<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
    <rss version="2.0" xml:base="https://knowledge.insead.edu"  xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
      <channel>
        <title>INSEAD Knowledge</title>
        <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu</link>
        <description>The business school for the world</description>
        <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 12:31:06 +0800</lastBuildDate>
        <language>en</language>
        <item><title>AI &amp; Jobs: What Workers Can Do to Protect Themselves</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/career/ai-jobs-what-workers-can-do-protect-themselves</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[The disruption unfolding across today's labour market is unlike anything that came before. Where past waves of automation swept through factory floors and manual work, AI is hitting white-collar jobs, especially entry-level ones. In the first quarter of 2026, tech companies laid off more than 78,000 workers, with 48% attributed to AI automation. Even Jerome Powell, the United States Federal Reserve chair, has warned that AI could “absolutely have implications for job creation”.How can we gird ourselves for AI’s impact? In our “AI & Jobs” series, we ask INSEAD professors to analyse the situation from the perspectives of individuals – the focus of this article – as well as organisations and policymakers. The consensus: AI is redesigning and restructuring jobs far more than it’s making them obsolete. Whether and how individuals (especially entry-level and junior workers) exploit AI while honing their own skills will decide the security of their future. Meta-skills will be a game changer Phanish Puranam, The Roland Berger Chaired Professor of Strategy and Organisation Design The jobs most vulnerable to AI displacements in the next few years will be those that are low-level, don’t require collaboration (e.g. modular work) or in-person presence (e.g. purely knowledge work), and are done the same way across companies. This isn’t necessarily because algorithms will become effective substitutes for all tasks in all such roles – the evidence suggests they aren’t (yet) – but because organisations are no longer hiring as they expect AI to eventually catch up. That said, completely new tasks and roles have been created since the advent of generative AI. I categorise them into four types: AI operations, AI compliance, jobs related to human-AI interaction (e.g. prompt librarian, AI personality coaches), and perhaps the biggest group is simply AI-augmented versions of old roles in software, medical services and other sectors where demand is elastic.Although we can’t forecast what skills will be in demand in the future, I think “meta-skills”, which allow humans to acquire new skills quickly, will matter more than specific skills. Meta-skills are, as I explain in a separate article, unlike domain knowledge or technical expertise. Meta-skills such as analogical reasoning, metacognitive regulation, higher-order thinking and social coordination don't directly produce output. Instead, they accelerate learning, enable knowledge transfer across contexts and help people adapt when tasks evolve.In new work with Alessandro Sforza and Matteo Devigili, I’m trying to pin down the signature of meta-skills by studying “super-jumpers” – individuals who make big leaps in the skills they seem to acquire when transitioning to new jobs. The danger of relying heavily on AI tools is that our meta-skills could atrophy. This means we might be more efficient in the short term but increasingly fragile and commoditised over time.AI is rewriting the rules — output is abundant, judgment and credibility are scarceSo Yeon Chun, Associate Professor of Technology and Operations ManagementAI is often discussed in terms of jobs lost or created, but this framing misses a more fundamental shift. AI is altering how work is structured, how value is defined and how opportunity is distributed. In short, AI is rewriting the rules of work.Instead of replacing jobs in their entirety, AI is increasingly transforming tasks within jobs. Rather than focusing on jobs gained or lost, it is more useful to look at how tasks are redistributed between humans and machines. Even without large-scale unemployment, AI may lead to a more invisible form of disruption in terms of responsibilities, scope and career progression.This shift changes the nature of value. When high-quality output becomes easy to generate, value moves away from production and towards judgment — the ability to interpret, evaluate and make decisions. To stay relevant, humans must become skilled at guiding AI systems, assessing their outputs, and applying context and causal reasoning. Judgment becomes critical not only for improving one’s own work, but for evaluating the contributions of others. As AI makes it easier to produce polished output at scale, distinguishing truly valuable work becomes more difficult. Thus, those who are better at making their work – valuable or not – visible may be better positioned to capture opportunity.  To stay relevant, humans must become skilled at guiding AI systems, assessing their outputs, and applying context and causal reasoning. This reflects a broader dynamic I highlight in my research: When people have less time and trust to judge an ever-increasing amount of output, visibility increasingly decides whose work is recognised. When judgment is lacking, appearing busy or visible can replace actually doing valuable work, and credibility becomes rare.In a world overflowing with output, the real advantage lies in exercising judgment and building credibility, both in the work we produce and in how it is evaluated. If you can’t beat them, use themWinnie Jiang, Assistant Professor of Organisational BehaviourIn an ongoing study of professional workers on the Upwork platform, I’ve observed that those who invest time in learning which tools are best suited for particular tasks, how to combine tools effectively, and how to use them skilfully succeed in turning AI from a threat into a resource.AI tools also free up time and cognitive capacity, enabling workers to try out new tasks, create side projects and think of new ways to create value. For example, market researchers who use AI for data collection and initial analysis can devote more effort to interpretation and application. In this way, individuals become more career-resilient, while organisations also benefit. There’s a caveat: Early-career employees should prioritise hands-on learning, which can mean avoiding AI use when it’s readily available. Our study shows that the professionals who benefit most from AI are those who already know what “good” actually looks like in a given context. In contrast, when individuals rely on AI without first developing this foundational understanding, they often struggle to detect errors or meaningfully improve AI outputs. For individuals, the prospect of being displaced by AI breeds uncertainty, anxiety and a sense of diminished status and agency. Socially, widespread job insecurity can deepen the divide between those who benefit from AI and those who are displaced. In “mass unemployment” scenarios, the legitimacy of the political and economic status quo could be destabilised. To mitigate or avoid these outcomes, workers need to be provided with not only support that helps them reskill but also support to help them reinterpret AI disruption as a temporary transition and an opportunity to find more meaningful work. Leaders, on their part, should treat workers as capable contributors who can identify and create new value, rather than as surplus labour. Cultivate deep domain knowledge and “taste”Victoria Sevcenko, Assistant Professor of StrategyMost of the labour market change happening now is the restructuring of existing roles to incorporate AI, not the appearance of new categories. The floor on acceptable output seems to have risen: People are expected to come in able to do things they might have been given more time to learn, and the average entry-level job might start to look more like a mid-level job.There will likely be more demand for deep domain knowledge and “taste” – that intuitive sense of what good work looks like, what counts as a contribution, and what is novel or sloppy. Within those redesigned roles, there will likely be more demand for deep domain knowledge and what I will call “taste”, which I shall explain below. Here are some specific actions individuals can take to stay competitive:Use AI extensively, preferably the best available models. This will teach you about what AI can and cannot do, and what you, as a human, are uniquely better at. As the models evolve, you can also spot the direction of improvement faster and more accurately.Build “taste” in your specific field, which is that intuitive sense of what good work looks like, what counts as a contribution, and what is novel or sloppy. Taste is typically socially constructed: it’s co-created by a community of practitioners and shaped by what they think matters, and much of it isn’t documented well enough for AI to pick up on. Build taste by interacting directly with people in your field and getting regular feedback from peers. You can’t rely on AI alone for this, and it’s also harder to be original in your thinking if you do.Build critical thinking. By this I mean the ability to assess what you know, what you don’t and what you are uncertain of, and to step back, reflect and adjust. It’s debatable how “trainable” people are in these skills, but some people are clearly stronger, and this gives them a big advantage. Getting feedback on your work and learning to test your own knowledge are all part of the training.Learn how AI works. You don’t need to build the models, but you need enough knowledge to anticipate what AI will be good or bad at, and to make sense of improvements as they emerge.Next week, we’ll look at what companies and organisations can do to mitigate AI’s impact on jobs and the talent pipeline.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2026 02:05:12 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48571 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/career/ai-jobs-what-workers-can-do-protect-themselves#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-05/shutterstock_2452515473_1.jpg?itok=2JMUGZnY" type="image/jpeg" length="302566" /><dc:creator>Phanish Puranam</dc:creator><dc:creator>So Yeon Chun</dc:creator><dc:creator>Winnie Jiang</dc:creator><dc:creator>Victoria Sevcenko</dc:creator></item><item><title>AI and Career Reinvention</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/career/ai-and-career-reinvention</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[In the new edition of “The INSEAD Perspective: Spotlight on Asia” podcast series, Sameer Hasija, Dean of Asia at INSEAD, speaks with Winnie Jiang, Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour, about how organisations and individuals in Asia are changing the way they think about work, training and careers. In particular, Jiang identifies a fundamental shift from "institutionalised" to "uninstitutionalised" career transitions. Unlike the past, where career changes – such as moving from journalism to law or banking to baking – followed clear routes and required standard qualifications, today’s job landscape has been totally upended by AI and geopolitical uncertainty. This makes identifying "safe" next steps, or a stable career that can guarantee success nearly impossible, creating real anxiety. AI’s transformation of how skills are learned and a global reduction in entry-level hiring are further feeding a growing unease among many employees about their futures.  For Jiang, the key to navigating this disruption is not to resist technology but to actively embrace experimentation. By becoming experts in specific AI tools, individuals don’t just increase company productivity, they can also enhance their own roles and add greater meaning to their work.Jiang illustrates this with her research of a Chinese automobile firm that successfully shifted its narrative around AI from cost savings to employee empowerment. By framing the technology as a tool to delegate mundane tasks, the company freed up employees for more meaningful work, turning their initial fear into deeper engagement and greater job satisfaction. Nobody can tell which career is going to promise you the stability and the status anymore. - Winnie Jiang The shift towards "uninstitutionalised" careers may offer another positive. In many of Asia’s collectivist and "face" cultures, where career choices have historically been tied to family pride and stability, current uncertainty may ironically liberate younger generations to pursue work that they find personally fulfilling. Schools like INSEAD have an important role to play in this transformation. It is their responsibility to help people and organisations turn technological disruption into an opportunity for professional growth that benefits both the firm and the individual.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 01:06:46 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48566 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/career/ai-and-career-reinvention#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-04/reinvention_in_ai.jpg?itok=DIqoSOrr" type="image/jpeg" length="557616" /><dc:creator>Sameer Hasija</dc:creator><dc:creator>Winnie Jiang</dc:creator></item><item><title>Getting Rich Quick May Not Guarantee Happiness</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/career/getting-rich-quick-may-not-guarantee-happiness</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[Many dream of living their best lives without financial worries. For some, this means hoping for a lottery win; however, a select few entrepreneurs achieve such a windfall through a successful exit from their start-up. After the challenges of building and scaling a business, they find themselves in the prime of their careers, enjoying financial freedom and with a lot of time on their hands.Although this might sound like bliss, it can bring unexpected emotional and existential challenges. Successful “exiters” can find themselves forced to transition from their old life to a new one, to find new directions and goals. Success brings enormous freedom, but greater ambiguity.This reality is drawn from interviews with entrepreneurs who successfully exited their start-ups, many of whom had participated in INSEAD’s Post-Exit Entrepreneurs Retreat. Examining how they deal with these challenges can offer valuable lessons for entrepreneurs getting ready for their own exit.Prepare for an emotional transitionAll the successful post-exit entrepreneurs we spoke to, many of them in their early 40s, experienced emotional turmoil. This manifested itself in several ways, including a profound sense of loss. For founders, their businesses are often deeply intertwined with their identity – years of time, effort and emotional investment make it difficult to separate the self from the venture. Letting go isn’t just a logistical or financial transition; it’s a psychological rupture. All of them described how disorienting it was to no longer lead something they had poured so much of themselves into.Beyond identity, there’s also the existential challenge of finding new meaning and purpose. One interviewee reflected, “Friends say, ‘You’re rich, what’s the issue?’ But for me, the real struggle now is meaning. Who am I without the business?” This quest, no longer defined by business metrics, becomes the less visible but no less demanding challenge of post-exit life. Some of our interviewees also experienced self-doubt. They questioned whether their success was down to skill or just luck. When some were unable to replicate their previous achievements, they began to question whether they really deserved their financial rewards.Connecting with like-minded people in a safe space to openly discuss your emotional struggles can help normalise these experiences – and build the support system you need to work through and overcome them.Reflect on your psychology of wealthFor many, a successful exit means freedom from financial pressure and the chance to create a legacy. While the technical aspects including wealth management, asset allocation, tax planning and so on typically receive considerable attention, the deep intra- and inter-personal work that comes with financial freedom is often overlooked. Understanding what we term the “psychology of wealth” involves exploring how money interacts with your sense of self and how it impacts your relationships.It means shifting your mindset from thinking about wealth as something to control or maximise to seeing it as a tool to create, maintain and renew relationships. This includes intimate relationships – such as with partners, children and close family – but also broader ties to community, society and social causes. Wealth becomes less about possessions and more about self-expansion and connection.Navigating the psychology of wealth involves reflecting on several deeply personal and sometimes uncomfortable questions, even if the answers may evolve over time. These questions range from “How much wealth is enough – and why?” to “What is the purpose of wealth” and “Why do I want to give back, and to whom?”The most resilient and fulfilling financial plans aren’t those crafted in isolation or alone with financial advisers. What’s needed are coherent wealth and philanthropy strategies that serve a larger purpose and legacy, grounded in honest conversations with yourself, loved ones and the relevant communities. They also need to be reviewed on a regular basis and should evolve to reflect your changing values and needs. Redefine success on your own terms To overcome the challenges that may come with achieving financial freedom, you need to redefine success on your own terms. This doesn’t have to be about building another business but can be about finding fulfilment in new and unexpected ways.Our interviewees generally took one of four paths as they searched for what really mattered to them. Some returned to entrepreneurship, either as serial founders or investors. One of our interviewees, Timothy (all names used in this article are pseudonyms), started another business with new partners. His desire to be involved in a new venture revealed a personal quest to affirm and revalidate his abilities.Others looked to maintain their sense of self by staying involved in the entrepreneurial ecosystem as advisers or mentors. Still others used their new-found freedom to make a social impact. Another interviewee, Clement, saw philanthropic efforts as a natural evolution of his entrepreneurial drive – still “building”, but now in service of social or environmental goals. He pursued climate and energy studies and palliative care training, and explored opportunities in local politics, climate-focused non-profits and philanthropic investments.Finally, some decided to prioritise personal interests and relationships – areas they may have previously neglected during their entrepreneurial years. To Rohan, for instance, his personal wellness and family are now his biggest priority. He chose to focus on being a full-time father and now measures success in terms of relationships and self-care. There are no templates to follow – the key is to define success in this era of life on your own terms. Give yourself permission to explore and discover which activities make you feel like you’re spending your time and money well and are utilising your talents in the most meaningful way. A word of caution: Be intentional about your time. Avoid diving into an all-consuming project unless it aligns with your priorities and remember that the first path you take may not be the one you stick with. For example, Rohan, although mostly content, did admit that being a full-time father can trigger feelings of inadequacy. That is normal and acceptable. In fact, he is already beginning to explore other paths.Beyond successful entrepreneurs, the challenges and potential paths we’ve outlined apply to other professionals who have achieved financial freedom and are looking to pursue something new. Importantly, you must be prepared to handle the emotional and existential challenges that this transition might present. Support from like-minded people facing similar issues can help you negotiate the process and navigate your newfound freedom with greater clarity and purpose.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2026 01:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48466 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/career/getting-rich-quick-may-not-guarantee-happiness#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-03/shutterstock_2446813659.jpg?itok=ws3pGi_g" type="image/jpeg" length="952912" /><dc:creator>Winnie Jiang</dc:creator><dc:creator>Balagopal Vissa</dc:creator></item><item><title>Four Mindsets That Undermine Workplace Well-Being Initiatives</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/career/four-mindsets-undermine-workplace-well-being-initiatives</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[Well-being – be it physical, mental, emotional or otherwise – is essential for a strong and productive workforce. According to a McKinsey Health Institute report, employers increasingly recognise that employee health and well-being are core to performance. Yet, many organisations struggle to find the right approach when it comes to implementing solutions that sustain both well-being and output.For over a decade, I’ve worked with multinational organisations to design and deploy well-being and mental health programmes. Based on these experiences, I’ve found that despite their best intentions, many leaders get tripped up by a few common mindsets. That’s not to say these perspectives are inherently flawed. It only becomes a problem when they are the sole lens through which things are viewed, causing other important aspects to be overlooked.Below, I elaborate on the ways of thinking leaders should avoid if they want to build sustainable and effective well-being programmes that catalyse real organisational change. I also offer practical suggestions for those ready to take these efforts seriously.Let’s “fix” them: overly individual-focusedIf an employee isn’t feeling well, a manager will likely suggest they take a day off. Some particularly empathetic managers may even grant short-term sick leave if they believe someone could benefit from a longer break, especially if that person is under intense stress or displaying symptoms of a mental health condition. “Perhaps they just need some time away,” their manager may think.This works if it’s part of a more holistic approach to employee well-being. However, if the only solution is sick leave or even providing access to free counselling services, the implicit message to employees is: This is an individual issue, so go and work on yourself and come back ready to work again. This approach focuses on addressing the symptoms, not the root causes. It neglects other factors that might be at play, including workload, resource distribution, time constraints and team culture and dynamics. The stress of transitional periods, such as adjusting to a different boss, organisational restructuring or new business strategies, can also affect well-being in ways beyond an individual’s control.Instead, managers could ask, “What else might be happening in the work environment to cause this employee distress?” before enacting the appropriate solutions, whether that’s extending a project deadline or designing a team intervention. As leaders, this is where you need to step in to examine and address the factors that might be compromising that person’s well-being, because no amount of sick leave or counselling sessions would ameliorate the situation. Let’s “change” them: overly short-term focusedAnother mental trap is thinking that simply changing someone’s working conditions will eradicate the problem. I’ve seen leaders spring into action – be it by moving an individual to a different team or reducing their workload – in the hopes of improving an employee’s well-being, sometimes inadvertently sending that person into a panic because they assumed their manager no longer trusted them.These actions are taken with good intentions and are often cited as best practices for workplace mental health. But they fail to consider one important thing: what the individual actually wants. What’s more, if the root of the problem is an organisational culture issue, such as harassment, bullying or a norm of toxic behaviour, then changing teams might offer some breathing space, but it won’t be long before the same negative patterns creep in again.Asking, “How do I involve and include the employee and others in decision-making?” is one way for leaders to escape this thinking trap and resist the bias towards action. Rather than rushing to implement change, leaders can take the time to speak directly with the employee to understand their concerns and preferences. It’s equally important to consult other managers across the organisation to determine whether this is an isolated incident or a pattern requiring broader behavioural change. Let’s “educate” them: overly surface-levelMost companies run some variation of well-being training and educational campaigns. These are foundational for building awareness, and I think they are a good first step to getting buy-in and destigmatising thorny topics like mental health and suicide. Classic formats include guest speaker series, World Mental Health Day events and sending managers to Mental Health First Aid training.These initiatives aren’t the problem. In fact, they are crucial. The issue arises if they’re all a company offers, or treated as a box-ticking exercise. Employees who attend these events tend to be self-selecting – often those who already know how to prioritise their mental health – which means that the people who need support the most may not be reached. Another challenge is that many of these initiatives primarily focus on building knowledge and delivering content, rather than establishing habits or longer-term follow-ups to support behavioural change.Instead of piecemeal initiatives, focus on your overarching well-being strategy. Think of workplace well-being as you would any long-term business strategy: Design it across one-, three- and five-year time horizons, with building blocks that compound over time instead of repeated topics repackaged under a new name. Give employees a clear view of the learning journey ahead. Borrowing strategies from leadership development, such as coaching, can also help translate newly gained knowledge into day-to-day behaviours. Let’s “do something”: overly siloedMany companies allocate a limited budget to well-being programmes, sometimes folding them into learning and development budgets and tacking them on to other training sessions. They may treat such initiatives as the purview of HR or the people and culture department, or as a theme that the communications or marketing teams can build on to boost camaraderie and staff spirit.Without meaningful human and financial support from cross-departmental leaders, the board of directors and the wider organisation, these programmes are unlikely to have their intended effect. Treating them as one-off projects wears out the teams responsible for delivery and, if no real change follows, employees may grow cynical and view these initiatives as a nuisance rather than helpful.To pave the way for sustainable change, leaders can ask themselves, “How do we embed well-being as a pillar of our business?” Well-being should be integrated into an organisation’s values and performance frameworks, and reflected in the behaviours modelled by leaders. This is where diverse perspectives are essential: Those making decisions about well-being strategies should include people with lived experience of various health conditions, ensuring that organisations don’t inadvertently sideline the very people they intend to support, nor design programmes that fail to speak to their needs.A comprehensive approachIf any of the above resonates, it may be worth pausing to reflect on whether your current approach to workplace well-being is truly the best way forward. Good intentions are a starting point, but they must be translated into something strategic and comprehensive. Here are some suggestions to get you started:Get your board of directors on board. Workplace mental health is a risk-management and sustainability issue for corporate governance. In many countries, directors have an obligation under local work and safety laws to ensure appropriate resources are in place to address such issues. A board that is interested in employee well-being will provide greater support to the organisation’s leaders and ensure accountability. Allocate an adequate, recurring budget to support your organisation’s long-term well-being strategy. People are the cornerstone of any workplace, and mentally fit employees are better equipped to adapt, remain agile and be productive amid inevitable business changes. Investing in your people should be no less a priority than investing in your latest product or service. Seek out your employees’ real experience. Metrics can be misleading, and many leaders place too much confidence in low utilisation rates of counselling hotlines or the absence of formal complaints as indicators of a healthy workplace. In reality, what gets reported and what is actually experienced can differ significantly. To close that gap, leaders need to create the conditions for honest conversations with employees and invest the time to listen without judgement.Treat well-being as a non-negotiable. Every employee should have access to foundational well-being development, which should carry at least the same weight as mandatory compliance, regulatory and data privacy training. These all serve the same ultimate purpose: the long-term sustainability of the organisation.By adopting a more holistic mindset, your well-being initiatives can move beyond surface-level gestures with fleeting impact – creating something that genuinely supports your people, strengthens your culture and delivers lasting and meaningful change.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 01:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48411 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/career/four-mindsets-undermine-workplace-well-being-initiatives#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-03/shutterstock_2494647419.jpg?itok=NxOAUpcd" type="image/jpeg" length="1034892" /><dc:creator>Enoch Li</dc:creator></item><item><title>How Leaders Can Have Effective Conversations</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/how-leaders-can-have-effective-conversations</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[Whether you’re delegating complex tasks or rallying your team around a new initiative, communicating effectively is an essential leadership skill. Clear, intentional and impactful conversations can not only help you secure buy-in from others but also ground professional relationships in high trust and strong rapport.The internet is littered with advice on how to pull this off – some based on collections of anecdotes, others on experiments, and still others on frameworks that provide a list of instructions for communicating well. Each of these approaches has its merits, as well as its drawbacks. Anecdotes are vivid but prone to selection bias. Experiments provide evidence for causality but are often separated from real-world contexts. And step-by-step frameworks are structured and easy to follow but tend to rely on generalised principles that aren't tailored to or verified by data from actual conversations. What’s lacking is a comprehensive dataset of real-world professional conversations that allows us to identify characteristics associated with effective workplace communication. In this article, we draw on data from a professional services firm that specialises in training and matching executive assistants (EAs) with clients to do just that.Insights from professional conversationsTo date, academics and practitioners haven’t had access to an extensive dataset of naturally occurring professional conversations. To our knowledge, the closest thing available is a large dataset of personal conversations, which differ from professional conversations in norms, goals and style. To fill this gap, we present an analysis of over 2,300 recorded conversations containing more than 1.2 million individual statements. The anonymised data comes from exchanges between leaders – from entrepreneurs to high-level executives – and their EAs.The professional services firm that fulfilled the placement of these EAs tracked signs of trust and rapport between the leaders and their EAs on a weekly basis. Trust, for instance, was measured through objective, escalating markers – starting from the leader providing their EA with calendar access (low marker of trust); to allowing their EA to correspond with others on their behalf; to providing their EA with access to their personal bank accounts (high marker of trust).Rapport was defined through escalating markers that tracked the level of closeness implied by the routine communication between leaders and EAs. The lowest marker was the presence of email exchanges – a relatively perfunctory way of communicating. From there, rapport markers escalated to personal messaging apps, phone calls, scheduled one-on-one meetings, unscheduled one-on-one meetings and being a part of the leader’s circle (highest marker of rapport). Studying their interactions, we scored trust and rapport based on whether these behaviours took place between leaders and their EAs. We then conducted a regression analysis to test whether elements in the conversations predicted trust and rapport. We used AI to parse and transcribe the recorded conversations, as well as classify them based on whether the statement was professional or personal in nature; if it was about the past, present or future; and whether it was a question. We also counted the number of turns (passing the baton from one speaker to the other) in the conversation. Building trust and rapportThrough our analysis, we identified specific characteristics that were associated with higher trust and better rapport:Conversations in which leaders and EAs both participated more in the conversation and exhibited greater turn-taking (i.e. participants spoke one at a time in alternating turns) were associated with greater trust. This may be because greater turn-taking signals greater mutual respect, enhances information exchange and reflects better synchrony between individuals.Conversations with a lower proportion of statements about the past, and a higher proportion of statements about the present and future, were associated with leaders having greater trust in their EAs. This could be because future-oriented conversations suggest proactivity – handling upcoming challenges and problems – which can elevate trust. Psychological research also suggests that people who focus on the future are seen as more agentic and forward-looking, and therefore more trustworthy. Conversations with a greater proportion of professional statements (relative to personal ones) were associated with better rapport between leaders and their EAs. This might be because strictly professional conversations that place a clear focus on business are more aligned with role expectations of EAs and signal competence and professionalism.It should be noted that regression analysis, although widely used and accepted, is based on correlations. This means that the findings imply that greater turn-taking, future-orientation and professional focus either cause or reflect greater trust and quality of communication, or both. Regardless, our analysis illustrates what effective professional conversations look like and reveals the behaviours associated with greater trust and better rapport. Putting this into practiceJust as people who aspire to be wealthy try to mirror characteristics of affluent individuals and those who aim to be successful athletes emulate the training habits of decorated Olympians, leaders can assess their own professional conversations against these metrics.Although our dataset covered only conversations between leaders and their EAs, we believe the findings are relevant to a wider range of professional settings. Many workplace situations involve interactions with similar status asymmetries, rapid information exchange and relationship-building, and toggle between administrative details and strategic decisions.Leaders can facilitate more effective professional conversations that promote trust and rapport among co-workers by cultivating organisational norms. Specifically, we recommend the following:Promote greater participation: Fostering a culture of “making sure everyone is heard” can increase participation during conversations, particularly those between individuals at different levels of the corporate hierarchy (e.g. between a junior employee and a director). Simple norms can help, such as ensuring sufficient time for everyone to speak at meetings, encouraging junior employees to share their thoughts, or prioritising smaller meetings or one-on-ones. Shifting virtual meetings to in-person can also help in this regard.Focus on the present and the future: During feedback sessions with team members, a template that is heavily weighted on the present and future (vs. the past) can promote trust. Similarly, meeting agendas can emphasise current goals and upcoming opportunities with the help of forward-looking frameworks, such as scenario-planning, to shift the conversational focus away from the past. Leaders can also use future-oriented framing in their everyday language, such as “let’s build on where we are now” or “what’s our next step?” instead of “we should have done this differently”.Keep the conversation professional: Although people want to connect with their colleagues on a personal level, our findings suggest that “less is more” in this respect. Designating time for casual chats separate from work-related conversations can help achieve the dual goals of professionalism and connection. For example, leaders can dedicate a brief period at the start of meetings to discuss personal matters – thereby allowing employees to connect with each other – while maintaining focus on work-related issues. This can promote positive perceptions of rapport and an appropriate level of professional closeness. Finally, modelling and perhaps even codifying an etiquette that keeps workplace conversations mostly at the professional level could help.Effective professional conversations are essential for building trust and rapport in any workplace. By sharing the mic, not dwelling on the past and keeping things professional, leaders can foster a more positive and productive working environment.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 01:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48401 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/leadership-organisations/how-leaders-can-have-effective-conversations#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-03/shutterstock_1676881228.jpg?itok=j9deSulD" type="image/jpeg" length="1018054" /><dc:creator>Nadav Klein</dc:creator><dc:creator>Eliot Gattegno</dc:creator></item><item><title>How Talent Can Thrive in an AI-Driven World</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/career/how-talent-can-thrive-ai-driven-world</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[In this era of "permacrisis" and constant disruption, adaptability and resilience are vital traits that require collaboration and an increasing focus on human-centric skills. That’s the messaging to come out of the 2025 Global Talent Competitiveness Index (GTCI), an annual report that highlights the latest talent trends and offers insights into the current global talent landscape. For this episode of “The INSEAD Perspective: Spotlight on Asia” podcast series, Sameer Hasija, Dean of Asia at INSEAD, analyses the results and implications of the 11th edition of the GTCI through an APAC lens alongside two of its authors: L. Felipe Monteiro, Academic Director of the GTCI and Senior Affiliate Professor of Strategy, and Paul Evans, Emeritus Professor of Organisational Behaviour. Perhaps the most notable theme from the 2025 report is the shifting value of human capabilities, where soft human-centric skills are becoming just as vital as hard digital or technical skills. As AI handles increasingly complex technical tasks, Monteiro and Evans suggest that "generalist adaptive skills" – including leadership, innovation, creativity and entrepreneurship – will increasingly take centre stage.With AI, we are going to be thinking more and more about what are the human-centric skills. Things like critical thinking, the soft skills and, above all, the ability to adapt. - Felipe Monteiro Reflecting on the high ranking of certain countries such as Singapore, Switzerland and the Nordic nations, Evans points to the strength of their integrated ecosystems, where government, business, educational institutions and labour organisations work together to solve problems using a forward-looking approach. He warns that without this deep ecosystem collaboration and a long-term vision, even technologically advanced nations may struggle to implement the systemic changes required to thrive in today’s disrupted global economy.I've got this profound belief that ecosystem collaboration is going to become more and more important. But there are signs, worrying signs, that in a lot of countries, it's breaking down. - Paul Evans That potential danger is highlighted in a concerning trend identified in the report, where several upper-middle-income countries, such as Malaysia, Brazil and Mexico, appear to have reached a "talent plateau" or “trap". Despite making good headway in the earlier stages of their development, these countries have seen their progress stall as they find themselves squeezed between high-innovating top-tier countries and lower-income countries with cost advantages. Levels of optimism for the future were mixed among the three speakers. However, they agreed that greater collaboration, an increased emphasis on lifelong education and the ability of individuals to learn and adjust on the job will be vital if countries and companies hope to successfully navigate the uncertain waters of the next five years – and beyond. ]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2026 23:45:10 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48376 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/career/how-talent-can-thrive-ai-driven-world#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-02/shutterstock_2692081645.jpg?itok=zO-sN-DX" type="image/jpeg" length="976398" /><dc:creator>Sameer Hasija</dc:creator><dc:creator>L. Felipe Monteiro</dc:creator><dc:creator>Paul A. L. Evans</dc:creator></item><item><title>Diversity in the Workplace: An Unexpected Side-Effect</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/responsibility/diversity-workplace-unexpected-side-effect</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[It’s no secret that enthusiasm for DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) programmes has waned in certain corners of the corporate world. Despite this, and although the jury is still out on diversity’s ultimate impact on a company’s financial performance, many still acknowledge that a diverse workforce yields important benefits.Prior research suggests that exposure to counter-stereotypically successful minority employees – those who defy social stereotypes about their group’s ability to thrive in professional settings – weakens prejudice in the workplace. This also applies to members of stereotyped groups: Seeing women in leadership roles, for example, can reduce women’s own beliefs about gender stereotypes, while Black Americans may exhibit less racial self-stereotyping after exposure to successful Black Americans.Counter-stereotypically successful minorities are generally viewed as having a positive impact on workplace perceptions, attitudes and behaviours. But in our research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, my co-authors (Daniela Goya-Tocchetto from University at Buffalo and Shai Davidai) and I point to a potential drawback: The presence of such individuals can lead others to believe that an organisation is more diverse than it actually is, and so reduce their support for future diversity-enhancing policies.Standing out from the crowdAccording to the stereotype content model, women and racial minorities are often perceived as less competent than other social groups, and therefore less likely to achieve professional success. As a result, when individuals from these groups do succeed – for instance, by earning high salaries or holding senior leadership positions – they tend to stand out as particularly salient.This matters because people often rely on salience as a shortcut for judging prevalence, a process known as attribution substitution. A classic example is how the vividness of shark attacks leads people to believe they happen quite frequently. In reality, you’re more likely to be the victim of a lightning strike or fireworks.Because counter-stereotypically successful women and racial minorities tend to be highly visible in corporate settings, we hypothesised that their mere presence would inflate perceptions of organisational diversity. We further predicted that this effect would be weaker for individuals from minority groups stereotyped as highly competent (e.g. Asian Americans, which are considered a model minority in the United States). Finally, we expected inflated diversity perceptions to be associated with lower support for initiatives aimed at improving workplace diversity.Perception vs. realityWe tested these ideas across four studies. The first examined whether firms led by women CEOs were perceived as more gender diverse. We found that participants consistently overestimated the gender diversity of a firm’s board of directors when the CEO was a woman – an effect that didn’t appear when the CEO was a man.In our second study, conducted with US residents, we compared reactions to firms with either counter-stereotypically successful Black American employees or equally successful but non-counter-stereotypical Asian American employees. Although participants overestimated the share of non-White workers in both conditions, exposure to Black American employees led to significantly higher estimates of racial diversity. This suggests that the effect of being exposed to high-performing minorities on diversity perceptions is stronger when that success contradicts prevailing stereotypes.Our third and fourth studies investigated the downstream consequences of inflated diversity perceptions. In the third study, participants reviewed information about the gender composition of each quartile of a company’s pay distribution, then estimated the organisation’s overall gender composition. Participants overestimated the true level of gender diversity when women were more heavily represented in the top salary quartile. What's more, we discovered early evidence that exposure to counter-stereotypically successful women was associated with larger gender pay gaps within the firm.In the fourth study, participants were significantly more likely to overestimate the proportion of women employees in an organisation when the latter were successful (i.e. described as earning high salaries). This, in turn, reduced participants’ willingness to hire a woman for an open role.The impact of inflated diversity perceptionsPerceptions of diversity shape a wide range of outcomes, including support for policies aimed at increasing representation. Our findings suggest that organisations with counter-stereotypically successful women or racial minorities can be perceived as more diverse than they truly are. This can foster an unrealistically rosy view of diversity that may not only discourage organisations from addressing deeper, systemic workforce issues, but could also reduce support for initiatives such as hiring additional members of underrepresented groups.The implication is clear: Without careful attention, firms may inadvertently distort perceptions of diversity and undermine support for the very individuals they aim to advance. Our results also show that “quick fix” diversity strategies, like hiring a few counter-stereotypically high-performing minority employees, can undermine motivation to invest in longer-term solutions.How can organisations that are committed to building a genuinely diverse workforce navigate these risks? Prior research suggests that providing complete, accurate statistics on gender and racial pay gaps and overall representation can help offset the distortions created by counter-stereotypical exemplars and better align perceptions with reality. This is especially important at key decision-making points, such as when firms are considering new diversity policies or hiring practices, given that inflated diversity perceptions can undermine support for such initiatives.At the same time, leaders should be mindful that some well-intentioned efforts may backfire. For instance, excessive or highly performative messaging around diversity – be it via the company’s website or social media accounts – may cause fatigue or scepticism, ultimately reducing engagement rather than building it.Success is the solution, not the problemCrucially, the solution isn’t for outstanding minority professionals to downplay their achievements or feel responsible for the unintended consequences of their success. Rather, part of the problem has to do with scarcity. Despite progress, underrepresentation persists: Black employees hold only 8 percent of top executive roles in the most valuable US public corporations, and women account for just 11 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs. As long as women and racial minorities remain underrepresented in the upper ranks of organisations, their success will continue to stand out. But as more of these individuals move into senior roles, their presence is likely to become normalised and feel less exceptional. Stereotypes about their competence should weaken, reducing the risk that a few high-profile success stories distort diversity perceptions.In that sense, while our findings highlight an important bias, they also point to a hopeful possibility: As diversity in leadership gets more common, it may also become less remarkable – laying the groundwork for broader acceptance and more equitable, inclusive organisations.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 02:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48316 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/responsibility/diversity-workplace-unexpected-side-effect#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-02/shutterstock_2659422195.jpg?itok=d0RDrYXe" type="image/jpeg" length="993183" /><dc:creator>Asher Lawson</dc:creator></item><item><title>Is AI Really Going to Take Your Job?</title>
                  <link>https://knowledge.insead.edu/career/ai-really-going-take-your-job</link>
                  <description> <![CDATA[Whether it’s fielding basic customer complaints or generating sophisticated code, it seems like today’s AI tools can just about do it all. But as the technology keeps growing at a rapid clip, so have employees’ fears over its ability to make them redundant.These concerns aren’t unfounded. Companies including Microsoft, Amazon and Salesforce have cited AI adoption as the reason behind over 50,000 job cuts in the United States in 2025. More recently, The Wall Street Journal reported that AI companies are asking subject-matter experts to train their models in everything from astronomy and psychology to video editing and financial investing. OpenAI has also apparently been asking contractors to upload projects from other jobs to train and prepare its AI agents for office work.Will humans be left in the dust as AI takes over? I’d argue that history and simple economic analysis suggest otherwise, and that conventional wisdom about the technology annihilating jobs is almost certainly wrong.A look at past technological advancesLet’s take it back to the 1980s, when CT scans became appreciably cheaper thanks to advances in medical imaging technology. The worry was that everyone employed in radiology departments would lose their jobs. But per the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment in this area didn’t fall – it actually grew, leading to a shortage of radiology technicians.What happened was that more people could afford getting CT scans. More doctors recommended them, and insurance companies were more willing to pay for them. The resulting efficiency led to an uptick in CT scans, which created jobs, not killed them. It increased the need for human oversight, unearthed more complex cases (that subsequently needed treatment) and led to the emergence of new specialties like interventional radiology. Another example is transportation. Ride-sharing apps like Uber commodified mobility when they first burst onto the scene in the late 2000s, dramatically dropping the cost of a ride. You’d expect that many drivers, especially taxi drivers, would lose their jobs. Instead, lower costs exploded demand. People who typically walked or took buses started hailing rides for short trips, while new sectors like food delivery emerged. Globally, the number of ride-hailing drivers ballooned from thousands to millions. Sure, some taxi drivers had to become Uber drivers, but overall employment in the ride-sharing and taxi industry grew substantially between 2015 and 2023.We can go back in history to the Industrial Revolution to see the same pattern. Until the 1870s, prior to the invention of something called the Bessemer process, buildings were limited to materials like wood, brick and iron, which couldn't support extreme heights or withstand environmental stressors without costs becoming prohibitive. The Bessemer process of producing steel cost-effectively changed that, allowing us to build much taller buildings. But it also led to fears over job displacement in traditional ironworking trades, which manifested in strikes, union resistance and shutdowns. Although there were some shifts in labour types – and steel production reduced the need for highly skilled ironworkers – new jobs sprouted and demand for overall construction labour increased.Jevons paradox: efficiency in actionThe idea behind this, known as Jevons paradox, was first articulated in 1865 by economist William Stanley Jevons. He noticed something about the use of coal in England: New steam engines made coal use more efficient, but instead of reducing the amount of coal required, it made coal cheaper and more versatile. Industries ramped up their consumption, deploying it for everything from powering factories and ships to heating homes. Demand for coal skyrocketed, and so did jobs.Let’s apply this logic to AI and knowledge work. AI agents make non-routine tasks like coding prototypes, drafting reports and brainstorming campaigns cheaper and more accessible. This means that a small start-up can use AI to avoid shelling out significant resources on bespoke software, allowing it to tackle more projects, build more apps and input more features. Demand for coders doesn't drop. It rises because customised software is being used by more companies. Beyond writing code, coders will now do different things, such as testing code generated by AI, as well as providing oversight, integration and advanced tweaks.You can see a similar trend in the graphic design industry. Prior to the invention of AI, graphic design was time- and cost-intensive. Now, companies can create ads quickly and easily. Graphic designers have to use AI to generate more ads within a shorter timeframe, but the need for human collaboration, good taste and a strong connection to the brand and audience will remain – things that AI has yet to fully replicate.Pre-AI, you often had to shell out a substantial fee for basic legal documents. With AI making legal work cheaper, the demand for it will increase, and lawyers will have to assume a more advisory role rather than just executing legal documents. The same goes for mergers and acquisitions, where AI has brought down the cost of deal-making. Bankers will then act as advisers – not so much as writers of contracts and covenants. There will be more deals happening, and more work for bankers, but in a different capacity.How to give yourself an edgeSo, take heart. All is not lost, not by a long shot. That’s not to say that the transition to an AI-infused world will be easy, or that there won’t be pain in the form of layoffs and reskilling. Some may gripe that a few companies and individuals seem to be reaping the spoils of AI, while the rest of the population is left having to adjust to a new technology that, frankly, many of us didn’t ask for.But what's clear is that AI will likely affect every job in one way or another, and employees must adapt as companies increasingly incorporate the technology into how they do business. McKinsey, for instance, is piloting an AI skills test as part of its recruitment process by asking applicants to use the firm’s AI tool, Lilli, to complete certain tasks. Candidates are evaluated on how they prompt the chatbot and what they do with the information it generates.How can you ensure that you gain from AI? Here are some easy-to-implement tips:Embrace it as a multiplier: Use it for drafts and ideation, then add your human edge. By using AI to improve your performance and get work done better and faster, you can free up time for higher-level tasks. Upskill in oversight: Learn how to manage AI agents – which can be extremely useful if you use them well – such as by taking courses on prompt engineering specific to your job or industry. You can even ask AI agents to summarise the latest knowledge about how to make the best use of AI for your context.Spot opportunities: Ask yourself, “What in my field will be unlocked if this task gets 10 times cheaper?” Capture these opportunities, either in your existing job or by becoming an entrepreneur. Indeed, it’s not difficult to create custom AI agents that specialise in a particular job function.Lead on AI adoption: If you’re running a team, normalise AI in workflows. Use it to share knowledge more quickly and solicit ideas from your employees on how to better use it.It’s true that AI will eliminate some jobs and reshape many others. But it will also increase demand for products and services that were previously cost-prohibitive, creating opportunities that didn’t formerly exist. If you figure out how to use the technology to your benefit – rather than resist it – you’ll be better positioned to navigate the changes and uncertainty ahead.]]></description>
                  <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 01:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
                  <guid isPermaLink="false"> 48261 at https://knowledge.insead.edu</guid>
                  <comments> https://knowledge.insead.edu/career/ai-really-going-take-your-job#comments</comments>
                <enclosure url="https://knowledge.insead.edu/sites/knowledge/files/styles/panoramic_large/public/2026-01/shutterstock_2528661673.jpg?itok=CgOy8sN5" type="image/jpeg" length="1036903" /><dc:creator>Nadav Klein</dc:creator></item>
      </channel>
    </rss>