Handle With Care: Labels at Work

Have you ever been in a meeting where someone is introduced, half-jokingly, as “our resident introvert”, “our very own chatterbox” or similar? In situations like this, it does not appear that anyone means harm, and that is the problem with labels at work. They are used as shorthand, perhaps when managers are trying to save time, but they are damaging and unnecessary.

Stereotype threat

Stereotype threat research defines a group label as being based on a social group you belong to: race, gender, age, disability, and similar categories. A 2024 meta-analysis of 61 studies and over 40,000 people found that anxiety about being judged by a group label was linked to exhaustion, lower job satisfaction, weaker commitment to the organisation, and a desire to leave (von Hippel et al., 2024)¹. 

In an earlier study, Stanford researchers found that when people are made to feel their social identity has been devalued, they’re more likely to lie, cheat, or steal afterwards (Belmi et al., 2015)². In one experiment, people who’d just recalled being on the receiving end of a negative stereotype were almost twice as likely to cheat on a task straight after. In a separate experiment in the same study, women who were told a missed promotion came down to their gender were more likely to lose interest in their job. When people attribute a setback to a group stereotype rather than something personal, their behaviour changes as a result. 

Self-fulfilling prophecies

Generational labelling can have the same impact. Labels like “typical Boomer, hates change” or “classic Gen Z, no attention span”, if heard often enough, become self-fulfilling. The workplace starts producing exactly the behaviour the labels refer to.

These generational labels prevent individuals from receiving credit for skills that don’t fit the stereotype and can split teams into camps that stop trusting one another (Work Institute, 2025)³. Death of a positive work culture by a thousand small withdrawals.

Not the Characteristic, the Feeling

A Swedish workforce study from 2025 found that people with a protected characteristic, a disability or an ethnic minority background, for example, were about 1.9 times more likely to be bullied at work than people without one. However, people who ‘felt’ like a minority at work, whether they had a legally protected characteristic or not, were about 5.1 times more likely to be bullied (Rosander, Hoel and Blomberg, 2025)⁴. Nearly three times the increase, just from how someone perceived their own position, showing that the label in someone's own head can often do more damage than the label anyone else applies. 

When a Type Becomes a Label

Self-awareness is one of the most consistently useful things a person can develop at work, and a good framework, used properly, is often the fastest way to gain it. Unfortunately, many ‘type’-based psychometrics and personality tests can, inadvertently, create labels. Their simplistic approach can be harmful and limit people's growth and development. If they ignore the nuance and dynamics of personality, they can lead to wrong conclusions and decisions.

Tell someone they’re “an introvert” or “not a detail person,” and confirmation bias can often kick in. People start collecting evidence that fits and quietly ignoring what doesn’t, usually without noticing. Give it time, and the label becomes true simply because everyone- the label holder, their manager and their team reinforce the ‘type’ label. Eventually the “creative type” stops offering to run structured projects, the “logical type” stops bothering with how people feel about a decision. 

The Scientifically Valid Choice

Giving a team a shared vocabulary for how they think and behave provides them with a more effective way to communicate. Communicating in a manner that celebrates each other’s strengths and shows respect for differing viewpoints, promotes an environment where employees feel honoured and respected while simultaneously inspiring a better workplace culture.

By recognising how their neural architecture influences their thinking and behavioural preferences, people gain valuable insights that can transform how they work, learn, and relate to others.

Emergenetics® bases its approach on the latest brain science and research. It measures against the population at large. This makes the tool statistically more viable than many traditional psychometric profiling instruments. It separates behaviours from thinking preferences. For instance, a person with an analytical preference isn’t necessarily introverted.

If your organisational culture values seeing people as unique individuals rather than types, Emergenetics’ spectrum approach may align better with your values.

¹ von Hippel, C., Kühner, C., Coundouris, S.P., Lim, A., Henry, J.D. and Zacher, H. (2024) Stereotype threat at work: a meta-analysis.

² Belmi, P., Barragan, R.C., Neale, M.A. and Cohen, G.L. (2015) Threats to social identity can trigger social deviance.

³ Work Institute (2025) The Harm of Workplace Labeling: How Generational Stereotypes Hold Us Back. 

⁴ Rosander, M., Hoel, H. and Blomberg, S. (2025) Protected grounds of discrimination and the risk of workplace bullying.

⁵ London, M., Sessa, V.I. and Shelley, L.A. (2023) Developing self-awareness: learning processes for self- and interpersonal growth.