Workplace Gaslighting, Bad Management or Something Else?

Episode summary: Tech Layoffs, Corporate Greed and the Job Market: Who Holds Companies Accountable?  Why are some of the world's most profitable companies cutting thousands of jobs while reporting billions of dollars in earnings? With tech layoffs continuing to make headlines and growing uncertainty across the job market, it's worth asking whether mass layoffs have become an accepted way for corporations to increase profits, even when their businesses are performing well.In this episode of Track Changes On, we examine major workforce reductions involving Microsoft, Oracle, Barclays and National Australia Bank (NAB), and what these decisions reveal about corporate priorities. We explore why profitable companies are prepared to eliminate thousands of positions, how the pressure to maximise shareholder returns influences executive decisions and why strong financial performance no longer necessarily translates into job security.We also look at how mass layoffs became a routine feature of corporate management, tracing the influence of Wall Street, corporate takeovers and shareholder-value thinking from the 1980s onwards. Drawing on experience working on large-scale workforce reduction programs, we consider the commercial arguments companies make for restructuring and whether those arguments justify the wider consequences.Beyond the immediate impact on employees, we examine what tech layoffs and corporate job cuts mean for the broader job market and economy. When thousands of people lose their jobs, the consequences can include reduced consumer spending, lower tax revenue and lasting damage to workers' earning potential. We ask whether profitable corporations should bear greater responsibility for these costs rather than leaving individuals and society to absorb them.Finally, we consider the growing role of AI and automation in layoffs, and whether companies should have to demonstrate that technology has genuinely eliminated work before cutting positions. We discuss the case for independent workforce audits, greater transparency around restructuring decisions and stronger corporate accountability when highly profitable businesses announce mass job cuts.In this episodeWhy Microsoft, Oracle, Barclays and NAB are central to the debate about layoffs at profitable companiesWhat recent tech layoffs reveal about job security in today's corporate job marketWhy companies can report billions in profits while reducing their workforcesHow shareholder-value thinking changed corporate attitudes towards mass layoffsThe influence of Wall Street, hostile takeovers and executive financial incentives on workforce decisionsWhy profitable companies may have legitimate reasons to restructure, and why those reasons deserve scrutinyHow mass layoffs affect consumer spending, local businesses and the wider economyWhat research reveals about the long-term earnings consequences of job displacementWhy the social costs of corporate layoffs can extend well beyond severance paymentsWhat corporations owe the societies and taxpayers that help support their successWhether AI and automation are genuinely eliminating jobs or changing how companies distribute workWhy eliminating a position doesn't necessarily mean eliminating the workHow independent workforce audits could test corporate claims about efficiency and productivityWhether companies should have to demonstrate that they've considered redeployment and retraining before cutting jobsWhy profitable corporations should face greater reputational and public accountability for mass layoffs📌 Read the full article on Substack: https://trackchangeson.substack.com/p/the-corporate-layoff-machineResearch referenced in this episodeMicrosoft, FY2027 first-quarter financial results and 2026 workforce announcements. Microsoft's reported profitability provides context for its workforce reduction measures, including voluntary exit programs and earlier involuntary layoffs. The distinction between employees eligible for voluntary departure and actual job losses is important when interpreting the scale of announced reductions.Oracle, workforce and financial disclosures for the financial year ending May 2026. Oracle's reported headcount reduction provides another example for examining workforce decisions at a major technology company. Its financial performance and workforce figures help frame the question of how restructuring relates to profitability.Barclays, financial results and workforce restructuring announcements. Barclays provides an example from the banking sector, illustrating that workforce reductions at profitable companies extend beyond technology businesses.National Australia Bank (NAB), financial reporting and workforce reduction announcements. NAB's proposed job cuts bring an Australian perspective to the discussion about corporate restructuring, employment security and the responsibilities of profitable businesses.Research on the long-term earnings effects of involuntary job displacement. Labour economics research has examined how workers' earnings change after losing their jobs, including the possibility of substantial income losses that persist after re-employment. These findings help explain why the economic consequences of layoffs can continue well beyond the initial period of unemployment, although outcomes differ across workers and labour markets.Research on shareholder-value maximisation and corporate restructuring since the 1980s. Historical research into US corporate governance examines the growing influence of shareholder returns, takeover pressures and executive incentives on management decisions. This provides context for how large-scale workforce reductions became an established corporate strategy, including among financially successful businesses.Research on the economic consequences of mass layoffs and job displacement. Studies of employment losses examine effects on household spending, local economic activity and public finances. This research provides a basis for considering costs that may fall outside the financial calculations used by individual companies to justify restructuring.Supporting the showIf you enjoy my work and would like to support it, here are a few things I’ve created:🛒 Track Changes On Shop - Coffee mugs for corporate rebels📖 Do Give Up Your Day Job - Guide to corporate exits and transitions to self-employmentSubscribeSubscribe to Track Changes On for weekly conversations about the future of corporate work, AI, careers and organisational change.Connect with me elsewhere📸 Instagram | 🧵 Threads | 🔗 LinkedIn Get full access to Track Changes On at www.trackchangeson.com/subscribe

Episode Summary: Over 40 and Too Old For Corporate? The Reality of Workplace Ageism Have you started to feel like you're getting too old for the corporate world? Perhaps you've been overlooked for a promotion, struggled to get interviews despite years of experience or started wondering whether employers would rather hire someone younger who costs less. If you're in your 40s or 50s and looking for a job, ageism at work might be something you've already experienced, even if nobody has said it outright.This episode of Track Changes On investigates the reality of age discrimination at work, whether it's getting worse and why experienced professionals can find themselves at a disadvantage in the corporate job market. Drawing on Australian and international research, we examine whether employers are making assumptions about older workers or simply becoming less willing to pay the salaries that experienced employees command.We also explore how corporate culture influences the way organisations value experience, and whether cost-cutting decisions can leave companies worse off when valuable institutional knowledge disappears. With AI changing how businesses recruit and manage their workforces, we look at the high-profile age discrimination lawsuit involving Workday and the potential for automated recruitment systems to reinforce existing biases.Finally, we discuss what experienced professionals can realistically do to protect their careers. From keeping relevant skills current to demonstrating commercial value and understanding your rights, we look at practical ways to navigate age-related career barriers. We also consider why employers need to take greater responsibility for addressing age discrimination rather than leaving individuals to manage the consequences.In this episode* Why age discrimination at work is a genuine problem, and what the research tells us about its prevalence* Whether workplace ageism is getting worse or has always been part of corporate employment* Why age discrimination can begin affecting professionals in their 40s* Whether employers favour younger workers because they can pay them less* Why experienced professionals can be considered overqualified or too expensive* How corporate culture and recruitment practices influence opportunities for older employees* What Australian research reveals about employer attitudes towards experienced workers* The Workday age discrimination lawsuit and what it raises about AI-assisted recruitment* Whether automated hiring systems can reproduce existing age-related biases* What companies risk losing when they replace experienced employees with cheaper workers* How AI could change the commercial value of professional experience* Why accepting a lower salary isn't necessarily the answer to age discrimination* How to maintain your employability and demonstrate the value of your experience* What employees can do if they suspect age discrimination* Why developing career alternatives before you need them can help protect your futureResearch referenced in this episodeAustralian HR Institute and Australian Human Rights Commission, Older and Younger Workers Report (2025). This Australian research examines employer attitudes towards recruiting and retaining workers of different ages. Among surveyed HR professionals, 28% identified having too much experience as a barrier to employing older workers, while 32% cited high salary expectations. The findings provide insight into how perceptions of seniority and employment costs can influence recruitment decisions, although they do not establish that salary considerations are the primary cause of age discrimination.Diversity Council Australia and Australian Human Rights Commission, Age, Assumptions and Access at Work (2026). This research examines age-related experiences and opportunities within Australian workplaces, including access to professional development and mentoring. It identifies barriers affecting older workers and provides evidence that age-related disadvantage can extend beyond recruitment into the opportunities employees receive once they're employed.Research on age discrimination in recruitment using correspondence experiments. International studies have examined whether employers respond differently to otherwise comparable job applications containing different age indicators. These experiments provide evidence of age-related differences in recruitment outcomes, including reduced opportunities for older applicants. The findings help distinguish discriminatory hiring behaviour from employees' perceptions of unfair treatment.Mobley v. Workday, Inc., United States federal age discrimination litigation. This ongoing legal case concerns allegations that Workday's applicant-screening technology contributed to discriminatory recruitment outcomes, including discrimination based on age. Workday disputes the allegations, and the litigation has not established that its technology unlawfully discriminated. The case raises important questions about accountability and the potential for automated recruitment systems to reproduce existing biases.Australian longitudinal research on organisational knowledge loss. This five-year study examined the consequences of losing experienced employees and their organisational knowledge within a technical workplace. It identified reported effects including reduced productivity, slower task completion and longer periods for replacement workers to develop competence. The findings illustrate potential costs of employee departures that may not be captured by immediate salary savings, although the study was limited to one organisation.United States research on experienced manager departures and government IT project delays (2025), Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. This research examined the relationship between managerial departures and project performance across US federal agencies. It found associations between the departure of experienced managers and delays in IT projects, highlighting the potential operational consequences of losing accumulated organisational knowledge. The observational findings do not establish that all experienced workers are more productive or that replacing senior employees necessarily causes project delays.Erik Brynjolfsson, Danielle Li and Lindsey R. Raymond, Generative AI at Work, Quarterly Journal of Economics. This study examined the introduction of AI assistance among more than 5,000 customer support workers. Researchers found an average productivity improvement of approximately 14%, with substantially larger gains among less experienced and lower-skilled employees. The findings suggest AI can help narrow some performance differences associated with experience in particular tasks, while leaving open important questions about its effects on more complex professional work.Australian Government, Age Discrimination Act 2004 and Fair Work Act 2009. These laws provide protections against age discrimination in Australian employment, including recruitment and certain adverse employment actions. They establish important legal avenues for workers who believe they've experienced discrimination, although the processes, eligibility requirements and time limits differ depending on the circumstances.Supporting the showIf you enjoy my work and would like to support it, here are a few things I’ve created:🛒 Track Changes On Shop - Coffee mugs for corporate rebels📖 Do Give Up Your Day Job - Guide to corporate exits and transitions to self-employmentSubscribeSubscribe to Track Changes On for weekly conversations about the future of corporate work, AI, careers and organisational change.Connect with me elsewhere📸 Instagram | 🧵 Threads | 🔗 LinkedIn Get full access to Track Changes On at www.trackchangeson.com/subscribe

Episode summary: Why We Stay In Jobs We Hate📌 Read the full article on SubstackWhy do we stay in jobs we desperately want to leave? If you've ever found yourself thinking "I want to quit my job", only to realise that leaving isn't quite so simple, you're certainly not alone. From financial commitments to the fear of ending up somewhere worse, there are plenty of reasons people remain in jobs they're unhappy with.This episode of Track Changes On explores the psychology behind why people stay in jobs they want to quit, and why the familiar advice to "just find another job" overlooks the realities of working life. Drawing on my own experience of corporate burnout and eventually leaving corporate employment to work for myself, I look at why even successful, high-performing employees can feel stuck in workplaces that are no longer working for them.We explore the research behind job embeddedness, which helps explain how professional relationships, financial security and established working arrangements influence our decisions to stay. We also examine the honeymoon–hangover effect, which reveals what happens to job satisfaction after people change jobs, and why moving to another employer doesn't necessarily guarantee a happier working life.Finally, we discuss how toxic corporate culture, bad managers and difficult employment markets can make leaving particularly complicated. We look at what employees can realistically do when they want to quit but can't, and why organisations need to take more responsibility for the working conditions that make people want to leave in the first place.In this episode- Why people stay in jobs they're unhappy with, even when they desperately want to leave- Why telling someone to "just find another job" overlooks the realities of corporate employment- How my own experience of corporate burnout eventually led me to leave corporate life- What job embeddedness tells us about the psychological and practical reasons employees stay- How professional relationships and financial commitments can make leaving difficult- Why we're often reluctant to give up the security of a familiar job for an uncertain alternative- What status quo bias and loss aversion tell us about career decisions- How the honeymoon–hangover effect influences job satisfaction after changing employers- Why moving to a new company doesn't always resolve problems with corporate culture- How difficult employment markets limit employees' ability to find comparable opportunities- Why bad managers and unhealthy working environments can leave employees feeling trapped- What you can do when you want to quit your job but leaving isn't currently an option- Why employers need to take responsibility for creating workplaces people actually want to stay inResearch referenced in this episodeTerence R. Mitchell, Brooks C. Holtom, Thomas W. Lee, Chris J. Sablynski and Miriam Erez, Why People Stay: Using Job Embeddedness to Predict Voluntary Turnover (2001), Academy of Management Journal. This research introduced the concept of job embeddedness to explain why employees remain with organisations. The researchers identified three important dimensions: links, or the connections people have through their work; fit, or how well their job aligns with their circumstances; and sacrifice, or what they would give up by leaving. The findings help explain why employees can remain in jobs even when they're dissatisfied.William Samuelson and Richard Zeckhauser, Status Quo Bias in Decision Making (1988), Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. This research examines people's tendency to favour existing arrangements when making decisions. Status quo bias offers a useful perspective on why employees may hesitate to change jobs, particularly when their current position offers familiarity and security while the alternatives involve uncertainty.Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk (1979), Econometrica. Kahneman and Tversky's research introduced a framework for understanding how people evaluate potential gains and losses when making decisions under risk. Their work on loss aversion helps explain why employees considering a career move may place considerable weight on what they could lose, including financial security and established benefits, even when a new opportunity offers potential advantages.Zhou and colleagues, research on occupational mobility and the honeymoon–hangover effect (2021), Journal of Organizational Behavior. This longitudinal research examined how job satisfaction changes following upward and downward occupational mobility. The findings showed that people moving into higher occupational categories experienced an initial improvement in job satisfaction that diminished over time, while downward occupational moves were associated with more persistent declines in satisfaction. The study offers insight into why changing jobs doesn't necessarily produce lasting improvements in wellbeing, and why the direction of a career move matters.Supporting the showIf you enjoy my work and would like to support it, here are a few things I’ve created:🛒 Track Changes On Shop - Coffee mugs for corporate rebels📖 Do Give Up Your Day Job - Guide to corporate exits and transitions to self-employmentSubscribeSubscribe to Track Changes On for weekly conversations about the future of corporate work, AI, careers and organisational change.Connect with me elsewhere📸 Instagram | 🧵 Threads | 🔗 LinkedIn Get full access to Track Changes On at www.trackchangeson.com/subscribe

Episode summary: Why Is Everything At Work So Urgent?Why is everything at work so urgent, even when most of us aren't dealing with life-or-death situations? From last-minute requests to unrealistic expectations at work, corporate life can feel like a constant emergency, even when the work itself isn't particularly time-sensitive.This episode of Track Changes On explores why a constant sense of urgency at work has become such a familiar part of corporate culture. Drawing on my experience moving from journalism into corporate communications, I look at the difference between genuine deadlines and the unnecessary pressure organisations create through poor planning, management behaviour and expectations around responsiveness.We also explore the research behind workplace telepressure and the mere-urgency effect, which helps explain why people sometimes prioritise less important tasks simply because they appear urgent. And we look at how bad managers and organisational hierarchies can contribute to unrealistic deadlines, even when nobody intended to create an emergency.Finally, we discuss practical ways to manage competing priorities, question unreasonable deadlines and improve time management without damaging workplace relationships. It's a useful perspective on why corporate culture can feel toxic, and what employees and leaders can do to reduce unnecessary pressure.In this episode* Why everything at work seems urgent, even when the consequences of delay are minor* What working in journalism taught me about genuine deadlines* Why corporate workplaces confuse responsiveness with commitment and performance* How workplace telepressure creates expectations of immediate availability* Why employees often overestimate how quickly managers expect email responses* How seniority and organisational hierarchy can turn routine requests into urgent priorities* Why poor planning and delayed management decisions create last-minute emergencies* What the mere-urgency effect tells us about how deadlines influence our priorities* How constant interruptions affect concentration and productivity* Why unrealistic expectations at work can make effective time management difficult* How to question deadlines and negotiate priorities without appearing uncooperative* What managers can do to reduce unnecessary urgency within their teamsResearch referenced in this episodeLarissa K. Barber and Alecia M. Santuzzi, Please Respond ASAP: Workplace Telepressure and Employee Recovery (2015), Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Barber and Santuzzi examine workplace telepressure, the preoccupation with and urge to respond quickly to work-related messages. Their research helps explain why employees can feel compelled to remain available and respond immediately, even without an explicit instruction from their manager. Workplace telepressure is also associated with difficulty psychologically disconnecting from work.Laura M. Giurge and Vanessa K. Bohns, You Don't Need to Answer Right Away! Receivers Overestimate How Quickly Senders Expect Responses to Non-Urgent Work Emails (2021), Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Across eight studies, the researchers found that recipients of non-urgent work emails sent outside working hours tended to overestimate how quickly senders expected a response. Their findings suggest that unspoken assumptions about availability can create unnecessary workplace pressure, while explicit communication about response expectations can help reduce it.Meng Zhu, Christopher K. Hsee and Yang Yang, The Mere Urgency Effect (2018), Journal of Consumer Research. This research examines how deadlines influence people's decisions about which tasks to prioritise. The experiments found that people sometimes chose less valuable tasks simply because they appeared more urgent. The findings offer a useful explanation for why employees may interrupt important work to deal with lower-value requests that carry an immediate deadline.Research on leader procrastination and employee work outcomes, From Self-Defeating to Other-Defeating: Examining the Effects of Leader Procrastination on Follower Work Outcomes. This study of 250 employees and 23 supervisors examined how procrastination by managers affects employees. It found an association between leader procrastination and employee frustration, helping explain why delays in management decisions can have consequences for people further down the organisation.Ashley Whillans and colleagues, research on deadline extension requests. Research examining how employees and managers perceive requests for additional time found that employees often overestimate the reputational consequences of asking for a deadline extension. The findings suggest that employees may have more room to negotiate realistic delivery dates than they assume, although managers can be less receptive when deadlines are genuinely high stakes.Supporting the showIf you enjoy my work and would like to support it, here are a few things I’ve created:🛒 Track Changes On Shop - Coffee mugs for corporate rebels📖 Do Give Up Your Day Job - Guide to corporate exits and transitions to self-employmentSubscribeSubscribe to Track Changes On for weekly conversations about the future of corporate work, AI, careers and organisational change.Connect with me elsewhere📸 Instagram | 🧵 Threads | 🔗 LinkedIn Get full access to Track Changes On at www.trackchangeson.com/subscribe

Episode summary: Why the Worst Business Decisions All Fail This Simple TestWhy do so many companies keep making decisions that seem to defy common sense? Some of the worst business decisions aren’t necessarily made by inexperienced or incompetent people. Often, there’s a perfectly rational explanation for how the company got there.This episode of Track Changes On looks at why business fails and corporate fails can happen even when the individual decisions behind them make sense. We look at the organisational research behind local rationality and goal displacement, and how breaking complex problems into smaller pieces can sometimes leave nobody looking at the whole picture. We also look at what these decisions tell us about corporate culture and leadership, using the Australian idea of the ‘pub test’ to ask a simple question: does this decision still make sense when you step outside the organisation and look at the whole picture? It’s a useful way to understand some of the contradictions that make corporate culture so frustrating for the people working inside it. In this episode* Why rational corporate decisions can produce outcomes that seem absurd* What the Australian ‘pub test’ can tell us about corporate decision-making* Famous business fails that made sense internally but failed the common sense test* Why Netflix’s Qwikster decision became such a high-profile corporate failure* What Vegemite iSnack 2.0 can teach us about internal corporate logic* Why companies break complex decisions into smaller pieces* How local rationality can make each piece of a decision seem reasonable while the overall outcome doesn’t* Why following the right corporate process doesn’t necessarily produce the right outcome* The role leadership teams play in stepping back and looking at the whole picture* Why social media has effectively become the modern version of the pub testResearch referenced in this episodeRichard M. Cyert and James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of the Firm (1963). Cyert and March’s work helps explain the idea of local rationality. Large organisations manage complexity by dividing problems between different parts of the business, each working with its own goals, information and constraints. This can mean individual decisions make sense within a particular function while their combined effect is less rational when viewed across the organisation as a whole. Robert K. Merton, Bureaucratic Structure and Personality (1940), Social Forces. Merton’s work on bureaucratic structures introduced the concept of goal displacement. Rules and processes created to achieve an objective can gradually become objectives in themselves, with adherence to the process taking precedence over whether it produces the intended outcome. Herbert A. Simon, A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice (1955), Quarterly Journal of Economics. Simon’s work on bounded rationality explains why people and organisations rely on simplified models, procedures and ‘good enough’ solutions rather than considering every possible consequence of a decision. In large organisations, those structures help people manage complexity but can also narrow what individual decision-makers see and consider relevant. Supporting the showIf you enjoy my work and would like to support it, here are a few things I’ve created:🛒 Track Changes On Shop - Coffee mugs for corporate rebels📖 Do Give Up Your Day Job - Guide to corporate exits and transitions to self-employmentSubscribeSubscribe to Track Changes On for weekly conversations about the future of corporate work, AI, careers and organisational change.Connect with me elsewhere📸 Instagram | 🧵 Threads | 🔗 LinkedIn Get full access to Track Changes On at www.trackchangeson.com/subscribe

Episode summary: How to tell if you're a victim of gaslighting at workHave you ever had something happen at work where the gap between what you remember and what your boss says happened is so big that you start questioning yourself? Gaslighting at work can be difficult to recognise, particularly when the same behaviours can also come from bad managers, dysfunctional systems or a corporate culture that’s toxic.This episode of Track Changes On looks at the research actually says about workplace gaslighting, how to recognise a pattern and why intent may matter less than the impact the behaviour is having on you.We also look at what gaslighting can tell us about corporate culture more broadly. If you’re interested in corporate culture explained, organisational culture explained or company culture explained through the behaviours people actually experience at work, this episode gets into what happens when an organisation allows reality to become something employees are expected to negotiate.In this episode* What gaslighting at work actually means* What gaslighting from a boss can look like* Why one strange interaction doesn’t necessarily mean you’re being gaslit* How repeated denial, contradiction and blame can develop into a pattern* Why intent isn’t necessarily required for workplace gaslighting* How bad managers and a toxic corporate culture can contribute to the problem* How to recognise when you’re starting to doubt your own judgement* Why documenting behaviour can be more useful than trying to prove someone’s intent* What to do if you think you’re experiencing gaslighting at workResearch referenced in this episodeKukreja and Pandey, Workplace Gaslighting: Conceptualization, Development, and Validation of a Scale (2023), Frontiers in Psychology. This study developed a workplace-specific measure of gaslighting based on supervisor-employee relationships. The researchers identified behaviours including denying previous promises, misrepresenting what an employee has said, undermining complaints and telling someone they’re imagining things. The study identified two dimensions of workplace gaslighting: trivialisation and affliction. Kincaid and Stalion, An Interdisciplinary Review of the Gaslighting Literature and Future Research Agenda (2026), Journal of Organizational Behavior. This review describes gaslighting as a pattern of repeated manipulative interactions that accumulates over time and destabilises someone’s confidence in their own interpretation or perception of reality. Importantly, the authors don’t treat deliberate intent as a requirement, recognising that these patterns can also emerge through routine, defensive or institutionally reinforced behaviour. The review also examines the potential harm associated with gaslighting, including increasing self-doubt, reduced self-trust and internalised blame. Workplace consequences discussed in the literature include withdrawal, silence, absenteeism and turnover intentions. Paige L. Sweet, The Sociology of Gaslighting (2019), American Sociological Review. Sweet examines gaslighting through the lens of social relationships and power, arguing that it needs to be understood in the context of structural and institutional inequalities rather than solely as an individual psychological behaviour. The paper focuses on intimate relationships rather than workplaces but provides an important foundation for understanding the role of power in gaslighting.Supporting the showIf you enjoy my work and would like to support it, here are a few things I’ve created:🛒 Track Changes On Shop - Coffee mugs for corporate rebels📖 Do Give Up Your Day Job - Guide to corporate exits and transitions to self-employmentSubscribeSubscribe to Track Changes On for weekly conversations about the future of corporate work, AI, careers and organisational change.Connect with me elsewhere📸 Instagram | 🧵 Threads | 🔗 LinkedIn Get full access to Track Changes On at www.trackchangeson.com/subscribe

Episode summary: The weird psychology behind corporate meeting cultureCorporate culture has a strange relationship with meetings. We complain about having too many of them, joke that they could have been an email and block out hours of our working week to attend them. Yet meetings remain deeply embedded in how companies communicate, make decisions and manage work.So why do companies have so many meetings?There’s some fascinating psychology behind meeting culture. Meetings make work highly visible, can create a sense that progress is being made and can change how responsibility for decisions feels when those decisions are made collectively. They’re also influenced by organisational hierarchy, including who gets invited, who gets heard and whose opinion carries the most weight.This episode of Track Changes On looks at corporate culture through the psychology of meetings and asks why something so many employees complain about remains such a dominant part of working life.It also explores the relationship between meetings and workplace productivity. In knowledge work, some of our most valuable work can be difficult to observe. Thinking, writing, analysing information or solving a difficult problem may look like very little from the outside. A meeting, by comparison, is highly visible: calendars are full, people are talking and everyone appears busy.That raises an interesting question about productivity culture. Are meetings always helping us do the work, or can talking about the work sometimes become a substitute for doing it?Of course, meetings have a legitimate role in company culture. Synchronous conversations can help people work through complex problems, respond to each other in real time and make use of social cues that are harder to reproduce asynchronously. The problem comes when meetings become the default rather than a deliberate choice.So how can you tell when a meeting is doing useful work? And what might our reliance on meetings tell us about organisational culture more broadly?In this episode* Why meetings are so deeply embedded in corporate culture* The psychology behind why meetings can feel productive* How meetings make work and employee activity more visible* Why collective decision-making can change how responsibility feels* How hierarchy and status influence what happens inside meetings* Why meeting culture can reduce the time available for focused work* What synchronous conversations genuinely do well* How to decide whether something actually needs a meetingResearch referenced in this episodeRogelberg, Kreamer and Gray, Thirty Years of Meeting Science: Lessons Learned and the Road Ahead (2026), Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. A review of decades of meeting research examining what makes meetings effective, how people behave within them and the role of factors including hierarchy and status in meeting participation.Research on shared responsibility in collective decision-making (2019). Research examining how responsibility changes when people make decisions collectively rather than individually. The literature suggests that sharing a decision with others can reduce some of the psychological burden associated with personal responsibility and affect feelings such as regret following a decision.Otter.ai and Steven Rogelberg, meeting research (2022). A study of 632 employees examining meeting attendance and the financial cost associated with meeting time. The research estimated substantial organisational expenditure on meetings, including meetings employees believed they could skip if they were kept informed about what happened. These figures are estimates based on survey responses and salary assumptions rather than direct measures of financial loss.Research on synchronous communication and social presence. Research into synchronous communication examines the value of immediate interaction and access to social and paralinguistic cues, including tone, facial expressions and other information that can be harder to communicate asynchronously.Supporting the showIf you enjoy my work and would like to support it, here are a few things I’ve created:🛒 Track Changes On Shop - Coffee mugs for corporate rebels📖 Do Give Up Your Day Job - Guide to corporate exits and transitions to self-employmentSubscribeSubscribe to Track Changes On for weekly conversations about the future of corporate work, AI, careers and organisational change.Connect with me elsewhere📸 Instagram | 🧵 Threads | 🔗 LinkedIn Get full access to Track Changes On at www.trackchangeson.com/subscribe

Toxic Workplace Culture: Why “We’re Like a Family Here” Is a Red Flag“We’re like a family here.” It’s a phrase that appears in job ads, interviews and conversations about corporate culture, and for some people it’s an immediate red flag.There are plenty of familiar signs of a toxic work environment, from micromanagement and excessive approval processes to workplace rules built around the assumption that employees can’t be trusted. Yet some of these toxic workplace behaviours point to a broader dynamic that gets far less attention: companies hiring capable adults, giving them significant responsibilities and then treating them as though they still need permission, supervision or verification to make ordinary decisions.There’s a term for this: workplace infantilisation. It overlaps with micromanagement and paternalistic management, but it can also be embedded in corporate culture rather than coming from one toxic or micromanaging boss. Research into workplace paternalism has even examined the familiar “we’re like a family here” metaphor, including the way it can position managers as parental figures and employees as the children.This episode of Track Changes On looks at the strange amount of permission-seeking we accept as a normal part of corporate life, from asking another adult for permission to take leave to needing approval for decisions that sit comfortably within our professional expertise.It also explores the contradiction between companies telling employees to take ownership while creating environments where asking permission is safer than exercising independent judgement. Research on autonomy at work suggests this distinction matters: autonomy-supportive leadership is associated with stronger motivation, engagement, job satisfaction and wellbeing.So what happens when a workplace says it trusts its employees, while its management practices communicate something very different? And could some of the behaviour managers complain about, including employees constantly seeking approval or refusing to make decisions, actually be behaviour the workplace has taught them?In this episode* What workplace infantilisation means and how it differs from micromanagement* Why “we’re like a family here” can create an uncomfortable parent-child dynamic at work* How excessive approval and permission-seeking can become part of corporate culture* Why employees may stop taking ownership when independent decisions repeatedly get questioned* What research tells us about employee autonomy, motivation and workplace wellbeing* How to distinguish legitimate workplace accountability from unnecessary control* Why toxic workplace behaviours don’t always come from a toxic bossResearch referenced in this episodeSlemp et al., Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A meta-analytic review (2018), Motivation and Emotion. A meta-analysis of 72 studies examining autonomy-supportive leadership. The research found positive associations with autonomous motivation, job satisfaction, engagement and wellbeing, alongside negative associations with workplace distress.Alakavuklar, “We Are a Family” – A Critical Organizational Discourse Analysis (2009). Examines the use of family language within organisations and its relationship with paternalistic management. The paper discusses how the family metaphor can position managers as parental figures who direct and supervise employees while creating expectations around loyalty and obedience.Casey, “Come, Join Our Family”: Discipline and Integration in Corporate Organizational Culture (1999). Research examining the use of “family” and “team” metaphors in corporate culture and their relationship with organisational discipline and control. Rather than assuming family-oriented cultures necessarily empower employees, Casey examines how these cultural practices can regulate employee behaviour.Oravec, research on employee infantilisation and workplace monitoring (2024). Uses “employee infantilization” to describe constraints on employee agency, including situations where organisations effectively determine employees’ needs or treat their judgement as diminished.Reid, Industrial Paternalism: Discourse and Practice in Nineteenth-Century French Mining and Metallurgy (1985), Comparative Studies in Society and History. Examines the much longer history of paternalistic employment relationships and the use of family relationships to frame employer authority and worker dependency.Supporting the showIf you enjoy my work and would like to support it, here are a few things I’ve created:🛒 Track Changes On Shop - Coffee mugs for corporate rebels📖 Do Give Up Your Day Job - Guide to corporate exits and transitions to self-employmentSubscribeSubscribe to Track Changes On for weekly conversations about the future of corporate work, AI, careers and organisational change.Connect with me elsewhere📸 Instagram | 🧵 Threads | 🔗 LinkedIn Get full access to Track Changes On at www.trackchangeson.com/subscribe

Episode summary: Why are women still told to watch their tone at work?Companies say they want strong female leaders. Yet women are still more likely to receive workplace feedback about their personality, communication style and likeability.The problem is easy to dismiss as a question of behaviour. Sometimes people are rude, aggressive or difficult at work and managers should address it. The more interesting question is why research consistently finds women receiving different kinds of feedback from men, including more criticism focused on personality rather than specific skills or outcomes.In this episode of Track Changes On, Caroline Warnes looks at the unwritten behavioural rules women learn to navigate at work, from being told to watch their tone or appear more approachable to expectations around smiling, appearance and being pleasant. Drawing on her own experience of learning to mask and manage criticism long before entering corporate life, she explores what happens when women start anticipating these expectations and policing themselves.She also looks at the research on gendered performance feedback, the competence-likeability double bind and emotional labour, and asks whether this additional behavioural workload may be one part of a much bigger story about why women find corporate work exhausting.In this episode- Why women receive more personality-based feedback at work- The difference between legitimate behavioural feedback and vague criticism about “tone”- Why assertive women can face a likeability penalty- How women learn to manage smiling, warmth and approachability at work- The additional emotional demands women can experience in corporate environments- What burnout and unpaid-work data can and cannot tell us about women’s exhaustionResearch referenced in this episodeKieran Snyder, The Abrasiveness Trap: High-Achieving Men and Women Are Described Differently in Reviews (2014). Analysis of 248 performance reviews from 28 technology companies. The study found personality criticism in 71 of 94 critical reviews received by women compared with two of 83 received by men.Textio, Language Bias in Performance Feedback (2024). Analysis of more than 23,000 performance reviews across more than 250 organisations found women received 22% more personality-based feedback than men. Note: this is large-scale workplace research rather than a peer-reviewed academic study.Jampol, Rattan & Wolf, A Bias Toward Kindness Goals in Performance Feedback to Women (2023), Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Across experimental studies and field data, researchers found feedback givers placed greater emphasis on kindness when giving critical feedback to women, associated with stereotypes about women's warmth.LaFrance, Hecht & Paluck, The Contingent Smile: A Meta-Analysis of Sex Differences in Smiling (2003), Psychological Bulletin. A meta-analysis covering 143 reports and more than 59,000 participants found women smiled more than men on average, with the difference varying substantially according to social context.Purvanova & Muros, Gender Differences in Burnout: A Meta-Analysis (2010), Journal of Vocational Behavior. Across 183 studies, women showed slightly higher emotional exhaustion while men showed higher depersonalisation. The average gender difference in emotional exhaustion was small.Gallup, workplace burnout data (2025). Among full-time US workers surveyed in Q4 2025, 31% of women compared with 23% of men reported feeling burned out very often or always. Across 2022–2025, the reported rate among women leaders averaged 29% compared with 19% among men leaders.Australian Bureau of Statistics, How Australians Use Their Time (2024). Among Australians performing unpaid work, women averaged 4 hours 53 minutes per day compared with 3 hours 52 minutes for men. Mothers of children under 15 also spent more time caring for children than fathers. Ybema et al., systematic review of gender differences in exposure to psychosocial work factors (2023). While gender differences were inconsistent across many workplace stressors, all seven included studies examining emotional demands reported higher exposure among women.Companion articleThis episode is accompanied by a full article on Track Changes On, where the ideas, research and practical reflections are explored in greater depth.Supporting the showIf you enjoy Caroline's work and would like to support it, here are a few things she's created🛒 Track Changes On Shop - Coffee mugs for corporate rebels📖 Do Give Up Your Day Job - Guide to corporate exits and transitions to self-employmentSubscribeSubscribe to Track Changes On for weekly conversations about the future of corporate work, AI, careers and organisational change.Connect with Caroline📸 Instagram | 🧵 Threads | 🔗 LinkedIn Get full access to Track Changes On at www.trackchangeson.com/subscribe

Episode summary: Are we buying AI because we’re afraid not to?AI was initially sold as an extraordinary opportunity. Greater productivity, competitive advantage and new ways of working. Increasingly, however, another message has entered the conversation: adopt AI or risk being left behind.Workers are told their colleagues will have an advantage if they use AI. Companies worry their competitors are moving faster. Women are warned that lower rates of AI adoption could leave them particularly vulnerable as the technology changes the workplace.In this episode of Track Changes On, Caroline Warnes looks at fear as an AI marketing tool and asks what happens when adoption starts to feel inevitable. She explores the commercial interests behind some of this messaging, what the research actually tells us about women and AI and the important difference between becoming more productive with AI and developing the underlying skills we need for our careers.In this episode* How fear of being left behind became part of the AI conversation* Why the idea that “AI won’t replace you, someone using AI will” deserves more scrutiny* What the research actually says about women’s AI adoption and occupational exposure* Why productivity gains do not automatically prove long-term business or career value* The difference between performing better with AI and developing expertise* Why companies and workers should still expect AI to make its caseCompanion articleThis episode is accompanied by a full article on Track Changes On, where the ideas, research and practical reflections are explored in greater depth.Supporting the showIf you enjoy Caroline's work and would like to support it, here are a few things she's created🛒 Track Changes On Shop - Coffee mugs for corporate rebels📖 Do Give Up Your Day Job - Guide to corporate exits and transitions to self-employmentSubscribeSubscribe to Track Changes On for weekly conversations about the future of corporate work, AI, careers and organisational change.Connect with Caroline📸 Instagram | 🧵 Threads | 🔗 LinkedIn Get full access to Track Changes On at www.trackchangeson.com/subscribe