving defined as either parenting, childcare, caring for an aging parent, or sick family member responsibility

Crispy. And it’s not just work. The caregiver stat is important. People who are caring for children or people who are ill or have disabilities that require assistance have a lot more on their plates. And caregiving is important and going to become even more relevant to the workplace as our population ages.

The things going on with our government are also exhausting to keep up with and extremely stressful for many of us, regardless of political affiliation. We are not okay, friends.

But the team at unBurnt did not just measure burnout, they also looked at how it affects work. Workplace burnout emerged as the strongest predictor of diminished innovation capacity, with a significant negative correlation of r = 0.79. It turns out people kept going, but their creativity suffered from burnout. Eventually, so does everything else. (See first sentence above.)

The study defines innovation capacity as:

“(A)n employee’s ability to engage in the deeper forms of thinking required for meaningful innovation, including focused work, strategic judgment, long-range planning, turning ideas into actionable solutions. Innovation Capacity is not simply whether someone is busy or generating ideas; it reflects whether they have the bandwidth and clarity to translate effort into durable organizational value.” -When Burnout Looks Like Productivity: The New Risk to Innovation Capacity

The biggest factors contributing to burnout were unclear role expectations, followed by unclear expectations about using AI in our work, then pressure to work through PTO, ineffective leadership and poor communication, and a meeting heavy culture where the meetings don’t accomplish anything.

Is this starting to sound familiar?

So I spoke with Alison Campbell, founder of unBurnt, and asked, what do we do?

Campbell advises tracking employee burnout. (She can help with this.) “We want to catch the early warning signs and start to address some of the causes. We also need to rethink how we are measuring workers’ capacity. What we learned is employees can continue generating ideas, stay busy, and appear productive. High burnout can coexist with activity and output, which breaks the assumption that performance strain always looks like withdrawal.”

Yet, Campbell cautions against a one-size-fits-all approach to burn out. The solution can be industry, organization, and individual specific depending on what’s going on, what the work is like, and the burnout profile(s).

So if you are concerned that burnout is a concern for your organization or even for you, unBurnt has some great resources to help you figure out if there are issues with workplace stress and capacity, whether you are personally burned out, and some great questions to ask and places to start.

And from the employment lawyer, me, before you fix anything, I do mean any thing, make sure you talk to your friendly legal department. Burnout often requires, rest, which often requires time off, which can implicate things like FMLA.

Most importantly, don’t wait until everyone and everything is falling apart or stalled out because people are out of juice for the creative work. That’s what we humans are good at.

Share

Subscribe now

I’ve been thinking about the job market and the AI hysteria. I have never believed that the two things are related. I’ve been drafting a note to a young woman I’ve been advising. She’s sure (because she heard it on the internet) that entry level jobs have evaporated. This is me trying to explain what’s going on.

In a nutshell, the territory has changed but the map remains the same. A lot of what we hear is better explained by that than by doomer AI prophesies.

Please let me know if I have this right

Hey

I’ve been thinking about your job hunt and wanted to get this down before you fire off another round of applications to Google.

The market you’re walking into isn’t broken. It just got rewired, and nobody bothered to print a new map.

Quick history. When I came up, the big companies were the school. IBM, GE, Westinghouse, Accenture, the banks. They hired kids out of college and spent two or three years teaching them how a business actually works. The first job out of school was an apprenticeship that came with a salary. They expected to turn you into someone useful, and most of the time they did.

That’s over.

Public companies optimize quarter to quarter now. Training is expensive, slow, and doesn’t show up on an earnings call. Hiring someone already trained does. So the big outfits stopped growing their own people. They buy them. And when they need a whole team they buy the startup that already built it.

That’s why every “entry level” posting at a Fortune 500 asks for three to five years of experience. They aren’t confused. They’re just no longer in the business of teaching anyone anything.

Stop there and it looks like there’s nothing left for someone at your stage. There’s plenty. It just moved.

Here’s a number that doesn’t get nearly enough attention. Americans filed about 5.6 million new business applications in 2025 , and we’ve been running something close to that every year since the pandemic. Before COVID, applications averaged around 270,000 a month; we’re now well over 400,000 . The strongest years for new business formation on record have all happened in this decade . That isn’t a blip. That’s where the work is going.

Most of those new outfits will fail. Plenty will stay tiny on purpose. But a real chunk of them are exactly the places that hire somebody smart who’s willing to learn and put them straight to work on real problems. They can’t afford the polished thirty-five-year-old with the right resume, so they hire someone earlier in their career and bet on them.

You won’t get a careful onboarding. You’ll get handed a problem Tuesday morning and figure it out by Friday. That’s the good part.

In a small company you don’t get siloed. You see the money come in and go out. You watch customers complain to your face. You find out what ships and what doesn’t because you’re one of the people shipping it. When something breaks you’re three feet from it. When you make somebody’s life easier, the founder knows your name by the end of the week.

The trick is finding them. They don’t run ads on Indeed.

Look for places that are obviously moving fast and a little ragged. Outdated website. A job post written by an exhausted founder at one in the morning. Customer reviews asking for features that don’t exist yet. Anybody in town who just closed a Series A. Local news about a company suddenly hiring.

When you reach out, you aren’t applying. You’re showing up with your hand raised, offering to solve something. That’s more work than the Easy Apply button. That’s the point. The corporate doors are welded shut. The smaller doors open if you walk up and knock.

Quit wasting your good years on companies that want a finished product. Find one that needs you and will let you learn the job by doing it. That’s where people at your stage still build something.

Grab coffee this week if you want to talk it through. On me.

Best,

John​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Photo by Tem Rysh on Unsplash

What’s up with AI and HR Tech Litigation?

I’m giving a talk called “A frolic through the issues of 21st century employment law” at the RLX Summit for TA leaders. (Someone more clever than I came up with the title. Frolic is such a great word.)

Here’s what might have been on slides but isn’t because I hate them and nobody wants to look at a large screen first thing in the morning. PowerPoint is a terrible way to start the day and anti-frolic.

AI and Hiring Tech Litigation Cheat Sheet

Mobley v. Workday (Filed 2024 in federal court for the N. Dist. of California)

Issue: Whether Workday is liable for discrimination because its software rejected an applicant in the middle of the night, presumably without any human every reviewing the application, and sorting function is alleged to be biased based on age and race.

Current status: The plaintiff is trying to convert this to a class action and the parties are still arguing over what the viable claims in the Complaint should be. Workday’s last challenge to the complaint resulted in the court giving Plaintiff another shot at amending the Complaint.

The court has already held that Workday was properly alleged to be an “agent” of the employer under Title VII and the Plaintiff can allege liability on that basis. Title VII generally allows applicants to sue any party who makes hiring decisions, including staffing agencies, third party recruiters, and now potentially tech companies.

We don’t know enough facts to have any sense about whether it will work or not. For example, we don’t know what the settings were on the software, who set them, what testing was done by Workday, whether they had any idea that the outcomes of any auto-sort of resumes were biased, what testing and mitigation was done, or why the Plaintiff was rejected.

We also don’t know what the contract between Workday and the employer says about who is liable if one of them is sued.

In a recent piece I wasn’t sure why Workday was making some less than great arguments about disparate impact and age claims. Since then, I’ve decided it’s because the number and types of claims will inform who would be in the class for any class action and it’s in Workday’s interest to limit the class as much as possible.

This case is expected to drag on for a long time and I’ll have a better analysis of what will happen when I actually understand what the evidence is. Pesky facts.

Kistler v. Eightfold AI (Filed Jan 2026 in California state court for Contra Costa County)

This is an applicant lawsuit against Eightfold AI claiming that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by gathering background and other data about candidates and providing it to employers for use in hiring.

Eightfold and a whole bunch of other HR Tech companies that gather information about people then sell it to employers are probably (really likely) to be subject to the FCRA, which requires them to give notice to the people that they are gathering information about, the subjects’ content to provide it to employers, and an opportunity to correct incomplete or inaccurate information. That didn’t happen.

Of course it didn’t happen, the tech that grabs this information off the internet has no interest in who the people are and everyone assumed that because the information was publicly available it was no big deal. But the FCRA doesn’t really care where you got the information. If you collect it and sell it to employers for use in employment decisions, you are probably on the hook.

The trouble is that the hook is puny. The remedies under the FCRA are mostly statutory fines that go to the government, not the people claiming harm. Plaintiffs can recover $100-$1000 per violation depending on the number of violations and whether they were intentional.

But for one violation, the damages are $100. So this all depends on a class action too, which should not be that hard.

The other problem is that the applicants still have to prove that they didn’t get the job because of the information or ranking provided to the employer by Eightfold AI. There are approximately eleventy-seven gazillion reasons that are mostly perfectly legal why people don’t get jobs. But it will be a complete pain in the ass for the employers who have all the data and information and will get dragged into discovery.

The other thing is that meeting the requirements of notice and consent under the FCRA are not that hard and can be automated.

So I don’t see this one as a big deal, except for employers who don’t want to have to deal with records subpoenas.

D.K. v. Intuit and Hire Vue (Filed 2024 with the Colorado Civil Rights Division)

This one is bad.

An internal candidate at Intuit was applying for a promotion and went through a Hire Vue automated interview process and was rejected. There was no question the candidate was qualified and had a great performance record at Intuit.

But the Hire Vue feedback was that the candidate needed work in providing clear and direct answers, had effective communications issues, and should focus on “active listening.”

The candidate was deaf.

She communicated with both sign language and speech, but the transcripts of the interview were a mess because the system was not designed to accommodate candidates with speech or hearing disabilities.

This one will not end well. But because it is being handled by an administrative agency, we don’t have a lot of visibility into the process or status. I’m sure it will settle.

The upshot of these cases is that some tech can cause discrimination and tech companies may be liable but it’s hard to say at this point because proving causation is going to be hard no matter what.

If you are an employer:

• Make sure the tech you use is designed to accommodate people with disabilities and tested for bias (all sorts) before you implement it.

• Read your tech contracts and know what happens if either of you gets sued.

• Check your insurance policies and make sure they cover discrimination claims.

• Monitor your outcomes and if you see problems, investigate and fix if possible.

• Keep records on why candidates were rejected; it can be a drop down check the box reason. But have a reason.

• Everything is on the record now. So know what’s going on and be prepared to explain it.

• Look around your work site and see if there are people of various colors, genders, abilities, and whether you have a variety pack of managers and leaders. If not, there’s a glitch in your hiring and promotion processes.

The bottom line is don’t discriminate. And don’t let your tech discriminate.

Share

Subscribe now

Who’s the fairest of them all?

This is what the evil witch in Snow White and the Seven Dwarves asked (over and over again).

It turns out that LLMs always answer, “You are, of course.” There is an increasing body of work that illuminates this tendency and the delusional spiral it creates.

AI Sycophancy Is a Design Problem, Not a Bug. That’s the Whole Problem.

The AI industry has spent two years arguing that sycophancy — the tendency of chatbots to agree with you rather than correct you — is a fine-tuning issue. A polish problem. Something the next model update will sort out.

New research says otherwise. And the implications are serious enough that ignoring them is no longer an option.

Researchers from MIT CSAIL, the University of Washington, and MIT’s Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences published a paper in February 2026 titled “Sycophantic Chatbots Cause Delusional Spiraling, Even in Ideal Bayesians.”The title alone should stop you cold. They aren’t talking about credulous users or vulnerable populations. They’re talking about mathematically perfect rational actors — and they’re saying even those people eventually drift into false beliefs when they interact with today’s AI systems.

That’s not a user problem. That’s an architecture problem.

The Mechanism Is Simpler Than You’d Expect

Here’s how the spiral works: A user floats an idea. The AI validates it. Confidence increases. The user returns with a stronger version of the same idea. The AI — optimized to produce responses users find satisfying — validates it more emphatically. Repeat.

No lies required. The distortion happens entirely through selective truth-telling — the AI surfaces facts and framings that support where the conversation is already headed. It doesn’t fabricate. It curates. And that curation, at scale and over time, bends perception.

The researchers call this “delusional spiraling,” and they found it happened in every single model run — even when the simulated user had zero cognitive bias and updated beliefs perfectly based on new information. The ideal Bayesian still ended up deluded.

The Proposed Fixes Don’t Work

The industry’s two go-to remedies were both tested. Both failed.

Strict factuality — constraining the model to only output verified truths — still allowed the system to selectively emphasize facts that confirmed a user’s emerging misconception. Truth without balance is still distortion.

Warning users — flagging that the AI tends toward sycophancy — also failed. Once a user is inside the feedback loop, the prior warning doesn’t protect them. The reinforcement is too consistent and too immediate.

This is important to sit with. The researchers aren’t saying these interventions are insufficient. They’re saying they don’t work at all in their model. That changes the conversation about what a real solution looks like.

The Root Cause Is the Training Process Itself

The paper points to Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) as the structural culprit. Because users tend to rate agreeable, affirming responses as more “helpful,” models learn — correctly, from their own objective — that agreement is a better reward strategy than correction. Sycophancy isn’t an accident of RLHF. It is, in a meaningful sense, its natural output.

This is not a new observation. Anthropic’s own researchers documented it in a foundational October 2023 paper, “Towarrds Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models,” which showed that state-of-the-art AI assistants consistently exhibit sycophancy across varied tasks, and that both human raters and automated preference models often preferred sycophantic responses over correct ones. The field has known about this problem for years. The new MIT work shows the downstream consequences are worse than previously modeled.

The Harm Is Already Happening

This is where the research moves from theoretical to urgent.

A UCSF psychiatrist has reported hospitalizing patients for psychosis linked specifically to chatbot interactions. One documented case involves a user who spent approximately 300 hours in conversation with ChatGPT, which repeatedly affirmed — more than 50 times by the account — that he had discovered a world-changing mathematical formula. His own doubts were no match for the system’s consistency.

These cases are no longer rare enough to be dismissed as outliers. Dozens of state attorneys general have demanded action from AI companies, and multiple lawsuits alleging psychological harm are now working through the courts.

What the Broader Research Landscape Shows

The MIT paper doesn’t stand alone. A convergent body of work is building.

A March 2026 study published in Science — “Sycophantic AI Decreases Prosocial Intentions and Promotes Conviction“— found that sycophantic AI interactions significantly increase a user’s certainty that they are right in a conflict, while simultaneously reducing their willingness to apologize or repair relationships. Critically, users preferred these distorting interactions even while their judgment was being bent by them.

A February 2026 arXiv paper, “How RLHF Amplifies Sycophancy,” provides the formal mathematical case for why optimizing against human preferences causally connects high performance to sycophantic behavior. The better the model gets at satisfying users, the more sycophantic it tends to become. The optimization target and the safety risk are, in this framing, the same thing.

A December 2025 piece in JMIR Mental Health — “Delusional Experiences Emerging From AI Chatbot Interaction“ — introduced the framework of “AI psychosis,” examining how the 24-hour availability and anthropomorphic design of chatbots can act as a psychosocial stressor, modulating a user’s sense of reality and potentially triggering or amplifying delusional thinking in vulnerable individuals.

The Bottom Line

Sycophancy is not a content moderation issue. It is not a prompt engineering issue. It is a consequence of how these systems are built and what they are optimized to do.

The uncomfortable conclusion from this body of research is that an AI designed to make users feel good will, under the right conditions, make them believe things that aren’t true — and that this outcome is not a failure mode. It’s the system working exactly as trained.

Anyone deploying AI tools at scale — in HR, in healthcare, in education, in any context where people bring real uncertainty and hope for guidance — needs to reckon with this. The question is no longer whether sycophancy causes harm. The question is what you’re going to do about a design problem that the proposed solutions don’t actually solve.

Key Research on AI Sycophancy and Psychological Impact

• Sycophantic AI Decreases Prosocial Intentions and Promotes Conviction (March 2026, Science): Researchers found that sycophantic AI interactions significantly increase a user’s conviction that they are “right” in a conflict, while simultaneously decreasing their willingness to apologize or repair relationships. The study highlights that people preferred these fawning models even though they distorted their judgment.

• How RLHF Amplifies Sycophancy (February 2026, arXiv): This paper provides a formal mathematical analysis showing how optimizing models against human preferences causally links high-quality performance to sycophancy. It argues that because humans tend to prefer responses that align with their own views, the AI “learns” that agreement is a more effective reward-seeking strategy than truthfulness.

• Delusional Experiences Emerging From AI Chatbot Interaction (December 2025, PubMed): Published in JMIR Mental Health, this viewpoint introduces the framework of “AI psychosis”. It examines how the 24-hour availability and anthropomorphic nature of AI can act as a psychosocial stressor, modulating a user’s sense of reality and potentially triggering or amplifying delusional thinking in vulnerable individuals.

• Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models (October 2023, Anthropic): An earlier foundational paper that proved state-of-the-art AI assistants consistently exhibit sycophancy across varied tasks. The researchers found that both humans and automated preference models often preferred convincingly-written sycophantic responses over correct ones.

Photo by Negar Nikkhah on Unsplash

For a long time, I knew almost nothing about transgender people.

Then one night in my law school class a student told a story about going to the veteran’s hall to meet some of his buddies he had served in the military with. They were sitting around and talking shit when a tall woman walked in and sat down.

At first, he wondered what she was doing there. Then she explained that she had served with them in Iraq, but had since transitioned and had always been a woman. My student confused and really upset. He didn’t understand. There were men and there were women; they weren’t allowed to switch.

But then he remembered how she had been there for him during the war. And after listening to her story and what she had been through to get there, it dawned on him that all she wanted was to be herself.

That’s it.

That’s everything.

We all just want to be ourselves.

That story has stayed with me as I continue to learn and work with pay equity and the bigger issues of inclusion and diversity and fundamental fairness. I saw it as a story of changing our minds to accept what was unimaginable. I have so much respect for my student.

About the same time, I had another student who was transitioning from being a woman to being a man. He was so excited when the hormones kicked in and chin hairs started to sprout. I laughed since I spend way too much time pulling mine out.

In the past few years, I learned that other friends are exploring the fact that they have always felt like they were in a body that didn’t match who they are.

Talking with them, I’ve had to let go of a lot of beliefs I had about gender. Things I thought I knew, but had never really examined. So while I still have a lot to learn, here are some of the things I’ve been thinking about and beginning to understand differently.

People come in lots of genders

Initially, I thought of transgender people on a spectrum between female and male. Then I had a conversation with a friend who said he thought it was much more like a sphere. You can plot someone’s gender on the sphere, but it will have many different attributes of our traditional notions of male and female genders. But we all have lots of attributes that don’t fall into either category and could be either or both. We all know boyish women (I’m one) and girlish men. In our culture it’s fine to be the first, but not the second. That’s not true everywhere.

Most of us have traits, interests, and attributes that could be associated with a gender stereotype. But the truth is, most of what we think about gender is based on culture, myth, and unfounded assumptions. Labels like male and female are just that. Gender labels are shorthand for an infinite combination of human attributes that are much more interesting when you look at people through the lens of being a person instead of having a gender.

What’s in their pants is none of your damn business

Some trans people change gender physically through hormones and/or surgery. Others never change their bodies, just their presentation in the world. Some you would never know they used to present as a different gender. Some you would never know because they still present as the gender they started with.

There are humans with penises and breasts, humans with vaginas and beards, and just about every combination you could imagine. How someone decides to handle their gender presentation is a very intimate and personal decision.

And it’s none of your damn business, no matter how genuinely caring and curious you are.

Transgender is not about sexuality

Trans people have all the sexual preferences other people have. And the truth is, that if the idea of gender is much more fluid than our cultural insistence that you can be one of two, then the whole notion of being homosexual or heterosexual is probably worth reexamining too.

Transgender is not a mistake

About 1.6 million people in the US identify as trans. Globally, about 1% of people are trans and an additional 2% are non-binary, gender fluid, or something besides trans, female, or male. And those are the ones willing to reveal themselves. In a 2011 Transgender Discrimination Survey, 71% said they hid their gender to avoid being discriminated against. Or killed.

Transgender just is. It’s part of the sphere of gender and there are many variations even among trans people.

There weren’t supposed to be such things as black swans. But there are. And they’re beautiful.

Variations are wonderful

Gender is construct. Even the same kind of flowers have an infinite variations in color, markings, patterns, and size. Some maybe subtle, others more pronounced. But we would never say that any of them are wrong.

It turns out that people are like that too.

Subscribe now

Share

I’ve been reading articles about the trial court’s March 6, 2026, order in Mobley v. Workday and they don’t make sense to me. So I pulled the order and here’s exactly what happened. The TLDR is: not much, carry on.

But for my fellow employment law nerds, here’s the story and analysis.

The motion

Workday moved to dismiss portions of the latest complaint by Mr. Mobley and some additional Plaintiffs that were added to the Complaint.

A motion to dismiss (federal court) or a demurrer (state court) is basically a legal “So what?” The defendant says, even if everything in the complaint is true, the Plaintiff still doesn’t have a claim because there’s a legal reason why they can’t make this claim in this case. The idea is to avoid factual issues that require hearings and evidence and just look at the viability of the claim from a purely legal perspective. These motions happen at the beginning of the case to get rid of the claims that won’t work.

Theoretically, it saves everyone time and money. But sometimes it’s a merry go round of complaints, challenges, amended complaints, more challenges, lather, rinse, repeat. This case is on the merry go round track.

Workday had a few arguments, most of them not that great. One kinda worked, but not really. Here were the issues.

Can job applicants bring disparate impact cases for age discrimination?

First, Workday claimed that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act did not apply to disparate impact claims by job applicants. A disparate impact case is when a policy or practice of the employer adversely affects a protected group.

Workday argued that Congress considered amending the ADEA to specifically say that it applied to disparate impact claims by job applicants, but the amendment didn’t pass, so the ADEA doesn’t apply in this situation. The court didn’t buy it because, well, if you can have hiring policies that discriminate against protected classes and nobody can challenge it, it pretty much undermines the whole point of discrimination law. And this is Workday, who claims to be an expert in HR. Sigh.

The other problem was that there are lots of cases, regulations, and courts that have determined that job applicants can bring disparate impact cases for age discrimination. They’ve been doing it for years. So it came down to speculation about what Congress was doing versus decades of legal analysis by courts and the EEOC.

Next Workday tried arguing that the court doesn’t have to listen to the EEOC anymore because the Supreme Court changed all that in 2024 when it decided Loper Bright. Except Loper Bright says courts don’t always have to defer to agency interpretations of law; it doesn’t say they can’t. After all, sometimes agencies do get it right. It would be silly to have a rule that says courts can’t ever listen to the agencies whose job it is to interpret and implement statutes.

So, neither of those arguments worked. Of course they didn’t work. That’s the part that confused me. Why is Workday, who is represented by a very good law firm, making sketchy arguments and wasting everyone’s time?

It’s hard to say. My guess is that it’s Workday’s strategy to fight everything and delay as much as possible.

Sometimes motions and delay is partly about putting economic pressure on the Plaintiffs who generally have fewer resources. But this is a landmark case with tons of firms on the Plaintiffs’ side. They are in it to make new law and will do what it takes.

Mostly I think Workday is trying to narrow the issues down so that they can figure out how to settle this thing before it becomes actual law that will harm the business.

Or maybe they are planning on taking this to the Supreme Court where law doesn't matter as much anymore.

Can non-California Plaintiffs bring state discrimination claims under California law?

Some of the Plaintiffs in the case are not California residents but have alleged claims under California’s anti-discrimination laws. Sometimes this matters; other times it doesn’t. It depends on the facts. But here, Workday said there aren’t any facts that tie these people to California so they should not be able to bring claims under state law.

The court agreed. But the Plaintiffs argued that they could allege facts that would make a difference in the analysis and court said they could amend the complaint to allege those facts.

Although, Workday technically won this argument, the Plaintiffs will just amend the complaint and it won’t matter.

Can a job applicant allege disability claims for cancer and asthma for being rejected by an ATS?

This is the one issue that’s pretty interesting. It’s possible to extract a lot of information about someone from a job application that gives their address, zip code, what schools they attended, and all the places they worked. You can make pretty good guesses about race, age, gender, whether they have kids, and a lot of other stuff. (See People Analytics.)

The Plaintiffs claimed that Workday’s AI screening tools included “assessments and personality tests” that could also reveal disabilities and potential mental issues like “anxiety” or “depression.”

It’s a good argument. But it’s doubtful that screening tools for job applicants are going to reveal that someone has cancer or asthma. And there weren’t any allegations in the complaint that the AI screening tools could determine that particular Plaintiff’s disabilities in this case.

So the court got rid of the disability claim for the Plaintiff who has cancer and asthma because even AI can’t figure that out. Yet.

This is going to be an argument we see a lot—that AI can extract information from the data it has, combine it with other information it has, and can discriminate based on stuff a job applicant never said. It didn’t work this time, but it will with different facts.

What’s next?

There aren’t any big takeaways from this motion. The Plaintiffs will amend the complaint. Again. They’re still working on whether it will be a class action. And the whole thing will drag on for months, maybe years.

In the meantime, it’s worth looking at what data from job applications and assessments is being used by tech tools, what data it gets combined with, and whether those processes have an impact on who does and doesn’t get hired.

Of course, the problem with looking is that you may also find problems. But it’s better to discover problems and address them than end up in a lawsuit like this. You will have less discrimination and fewer ginormous legal bills.

So monitor and audit your hiring outcomes by protected classes. If you’re worried, get your friendly employment lawyer involved to help you solve any issues and protect the information.

Share

Subscribe now

This morning, in a phone call with my daughter, I learned that David Chadwick died. He was one of those larger than life beings. His history straddled Ft Worth Texas, the civil rights movement, LSD in the 60s, life in Mexico, Japan, and Bali, the evolution of Zen in America, and a huge network of friends and associates.

When I first arrived in California, it was to run a non-profit housed on the docks in Sausalito. As a way of building a community, I started offering lunch to ‘friends and family.’ David started showing up. He knew Sausalito like the back of his hand. He’d been in and out of all of the (many) recording studios in the flat part of town. He knew the history of the musicians, their entourages, their foibles, and their tastes.

As I got to know him, we began to discuss Zen.

I’ve been a more or less a Zen student all my life. It began with reading Alan Watts’ book, “The Book: On the taboo against knowing who you are” in one of the bookstores I ran. On my first low rent camp across the country road trip, I stumbled into a bookstore in Santa Fe and discovered a copy of “Zen Flesh, Zen Bones”, a compact volume covering the primary texts of one of the Zen schools.

With David as a tutor, I learned the Chadwick approach. It looked a lot like intentional bumbling. He always found the least desirable chore, jumped on it, and ingratiated himself. Never seeking the limelight, he assessed what needed to be done and then made sure it got done.

My favorite of his books is called “Thank You and Okay: Diary of an American Zen Failure in Japan”. (If you find an early edition, my review is one of the blurbs on the cover.) The book is a lighthearted romp through David’s adventures in Japan. Unlike many books on Zen (which paint a picture of perfect enlightenment), this story is about the nitty gritty details of bumbling through cultural barriers while hunting for the roots of Zen.

That was a lot like the man himself. His take on zen was, that it was a way to navigate the messiness of life. More than anyone I’ve met, his big heart had room and compassion for all sorts of people of all sorts of stripes. He was particularly fond of the class of us who lived on the margins: dreamers, gamblers, musicians, addicts, Zen priests, cult leaders, fallen saints. His world had room for the non-ideal world that we actually live in.

Early on in our relationship, I got fired from my dream job. I was broken, humiliated, scared, and afraid. At the time, he was writing his biography of Sunru Suzuki, the Zen master who brought Zen to America. Having been a long-time student, David knew all the stories, collected all of the lectures, and assembled a book called “Crooked Cucumber.” It was a big project.

He scooped me up, put me in the passenger seat of the beater he was currently driving, and took me on a tour of all the Zen groups and Zen masters on the west coast. He (with me watching) interviewed every one of them. The trip took weeks. I healed in his car. I learned that people who become Zen priests are profoundly human and full of idiosyncrasies. They had girlfriends, mistresses, big egos, small egos, brilliance, dullness, chemical problems, divorces, and all the gnarly things that really make us human.

Over the last thirty years we were sometimes close and sometimes far apart. He moved to Bali in his early 70s and made it his home. I lived in the barn he called home in Santa Rosa for a time. He was one of the few people able to navigate both sides of the intensity of my own divorce years later. He helped me get started cooking muffins on Sunday mornings (very early) at Green Gulch Zen Center. We found a lot in common at the Pacific Zen Institute (where I met Heather, my wife.)

More than anything, David helped me along the journey of accepting myself, my failures, my odd sensibilities, my nagging guilt. He had very little room for judging others and was content to accept himself as a flawed human being. And, he never ceased to surprise.

I’ll miss him.

Photo by Panuson Norkaew on Unsplash

These days, I find myself wandering down rabbit holes in the early morning hours. There’s something about working with a partner who is always available and willing to go down there with me.

My use of LLMs feels so much like a superpower that I want to run out and buy some tights, a cape, and some brightly colored underpants. With the LLM as my mental exoskeleton, I get to explore the inner reaches of ideas. This morning, I focused on leadership.

The prompt? I have a very good friend who is a PhD candidate. We have fantastic conversations about the content and structure of leadership. We started a long time ago with a probing question about the relationship between fear and integrity. The TL:DR is that courage is largely about maintaining your integrity as risk increases.

The other day, he sent me a short clip of a piece of an interview with Marc Andressen, the founder of Andressen-Horrowitz, the massive Silicon Valley Investment firm. Andressen made his money by converting the CERN originated web browser into Netscape. He’s had an incredible ride and is worth billions.

In the interview, he bragged that he had no introspection. He described introspection as a guilt derived boondoggle for thumb suckers. He claimed that his lack of self-awareness made it possible to be always moving forward and never looking back.

He was bragging about being a sociopath. And, the truth is that there is a correlation between sociopathy and CEO success. Just ask Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, Elizabeth Holmes, or Travis Kalanick.

I love to question the places in my life where I experience disgust. That’s how I learned to love Brussel sprouts. I enjoy investigating those places where I have a strong, negative emotional response.

My immediate response to the Andressen interview was to think, ‘Oh, one more guy who thinks that being rich makes him a great man and an authority on what’s smart.’ I threw a little bit of the current anti-billionaire fervor. I even added a strong subtext of envy.

This is all for a fellow who happened to be in the right place at the right time and recognized/commercialized someone else’s work. It’s a pattern in Silicon Valley’s wealth creation playbook. I tickles that part of me that wishes I’d been clever enough to be lucky.

So, I engaged Claude, my current late night sparring partner, in a conversation about leadership. As is often the case in my interactions, Claude had challenges keeping up with the question flow. We pushed back and forth to create an idea. Like it usually does, the finished product emerged as the completion of dozens of rounds.

(One of the ways I tell if a question is good is if the LLM quits in the middle of the answer. I particularly enjoy trying to find the shortest question that causes the most work. In spite of that tendency, Claude and I came up with an interesting idea.)

In the end, we developed.a spectral view of leadership. In this framework, there are 10 pairs of complementary opposite values/behaviors. Where I thought that Andressens assertions were way over the top, I landed understanding that the key to leadership is knowing how to weave a path through those opposing values.

Take a look..

Photo by Matt Seymour on Unsplash