As part of the IDA elective course “Advanced Applications: Individual Differences and Work” students write an article about a pressing issue in the work setting that is currently  highlighted in the news/press. Zeynep Ayhan wrote her article about the emerging AI and its’ impact on changing job descriptions and its disproportionate effect on recent graduates. Enjoy the read!

The Problem and Doomsday Prophecy

In November 2022, we opened our eyes into a new world where an unprecedented technological advancement was launched by OpenAI (2022). A new level of generative AI (GenAI) was unveiled with a combination of large language models (LLM), which quickly changed our understanding of productivity, access to information, and provided a liberation from redundant tasks with an unmatched efficiency. This technological milestone sparked a breath of euphoria, gazing at unlimited possibilities, yet, rapidly replaced by profound anxiety after the news from leading tech companies showcasing their transition to GenAI paving the way for mass layoffs and instant decline in job vacancies (Roche, 2025; Budman, 2025). Less than two years, this transition brought a new phenomenon: Jobpocalypse (Financial Times, 2025).  

The World Economic Forum released the Future of Jobs Report where they predict 92 million jobs to be displaced by 2030 globally (WEF, 2025). Across all professions and career levels, we found ourselves experiencing anxiety, questioning our place, relevance, and job security for the future. And while this experience was shared by almost everyone, one group was affected the most: recent graduates, or as I call them: ‘stay-at-home graduates‘.

Jobpocalypse represents the recent job market stagnation stemming from a rapidly growing societal concern over the ramifications of technological advancement (Financial Times, 2025). Specifically, jobpocalypse reflects the erosion of the entry-level positions traditionally occupied by recent graduates, which is why the term has become practically attached to Gen-Z (Financial Times, 2025). Recent statistics show this disproportionate effect: a report by Oxford Economics indicated that for the first time in 45 years, recent college graduates have a higher unemployment rate than the national average (English, 2025). This was supported by a recent study (Brynjolfsson et al., 2025) showing that despite an economy-wide growing employment trend in the USA, employment growth for young workers has remained stagnant as generative AI has begun to significantly affect entry-level employment.

We officially entered an era of stay-at-home graduates, where brilliant graduates of higher education are no longer in education nor employment, having diminished prospects for their future careers and sharing their experiences of hundreds of rejected job applications on social media. Although started as a personal experience sharing, this trend of diminished prospects was captured by a recent large survey conducted in LinkedIn. The LinkedIn executive, Aneesh Raman, reported that unemployment rates have risen for college graduates since September 2022, and among all age groups, Gen-Z’s are the most pessimistic about their future (The NewYork Times, 2025). He summarized his projections as “the bottom rung of the career ladder is breaking” highlighting the pipeline issue of career advancement. 

Like any social phenomenon, the jobpocalypse trend is multifaceted. The main factor, however, seems to be an over-emphasis on profitability, as GenAI can substitute for multiple junior positions at a dramatically low cost. From this financial perspective, leaders are weighing the prospective value of young talent against their cost to the organization. Employers share their positive outlook on GenAI advancements; according to the Future of Jobs Report, 86% of employers expect that AI and information processing technologies will transform their businesses in a matter of 5 years (WEF, 2025). This belief may not be unfounded, as Dario Amodei, the CEO of a leading AI company Anthropic, shared his vision that half of all entry-level white-collar jobs could be taken over by AI in the next five years (Montgomery, 2025). 

The Role of Individual Differences

The current landscape of organizational AI transitioning and following job market stagnation is clearly a multi factoral problem including technology, education, and capitalism. Hence, I have no desire to put the spotlight onto individuals, holding them responsible.  However, I think it is both timely and relevant to address the role of individual differences in this time of transition. At the end of the day, albeit limited, some graduates will indeed secure a position whereas the majority won’t. Therefore, I would like to dive deeper into some of these potential individual characteristics that might play a role in their desirability in the job market. 

Before speculating potential aiding characteristics, I would like to start by looking at what are the desired skill set in this transitioning time. According to the WEF report (2025), 40% of employers plan to reduce staff whose skills become obsolete (e.g., manual and routine clerical skills, traditional administrative support) and 70% plan to hire staff with new and relevant skills. A dominant proportion of employers (85%) plan on prioritizing upskilling their employees by 2030. The report highlights a list of growing skills that will be prioritized in the selection processes; including technology literacy, flexibility and agility, analytical and creative thinking, curiosity and lifelong learning. 

Aiding Individual Characteristics at the Time of Jobpocalypse 

At a shifting time like this, I turn my face to the field of positive psychology to find hope and constructive guidance. In their seminal book, Martin Seligman and Christopher Peterson (2004) defined a 24 character strength model, where they conceptualized individual differences in the context of strengths of characters. According to this model (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), our key strengths come naturally but they are also highly malleable. In other words, although we have certain tendencies that we are naturally inclined to do and do it well, they are far from being set in stone; in fact, you can hone them which is where the hope comes in. Here, I would like to dive into four of the character strengths that I think would be the most important individual differences in this transitioning time and near future.

Love of Learning

Love of learning is defined as the positive experiences derived from acquiring new knowledge or skills (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). It encompasses the individual’s passion for learning for the sake of learning, a desire for mastery, and the need for diving deep into a topic to satisfy their curiosity (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Niemiec & McGrath, 2019). Deeply interconnected with intrinsic motivation, this strength is a highly valuable asset due to its protective effect, as it drives persistence in the face of setbacks (Ryan & Deci, 2000 ; Peterson & Seligman, 2004). 

Reflecting back to the WEF report (2025), having love of learning as a strength might be one of the most desirable individual differences one might have in the time of jobpocalypse. Having this strength means that one does not feel burdened by the demands of upskilling and lifelong learning; on the contrary, they feel energized by them.

 

Creativity

Creativity is the ability to generate novel and adaptive ideas (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). This is another crucial strength to have considering that creativity is uniquely ours as humans. In the cold pros-and-cons lists of CEO productivity assessments, it’s a quality that is not, and will not be fulfilled by artificial intelligence, ever! Having this strength gives the individual a big leap in the jobpocalypse where creative thinking is another one of the most vital assets future CEOs will hunt for in their teams.

Let me explain my reasons for being this passionate about the strength of creativity: the raw beauty of AHA! moments.

When we engage in conversations, let’s say in the work environment discussing with your colleagues, that one, maybe a completely irrelevant word coming out of our colleague’s mouth fires up a process in our brain, connecting all the dots leading to that euphoric, sparkly moment: AHA!

This is what every organisation needs: Creative solutions to unique problems. It is virtually impossible for AI to deliver that. You know why? Because AI is simply a big, fast library system. It stores enormous amounts of information and brings back the most relevant ones, impressingly fast, but not in a creative way. It just keeps bringing the same solution to the same problem. Personally, I find it truly catastrophic where every decision maker would rely on AI to solve their problems, receive the same answer, and actually apply it. At that point, all of these companies would need to take out the term ínnovation from their vocabulary and definitely from their vision and mission pages.  

Curiosity

The strength of curiosity represents one’s intrinsic desire to know and to experience, driving them to take action to satisfy it (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). A curious person would have a ‘mind on fire with wonder and interest’, as Niemec and McGrath (2019) would say. That mind on fire is precisely what the future employers are looking for. The WEF report, specifically highlighted curiosity as one of the growing skills that employers are looking for, but why? Well, to answer this, I would like you to hop on my TARDIS for a little time travel. 

Let’s go back three decades, to when our homes first started getting internet wiring. A similar, though milder, discussion was happening back then, too. Was the quick ‘googling’ the easy way out when we were supposed to do our research properly, from books, in libraries. Could the effort of going to the libraries be comparable to the quick google search? (Quick question, when was the last time you went to the library, pulled books off the shelf, and did research that way?)

When we have all the information at our finger tips, so virtually, when we can all access the same information, do we become irrelevant? Well a brief historical experience showed that this is not really the case. Having access to information did not necessarily make us motivated to dive deep and learn them. I argue that the same case exists today: yes, we all have the easy and fast answers, but who is curious enough to look for that?

Open Mindedness (Judgment)

Open mindedness, also referred to as judgement, is defined as the willingness to look for contrasting ideas, to think through all sides, and to practice critical thinking  (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Niemec and McGrath, 2019). An individual with this strength would go beyond the available information, actively searching for the “other” opinion without jumping to conclusions (Niemec and McGrath, 2019). 

This definition makes it obvious why this strength was listed as one of the growing skills in the WEF report (2025). As we have discussed, the information is now readily available to everyone; but since how we get that information has changed, critical thinking has become a vital skill for all organizations. 

Prior to the emergence of AI tools, the routine process of research consisted of reading many articles, encountering mixed or inconclusive findings, contrasting points of view, and sometimes reading a lot of seemingly irrelevant information as well. Albeit tedious, that process itself sparked a fire for critical thinking. Now, this is not the case. AI tools serve us a super tidy, clean answer that was exactly what we were looking for. This shouldn’t be a surprise as these tools are designed for customer satisfaction rather than as rigorous research tools. But it becomes problematic when the individual is served with exactly what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. This is where the strength of judgment shines. Organizations will value the employees with critical thinking skills the most, because if not, they can no longer trust the judgment. And that trust is costly. 

Individual differences play an important role in almost every aspect of our lives including our jobs and careers. In the time of a jobpocalypse, having (or growing) the strengths of love of learning, creativity, curiosity and judgment may help us adapt to this transitioning time, step up in the selection process and start climbing the first rung of that breaking ladder.  

Beyond Individual Strengths, Context Matter: Person-Environment Fit

Having certain strengths may help the individual to get their foot in the door when starting their career journey. However, career is a lifelong journey where success cannot be defined by merely having a job. Considering we spend the majority of our time throughout our lives at work, making the right decision in choosing occupation, the role, and the environment plays a vital role for multiple aspects of our lives, including our wellbeing (Caplan, 1987; Yang et al., 2008). This is the main focus of the person-environment fit theory (Caplan, 1987). 

Decades of research have shown that the match between the person and their environment is related to job satisfaction (Rauvola et al., 2020; Furnham & Schaeffer, 1984; Hardin & Donaldson, 2014), job performance (van Zyl et al., 2023), organizational commitment (Oleska-Marewska & Springer, 2025), turnover intentions (Redelinghuys, 2023; Yang et al., 2008), psychological well-being and mental health (Furnham & Schaeffer, 1984; Yang et al., 2008). In simpler terms, a good match with our jobs, colleagues, and organizations helps us perform well, feel satisfied with our job and organization, and even flourish in our careers and personal lives. Establishing that the fit matters, I would like to pose the question: Is it possible to fit into an environment that is dramatically changing?

The (Mis)match Between KSAs and Job Demands

One concept that P-E fit examines is the match between individuals’ knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) and corresponding job demands (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011). In the era of the jobpocalypse, we see this fit breaking down. Job demands for entry-level positions have changed abruptly, but educational systems and institutions have not caught up with this fast shift. This creates a market where organizations have expectations that prospective employees simply cannot meet. This is a fundamental mismatch, as KSAs are traditionally gained during the early phases of work life. From the person’s standpoint, this mismatch can lead to immense stress, leaving them feeling unqualified after long periods of formal education. From the organization’s point of view, prospective employees must upskill their knowledge and abilities to meet the demands of the new job descriptions. This mismatch, brings us back to the value of strengths, as organizations are forced to hire based on potential over skills. 

The (Mis)match Between Needs, Supplies and Goals: Growth vs Productivity

The KSA gap is only the first part of the problem. A second, and perhaps more fundamental, breakdown in P-E fit emerges when we look at our core needs and goals. The P-E theory also examines the match between an individual’s needs and corresponding organizational supplies, as well as the goal similarity between different parties (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011).  Although a good match is desired, is it possible in the era of jobpoaclypse?

For generations, there was an unspoken deal for entry-level positions. These roles were characterized by repetitive tasks where employees gained foundational skills through the routine workflow. The employee’s main goal was growth and development. In exchange, the organization paid a relatively small salary, as their goal was to utilize their experts’ time on more complex work by delegating these routine tasks. However, the organizational transition to Gen-AI over Gen-Z disrupted this deal, reflecting a clear mismatch of goals. Although the goal of the employee remains the same, organizations have a cheaper alternative making them reluctant to supply this opportunity. 

Conclusion

The jobpocalypse is not merely an economic phase where recent graduates suffer from unemployment that will be fixed in the near future. It is a milestone that is changing the very core structures of work relationships, dynamics, expectations, and unspoken deals. Reflecting on and honing individual strengths of curiosity, love of learning, creativity and judgement, may help individuals adapt to this era of change. However, this is only one part of the story. As researchers, we should dive into this topic to understand what this transition may unfold in the future for individuals and society on a broader landscape. Finally, this complex phenomenon requires a holistic and sustainable solution, one that can only be achieved through collaboration among all parties, including HRM practitioners, organizations, academic and governmental institutions.

Suggestions for Future Research

The recent organizational transition to Generative AI has brought drastic changes, impacting individuals, organizations, and society on a broad and complex level. This rapid shift opens up several critical avenues for future research. First, future studies should empirically investigate the mismatch between KSA requirements in new job descriptions and the actual skills of recent graduates. Following this, researchers can develop and test targeted upskilling interventions designed to bridge this KSA gap before graduates begin their job search. Second, future research should examine optimal models of human-AI collaboration. The goal should be to identify workflows that maximize productivity while simultaneously facilitating career growth and development opportunities for entry-level employees, ensuring that efficiency does not come at the cost of learning. This way, goal similarity between the individual and organization could be increased. Third, studies are needed to examine the psychological impact on unemployed graduates. Specifically, research should explore these graduates’ sense of purpose, their perceptions of their education’s value, and the potential relationship between their experiences and a rise in anti-intellectualism (Ngoc Diep, 2025). To improve research in this field, researchers should consider a holistic collaboration including the individual, academic institutions, and organizations. Organizational expectations could be delivered by academic institutions prior to graduation, but to accomplish this, there is a need for better communication channels among these institutions. 

References

Brynjolfsson, E., Chandar, B., & Chen, R. (2025). Canaries in the coal mine? Six facts about the recent employment effects of artificial intelligence [Working paper]. Stanford Digital Economy Lab. https://digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/publications/canaries-in-the-coal-mine/ 

Budman, S. (2025, September 2). Salesforce CEO confirms 4,000 layoffs ‘because I need less heads’ with AI. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/02/salesforce-ceo-confirms-4000-layoffs-because-i-need-less-heads-with-ai.html 

Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(87)90042-X 

English, L. (2025, August 12). AI and the vanishing entry-level job: The changing future of work. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryenglish/2025/08/12/ai-and-the-vanishing-entry-level-job-the-changing-future-of-work/ 

Financial Times. (2025, September 29). The graduate ‘jobpocalypse’: Where have all the entry-level jobs gone? | FT Working It. https://www.ft.com/content/62e7cf87-1ebe-41fd-9d15-dd0a75ad4d86 

Furnham, A., & Schaeffer, R. (1984). Person–environment fit, job satisfaction and mental health. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57(4), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1984.tb00170.x 

Gemini. (2025). Jobpocalypse and Stay-At-Home Graduates [Digital image]. Generated by request on a large language model platform.

Hardin, E. E., & Donaldson, J. R. (2014). Predicting job satisfaction: A new perspective on person-environment fit. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61(4), 634–640. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000039 

Kimbrough, K. (2025, May 19). I’m a LinkedIn executive. I see the bottom rung of the career ladder breaking. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/opinion/linkedin-ai-entry-level-jobs.html 

Kristof-Brown, A., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person–environment fit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3. Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization (pp. 3–50). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12171-001 

Montgomery, B. (2025, June 3). Will AI wipe out the first rung of the career ladder? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/global/2025/jun/02/artificial-intelligence-jobs-techscape 

Ngoc Diep, A. (2025, February 2). Being a student in an anti-intellectual world. The Oxford Blue. https://theoxfordblue.co.uk/being-a-student-in-an-anti-intellectual-world/ 

Niemiec, R. M., & McGrath, R. E. (2019). The power of character strengths: Appreciate and ignite your positive personality. VIA Institute on Character.

Oleksa-Marewska, K., & Springer, A. (2025). If you fit, you commit? The relationship between the organizational climate and employees’ commitment: The moderating role of the person-environment fit. Central European Management Journal, 33(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/CEMJ-05-2023-0212 

OpenAI. (2022, November 30). Introducing ChatGPT. OpenAI. https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt 

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rauvola, R. S., Rudolph, C. W., Ebbert, L. K., & Zacher, H. (2020). Person-environment fit and work satisfaction: Exploring the conditional effects of age. Work, Aging and Retirement, 6(2), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waz011 

Redelinghuys, K. (2023). Assessing the impact of person-environment fit on turnover intention through multiple linear regression. Psychological Reports, 128(6), 3027–3049. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941231219957 

Roche, F. (2025). Accenture lays off 11,000 staff as part of AI reskilling strategy. CXToday.

https://www.cxtoday.com/ai/accenture-lays-off-11000-staff-as-part-of-ai-reskilling-strategy/ 

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68 

van Zyl, L. E., van Vuuren, H. A., Roll, L. C., & Stander, M. W. (2023). Person-environment fit and task performance: Exploring the role(s) of grit as a personal resource. Current Psychology, 42(27), 23560–23579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03461-9 

World Economic Forum. (2025, January). Future of Jobs Report 2025. https://www.weforum.org/publications/the-future-of-jobs-report-2025/ 

Yang, L.-Q., Che, H., & Spector, P. E. (2008). Job stress and well-being: An examination from the view of person-environment fit. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(3), 567–587. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317907X243324