With the Government increasing its efforts to reduce long-term sickness absence, people managers are facing a shift in mindset when it comes to tackling sickness. Rather than focusing solely on managing absence once it occurs, the emphasis now includes supporting people proactively to help them remain in work in the first place. It’s a new challenge for HR teams and line managers – but one that can deliver significant benefits for all, with the right approach.

The Government’s agenda is clear. Sickness absence is on the rise, up to 9.4 days per employee, per year on average, compared with 7.8 days in 2023 and 5.8 days pre-Covid. Noting the economic impact of such absences, policy initiatives have focused on early intervention, occupational health support and encouraging greater employer engagement. Various proposals and consultations have explored how businesses can better support employees with long-term health conditions, whilst proposing changes to reduce the administrative barriers that can keep people out of the workplace.

Reversing the mindset

For many employers the emphasis remains on a reactive approach to getting people back into work, rather than a proactive one – centred around the meeting that takes place after a period of sickness absence.

The return-to-work meeting is a familiar process that needs no introduction – reviewing the reason for absence, assessing fitness to return, and discussing any adjustments required. Although this is a necessary step, the conversations are reactive by nature, taking place after the employee has already reached the stage of being unable to work.

The emerging approach turns that logic on its head. Instead of waiting for absence to occur and then establishing a plan, employers are being encouraged to ask what they can do to support employees to stay at work.

The onus now is on creating a culture in which conversations about health and wellbeing are normalised, and where managers are equipped to spot early warning signs. Stress-related conditions, musculoskeletal issues and long-term chronic illnesses rarely appear overnight. Even if employees are not aware of long-term conditions, there are often indicators that can prevent escalation, if addressed sensitively and promptly.

Engaging with employees

Of course, this is a departure from the traditional workplace model, which works on the premise that employees should be fit to work, and that absence is the inevitable consequence if not. Today’s workforce is more diverse in age, health profile and personal circumstance than ever. Implementing the same approach for every individual is neither realistic, nor beneficial in terms of recruitment or performance.

A preventative approach requires employers to engage with their workforce. This may involve reviewing workload allocation, offering flexible working arrangements, investing in mental health training for line managers, or ensuring access to occupational health advice, at an earlier stage.

Crucially, it also means considering reasonable adjustments. Clearly, where employees have a registered disability there are legal obligations to be considered – but even where legislation does not strictly apply, a willingness to explore practical solutions can have tangible benefits.

Exploring the benefits

Long-term absence inevitably costs any business, and the figures soon add up when you consider statutory and contractual sick pay, temporary cover and indirect costs such as lost productivity and the impact on team morale. It’s easy to see how proactive and early intervention – whether through temporary changes to duties, amended hours, or supportive management – can reduce the impact. In a competitive labour market, organisations known for supporting employee wellbeing are also more likely to attract and retain talent.

Ultimately, prevention is not about eliminating sickness absence altogether. It’s about recognising that absence is often the end point of a process, not the beginning. By shifting the focus to understanding triggers, opening up dialogue and making thoughtful adjustments, employers can potentially unlock benefits for all.

In late 2025, research from the Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance System (Cifas) revealed that 1 in 5 employees had, during their careers, secretly held two competing roles at the same time.

Earlier this year, a Croydon Council housing official was convicted of fraud, given a 12-month suspended jail sentence and fined £10,000 after it was found that she had been working a second full time job at another London authority for two years.

This practice, known as ‘moonlighting’, or ‘polygamous working’, involves individuals taking on other (sometimes multiple) full-time roles outside of their primary employment, and often without their employer’s knowledge.

Moonlighting has become increasingly prevalent in recent years, driven by economic pressures, such as rising living costs, alongside the expansion of remote and hybrid working. Greater flexibility of working has enabled employees to more easily take on numerous different roles concurrently, blurring the boundaries between employers.

Cifas also found that 24% of employees considered it ‘justifiable’ to work in this way, including in respect of competing roles, reflecting a growing tolerance towards the practice. However, this presents significant challenges for employers.

Risks of moonlighting

The rise of moonlighting introduces an array of legal, wellbeing, performance, and operational risks. These include potential conflicts of interest, breaches of confidentiality, misuse of confidential information, decline in productivity, and employee burnout.

The issue is especially acute in the technology sector, where fully-remote working is the widespread norm, and tasks are often highly automated, making it easier for individuals to manage several roles simultaneously without detection. So called “mouse jigglers” which keep a mouse moving and can avoid lack of use indications to an employer’s systems that the employee is not working, are apparently now easily available for misuse.

Is moonlighting illegal?

It is not inherently unlawful for an employee to take on a second job, provided that the additional work does not place them in competition with their primary employer, or otherwise harm the primary employer’s legitimate business interests or encroach on their normal working time (if full time, for example). However, moonlighting may well give rise to breach of an employee’s contract of employment, where it is expressly prohibited by contractual terms or they have warranted to provide their employer with their “full care and attention during working hours”. Such conduct may also breach the implied duty of trust and confidence in an employment relationship. Depending on the precise nature of the conduct and contractual terms binding the individual, moonlighting may amount to gross misconduct, and also potentially fraud.

Moonlighting also raises issues under the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Employers are under a statutory obligation to take all reasonable steps to protect workers’ health and safety, to ensure compliance with statutory working time limits. Time spent working, irrespective of whether for the same employer, will count towards an employee’s working time, leaving employers open to legal risk where limits are exceeded – even if they were unaware of this.

Beyond legal compliance, there are also practical implications. Secondary employment can give rise to performance issues, particularly where competing commitments begin to affect employee productivity, responsiveness and delivery.

Managing and mitigating the risks

Addressing the risks associated with moonlighting requires employers to take a proactive, rather than reactive approach.

In particular, where employees will have access to highly confidential or commercially sensitive information that could be of use to a competitor, employers should consider including express provisions restricting secondary employment in contracts of employment. These provisions are commonly referred to as ‘exclusive service’ clauses and can either prohibit an employee from providing services to another employer altogether, or restrict this without the prior written consent of the main employer. These kinds of provisions will provide clarity on expectations and help mitigate the risk of conflicts of interest, misuse of confidential information and breaches of duty. Any breaches of these contractual terms can then (and should) be viewed as misconduct and investigated according to internal disciplinary processes.

If you have suspicions that a worker is working multiple jobs, you may want to approach this with them. To discharge your duty to take all reasonable steps, you should ask the individual to confirm if they work for anyone else, unless their existing contract already prohibits this. If this is confirmed, you should then consider asking the employee to sign an opt-out agreement if the total time worked exceeds 48 hours a week. If the employee refuses to sign this agreement, then they will need to consider reducing their hours (with you or their alternate employer) to comply with the legal limits.

It is important to note that careful consideration will be required for part time or junior employees where a second job is less likely to cause harm to the business. Moreover, exclusivity clauses in zero hours contracts are unenforceable, as these workers should remain free to undertake other work insofar as possible.

There’s a quiet myth that still lingers in boardrooms: human resources (HR) is there to “support the business”. Helpful, yes. Necessary, of course. But ultimately… secondary. That thinking is not just outdated, it’s expensive, writes Vanessa Rogers.

 In 2026, the organisations that are thriving in their sectors, are not necessarily the ones with the best products or the boldest strategies. They’re the ones with the strongest alignment between people and performance. And that’s where HR directors step out of the background and into the driver’s seat.

As Njabulo Nyawo, Group Chief People Executive at Momentum Group, has voiced it: “There’s this narrative that if you’re in human capital, you’re just an enabler. I think that’s a very disempowering way to frame it. Human capital is not merely an enabler, but a shaper of business performance… I can bridge the narrative between people practices and how they drive business performance and strategic objectives.”

This bridge – between people and profit – is exactly where HR delivers its greatest value. But to do that effectively, HR directors need something critical from the CEO.

Not permission. Partnership.

Recognition as a strategic partner

Firstly, HR needs a seat at the table. And this must not be a late addition when “people issues” arise, but from the very beginning of any strategic conversation.

When HR is embedded early, talent strategy aligns naturally with business goals. Growth plans are supported by the right capabilities. Risk is anticipated; not reacted to.

This also requires trust. HR directors must be empowered to implement policies and make decisions, without constant oversight. Micromanagement slows progress; autonomy drives results.

Investment in HR technology and data

The modern HR function is no longer powered by spreadsheets and instinct. It runs on data.

From predictive hiring models to employee engagement analytics, HR leaders now have access to insights that directly influence productivity, retention, and profitability. But without the right tools, these insights can remain out of reach.

CEOs play a crucial role here. Investment in HR technology, from AI tools, to analytics platforms and integrated systems, is not simply a “nice to have”. It’s a competitive advantage.

More importantly, it enables HR to shift from reporting on what happened… to advising on what should ideally take place next.

Clear communication and cultural leadership

Culture is often described as “what happens when no one is watching”. But, in reality, culture starts with someone whom everyone is watching: the CEO.

HR can design frameworks, policies, and engagement strategies. But culture only becomes real when leadership embodies it, talks about it, and especially walks that talk.

This means transparent communication about goals, challenges, and direction. It means consistency between what is said and what is done. And it means CEOs taking ownership of culture, rather than delegating it to somebody else.

Because when culture is strong, performance naturally follows.

Support for talent and risk management

Not every HR decision is easy. Some require difficult conversations, tough calls, and a willingness to prioritise long-term health over short-term comfort.

This is where CEO backing matters the most.

HR directors need the confidence that when they address toxic behaviour, even from those employees who are considered high performers, they won’t stand alone. They need alignment on prioritising employee experience, development, and retention as core business drivers – certainly not as secondary concerns.

Without this support, even the best HR strategies can stall, and falter.

Joining forces, with a little expert advice

Of course, this partnership should not be one-sided. CEOs expect HR to bring more than reports; they expect insight. They expect proactive talent planning, clear links between people initiatives and ROI, and the ability to translate workforce dynamics into business outcomes.

In other words, HR must speak the language of the business. And CEOs must be willing to listen.

Choosing the right job levelling and evaluation tool is a critical decision. Get it right, and you create the foundation for fair, transparent pay, clear career pathways and stronger workforce planning. Get it wrong, and you risk bias, inconsistency and compliance challenges, particularly in today’s pay transparency landscape.

So what should you be looking for in a job levelling and evaluation tool?

1. Does the underlying methodology actually stand up to scrutiny?

At its core, any job levelling and evaluation approach must provide a systematic and structured way of valuing work. It should use clearly defined, objective criteria to compare the relative size, value and contribution of roles across your organisation, ensuring decisions are consistent and not reliant on subjective judgement. Increasingly, this is also critical for meeting regulatory expectations around pay transparency, particularly in demonstrating equal pay for equal work and work of equal value.

A strong methodology should deliver:

• A clear job hierarchy, showing how roles relate and progress across levels
• Consistency across functions and geographies, enabling comparable outcomes
• Fairness, with roles evaluated based on job requirements rather than individuals
• Equity, ensuring roles of equal value are rewarded appropriately

If the underlying methodology isn’t robust, no amount of technology will fix it.

2. Will it genuinely power your people strategy or sit disconnected?

Job levelling and evaluation are not just about grading roles, they underpin your entire people strategy. The right solution acts as a strategic data foundation, connecting jobs, levels, work and skills to enable better decision-making.

Your job levelling and evaluation approach should support priorities such as reward, hiring, performance and career development, while enabling a clearer, skills-based view of work.

Crucially, it must not sit in isolation. It should integrate seamlessly with your HR technology ecosystem, including HRIS platforms such as Workday, ensuring data flows consistently across roles, skills and employee records.

The real value comes when it connects and powers the wider ecosystem.

3. Will it enable pay transparency or create compliance risk?

With increasing focus on pay transparency, particularly through legislation such as the EU Pay Transparency Directive, organisations must be able to clearly demonstrate how pay decisions are made.

A key requirement of the EU Pay Transparency Directive is the ability to assess roles based on objective, gender-neutral criteria – typically including factors such as skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions – to determine equal pay for equal work and work of equal value.

This means your job levelling and evaluation approach should:

• Align to global legislation and regulatory expectations
• Support reporting and audit requirements
• Provide a clear, objective and explainable framework for evaluating roles

Compliance is no longer a reactive exercise. It needs to be designed into your approach from the outset.

4. Will it enable you to clearly explain and defend your pay decisions?

One of the biggest challenges organisations face is not just making pay decisions but explaining and justifying them. A modern job levelling and evaluation tool should enable transparent and defensible decision-making at scale, providing a clear link between the value of work and how roles are rewarded.

This requires a clear and understandable methodology, avoiding “black box” logic, alongside a full audit trail that captures how decisions have been made over time. It should also provide visibility of how roles have been evaluated and compared, enabling organisations to confidently explain differences in pay — particularly for equal work and work of equal value.

This level of transparency is critical for building trust with employees and gives leaders confidence that pay decisions are fair, consistent and compliant.

5. Will it solve your current levelling and evaluation challenges or reinforce them?

In our conversations with customers, we consistently hear the same challenges regarding levelling and evaluation. Many organisations are still relying on outdated or manual approaches that struggle to keep pace with the demands of modern work and increasing regulatory scrutiny.

These processes are often slow, complex and heavily dependent on specialist expertise, making them difficult to scale across the organisation.

Common challenges we see include:

• Poor quality or inconsistent job data
• Manual, time-consuming processes that delay decisions
• Generic frameworks that don’t reflect the reality of work
• Subjective application of methodologies, leading to inconsistency
• Lack of transparency in “black box” systems
• Disconnected and out-of-date data

These issues not only reduce confidence in outcomes but also create significant risk – particularly in the context of pay transparency and compliance.

6. Is it designed for how work happens today and tomorrow?

The way we define work is changing, and your job levelling and evaluation approach needs to evolve with it. Modern solutions should be built on robust scientific foundations but reflect how work is actually performed today, not how it was structured in the past.

They should be simple and intuitive to use, enabling broader adoption beyond a small group of specialists, while still scaling across your organisation. Real-time insights, strong governance and seamless integration with wider HR systems are also critical.

Above all, they should support a more dynamic, skills-based view of work — enabling organisations to adapt as roles and capabilities evolve.

Final thoughts

Choosing a job levelling and evaluation tool is about more than selecting a framework. It’s about building a trusted, scalable and future-ready foundation for your organisation.

As expectations around fairness, transparency and agility continue to rise, organisations need approaches that are not only robust, but connected, dynamic and built for the future of work.

Watch our Job Levelling & Evaluation Masterclass for an in-depth look at job levelling and evaluation approaches.

Over the past few months, as a technical recruiter specializing in the Scala ecosystem, my team and I have been deep in the trenches of the UK tech market. Between mid-December and early April, as part of research done by JobswithScala.com, we personally contacted 754 Scala developers across the UK to understand exactly what makes them tick. 

When you spend your days talking to software engineers, you start to notice patterns. You see beyond the bullet points on a CV and start understanding the human elements driving career moves. In a highly competitive market like ours, employers often assume that offering a higher salary or a shiny new title is the ultimate trump card. But the data we’ve gathered and the conversations I’ve had tell a very different story.

If you are trying to hire Scala talent in the UK today, you need to understand their shifting preferences regarding work conditions, compensation, geography, and company culture. Let’s dive into the most fascinating trends I’ve observed and how you can use them to refine your hiring strategy.

The Remote VS Hybrid Reality: What’s the Winning Formula?

Let’s start with the most common question I get from hiring managers: “Do we really need to offer fully remote work?”

When we asked developers about their preferred work models, the results painted a clear picture of the modern engineering landscape:

• 57.89% favor a mix of Hybrid (1–3 days onsite) and Fully remote options.
• 21.05% are highly flexible, open to 100% onsite, Hybrid, or Fully remote.
• 10.53% insist on Fully remote roles only.
• 5.26% prefer 100% onsite.
• 5.26% are open to a mix of 100% onsite and Hybrid.

What stands out to me here is that absolute extremes are losing their appeal. Only a small fraction of the market strictly demands 100% remote work, and an equally small fraction wants to be at a desk five days a week. The vast majority of the talent pool, nearly 58% lives in that sweet spot of hybrid and remote flexibility. Developers want the autonomy to write complex functional code in the quiet of their home offices, but they also value the collaborative whiteboard sessions that happen on onsite days.

When I advise clients on how to position their roles, my biggest recommendation is to communicate your expectations early and honestly. If “hybrid” means a mandatory three days in the office, say that upfront. If it means “come in when it makes a difference,” say that too. You have to design your engineering processes and communication practices to match the model you advertise, otherwise, you will face immediate attrition.

The Salary Expectation Paradox

If you look at standard salary bandings in tech, you expect a smooth, upward-trending curve: the more years of experience, the higher the salary. But when looking at the salary expectations of Scala developers in the UK, the data reveals some truly chaotic patterns.

Here is what the median minimum accepted salaries and median expectations look like based on our data:

• 0 – 3 years: £70,000 (Median minimum)
• 4 – 5 years: £80,000 (Minimum) / £90,000 (Expectation)
• 6 – 8 years: £65,000 (Minimum) / £65,000 (Expectation)
• 9 – 10 years: £100,000 (Minimum) / £150,000 (Expectation)
• 10+ years: £115,000 (Minimum) / £172,500 (Expectation)

There are two glaring anomalies here. First, a £70,000 median expectation for someone with 0-3 years of experience might seem steep. However, a “Junior Scala Developer” is rarely a junior engineer. Because of the specific learning path of the language, most entry-level Scala candidates are actually Junior or Mid-level Java developers who are making a deliberate transition. They bring deep, pre-existing JVM knowledge, and their salary expectations reflect that foundational expertise.

The second, much more bizarre anomaly is the “mid-level dip.” Developers with 6–8 years of experience actually reported lower salary expectations (£65,000) than those with 4-5 years of experience (£90,000). Furthermore, we see wildly wide salary ranges within the exact same experience brackets. Developers in the 9-10 year bracket report expectations ranging anywhere from £100,000 up to a staggering £150,000.

My takeaway from speaking with these candidates is that compensation in the Scala market is no longer purely experience-driven. It is increasingly shaped by contextual factors. A developer maintaining legacy code at a non-tech enterprise will have vastly different expectations than a developer building high-throughput distributed systems at a top-tier fintech firm. Other factors heavily skewing these numbers include the work model (remote vs. onsite), project complexity, and company stability.

I always tell hiring managers to throw out rigid salary bands tied solely to years of experience. Someone with five years of experience might be technically superior to someone with eight.

Because years of experience do not neatly correlate with capability, evaluating CVs is becoming increasingly difficult. A resume won’t reveal a candidate’s grasp of functional programming concepts or their architectural foresight. Technical interviews do. If you want to validate real engineering skills effort-free, you need a partner who understands the language. With JobsWithScala recruiting services, we include rigorous technical interviews directly in our process, so you can hire skilled Scala engineers with absolute confidence.

Geography is Decentralizing (But Unevenly Priced)

Historically, if you were hiring Scala developers in the UK, you looked at London. While London still holds the lion’s share of the talent pool, our survey data shows that geography is rapidly decentralizing. Talent is increasingly distributed across regional hubs.

However, if you think hiring outside of London automatically means a massive discount, you are in for a surprise. Salary expectations vary significantly by location, and they absolutely do not follow expected cost-of-living trends.

Consider this breakdown of median salary expectations and talent share:

• London: £109,722 (55% Talent Share)
• Glasgow: £125,000 (11% Talent Share)
• St Albans: £92,500 (11% Talent Share)
• Worthing: £100,000 (5% Talent Share)
• Newcastle: £75,000 (5% Talent Share)
• Manchester: £60,000 (5% Talent Share)
• Leicester: £45,000 (5% Talent Share)

The discrepancies are wild. Glasgow’s median expectation (£125,000) heavily exceeds London’s (£109,722). Even more confusing: Glasgow and St Albans have the exact same talent share (11%), yet salary expectations in Glasgow are roughly 36% higher. Look at the smaller talent hubs: Newcastle, Manchester, Leicester, and Worthing all hover around a 5% talent share, yet their salary expectations differ by up to 122%, from a modest £45,000 in Leicester to an impressive £100,000 in Worthing.

What is driving these massive location-based discrepancies? In my experience, it boils down to local demand versus supply mismatches, aggressive employer competition in specific pockets, and remote work dynamics where local developers are anchoring their expectations to London or US-based salaries.

Location alone is no longer a reliable proxy for compensation planning. My recommendation is to base your offers strictly on real-time market data, accounting for local demand and candidate expectations, rather than relying on generalized assumptions about regional cost differences.

The Myth of the “Product Company” Prestige

Going into these conversations with hundreds of candidates, I assumed most top-tier engineers would be laser-focused on joining flashy product companies or aggressively climbing the ladder to Principal Engineer.

I was entirely wrong.

When we looked at the data, only 26% explicitly preferred product companies. The vast majority reported having no strong preference whatsoever regarding the type of company they work for. The decision is less about WHAT your company builds, and much more about HOW your company operates.

When we asked developers to rank their work environment priorities, the results were eye-opening:

1. Culture & Respect: 37%
2. Flexibility: 26%
3. Autonomy, Trust & Ownership: 21%
4. Mission, Stability & Business Health: 21%
5. Career Growth & Mentorship: 16%

Career growth sits dead last on this list. This doesn’t mean developers are losing their ambition. It means they are no longer willing to sacrifice their mental health, autonomy, or daily happiness for a promotion.

You can hear this sentiment directly in the feedback we received. Alessandro, a Scala Backend Developer in London, told me: “A culture of mentorship, continuous learning, and genuine support for professional growth is very important to me.” Similarly, Kenneth, a Senior Scala Software Engineer, summed it up perfectly: “Having good people to work with and opportunities for career development.” The people and the environment come first.

Every company claims to have a “great culture” on their careers page, but candidates are naturally skeptical. When I map out hiring strategies with my clients, I always emphasize that you have to use the interview process to prove your environment. Use your final interview stages to let candidates meet the wider engineering team without management present. Let them observe your communication styles and see how you handle technical disagreements. In my experience, that level of transparency wins top-tier candidates over much faster than a generic pitch about career progression.

Final Thoughts

Recruiting Scala developers in the UK is an intricate puzzle. The data clearly shows that traditional hiring playbooks are becoming obsolete. You can’t rely strictly on years of experience to dictate salary, you can’t assume regional developers will be cheaper, and you certainly can’t assume that a clear path to management is what candidates want most.

Success in this market requires nuance, flexibility, and a deep understanding of human motivations. By aligning your work models to real developer preferences, creating flexible compensation frameworks, and prioritizing a culture of deep respect and autonomy, you won’t just hire great Scala developers – you’ll keep them.

It does not take much for conversations to escalate in the current climate. People are angry. And that anger is spilling into workplaces. Public discourse has become more aggressive and black-and-white. Politics, social media and mainstream commentary increasingly frame issues as a battle between right and wrong, good and bad, us and them. There is little room for nuance. And that mindset does not disappear when people walk into work.

Conversations that once involved healthy tension and discussion are becoming emotionally charged, reactive and deeply personal – fast. A challenge to an idea becomes a challenge to someone’s values, competence or character. Feedback becomes personal criticism. A disagreement becomes a moral argument. For HR leaders and people managers, this creates a difficult environment to navigate.

Why tensions are escalating

 We are constantly exposed to emotionally charged and divisive communication. Social media and many news platforms amplify outrage because outrage drives attention and engagement. Aggressive and polarising behaviour is also increasingly being modelled publicly by politicians, commentators and world leaders.

At the same time, many people are carrying a high level of stress and uncertainty. Cost-of-living pressures, increasing workloads, organisational change, global instability, and the rapid acceleration of AI are creating disruption that many people find deeply unsettling. And fear does not always look like fear. Often it looks like defensiveness, aggression or anger. Scared people often get scary.

Many people also have legitimate reasons to feel angry. There is genuine injustice, instability and suffering in the world. Anger itself is not inherently bad. It is a valid human emotion and, when expressed constructively, can propel people towards action and positive change.

The issue is not the emotion. It is how the emotion is expressed.

What de-escalation actually requires

 This is where many leaders get stuck. Their instinct is often to shut the emotion down quickly, defend themselves, argue facts or tell someone to “calm down”. But these approaches rarely work.

De-escalation requires something different and it is not about backing down, being nice or winning. It is about staying regulated enough to stabilise the interaction.

1. Regulate yourself first

Leaders cannot de-escalate another person if they are escalated themselves.

Emotional states are contagious. If a leader responds with defensiveness, frustration or aggression, the interaction usually deteriorates quickly. Remaining calm does not mean accepting poor behaviour. It means staying in control of yourself and the conversation.

2. Acknowledge the emotion

People settle faster when they feel heard. That does not mean agreeing with the behaviour or surrendering to the emotion. It means acknowledging it. Statements such as, “I can see you’re frustrated,” or “I understand this issue matters deeply to you,” can reduce the need for someone to keep escalating to prove how upset they are.

3. Pair empathy with accountability

Empathy without boundaries can allow poor behaviour to continue. Boundaries without empathy can inflame the situation further. Effective leaders combine both. For example: “I appreciate that you’re angry right now and that’s ok. What’s not ok is to yell at a colleague like that.” The sweet spot is being hard on the behaviour while staying soft on the person.

4. Get curious and clarify the issue

Anger is often masking something else – fear, uncertainty, embarrassment, shame or loss of control. Questions such as “Help me understand what’s driving this reaction?” or “What’s the main concern for you?” can quickly shift a conversation from confrontation to understanding.

5. Focus on the path forward

Make it clear what needs to happen for the conversation to continue. Explain your intention, connect calm behaviour to progress, and focus on solving the issue. For example: “I want to help resolve this, and to do that, I need us to have the conversation calmly so I can understand the issue.”

If anger continues to escalate, leaders need to state firm boundaries and follow through. For example: “I’m happy to have this conversation but if you keep swearing at me, I am going to end the call.” Safety and respect come first.

Right now, many people are carrying fear, frustration and anger that has very little to do with the conversation happening in front of them. In this environment, leaders need to get better at recognising escalation early, responding calmly and not adding more fire to an already heated interaction.

In a climate where outrage is everywhere, the ability to lower the temperature matters more than ever.

Many employers now recognise the importance of supporting mental health at work. Employee Assistance Programmes, wellbeing resources, occupational health, private medical insurance and mental health training are all more common than they once were.

This progress is important, but too often, mental health is still treated as something to respond to once there is a visible problem. An employee is signed off work. A manager raises a performance concern. Someone reaches burnout. Absence increases. At that point, support becomes about repair.

The challenge with this approach is that poor mental health rarely appears overnight. It often develops gradually, through changes in focus, energy, motivation, sleep, confidence and ability to cope with everyday pressure. Mental Health UK’s Burnout Report 2026 found that 91% of UK adults experienced high or extreme levels of pressure or stress in the past year, showing just how common these pressures have become.

Employers therefore need to move away from seeing mental health support as a service that only steps in when someone is unwell. It should be a continuous part of how organisations support their people, manage risk and protect performance.

Mental health, like physical health and safety, needs to be promoted, monitored and maintained. The return on investment comes not only from helping people recover, but from helping them stay well in the first place.

Why the green and yellow stages matter

The mental health continuum is a useful model because it recognises that mental health is dynamic, not fixed. People can move back and forth between different stages depending on workload, stress, life events, relationships, sleep, physical health and the support around them. It’s a spectrum, with green representing healthy and thriving mental health and red representing severe mental illness.

The green thriving stage is not one to ignore because people seem healthy. It is where employers should be actively protecting positive wellbeing. This means creating working conditions that help people stay well: manageable workloads, clear expectations, regular communication, supportive management, and a culture where wellbeing is part of everyday conversation.

The yellow stage is where early signs of strain begin to appear. This may not look like a mental health problem at first. It might look like someone taking longer to complete tasks, becoming quieter in meetings, making more mistakes, losing confidence, avoiding decisions, or seeming more irritable or withdrawn.

These are the moments where support can make the greatest difference. Not because managers are expected to diagnose the issue, but because they are close enough to notice change, ask better questions and help someone access the right support before things escalate.

Absence is not the starting point

Mental Health UK’s report found that one in five workers have needed to take time off in the last year due to poor mental health caused by pressure or stress. Among workers aged 18 to 24, this rose to nearly two in five.

Internal data on absence matters, but it is not the whole picture. It tells employers who have reached the point of needing time away from work. It does not show who is still present but finding it harder to function.

This is where presenteeism becomes important. An employee may still be attending meetings, replying to emails and completing work, but not at their usual level. Their focus may reduce gradually, or they may find it harder to prioritise, make decisions or manage pressure.

Over time, this can affect productivity, team dynamics and confidence. It can also make the eventual period of absence more likely, because the employee has carried on for too long without the right support.

Making wellbeing part of everyday management

Early intervention is not about turning managers into clinicians. It is about making wellbeing part of everyday management, so concerns can be noticed and addressed before they become formal absence, performance or conduct issues.

Regular check-ins are one of the simplest ways to do this, but they need to go beyond operational updates. Asking “Are you okay?” will often get a quick “yes”, especially if someone is worried about being judged or seen as unable to cope. This is a real barrier. Mental Health UK found that over one in three UK adult workers were not comfortable letting their line manager or senior leader know if they were experiencing high or extreme levels of pressure and stress at work.

More useful questions might include, how are you finding your workload at the moment? Is anything making it harder to do your best work? Have you noticed any changes in your focus, energy or motivation? What would make things feel more manageable? Is there anything we could adjust now before it becomes more difficult?

These questions help normalise conversations about mental health before there is a crisis. For this to work, managers need confidence and consistency. Many managers want to support their teams but worry about saying the wrong thing, overstepping, or not knowing where to signpost. Training can help them recognise changes in behaviour, respond calmly and guide employees towards appropriate support.

Using data to keep mental health visible

Employers should also look at mental health across the organisation, not only through individual cases. Absence, engagement, turnover, workload, employee feedback, occupational health referrals and use of wellbeing services can all help build a clearer picture of where pressure is building.

If one team has rising absence, low engagement and high turnover, that is a signal. If employees are not using available mental health support, that is also a signal. It may suggest they do not know it exists, do not trust it, or find it too difficult to access.

The Empathy 2026 Workplace Benefits Report found that 60% of employers believe their benefits are only somewhat or not at all aligned with employee needs, while 52% of employees say the same. It also found that mental health and wellbeing is one of the areas employers most often identify as an unmet need.

Making support easy to access early

For early intervention to be effective, support needs to be visible, simple and confidential. If an employee has to search through multiple systems, speak to several people, or wait until they are at breaking point before accessing help, the opportunity for earlier support may be lost.

The Empathy report found that even where benefits exist, employees can experience friction. 27% said they have difficulty understanding what benefits include, 23% cited complicated processes, and 23% had difficulty finding or accessing information.

Employers should make mental health services part of regular communication, not something mentioned once a year. Employees should understand what is available, when to use it and how to access it without fear of judgement.

It is also important to recognise that support is not one-size-fits-all. Some employees may benefit from a wellbeing conversation, workload adjustment or self-guided resource. Others may need clinical assessment, therapy or more specialist support. The aim is not simply to offer more, but to offer the right support at the right time.

The real return on investment

The ROI of early intervention is seen in fewer people reaching crisis point, fewer avoidable absences, reduced presenteeism, stronger engagement and better retention. More fundamental to this is that employees feel support is available before they have to prove they are struggling.

The Empathy report found that expanded support would make 82% of employees feel their employer truly cares, 81% more likely to stay, and 78% more motivated and engaged.

Employers should not wait for absence to show that mental health support is needed. By then, the organisation is already responding too late.

The most effective workplace mental health strategies are not built around repair. They are built around maintenance, prevention and early access to care. By focusing on the green and yellow stages of the mental health continuum, employers can move from reacting to problems to creating workplaces where people are supported to stay well.

Volunteers’ Week is here (1-7 June), offering an opportunity to celebrate the millions of people who give their time and help improve life for us all.

It’s also a chance to fuel a renewed civic spirit and will culminate in The Big Help Out (5–8 June),providing thousands of light-touch volunteering taster sessions for people to get involved with causes across the UK.

Originally co-founded by our CEO, @Catherine Johnstone CBE in 2023, The Big Help Out is now led by The Eden Project and presents a practical springboard to build momentum for employee volunteering.

While most businesses now offer volunteering days, many still struggle to convert intention into action and an estimated 140 million hours go unused annually.

The Big Help Out is a simple way to start bridging the gap. From litter picks and charity retailing to nature volunteering and organising food donations, there are activities to suit a broad range of interests – with all sessions available through GoVo.org.

It’s a prime moment to spark longer-term engagement in employee volunteering, which at scale has the potential to deliver significant benefits for society and workforces.

Indeed, many of the outcomes employee volunteering can support are the same ones we, as HR leaders, are already being measured on: engagement, wellbeing, retention, absence, culture, productivity and employee experience.

This is particularly relevant now, as people challenges are intensifying for HR teams, sickness absence is at its highest level for more than 15 years, and employee engagement continues to decline.

We know that, done well, volunteering can help employees feel more connected, purposeful and engaged, and this is why Royal Voluntary Service is aiming to double employee volunteering in the UK by the end of 2028. Through  The 100 MIllion Hour Movement we are calling for collective cross-sector action to unlock 100 million hours of volunteering, as a practical way to strengthen workplaces and foster greater community resilience.

The challenge though is not just introducing volunteering policies but creating the right conditions for employees to participate. Policy alone rarely changes behaviour. For example, employees are far more likely to volunteer when managers actively encourage participation and make it workable. This is where something like The Big Help Out can play an important role, presenting a practical, low barrier way to test approaches and get employees motivated.

Employee volunteering: five dos for HR teams

1. Position volunteering as part of your people strategy, not just a CSR or ESG activity – Employee volunteering can support many HR priorities
2. Focus on activation, not just policy – Offering volunteering days is just the first step, the challenge is creating the right conditions so employees feel empowered to use them
3. Equip managers to enable participation – Employees are more likely to volunteer when managers actively encourage participation and make volunteering easy to do
4. Make volunteering inclusive – Offer a range of flexible formats such as team volunteering, micro-volunteering and remote opportunities to help widen participation across remote, hybrid, in-office and shift workers
5. Measure people outcomes, not just hours volunteered – Use participation data to align and track against wider people outcomes such as engagement, wellbeing, team relations and career progression to evidence impact

Ultimately, the organisations that get this right will be those who secure manager support, promote inclusive access and are able to measure and evidence the impact – internally and externally. The Big Help Out is a great starting point.

Corporate sustainability actions are increasingly transforming from desirable to non-negotiable. Not only have corporate sustainability laws, net-zero targets, and climate regulations surged, but talent – particularly younger generations – expect employers to create and encourage sustainable cultures. This has made greener strategies essential for organisational success. One critical way this has been executed is through the adoption of Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles (ULEVs).

Switching to greener fleets not only reduces an organisation’s carbon footprint, contributing positively to CSR initiatives, but also offers significant financial, reputational, and employee engagement benefits.

Here’s why embracing green fleets is a necessity.

Sustainable branding drives competitive advantage

From rising global temperatures to a surge in climate protesting, the urgency around climate action is not something governments, talent, and consequently the boardroom, can sweep under the carpet. Consumers, employees and stakeholders are holding brands to higher standards – and businesses failing to align to these expectations lose critical competitive advantages.

Key trends driving sustainable business strategy include:

• More companies are reporting their sustainability action, with 90% of S&P 500 companies releasing ESG reports.
• 83% of consumers believe companies should actively shape ESG best practices.
• 88% of consumers demonstrate increased loyalty to businesses that advocate for social and environmental issues.
• ESG is considered by 89% of investors when making investment decisions.
• Sustainability is becoming a major factor in how people decide where to work. In fact, 52% of employees say they would stay longer at a company with strong ESG credentials. Among Gen Z, 54% are willing to take a pay cut to work for an organisation they believe is more ethical, and 31% would even turn down a job offer if they weren’t comfortable with the organisation’s ESG stance.

A sustainable fleet is important for employer branding, demonstrating a commitment to reducing carbon output to talent, consumers, and stakeholders. Unlike emissions data buried in CSR reports, electric vehicles are visible and demonstrate environmental commitment every day. On top of this, they provide great recognition for talent who receive the opportunity to drive more sustainably at a more affordable price.

Cleaner cars deliver immediate and long-term savings

While the environmental benefits of ULEVs are clear (mass reduction of greenhouse gas emissions improves air quality and mitigates against climate change), the financial case is just as compelling:

• According to YESSS Electrical, the average UK EV owner saves £582.65 per year on fuel compared to petrol car owners.
• Maintenance savings are extensive – fewer moving parts means lower service, repair and downtime costs.
• When employers offer their employees a salary sacrifice vehicle, it often comes with comprehensive motor insurance, breakdown cover, routine servicing, and replacement tyres. By securing better deals and simplifying the process, companies help employees save money and avoid the hassle of managing multiple contracts.
• Salary-sacrifice electric car schemes allow employees to exchange a fixed monthly pre-tax amount for access to a new low-emission vehicle. This can lead to significant savings on income tax and reduced National Insurance contributions for both employees and employers.

While there may be some upfront investments involved – for example charging infrastructure – the long-term ROI is significant, from petrol and upkeep savings, salary-sacrifice employer’s NI savings, as well as improved employer branding.

Engage employees with Green Car benefits

Today’s employees want to see sustainability in action. Fleet policies are a critical strategy to improving an organisation’s green credentials.

Providing access to ULEVs through company car schemes or salary sacrifice programmes can:

• Enhance employer branding and appeal to talent motivated by ethics – especially younger, more eco-conscious generations.
• Support the financial health of your workforce amid the cost of living crisis through lower fuel and tax bills.
• Contribute to broader environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals.

You can take this lead by capping CO2 emissions from company vehicles or transitioning to ULEV fleets. The more accessible you make sustainable driving, the faster adoption and overall engagement will follow.

www.tuskercars.com

Many American executives underestimate how differently business is conducted in the United Kingdom. The result is not open conflict. It is something more costly: quiet underperformance.

Decisions stall. Alignment is assumed but not real. Change is announced but not fully delivered.

The problem is not capability. It is misreading the environment.

If you want a simple way to understand the difference, think about sport—and cards.

American business often resembles the NFL: structured, fast, and built on short bursts of decisive action. It also has something of poker about it: confidence, signalling, and the occasional strategic bluff.

The U.K. is closer to Premier League football: fluid, positional, and dependent on reading the game. Its card game equivalent is less about bluff and more about memory—tracking what has been played and adjusting accordingly.

These are not just metaphors. They reflect how decisions are made, how risk is judged, and how people respond to leadership.

And when U.S. leaders apply a successful domestic playbook in the U.K. without adapting it, performance suffers.

Where U.S. approaches misfire

Three differences matter most: attitudes to risk, communication style, and how organisations manage people.

1. Attitude to risk: speed versus calibration

The U.S. system rewards speed and scale. Companies such as Amazon and Meta have built global dominance by moving quickly, investing heavily, and adjusting course as they go.

This approach is reinforced by deep capital markets and a tolerance for failure. In the U.S., bold decisions—even unsuccessful ones—often enhance a leader’s reputation.

The U.K. operates differently. Risk is examined more closely. Decisions are tested before they are announced. Stakeholders—employees, regulators, and partners—are considered earlier in the process.

For U.S. leaders, this can feel like unnecessary delay. In practice, it is a different form of risk management.

The consequence of misreading this is predictable: initiatives launched quickly but without sufficient alignment encounter resistance later, slowing execution and diluting impact.

2. Communication: explicit versus implicit

American business communication is typically direct. Clarity is valued. Disagreement is often expressed openly.

In the U.K., communication is more nuanced. Meaning is conveyed as much through tone and context as through words.

Phrases such as “that’s interesting” or “we should revisit this” may signal concern rather than agreement. Silence in a meeting may indicate reservation, not consent.

For U.S. leaders, the risk is overestimating alignment. Decisions appear agreed in the room but are quietly contested afterwards.

The result is not confrontation, but drift. Execution slows because commitment was never fully secured.

3. Managing people: flexibility versus continuity

The U.S. labour model prioritises flexibility. Organisations can restructure quickly in response to market shifts.

Recent workforce reductions across large technology companies, including Meta, have been framed as strategic resets linked to efficiency and investment in artificial intelligence.

In the U.K., employment practices place greater emphasis on continuity and process. Consultation is expected. Legal protections are stronger. Organisational change is more deliberate.

This can limit speed. It also builds trust and preserves institutional knowledge.

When U.S. leaders apply rapid restructuring approaches in the U.K., the immediate outcome may be compliance. The longer-term effect is often reduced engagement and weaker execution.

A common scenario

Consider a typical situation.

A U.S. executive takes responsibility for a U.K. business unit and identifies the need for rapid transformation. A clear plan is developed. A restructuring is announced. The rationale is communicated in a town hall.

In the U.S., this might be the moment momentum builds.

In the U.K., it is often the moment resistance begins—quietly.

Employees comply with formal requirements but question the direction informally. Managers hesitate to challenge openly but slow implementation. Stakeholders ask for further clarification.

Six months later, the plan is still in place. But progress is uneven. Energy has dissipated.

The issue is not the strategy. It is how it was introduced and executed.

Why this matters now

These differences are becoming more significant, not less.

Artificial intelligence is a clear example. U.S. companies such as Microsoft have moved quickly to embed AI across their products and operations. Speed is a competitive advantage.

In the U.K., adoption is shaped not only by opportunity but by questions of governance, workforce impact, and regulation. Employees expect to be consulted. Institutions expect to be engaged.

Leaders who rely solely on speed risk triggering resistance that slows implementation.

More broadly, productivity gaps between the U.S. and the U.K. are often attributed to differences in investment and scale. But management practice also plays a role. Where leadership approaches are poorly adapted to context, performance suffers.

How to lead effectively in the U.K.

U.S. leaders do not need to abandon their strengths. But they do need to adapt how those strengths are applied.

Four practices make a consistent difference.

1. Slow down decisions to speed up execution

Invest more time upfront in consultation than you might in the U.S.

This does not mean relinquishing control. It means testing assumptions, involving key stakeholders early, and building alignment before announcing decisions.

In practice, this often leads to faster and more consistent implementation.

2. Test for real alignment

Do not assume agreement based on what is said in formal meetings.

Follow up in smaller settings. Ask open questions. Look for hesitation or ambiguity.

If necessary, invite challenge explicitly—and allow time for it to emerge.

Alignment in the U.K. is often built outside the main meeting, not within it.

3. Treat organisational change as a credibility test

In the U.K., how you implement change matters as much as the change itself.

Be clear about the rationale. Explain the impact. Engage with concerns directly.

Frequent or poorly explained restructuring can quickly erode trust. Once lost, it is difficult to rebuild.

4. Lead with confidence, but show judgement

Decisiveness is valued in both contexts. The difference is how it is expressed.

In the U.K., leaders are expected to demonstrate judgement as well as conviction—showing that decisions have been considered, not just made.

This balance builds credibility and encourages commitment.

A final point

The U.S. and the U.K. share language, institutions, and deep commercial ties. It is easy to assume they operate in the same way.

They do not.

One system prioritises speed, scale, and bold action. The other emphasises calibration, continuity, and consensus.

Leaders who recognise these differences—and adapt accordingly—tend to perform better.

Those who do not often conclude that change is harder than it should be.

In most cases, the issue is simpler.

They are playing the right game.

Just on the wrong pitch.