Last month, my son Kian and his cousin Mattis made the most amazing discovery:

A cotton candy machine, producing cotton candy at the touch of a button. 
The cool thing: You could see the candy cotton being produced in front of your eyes with flashing lights and music. 
A super cool invention attracting kids and parents alike.

What I noticed first were the labels placed on the machine:

🏷️ No aspartame
🏷️ No gluten 
🏷️ 100% vegan 
🏷️ No lactose

"Wow, all 4 labels are correct. Yet, we are speaking of a product that is 100% refined sugar. ", I thought.

The cool thing about labels: You can choose the ones that are most attractive for your customers and more importantly, you can measure their effectiveness.
It works for quick sales, such as candy cotton, where the long term health effects are not of importance to the producer. All that counts is quick sales.

Companies are often using a similar method, attracting candidates with keywords that might sound fancy and attractive in the ears of the talent applying, without being transparent about challenging aspects of the company situation/ culture (and there are for every company).

That  is equally true for applicants. It's relatively easy to figure out what keywords AI and CV-sifting methods are looking for to move you to the next stage.

That practice  might lead to hiring someone in very little time but the quality of the work relationship and its sustainability is questionable.

What might work for the success of a dating app, might not work for the long term happiness of their users. Consider the effects those practices might have in the workplace.

"𝐇𝐞'𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐲"

I heard myself say when, as so often, my son wouldn't reveal his name-or his age when the bookstore clerk asked him.

The lady looked at me intensely through her glasses and pointed to a stack of books at the other end of the bookstore: "My absolute recommendation for you".  Interested in what book might help my son become more open-minded, I strode over to the bookshelf. "𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 𝑊𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝐿𝑎𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑠" was the title of the book by Alberto Soler Sarrió. I didn't really understand what it meant, but eventually bought the book under the serious look of the lady. 

Back at home, I devoured the book. 
My key learnings: 

🏷️Reality does not exist. We create it every day for ourselves and others through thoughts/ labels.
🏷️Labels, like the one I unwittingly imposed on my son, are easy to give but very difficult to remove.
🏷️Labels are self-fulfilling. Our expectations of ourselves- and others are self-fulfilled as we only pay attention to the attributes we expect to see.
🏷️Labels can serve as a perfect excuse to not event try. 
🏷️ Labels can be very harmful.


As someone immersed in the HR field, I couldn’t help but ponder the effects of placing labels on people in the workplace.. It was a moment that sparked a cascade of questions:

Might placing labels on employees have the same damaging effect as it could have on kids? 
Yet, almost all HR processes (including psychometrics, performance ratings- or seniority level) are designed based on that concept.
 
Driven to find a solution for my questions around what can happen in the workplace when employees are liberated from labels, I started investigating, interviewing, and writing about this important topic.

𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐛𝐞𝐬, 𝖤𝖬𝖯𝖠𝖳𝖧𝖸 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐭! 
𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐲? 

It often feels like our empathetic response is influenced by
certain situations and that we have little control over it.
However, this assumption is flawed. Empathy can be measured, and more importantly, we can actively train ourselves to become more empathetic.

So, how can we go about it?
Interestingly, we tend to exhibit higher levels of empathy towards individuals who belong to our in-group. This implies that when we witness suffering among people similar to us (such as those sharing the same religion, gender, or skin colour), we tend to show a greater empathetic response compared to people from our out-group. This empathetic response can be measured in our brains.

Understanding this insight is crucial because it reveals that empathy can be enhanced or reduced by expanding or narrowing our perception of in-groups and out-groups.

⬇️ ❌ We can reduce empathy by narrowing our in-group perspective—tagging people and seeing them solely as individuals different from us. 

⬆️ ✅ On the other hand, we can increase our empathy by broadening our in-group perspective—untagging people, moving beyond judgments, and recognising their common humanity (“This person is a human just like me!”).

If empathy is trained through removing labels, why do we add additional labels, creating artificial in-and our groups? 

- "all junior employees" / "all senior employees"
- "employees from team A" / "employees from team B"
- "low performers" / "high performer"

In other words: It is only through labels that in- and out-groups are created. 

⚡𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝!⚡

Labels, such as performance ratings, seniority- and job levels reinforce those reward systems, moving further away from what companies actually want! 

What do you think about labels in the workplace? 

In HR language, “experience” is a term that expresses a company’s need for specific technical skills and competencies:

⛔ “Three years experience in Data analytics is preferred”.

⛔ “Sadly, you don’t have the 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 experience for this role/task”.

⛔ “Right now, you’re 𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 in this area. We want you to get some experience and then—maybe—we can talk again in the future”.


What's the challenge here?

🤔 It suggests experiences need to be provided by an 𝐞𝐱𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 party, such a previous position/company.
 
🤔 It suggests the only determining factor in gaining experience is time. 

🤔 It suggests someone just starting out or someone with less responsibility (as defined by the company) “experiences” work to a lesser degree than that person in a higher position.

But what does the word “experience” actually mean?

𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 (𝐧.)
 "𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒; 𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑏𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛; 𝑎𝑛 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑛𝑒,"

Thus, “experience” is completely subjective from person to person, and it’s situational.

If someone works for three years in the same field, even in the same position and company, this “experience” differs radically from:

💭 Emotional connections, because things that truly matter to us differ from individual to individual.

💭 Every person experiences the world and interprets their experiences uniquely.

💭 The factors and events that affect us (the things that stick with us) are different for everyone.


So, what’s an alternative way of looking at the “experience” label?

Consider this:

𝐖𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝:

🔦𝐖𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐛𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞.🔦

✅ We need experiences to believe that something is achievable for us. ONLY if our minds experience something is possible, will it learn that we are capable of doing it.

✅ We only learn through emotional connections. In a learning environment, we can “experience” and absorb the training ONLY if it’s meaningful to us. We cannot gain “experience” when things are imposed on us as part of some predefined training programme. 

𝑰𝒏 𝒂 𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒍𝒅 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒔𝒌𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒔 𝒏𝒆𝒆𝒅𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒍𝒚 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒈, 𝒍𝒆𝒕'𝒔 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒙𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒔 𝒑𝒆𝒐𝒑𝒍𝒆 𝒏𝒆𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒃𝒖𝒊𝒍𝒅 𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒔𝒌𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒔. 𝑨𝒔𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒔𝒌𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒔 𝒖𝒑𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒕 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒂𝒏 𝒖𝒏𝒔𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒃𝒍𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒚 𝒐𝒇 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈—𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒕 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒇𝒖𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒔.

This Saturday, I was lucky enough to read in peace as my children spent an hour looking for shells and sorting them by colour, shape and size.

What seemed easy at first, eventually ended up in discussions: Some shells just didn't match the others, for others it wasn't clear if they were predominantly brown or red, and other objects were too beautiful not to be picked up. 

That made me reflect about the challenge of categorisation and labelling in the workplace, where we encounter similar challenges than my kids at the beach: 


🐚Categories are almost always subjective, poorly defined, or both. The definition of a high-performer e.g. can vary significantly between different companies, teams and managers. Our reliance  on words and their interpretations makes these categories inherently subjective.

🐚Different people can fit into more than one category depending on the situation. An employee may be both a high- and low performer depending on various factors.

🐚Some people may not fit into any available category you’re expected to push them into.

🐚People grow and change over time, and rigidly placing them into fixed categories might not account for their potential for development.

🐚When looking at specific character traits, it’s essential to consider them as part of a continuum. For example, when categorising individuals as “introverted” or “extroverted”, we should be aware that most people exhibit elements of both traits to some extent.


🌊In other words, when forced to categorise entities, we encounter limitations that lead us to overlook the complexities that make up reality. Despite the inadequacy of many labels, we still resort to labelling and categorising individuals to fit them into predefined boxes. This approach can result in Psychological Myopia, where we only consider the readily available attributes, ignoring the deeper, fundamental aspects. 🌊

𝐓𝐡𝐞 "𝐈𝐟… 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧" 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐩 𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 

Labels in the workplace often play the role of  an " if… then motivator"

🍭Once you get to a higher job level, you will be granted more responsibility 
🍭If you master this project, you will get a promotion/ higher salary 
🍭If you work with us 5 years, you will get access to additional benefits 

What's the challenge with that? 

It operates 100% on external motivators, putting more focus on the  job level/ status or reward than the actual completion of the job/ mastery of skills or purpose behind the task, leading to:

❌Fixed mindsets: :There is ALWAYS more to learn, there is no end to a career ladder. By suggesting that there is, you are promoting a fixed mindset over an infinite mindset.
❌Limited innovation: 𝐼𝑛𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑠𝑡, 𝑖𝑡 𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ 𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔: It is through stretch assignments (assignments outside of your level), that you actually learn. By only being granted responsibility upon reaching a specific level, learning/ innovative ideas are cut before actually happening.
❌Living in the future: There is no other moment to act than in the now. By suggesting that you will be more prepared in the future, the possibility to act and learn in the now is taken from employees.
❌No self efficacy happening: The belief that something is possible for us is mainly shaped through experience. If we never get to experience new things, it is difficult for us to believe that it is possible for us.
❌No role modelling: If we never see others experience growth in a specific company culture, it will be difficult to imagine that it is doable for us. Rigid Job-levels reinforce that thinking, as they reinforce in-groups  (e.g. all junior employees) and out-groups (e.g. all senior employees). The more relatable to us someone is, the more likely are we to believe that we can achieve something too. 


𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐨𝐟 "𝐢𝐟..𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬"?

Removing social- and economic pressure, motivators that are unrelated to the work itself, and putting the focus on motivators in direct connection to the work itself: 

🌟𝐏𝐮𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞: By helping employees find purpose and an impact possibility at work.
🌟𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐲/ 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐲: By facilitating opportunities to play, innovate and enjoy without economic or social pressure, giving freedom around  HOW the work is done.
🌟𝐏𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐌𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐲: Obtaining skills required through assignments on the job. 

"𝐆𝐨𝐬𝐡… 𝟑𝟕… 𝐈’𝐦 𝐨𝐥𝐝!"

Those were my thoughts as my breath swept over the neatly arranged candles on my birthday cake on Saturday. 

"𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑦 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑔𝑜𝑛𝑒?!”I heard my inner voice panic as I zoomed in on the photo a day later, shocked by the wrinkles around my eyes.
“𝐻𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑜𝑛, 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑜,” 𝐼 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑢𝑑, “𝑌𝑜𝑢’𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑡𝑎𝑙𝑘!” 
That’s the thing with labels—they’re everywhere. And we use them without thought.

Age is one of the most prominent and harmful labels we use to limit people (and ourselves) in the workplace and our social lives.


𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐚 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐞𝐥, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐭?

👉 It’s a shortcut for our brains to categorise people based on our learned experiences and associations.
👉 It’s an “everyday label” that helps to reduce our cognitive load.
👉 We believe it helps us make better sense of the world.

hashtag

#ageism , then, is just another manifestation of the human tendency to classify people (including ourselves), and it’s especially harmful to women:

There’s a phenomenon that women are apparently never the right age, which is a perfect excuse not to promote them:

❌ Below 30: You’re not experienced enough, so you won’t bring the right knowledge to this role.
❌ In your 40s: You’ve got too many responsibilities at home, so you won’t take your work seriously.
❌ 50 onwards: You’ve reached your peak, so you’ll have trouble adapting and won’t bring the vitality needed for this position.

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐞 “𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐠” 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐞𝐥?

If you’ve grabbed your copy of my new book, UNTAGGED, you’ll probably recognise my favourite quote:
“𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝐼 𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑎 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑, 𝑖𝑡 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑠 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝐼 𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛—𝑛𝑒𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠." (Alice in Wonderland)

It’s time to reframe our thoughts and perceptions.

💡 Age is literally just a number.
💡 It’s our thoughts and emotions that help age labels manifest into something we perceive as real.
💡 But when you think about it, what does 37 look like? What does it feel like? Does it have genuine influencing power? Or do we give it meaning with mere thoughts?
💡 The truth: We have the power to shape the meaning of “age”. 
💡 We can take it less seriously and see it exactly for what it is… a number.

The same principle applies to other labels.

Clothes, accessories, wrinkles…

They mean just what you choose, neither more nor less!

🎂 this in mind when you’re blowing out candles on your own birthday or welcoming a new team member into your company.👩🏾‍💼