HR in 2025: The trend of not (blindly) following trends

In a world where trends dominate everything from social media to corporate strategies, HR has become caught in the same web. We follow the latest buzzwords, implement the flashiest solutions, and chase the promise of differentiation. Yet, in trying so hard to stand out, we often end up looking just like everyone else. So what can we do?

In most cases, the problem isn’t the tool or trend itself but the uncritical way it’s adopted. We often turn to these practices for their perceived universality, but in doing so, we risk losing sight of the complexities and unique challenges of the workplace. What starts as a well-meaning effort to streamline or innovate can end up creating confusion, frustration, and disconnection.

This phenomenon isn’t unique to HR. Think about social media: one day, someone starts cooking pancakes while discussing attachment styles, and it’s a hit. Soon, the platform is flooded with pancake tutorials, yoga routines paired with philosophical musings, and endless attempts to combine the unrelated into something viral. What once felt novel quickly becomes noise. The same is happening in HR.

Companies promise unlimited PTO, state-of-the-art equipment, and cultures that "feel like family." Yet, employees increasingly report feeling unmotivated, disengaged, and skeptical of these claims. Even organizations offering real value struggle to cut through the sea of sameness. Perhaps the way to stand out in 2025 isn’t to try to stand out at all—but to focus instead on substance, logic, and (real) authenticity.

The problem with following trends

Trends often appeal to the lowest common denominator because they promise quick wins and easy fixes. But in doing so, they fail to address the complexities of human behavior and workplace dynamics.

That’s the paradox: the more we chase trends, the less meaningful our efforts become.

Let’s take a closer look at some of the trends we’ve been seeing—and will likely continue to see—and how they fall short when adopted without scrutiny:

Aptitude tests in selection

The idea of using aptitude tests in hiring is irresistible. Whether you need to hire dedicated developers or sales professionals, objective, scientific, data-driven testing seems like everything a company wants to be.

What exactly are we testing for? Are these tests aligned with the skills and qualities the role actually requires?

Too often, organizations adopt these tests as a badge of modernity without questioning their relevance. And here’s the thing: aptitude tests aren’t always as precise as we like to think. They measure indirectly, relying on proxies for intelligence or ability that can easily misfire.

Cognitive ability isn’t something you can pin down like a medical diagnosis. The layers of interpretation, cultural biases, and questionable psychometric rigor mean these tests can end up being a sophisticated-looking guessing game.

As a psychologist myself, I’m all for integrating scientific methods into recruitment policies and using tests to inform hiring decisions. However, it’s essential to apply scrutiny and ensure that these tools are proper and actually aligned with the role’s requirements. Without this careful thought, the cost isn’t just wasted time—it’s hiring the wrong people based on tools that haven’t been properly evaluated.

Performance reviews and metrics

If you’ve ever been asked to sum up your year’s work in a single number or chart, you’ll understand the hollow feeling performance reviews often leave behind. Tools and concepts like KPIs, OKRs, the bell curve, and 360-degree feedback promise clarity and alignment but are often applied without consideration for the diversity of roles and goals within a company.

KPIs and OKRs, for instance, aim to create measurable alignment between individual contributions and organizational objectives. While helpful for tracking progress, these metrics often fail to capture the full scope of work.

Complex, collaborative efforts or creative problem-solving are difficult to quantify, yet these systems demand that they fit into neat, measurable boxes. And, of course, employees naturally focus on what’s being measured because those metrics shape expectations, even if they don’t always reflect the true value of their work.

The bell curve, on the other hand, is a shape used to categorize employee performance into tiers, assuming a normal distribution of "high," "average," and "low" performers. While this may work in specific contexts, it oversimplifies the realities of team dynamics and ignores the unique contributions individuals bring to their roles. Performance doesn’t always follow statistical norms, and forcing it can undermine morale and fairness.

Finally, there’s 360-degree feedback, a method designed to provide holistic performance insights by gathering input from various perspectives. While the concept is valuable, the execution often misses the mark. Organizations frequently celebrate the fact that they are collecting comprehensive feedback without critically examining its substance or relevance.

The focus often leans too heavily on the mechanics of gathering feedback—getting input from multiple sources—without asking fundamental questions. Are the peers providing feedback truly relevant to the individual’s role? Are the questions being asked thoughtful and specific to the person’s responsibilities? Were the individual and team goals cascaded clearly in the first place?

It’s easy to ask vague, general questions and attach a Likert scale for "agree” to “disagree", but what does that actually tell you about performance? Without thoughtful design and alignment to the role, the team, and the company’s broader goals, the feedback becomes just another exercise in process, with little actionable insight to show for it.

Unlimited PTO

Unlimited PTO is the ultimate workplace flex: We trust you to manage your time; take as much as you need. It’s a story companies love to tell—and one that employees quietly dread to live.

Without clear expectations, the shiny promise of "unlimited" becomes a minefield of self-doubt. How much is too much? What will your team think if you take that extra week off? Should you even be asking? It’s ambiguity dressed up as empowerment.

What happens in practice? Employees take less time off, not more, because the lack of structure feels risky. And so, unlimited PTO joins the growing list of perks that look better on a Careers page than in the real world.

Employer branding

Employer branding has become its own cottage industry, full of buzzwords and beautifully edited videos showcasing dynamic workplaces with smiling teams, inspirational slogans, and perfectly curated culture moments. It’s a game of perception—catch attention, tell the right story, and hope it’s convincing enough to win talent.

But here’s the catch: when the external story doesn’t match the internal experience, the whole thing crumbles.

A company may promise "limitless growth opportunities" and "a culture that values your well-being," but if employees encounter rigid policies, micromanagement, or a toxic environment, the trust is gone. It’s much cheaper for a company to buy branded t-shirts, mugs, and office beanbags than to offer higher salaries, genuine independence, or meaningful support.

The focus on branding often prioritizes optics over substance. And while it may work to attract candidates in the short term, it sets the stage for disappointment and churn. After all, you can’t market your way out of a culture problem.

Technology and AI

AI and HR tech have taken the stage as the saviors of efficiency and fairness, promising to revolutionize everything from hiring to engagement. But adopting the latest tech just because it’s trendy rarely works out the way it’s supposed to.

For example, AI recruitment tools are often lauded for their ability to eliminate bias. But if the data they’re trained on is flawed, those biases get baked in, amplified, and served right back. Similarly, the most expensive HR software might offer endless features, but without a clear purpose, it quickly becomes a bloated system that no one wants to use.

The issue isn’t the tech—it’s the blind faith in it. Tools are only as good as the context they’re applied in, and when organizations chase what’s popular rather than what’s necessary, they end up with solutions in search of problems.

The reality check

The truth is, none of us work in a vacuum. We don’t have endless hours to dive into deep research or perfectly tailor every decision. Trends exist for a reason—they’re designed to make our lives easier, offering heuristics when time, resources, and attention are stretched thin.

This is especially true in larger organizations, where personalization becomes more of a luxury than a norm. Trade-offs are inevitable, and sometimes even necessary. But not all trade-offs are created equal. What one organization can afford to generalize, another must treat with extreme care. The hard truth? Some things require starting from scratch, thinking through the purpose, the context, and the impact—not just slapping on a trendy solution because it worked for someone else.

For some areas, like PTO or employer branding, more honesty and transparency might be all it takes to bridge the gap between promise and reality. For others, like aptitude tests or performance reviews, the stakes are higher, and a one-size-fits-all approach simply won’t do. It’s about critically assessing your needs, your goals, and your resources to determine what works for you.

So, what’s the HR trend for 2025? Ironically, it’s this: not following trends for the sake of following trends. Instead, it’s about cutting through the noise, resisting the urge to copy-paste what’s popular, and taking the time to figure out what actually makes sense for your people, your culture, and your vision. It’s not flashy, but it’s real—and in a world of sameness, that’s what stands out.