This Quarter's Big 5

Pay transparency became law across the EU this quarter. But disclosure isn't actually the hard part, the question is what gets revealed once people can finally see the numbers. And what's revealed is uncomfortable: just 13% of the C-suite say their pay is unfair, against 34% of individual contributors (ADP). The people with the least say over pay feel the least fairly treated by it.

Now, globally, 27% of workers say their pay isn't fair for the work they do, and it isn't evenly felt - 28% of women say their pay is unfair, against 23% of men.

But what shifts that feeling isn't just a number. People who had a pay rise in the last year were more than 2.3 times more likely to say their pay was fair (ADP). Being seen and acted on moves fairness more than the size of the rise itself.

And felt unfairness doesn't stay in the pay conversation. Workers who think they're paid unfairly are less engaged, trust their leaders less, and are more likely to quit (ADP). A field study of nearly 20,000 US university staff found the same root: people pulled back not because they earned less than a colleague, but because their pay felt unfair for the work they did (Strategic Management Journal, 2025). So, transparency doesn't create that feeling, it just brings it to light.

The first EVP Edit deep-dive on this very topic is live now.

This stopped being an HR conversation this spring and became a national one. There are now more than a million UK 16-24s not in education, employment or training, the first time that's happened since 2013 (Work Foundation, on ONS data).

Youth unemployment climbed to its highest in more than a decade (ONS), Alan Milburn, chair of the government's Young People and Work review, warned the rise posed an “existential” risk that could put “a generation on the scrapheap”, and UCL research found that being persistently out of work between 16 and 24 leaves people six times more likely to be out of work in midlife.

So the crisis is real. But the story everyone's telling about what's causing it is only half right.

The perception is that AI ate the entry-level jobs, and there is some truth in it because a fifth of young workers say their own employer is already making fewer entry-level hires because of AI (Deloitte).

But AI isn't the whole story. You see, starter jobs have fallen by 49% over the last decade (Work Foundation), with the classic sales and retail roles collapsing by 53%, squeezed by economic stagnation and the cost-of-living crisis, long before AI entered the picture. And it's brutally uneven: one entry-level vacancy for every three young people out of work nationally, one for every six in the North-East.

And here's the part that should worry us most. The rise isn't only unemployment anymore, it's disconnection. More young people are becoming economically inactive, driven in part by rising ill-health, and particularly mental ill-health, which puts work further out of reach. Nearly half of NEET young people, 45.8%, are now classed as disabled, up 24 points since 2013/14 (Work Foundation). No work feeds poor health, poor health feeds worklessness, and it becomes self-perpetuating.

Which is exactly why pinning all of this on AI isn't just inaccurate, it's dangerous. If we start going with the rhetoric 'AI killed the entry jobs' we only add to the worry and apathy at the very moment this generation can least afford it.

There are more reports about AI in the workplace than you can shake a stick at, and most circle the same two themes: increased productivity and reduced labour cost. But this quarter something more uncomfortable started to surface from the employee side, which is what happens when access to AI isn't equal.

Because a lot of it isn't. 72% of employees say some people in their organisation have better access to AI tools and training than others (Mercer). And like every other form of inclusion, or the lack of it, the effects run deep: 56% say unequal access to AI is denting their morale, and 35% would consider leaving over it (Mercer).

And worryingly from a social mobility point of view, the divide runs along income lines: low-income workers are far more likely to fear AI will leave them behind than higher earners, 54% against 31% (Edelman).

So AI isn't just changing how we work, it's starting to sort the workforce into an in-group and an out-group, and it's landing hardest on the people with the least to fall back on.

What makes that even harder to ignore is the gap in how it's read at the top: 62% of employees think leaders underestimate the emotional toll of all this, and only 19% of HR leaders are building that impact into how they roll AI out (Mercer).

When the ground feels unstable, people re-prioritise what they want from work. Pay is still the top thing they look for, and work-life balance the biggest reason they stay (Randstad). But a newer dynamic is surfacing just underneath talent's familiar priorities.

You see, the mood has shifted from chasing progression to wanting security, with 60% of UK employees now saying they'd take job security and stability over faster career progression (IKB).

And there's substance behind the worry, with 34% having had redundancies in their organisation in the past year, up 12 points (IC Index) and those who worry about losing their job to AI has risen from 28% to 40% in two years (Mercer).

And the response isn't just anxiety, it's action. 63% say they would trade a 10% pay rise for the chance to upskill in AI and digital skills (Mercer). So, people aren't only asking whether their job is safe by the old standard; they're watching the world of work change and wondering whether we're equipping them for what's next, here or anywhere else.

Trust is the thread running under everything else this quarter, and I was surprised by how fast it's moved: trustworthy leadership has climbed from the eleventh biggest reason people stay with their employer to the fourth, in just two years (Mercer). And 27% of employees say trust has actively strengthened their commitment to the organisation (IIP).

But here's the contradiction sitting underneath it…82% of HR leaders believe their people are trusted to use their judgement (IIP). From where leaders sit, the culture looks open and empowered.

But, if we look at what's actually happening underneath, 65% have avoided speaking openly about something rather than raise it. 61% admit they regularly “cover themselves” at work, a third of them most weeks (IIP). The covering isn't paranoia, it's what people do when they're not quite sure the room is safe.

And that gap, between what leaders believe and what people feel, is widest exactly when it matters most: through change. 53% of leaders think change decisions are explained properly; only 34% of employees agree (IIP). So, from the top, employee trust in their decisions looks ok, but their people are in a different place.