Welcome back to The Turn. Today, we’re talking about everyone’s favorite work technology company, Microsoft.

I say that semi-jokingly and semi-lovingly. My provincialism for the PNW extends to the folks up in Redmond. Seattle’s journey as a major tech hub looks very different without them. Creating 12,000 (or more) millionaires concentrated in one place will do that.

There have been many phases of Microsoft but they may be entering their most interesting one. As I wrote in Reworked last week, CEO Satya Nadella inherited a company infamous for internal politicking and frequent re-orgs under different fiefdoms more than a decade ago.

Now, under new-ish CPO Amy Coleman, the tech behemoth’s HR function is going through a consequential re-org of its own. No more chief diversity officer. People analytics moves directly under the HR org. And a newly named Workforce Acceleration team tries to capture the momentum of a stampede of AI usage across its sprawling global workforce.

They are also losing multi-decade HR leaders in talent acquisition, total rewards, HR business partnerships, and diversity. A century and a half of combined leadership will be gone.

One of those changes is big enough on its own. All together? It’s a lot. Maybe too much. But as Coleman wrote in her internal memo:

Stability has been the name of the game for Nadella’s turn at CEO. That has resulted in generally warm reviews from the investor class. But since last summer, the stock has been in a relative free fall (though the stock is still 9x what it was since Nadella took over in 2014).

And with how reactive the market is and how quickly AI is impacting SaaS software, it really is a “what have you done for me lately?” sort of environment. Thanks for those long term gains and the dividends. Now, show us more growth, more innovation, and, yes, probably more AI.

Will it all work out? Microsoft can afford to take some swings and misses in the service of getting closer to the bleeding edge. The risk of looking complacent (regardless of reality) is a probably the bigger risk.

But I don’t think this playbook is for everyone. I explain why in my column.

HR tech providers: Are you doing agentic AI for real?

I am writing a report on it and would love to get stories of real life use cases and outcomes rather than AI washing. If you have 30 minutes this month to walk me through what you’re doing, fill out the short form here:

Brief me

What I’m reading

I haven’t done this for awhile but I am LONG overdue to recommend some folks to follow across LinkedIn and Substack because I do an absolutely awful job of crediting for keeping me informed and inspired. To write a lot, you have to read a lot. Who am I missing on my reading list?

• Laurie Ruettimann is an OG who has been telling HR the truth about itself since before the industry was ready to hear it. You can read Punk Rock HR on LinkedIn and her newsletter on Substack.

• Steve Smith monitors the workplace technology market so you can stay current without having to read every vendor press release and funding announcement yourself, which is either a service or a calling. You can read Work Tech Weekly on LinkedIn.

• John Vlastelica named his newsletter after the thing he’s most tired of hearing from leaders, which tells you everything about his relationship with corporate pep talks and nothing about why we keep giving them. You can read Try Harder Is Not A Strategy on LinkedIn.

• Jess Von Bank writes at the intersection of work, technology, and humanity, which is the intersection where most organizations install a stop sign and call it strategy. You can read her newsletter on Substack.

• Katrina Kibben has spent years trying to get companies to write job descriptions that don’t immediately disqualify the people who could actually do the job, which is both noble and the world’s most patient Sisyphean project depending on your employer. You can read Rewrite Recruiting on LinkedIn.

• Dan Schawbel has been tracking workplace trends so consistently for so long, I’m convinced that future historians will cite him when trying to understand what people work was like right now. You can read Workplace Intelligence Weekly on LinkedIn.

• Madison Butler is documenting the corporate experience with the honesty that most companies’ engagement surveys are specifically designed to suppress. You can read The Corporate Crash Out on LinkedIn.

• Brian Fink has appointed himself the chief advocate for an industry that doesn’t always advocate for itself, which either makes him noble or means he has a very specific kind of energy. You can read The Talent Architects on LinkedIn.

• David Manaster has been covering talent acquisition longer than most of today’s recruiting platforms have been in business, giving him the rare perspective of knowing what this industry looked like before it got a rebrand. You can read ERE Weekly on LinkedIn.

• Hung Lee manually curates recruiting content every week from sources most people aren’t reading, which in an era of AI-generated everything is a principled stance (and maybe some pure stubbornness). You can read Recruiting Brainfood on Substack.

• Mervyn Dinnen is still making the case that HR is actually a business function, which is apparently a necessary argument in any organization where the people team is still fighting for a seat at the table. You can read HR Means Business on LinkedIn.

• Mike Wood reads all the HR tech news every week so you don’t have to, and in an industry that produces this volume of announcements and rebrandings, that is genuinely a public service. You can read The Wrap on LinkedIn.

• Jennifer McClure is still using “disrupt” without apology, which is a statement of conviction and proof that she really is the founder of DisruptHR. You can read Designed to Disrupt on LinkedIn.

• Donald Thompson releases his leadership insights monthly, which is a sensible pace for ideas that take longer than a quarter to actually implement. You can read Leadership Edge on LinkedIn.

• Joel Stupka gives us snackable content that, even if you aren’t 100% sure you like it, only lasts a few minutes (but that has always worked out for me). You can read HR Snacks on LinkedIn.

• Kyle Forrest is Deloitte’s Human Capital CMO moonlighting as a newsletter editor, which means you get the enterprise view on what HR should be thinking about, curated by someone whose firm has thought about it for longer in private. You can read Human Capital Insider on LinkedIn.

• Thomas Otter has been tracking HR technology long enough to have watched multiple generations of “revolutionary” platforms become legacy systems, which gives his reflections on work tech a certain earned quality. You can read Work in Progress on Substack.

• Jason Averbook has spent decades at the intersection of HR and technology, which means he has had a front row seat to every overpromised implementation and every genuinely transformative shift (and can apparently still tell the difference). You can read Now to Next on Substack.

• Anita Lettink has made it her mission to decode the EU Pay Transparency Directive before it decodes your organization’s entire compensation structure first. You can read Equal Pay on LinkedIn.

• Steven Hunt started as a mathematician and became an organizational psychologist, which is the most logical career arc for someone who eventually concluded that people are the hardest variable. You can read Talent Tectonics on Substack.

• John Sumser has been the HR tech industry’s resident skeptic long enough to have earned the right to say “I told you so” about several things that are now considered conventional wisdom. Heather Bussing continues to play the role of counselor (in all ways) for the industry. You can read HRExaminer on Substack.

• Josh Bersin covers the entire HR technology and talent landscape with a research operation that makes you wonder if he sleeps, or if the real Josh Bersin is actually a very well-trained AI model by now. You can read Josh Bersin Unleashed on Substack.

• Kevin Wheeler has been writing about the future of talent since the future was still largely theoretical, with both incredible foresight and a field that is just catching up to things he was saying years ago. You can read Future of Talent.

• Meg Bear and Amy Wilson decided two newsletter authors are better than one newsletter author (or one podcast host), which is either a sign of shared passion or a mutual inability to commit to a solo project. I like both of those. You can read Insight Loop on LinkedIn.

I am sure I missed some folks (or maybe you don’t post enough!) but I’ll share more inspiration on the reg.

That’s it for this week!

He ended up at a Temple of the Dog rehearsal instead, more or less by accident. Somewhere in that session, Chris Cornell needed him on “Hunger Strike,” a song that became one of the defining tracks of a decade of Pacific Northwest grunge.

The rest is history.

Serendipity probably isn’t a good way to justify the mechanics behind a killer song or a user interface for SaaS. But it’s what kept going through my head when I saw the announcement from Workday about Sana’s “Superintelligence” offering, which is part connector, part agent orchestrator, and part deep AI chat capabilities for the enterprise.

The last part follows a trend which I’m not sure I like.

Visual interfaces have always been full of accidental on-ramps. You hover over something you didn’t mean to click and discover a feature you didn’t know existed. You scroll past a setting, you flip through a menu, you stumble, and you might find something interesting.

A visual interface has texture. It has information without asking. It has those moments of friction and serendipity that people have come to expect.

Chat has none of that. If you don’t know that you don’t know, well, then you don’t know. Even the stuff that it’s really good at, like pulling information from all over the place and making some semblance of sense, requires some level of knowledge to even ask.

It’s easy to make fun of a dashboard that looks like it was created when the Seattle Supersonics still existed. But those usually existed because someone was making a decision based on it.

I will say that for users with motor impairments or low vision, chat with voice enabled can be a genuine step forward. Have you ever had an accessibility feature read you a data chart? Don’t (unless you need it). A chat interface that can be descriptive instead of visual is a godsend.

For regular users of ChatGPT, there’s probably a level of comfort (especially at the beginner level). But for power users, for those who really need the full ugly functionality of these enterprise tools, it’s going to be a sidestep at best.

Natural language chat interfaces are built for ambiguity. That’s why they are so good for beginners. But strip all that away and the supposedly frictionless interface requires you interact with a different level of precision. You train yourself to issue commands so that you get expected results. So your brain and fingers become a different type of UI.

Obviously Workday isn’t shedding its whole UI but other startups in HR have sort of embraced this chat interface as the default or, in some cases, only option. The move to position Sana as chat first might embolden them to push further.

I don’t think that’s wise.

Vedder wasn’t supposed to be in that studio. But the scene worked the way it did because people were in the same room, stumbling into each other’s orbits, and discovering things sideways.

The best interface might not be one that simply goes from taps or clicks to chats because it feels easier for everyone. Sometimes it’s the one that puts something you didn’t explicitly ask for in your path.

What else is happening

• Workers Are Using AI to Sneak Out for Spin Classes and Skip Lunch Meetings. A Zoom-sponsored study conveniently finds that AI saves workers 30 minutes a day, which sounds pretty sweet. Bosses paying for AI productivity tools may be surprised to learn they’re also funding spin class memberships.

• 3 Charts on What CHROs Think About AI and the Future of Their Departments. Nice story from HR Dive showing that every CHRO says AI is their top priority, yet half haven’t figured out how to measure whether it’s actually doing anything. Apparently “AI strategy” for most organizations means “we’re aware AI exists and are very worried about it.”

• HR’s Imperative: Invest in the Skills AI Can’t Touch. HR thought leaders are urging companies to finally invest in “human skills” like emotional intelligence and critical thinking, the same skills we’ve been systematically devaluing in favor of quantifiable metrics for the past two decades. Better late than never?

• JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon Says Remote Work Breeds ‘Rope-a-Dope Politics’ and Stunts Young Workers’ Growth A billionaire CEO insists young workers can only learn by watching him make mistakes in person, despite research showing remote workers are more productive and more engaged. The 1,200 JPMorgan employees who petitioned against the five-day mandate still seem unconvinced.

• Report Reveals Widening AI Guidance Gap. Thomson Reuters finds that companies are enthusiastically pushing employees to adopt AI while having no coherent strategy for what that’s supposed to achieve. That’s fine, because only 22% of companies have any AI strategy at all. The bar for “ahead of the curve” remains comfortably low.

• Major League Baseball’s Robot Umpires Are Here—and They Tell Us Something Uncomfortable About AI and Work. MLB introduced an AI challenge system for ball/strike calls, framed as a thoughtful human-AI collaboration. Given that nearly two-thirds of player ejections were over ball/strike disputes last year, human umpires weren’t exactly making a compelling case for their own indispensability.

• Welcome to the Weird World of AI Agent Teams. Researchers discover that when you put a bunch of AI agents together without organizational structure, they spiral into chaos, a finding that will not surprise anyone who has never attended a corporate meeting. Coordination problems, it turns out, are not a uniquely human flaw.

• Who Owns AI Agent Access? At Most Companies, Nobody Knows. 85% of companies have AI agents running in production, but nobody has agreed on who’s responsible for securing them. That seems like detail worth sorting out before something goes catastrophically wrong. With agents routinely over-privileged and borrowing human credentials, the next major breach has essentially been pre-scheduled.

• Why AI Is a Massive Job-Creation Technology, Despite What You Think Josh Bersin argues AI creates more jobs than it destroys, pointing to rising software engineering salaries as proof. The “don’t worry, new jobs will appear… eventually” argument has a long and storied history of being technically correct and creatign short-term pain.

I just launched Beacon Turn

A little promotional news: I just officially launched Beacon Turn. If you’re reading this on my Substack, you know this.

You can read the full announcement on my LinkedIn and if you have any research, media, or advisory work, I’d love to chat about it.

Thanks and have a great rest of your week!

One of my favorite places in my town is the Vancouver Community Library. It’s located about 10 blocks south of my house and I walk past old homes, apartments, and businesses along a tree-lined street to get there.

The funny part about most of my library trips is very few of them involve me reading a physical book. Instead, I’m often doing work, writing, or research there when I am tired of my office and house.

I see all kinds of folks there too. I might see a parent and child exploring the children’s book section. I see a senior volunteering to help people prepare taxes. I see folks without housing getting a break from the elements. People of all types, really.

Sometimes I work better with murmured chatter. Other times, I want to be interrupted. While I love working out of my home office, it’s nice to have places you can opt into some level of social gather.

Plus, the view from the top deck where you can get some sunshine and views of the river, Portland, and the West Hills is nice.

(Oh, and hi old ZoomInfo HQ.)

I bring this up because I enjoy the sense of community I get from the library the same way I get from my favorite coffee shop, gym, or brewery. I see some of the same people consistently but also many different people. I’ve helped people find specific books or where to grab a decent sandwich (Tap Union if you’re okay with a little walk, btw).

But unlike a coffee shop, brewery, or gym, there’s no purchase pressure or access issues at the library. Besides the used book sale, there’s nothing really to purchase. It is open to all, where a person with a bike trailer full of their possessions has the same ability to access it as the high-paid lawyer who works across the street.

It’s a true third place. Not home or work but a third place where community can be built. In The Great Good Place, Ray Oldenburg says that third places are not just good for us but good for the world.

And I wonder if we need that for HR.

Creating a place that’s inviting by design

I tried to count the number of HR conferences or events that I’ve been to and I lost track. Hundreds, maybe? And while I like these spaces, they are limited by design. They charge money. They are in far flung locations. They are often built around an agenda with specific things that the organizers think you will like. The networking events are contrived and often revolve around alcohol or loud spaces (usually both).

And this is fine btw. Conferences in particular are big deals for people. They might be spending some of their own money or their employer’s money. They get to go to a nice place, learn something, and maybe even have a little fun. When I get cynical about all these events, I have conversations with folks who might only do this once a year and remind myself that they are important.

These events also have many of the same subjects, speakers, and sponsors. Some pay to get your eyeballs and earholes on them. That means there is stratification. Someone gets a VIP ticket to a vendor party with Third Eye Blind playing while someone else is scarfing down In-N-Out with a view of the High Roller (most of the time, I’d prefer the latter).

But if a conference isn’t a good third space, then what is?

I think social media used to be that place. But algorithms, advertising, and the eventual closed loop nature of them gets us the same problem we deal with in other access restricted areas.

Game social interaction or build early enough and you can stay ahead. But the average person probably isn’t doing this and they don’t have time for it anyway. There are few HR practitioners that really have the social following that matters. You can’t work your day job and produce the level and bulk of content you need to stand out now. Even with help from marketing and ghostwriting like some people use, it can be tough.

Places that are less algorithmic? Sure, but why would I look at those when I could read a LinkedIn update from two weeks ago?

What a third place solves for

The reason why I continue to wonder about this is that I think we get stuck in an echo chamber. A small group of people determine the experience, content, and more in HR.

As a former event organizer, I always tried to get perspectives from people outside of my world but let’s be honest, it isn’t easy. Plus, the format of events in general is hierarchical by design (and by necessity, probably).

With the online environment, I wonder if anything can really cut through in a way that connects people. There are probably pockets of it, especially in niche areas.

There are likely some local organizations as well but those come with membership fees or event fees because, well, space costs money. Someone has to foot the bill at some point.

When I look at all the handwringing and confusion in HR today about the future of the profession or how it will change, the leaders I know have to be intentional about creating their own little packs of colleagues and advisors. But, those things take time and time feels like the thing that escapes us.

But we also have to have a place where we can come as ourselves instead of peacocking around and pretending we have all the answers. Authenticity is thrown around a lot but in reality, it’s about creating a space where we feel comfortable with reality. Nobody has all the answers.

And while hierarchies feel comfortable, I can tell you that in private conversations, the biggest names that get in front HR audiences are questioning what’s going on just as much. They just have the ability to come up with better sounding answers.

Do we need this?

I don’t know. Maybe people feel like they have a sense of community already. But I think a space that operates as a community with fewer boundaries is a good thing.

I don’t have answers beyond that, though. I am interested in your honest take. Do we need something like this or do you get your fill elsewhere?

What else is happening

• U.S. Department of Labor Launches ‘Make America AI-Ready’ Initiative. The government’s latest workforce strategy is a seven-day AI course delivered entirely by text message. It’s designed to be accessible, quick and simple, which is another way of saying your AI education now competes with spam texts and verification codes. The future of work, apparently, fits in your notifications.

• HR Leaders Say They’re Optimistic Despite Anticipating More Change in 2026. Nearly three-quarters of HR leaders say they feel optimistic, but two-thirds also expect even more disruption this year. Culture, engagement and constant change are still major problems, and employees don’t actually share leadership’s confidence. So it’s optimism… with a heavy dose of denial.

• Report: CHROs Now Among Highest-Paid Execs at Public Companies.

  While workers watch their pay shrink, chief human resources officers are suddenly joining CEOs and CFOs in the boardroom penthouse. A Conference Board study shows CHROs appearing as named executive officers jumped 55% between 2021 and 2025, with AI hype and talent wars turning “HR” into code for high compensation.

• Half of Companies Are Cutting Compensation To Fund AI Investments. In the race to feed the algorithm, 54% of surveyed companies admit they’re raiding employee pay to bankroll AI projects. Bonuses, equity and even base salaries are all on the chopping block, and many bosses plan to smear tiny “peanut butter raises” evenly across staff. Cutting compensation to pay for robots. What could go wrong?

• U.S. Companies Plan to Accelerate Global Hiring Despite Major Workforce Headaches. Companies are expanding globally and hiring more—but also admitting they can’t find or keep talent. Nearly half say attracting international workers is “very or extremely challenging,” while burnout, turnover and “quiet quitting” are still wrecking engagement. So yes, hiring is up, but so is the chaos that comes with it.

• Why AI Job Cuts Are Turning Brutal. The era of cushy exits is over. Now people just lose Slack access and find out they’re fired. HR leaders say layoffs have become “sterile and surgical,” with less human interaction and more speed as AI reshapes companies. Turns out when efficiency is the goal, dignity is optional.

Have a great rest of your week!

Welcome back to another issue of The Turn.

I was able to get back to an Unleash conference, the first for me in more than a decade. I came in the day before and was able to plow through meetings, sessions, and some talking with vendors.

But, what got me was the keynote. Not on AI (as one would expect) but on failure.

Failure, by the way, isn’t a popular conference topic. Shocking, I know. Vendors don’t build booths around it. Nobody wants to tell stories about failures.

Amy Edmondson is different, though. She’s spent 30 years studying failure, and her argument cuts against the dominant mood of every AI conversation happening in organizations right now. “Our intuition about failure fails us,” she said. We learned failure was bad before we could reason about it.

Her framework separates failures into three types. Basic failures are preventable. They are often single cause in familiar territory and better systems can drive them toward zero. Complex failures are the perfect storms where multiple factors converge into a disaster that hinged on no single point.

Intelligent failures, on the other hand, are what you get when you run a real experiment in new territory: the outcome wasn’t what you wanted, but the information was exactly what you needed.

Intelligent failure has specific requirements. A credible hypothesis, a goal the organization actually cares about, and a scope sized to generate knowledge rather than to generate a report. Those exist because it’s supposed to teach you something. “An intelligent failure in your organization happening a second time,” she said, “is no longer intelligent.”

Edmondson described a conversation with senior executives at a financial services company who told her that failure might be acceptable in good times, but right now, facing uncertainty, “it’s important that everything go well.” Her response? “When you implicitly or explicitly declare failure off limits, you should expect to be kept in the dark.”

An AI story without the AI mention

That’s the AI implementation story playing out right now across most large organizations.

The pilots are staffed with enthusiastic early adopters with the conditions controlled. The goal, even when nobody says it out loud, is to produce a result that justifies the next stage of investment. Yet, the next stage inevitably fails to deliver value (like most AI initiatives to date). As she says, “the pilot didn’t prevent the fiasco, because the pilot was a success.”

A real pilot looks different. It runs under representative operating conditions. Its explicit goal is to learn, not to demonstrate.

What makes that hard isn’t process design, though. It’s what Edmondson describes as the anxiety zone: the environment where someone on the ground thinks “I’m afraid I need help. I can’t ask for it. I will look foolish.”

Organizations willing to say publicly where AI is working and where it isn’t, to treat the honest account as more valuable than the polished one, are going to learn faster than everyone performing confidence. The ones that can’t will find out what they missed when it’s expensive.

Education, early career professionals, and HR’s role

I was also invited to a discussion about how education is struggling to keep up with the changing needs of industries. It was a diverse group across workforce leaders, researchers, consultants, and folks like me who really wanted to hear what people saw as an opportunity.

Alexandra Levit led the discussion and it was enlightening. She’s the author of many books, including Make School Work, a focused look at work-based learning.

Reducing stigma about trades, better AI training earlier, and how we can create a national policy when so much of what we’re doing is run on a state-by-state or even down to an individual school level.

I came away with two takeaways.

Many trades have already figured out the high school-to-career pipeline. It’s one of the meaningful ways that districts have kept graduation rates steady while providing students with the opportunity to jump start their careers. White collar work could (and should) spend time learning from them.

The second takeaway is a little more troubling. As we are diving in head first into AI in education, I continue to wonder how we build up skills like judgement. One of the things I heard from Alexandra is that she can’t use anything out of Claude as is. How does she know it’s not ready for prime time? Years of experience doing work by hand. Seeing how words and numbers come together not only give you judgement, they give you taste.

Building taste and judgement has always just been a repetition game. Do things enough times and you figure out what good should look like and what it takes to get there. But if AI is doing the heavy lifting, how can you judge something as good or complete?

AI boosts developer performance (with a catch)

I’ve strung together a number of posts recently critical of AI, so much so that I got asked if I was anti AI at Unleash. My latest on Reworked talks about AI actually coming through on its promises: Freeing people up to do work. And, while AI has been lauded as an accelerant for mid- to senior-level developers, it’s actually doing numbers with junior developers.

Of course, that comes with a catch.

AI has killed a lot of the collaboration between development teams. Instead of asking a coworker how to solve a problem, they are solving it with AI.

Which, is good and bad. Good in that those senior devs can focus instead of fielding questions. But knowledge transfer? Judgement? The why behind why you do certain things? Those things are missing.

That’s what I worry about. We don’t understand the long term consequences of this, either. Maybe things will turn out fine. But instead of wishing and hoping, I wonder what we do to intentionally build skills necessary to be a good partner with AI if and when we use it. How do I know what to look for? What are my own tendencies as a human being with this very agreeable technology?

In the waning days of World War II, a Manhattan Project scientist named Vannevar Bush wrote an essay in The Atlantic that described a problem that feels as fresh today as it did more than 80 years ago.

The world was producing knowledge faster than anyone could absorb it. Every field was generating groundbreaking discoveries. Every discipline was advancing at breakneck speed.

The tools available to make sense of it all were filing cabinets, index cards, and more books and papers than a person could ever hope to read.

Bush called it a problem of connection.

We had learned to grow information of incredible volume. We hadn’t learned to connect it.

His proposed solution, the memex, was a desk-sized machine that could store libraries of material on microfilm and, more importantly, let users link items to each other. Rather than organize by category like a filing cabinet or keywords like an index at the end of a book, it would work the way a curious mind creates sense from noise. The way the electrical impulses that drive a human heartbeat can feel like the beat of a Green Day song.

The technology to build the memex didn’t exist, but the core principle of this idea would shape eight decades of grappling with a now evergreen challenge: Too much information, too little wisdom.

Technology catches up with the vision

Twenty-three years later, Douglas Engelbart demonstrated the mouse, the graphical interface, and live hyperlinks to a room full of people who had never seen any of it. It became known as the Mother of All Demos. Alan Kay took those ideas further at Xerox PARC, building systems that treated the computer as a dynamic medium for thinking, not just data processing.

Then Bill Atkinson, a programming genius working on the original Macintosh team, had a psychedelic-driven vision on a park bench in Los Gatos. Human knowledge was siloed. Physicists knew things. Poets knew things. Musicians knew things. None of them were talking to each other, though.

His answer was HyperCard, released in 1987. It was my first experience with what would become the building blocks of the modern internet.

It was a virtual stack of cards that lived on your computer that could be linked to one another dynamically. Ordinary people with no formal computer training could build their own associative webs of knowledge. Teachers built learning tools, businesses built interactive knowledge bases, and I used it to build a choose-your-own-adventure style game that was about as sophisticated as you could imagine for an elementary school kid.

I believe poop was involved somewhere in the storyline.

Two brothers also used it to build a strange, contemplative game called Myst that became the best-selling PC game for nearly a decade.

HyperCard was, as Alan Kay later described it, symmetric. The person consuming information and the person creating it were on the same continuum. You could open any button and see how it worked. Like a jazz musician, you could use that knowledge play the same notes or you could iterate and expand.

Then Tim Berners-Lee, working at CERN on a NeXT workstation, built the first web browser. Inspired by HyperCard, the web as we know it today arrived. HyperCard faded as the web of information expanded beyond what we could store in a single computer.

But something important got lost in the transition.

We are building more file cabinets again

The web that actually emerged, the one we live in, is still mostly organized by taxonomy. Search by keyword, find your answer, and go on your way. The associative layer, the one where connections between unlike things produce genuine insight, mostly didn’t get built. Websites became self-referencing silos. Social media favored algorithms that give you more of what you already have.

We got abundance. We still didn’t get wisdom.

Information is cheap and plentiful. Wisdom is what you develop after you’ve seen enough information in enough contexts to recognize a pattern that isn’t obvious. It requires connection, not just retrieval. It requires someone or something that can look across the silos and say: These things are related, and here’s why it matters.

AI is arriving in organizations right now with a promise that sounds familiar. More information, faster. Cheap wisdom and abilities without all that thinking work. The implementations being built and deployed are largely retrieval and regurgitation tools.

Bigger, faster, and, sometimes, hallucinating filing cabinets.

AI is genuinely useful and it’s hard to describe how powerful it can be. We can’t build wisdom without knowledge. When I describe to my daughter how we researched before the internet, I might as well be talking about the Library of Alexandria.

But the way we use these tools is not solving the fundamental question that Bush was grappling with in 1945.

The tools that actually move people from information to wisdom are the ones that surface connections people wouldn’t have made on their own. They tell you not just what is true but what relates to what else, and why the relationship matters in your specific context.

When I see the information bloat, lack of vision or purpose, and thousands of copy and pasted AI posts that have the same beats, the same messages, and the same conclusion, I know we haven’t answered the fundamental question because we don’t even know what the question really is.

Connection, not collection

Every generation since (at least) 1945 has continued to make access to vast stores of information easier and declared victory. Certainly this will be the invention that solves our problems. Yet, information multiplies and we still feel like we don’t understand our world.

The hard problem is connection, not collection.

The tools we use to solve this problem reflect the assumptions of their builders. HyperCard was built by someone who wanted ordinary people to be authors to share their sense with the world, not just readers. AI is being shaped right now by the assumptions of the people deploying it.

Those assumptions are worth considering.

For example, when Anthropic publishes a study that reduces an occupation to collections of tasks and skills rather the connection of them, it feels like the record is skipping again. The theoretical AI coverage proposed is the type of fever dream that we’ve seen before.

There is genuine novelty with AI innovation (and, sure, a little bit of terror). That’s why it is so frustrating to see these abilities reduced to “answer engines” or debating which (contextually devoid, individual) tasks that AI can or cannot do.

Can AI help you connect with the world better? Can it create understanding where discernment is difficult? Can it help you make better decisions than you would’ve made on your own? Can it make you a better person or give you abilities beyond multiplying my own foolishness at unbelievable scale? Can it make something better that people actually want?

I think so because I’m a silly optimist, but it’s not how we’re using it.

I don’t want a faster, scaled up version of my thinking or abilities when it can’t crib the connections I’m making in my head. I don’t want a machine that can take the collection of tasks that makes me good at what I do without the ability to ask, “Wait, why are we even doing this?”

Someone still has to ask the right question. Someone still has to decide what the pattern means for this organization, this moment, these people, and find the right medium to tell that story so that someone who gives a damn will understand.

If all we are doing is just reinventing a faster file cabinet (again), then what the hell are we doing? Creating a brainless, context-less collection of information, tasks, and skills that can scale stupid work 10x?

I believe Vannevar Bush’s vision is still out of reach, at least in practice. It’s worth asking if we as people want to use the very capable technologies we already have to build wisdom or connection or if we are always going to try to settle for shortcuts and speed?

I think there is still a market for people who care about making sense out of noise rather than noise out of sense. Let’s hope so, at least.

A long, long time ago when I was still in HR, I watched two managers face the same crisis in different ways. Business was down, we had to shift people, and employees in the organization were frustrated and scared.

One gathered his team in a conference room the morning the news was going to be announced. He didn’t have all the answers, but he told them what he knew, admitted what he didn’t, and promised to keep them updated.

The other manager waited for the official talking points. When they came, he sent them via e-mail. By the time they got the sterile news, the team had already heard from their colleagues that change was coming.

A month later, both teams had the same leaders and a similar group of employees as they had before but very different levels of trust and performance.

Back then, all I had was vibes for what I saw. Clearly, the first manager was operationally better and a more empathetic leader. You could see signs of it in his employees too. But why did it seem like his team also buckled down more and were more willing to put in the unpleasant work to turn our fortunes around?

If the story is familiar, it’s because this pattern plays out everywhere. And now, SparkEffect (formerly Waldron and Torchiana)’s 2025 Trust in Turbulence report puts numbers to what many of us have seen up close: Trust is an operational variable that can predict whether teams hold together or fall apart when things get messy.

The numbers tell a simple story

When employees trust their leaders, everything works better. The key findings from the report shows that in high-trust organizations, 97% of people say their organization has strong financial performance. In low-trust environments, it’s less than half. Retention jumps from 52% to 93%. Even basic clarity about the company’s direction doubles.

Trust comes from how leaders show up every day. It manifests in how they explain decisions, handle uncertainty, and follow through when it matters. During disruption, those daily actions decide whether a team holds together or falls apart.

Where trust actually lives

The data also answers a harder question: who holds that trust?

It might surprise you that it isn’t the CEO or the executive team. Having worked with executives, I know big decisions that rock companies feel like a pressure cooker for them personally. They feel like everything they do is under a microscope.

But trust is really owned by the managers who talk to employees every day. People place far more confidence in their direct leaders than in “the organization.” But that confidence is brittle. When disruption hits, trust in their direct managers is what drops sharply. Their trust in the broad organization? It barely moves.

That should make every executive pause and consider where the pressure truly resides. The moment turbulence hits, the leaders closest to the work absorb the shock first. They become translators and stabilizers, all while trying to keep the work moving as if nothing was happening. If those leaders don’t have clear direction or support, the trust gap starts there and spreads fast.

The research makes a point that’s easy to overlook: leadership across the entire organization is strategic infrastructure. It’s as essential as having an office roof that doesn’t leak or a warehouse that has been upgraded to modern safety standards. You can’t build trust through slogans or one-off initiatives. You build it from the ground up by equipping managers to lead with clarity, fairness, and empathy. That’s especially true when they don’t have all the answers.

And when disruption happens, scaling your leadership capability is the only way to keep the value of trust intact.

When the waves hit

Every leader hits a moment when the room goes quiet. A tough call, a bad quarter, a change that lands wrong...

Values set the next move. They shape the words you choose, the tradeoffs you accept, and the people you protect. They decide who hears first, who gets context, and who gets your time.

Comfort tempts shortcuts. Values hold the line. They ask for plain talk when news stings. They demand fair process when speed feels easier. They keep promises in view when pressure shows up.

People watch the choices that their direct managers make. They see who they stand with, how they explain it, and whether they stay present when the room gets heavy. Those signals become the story employees tell about working there.

The teams that came out stronger shared four habits, and none of them are complicated:

• They communicate early and plainly, even when the news is rough

• They explain the “why,” not just the “what”

• They treat people with fairness and empathy in the moment

• They invite questions, even when they can’t answer all of them

Those actions sound basic, but they’re show up rarely under pressure. The report found that when disruptions were handled well, employee trust actually rose above baseline. When they were handled poorly, trust dropped by nearly 30%.

The elasticity of trust

SparkEffect uses the term “elasticity” to describe how well trust stretches under pressure and snaps back afterward. I love it. The idea is simple: some organizations absorb the hit, learn from it, and emerge steadier. Others crack.

In high-elasticity environments, employees say their companies retained key people, sustained reputation, and had a clear plan for the next challenge. In low-elasticity ones, those same scores collapse. Strategy clarity, arguably the foundation of leadership,bottoms out almost completely.

That’s what happens when trust runs out.

Most crisis plans focus on risk management: minimize damage, restore order, move on. The better leaders treat disruption as an accountability moment. They use it to show who they are when things aren’t easy. When handled with transparency and care, those moments turn into proof points of integrity.

Building trust on purpose

Trust can’t be built with values statements or an executive leadership retreat on purpose. It’s much more pragmatic than that. The research suggests four practical moves every organization can make to meaningfully support trust:

1. Support your frontline managers. They hold the most trust and the most risk when things go wrong. Equip them. Have them build a bank of trust when those hard moments hit.

2. Rehearse crisis leadership before you need it. Practice clarity and fairness in small moments so they’re automatic in big ones. These moment count and become evidence for or against your leaders.

3. Design fairness into decisions. Ask early: Is this clear? Is this fair? If I described what I did to an outsider, would they get it? If there’s hesitation, there’s work to be done.

4. Measure trust like you measure performance. What gets measured changes behavior.

Trust shapes the outcome of every disruption, from how people talk about leadership to whether they stay to help fix what broke.

What endures

Trust grows in the moments that test conviction. It takes shape through clarity, fairness, and steadiness when conditions shift. Each disruption becomes a record of what leaders chose to stand for.

Leaders who ground every decision in those values leave something lasting: a pattern people can rely on when change comes again. That consistency is the foundation of endurance, the quiet strength that carries a company forward.

That’s it for this week!

I’ve lost count of the number of HR Tech Conferences I’ve attended since my first one in 2009. In the dingy basement at the back corner of McCormick Place, the show was much smaller. You could walk every aisle in the expo hall in a brisk 5-10 minute walk. You could fit all the attendees in one of the breakout rooms used in 2025.

Maybe that’s an exaggeration, but you probably weren’t there.

The spectacle that exists today makes it impossible to get a feel for the room the same way you could 16 years ago. That makes me more convinced than ever that HR Tech is a reflection of our own experiences as much as it is a bellwether for what’s going on in the industry.

Feeling cynical about the crest of the AI hype cycle? You’ll find plenty of reasons to embrace the cynicism. A booth proudly proclaiming to be “like ChatGPT but for hiring” is both unintentionally hilarious and an indicator of how much AI has latched onto every last function of HR, whether buyers actually want it or not.

Feeling like innovation is starting to ramp up? Even beyond the ruckus of AI and agents, there are some interesting things happening that work leaders have needed for far too many years.

Feeling hopeful for a soft economic landing and continued investment in the industry? The show size (as big as ever), increased buying behaviors, and a Fed interest rate cut made those proverbial wallets feel a little looser.

Feeling like we’ll go back to reinvesting in employee experience like we did in 2022? Well, even a Rorschach test can do only so much projection.

So what am I seeing?

Show me, don’t tell me

AI was ubiquitous. There were a scant few booths that didn’t have a mention of AI and disappointingly, no strong counter to the AI-fication of everything. HR Tech can be a miserable place in the throes of a hype cycle. The eyes glaze over like looking at the menu at Border Grill for the seventh time.

What would’ve been nice to see is a strong, clear AI story. Instead, there was a lot of bark and little bite.

Vendors had issues answering questions like:

• How does your AI work in plain language?

• Who is using your AI solution?

• How is it improving outcomes?

• How is it improving the experience, especially for employees?

Of course, I wasn’t talking to the product leaders (I didn’t think I’d even be coming to the event until a few weeks ago). But very few people generally do. If your whole team can’t answer these questions credibly, it’s bad.

Ultimately, buyers aren’t looking for AI in and of itself. They are looking for answers to problems their organization is facing. A lot of them are distrustful of big promises because HR technology providers often struggle with basic automation and janky integrations already. Anyone who is in the CHRO seat has had a major technology failure in the last five years. Even if intrigue is high, they are probably going to focus first on getting the basics right.

Skills no longer pay the bills

In the paraphrased words of Supertramp, goodbye skills, it’s been nice. Hope you find your paradise.

What was once the hot trend for a few years was much less prominent this year. I’m not surprised, though. Skills are hard to quantify and capture in the same way that credentials or years of experience are. A credential is binary. You either have it or you don’t. Skills have a whole range of possibilities. And even people at the same skill level will vary.

Not only that, there’s a whole philosophy around taxonomy and organization that carries some very strong feelings. That makes the match, even for true believers, about as easy as finding the owner a glass slipper after that late night party in Eye Candy.

Pragmatically, we need some sort of answer for skills. Buyers seem to be struggling here but they also seem happy to ride it out with existing tools.

Does anyone care about the employee experience anymore?

I get that the pendulum has swung power back to employers but wow. No wonder employees are slow walking AI adoption. Even the hint that AI could do some work that humans are doing has led people to talk about EX as an afterthought. Or worse, that AI will make the employee experience better (which just isn’t showing up in any data).

This is real short-term thinking. There aren’t too many companies out there with sustainable success that also don’t at least try to create a great employee experience. And I believe EX is innate in an organization, through good times and bad (or whether the power dynamic is in their favor or not).

The thing is, being a good workplace also stands out more when you have the option to act like a jerk and still get people to work for you. Maybe vendors feel like EX is implied but buyers do not.

Cheers and jeers

What was good and what was bad?

Cheers: New team

It was great getting together with some of my new (Mary Ellen Slayter and Alec Cherrin) and not-so-new (Steve Smith and Anthony Spangler, APR) colleagues at Rep Cap and having some great meetings at HR Tech. Everyone was excited!

Jeers: Vegas

I got sick, my feet still kinda hurt, and the dry air never goes away. I get why HR Tech is in Vegas, probably for the long haul, but I don’t have to like it. I want to go back to a real city, maybe one with some humidity and things besides Vegas-priced and styled bars and restaurants.

Cheers: Old and new connections

It was great seeing so many people (too many to count, I’m sorry, I can’t tag you all). As a guy who’s always happy to stay in my cave of an office away from socialization, the sprint of talking with this many people all at once is a lot. My heart is happy and I was glad to see y’all but I’m also happy for some quiet again.

Jeers: Badge scanning

I don’t know what happened but a bunch of companies decided to get really aggressive with the badge scanning this year. I had multiple people scan my badge without even asking and it seemed like everyone was looking for those sweet leads. My month-old email inbox is suffering already.

News from the show

• SAP confirms completion of the SmartRecruiters acquisition - link

• Visier Inc. launches Manager Agent - link

• Darwinbox launches Super Agent - link

• Employ (Jobvite/Lever/JazzHR) showcases AI Screening Companion - link

• Perceptyx debuts AI Agent Suite and reimagined platform - link

• Cornerstone OnDemand presents next evolution of the Cornerstone Galaxy platform - link

• RADICL launches AI-native platform to reimagine how people and teams organize around work - link

• Beekeeper introduces Manager Hub and My Portal for frontline EX - link

• beqom introduces Pay Equity & Transparency solution - link

• PageUp launches AI Skills Matching and “Paige” virtual assistant - link

• Remote expands global HR & Payroll with Remote Surveys and enhanced HRIS - link

• Salary.com introduces CompAnalyst AI Suite - link

• Skillsoft unveils next‑gen Percipio learning platform - link

• Proctorio announces Secure Interviews (anti‑fraud for interviews) - link

• RChilli Inc. introduces AI agent capabilities for autonomous recruitment data ops - link

• Nayya unveils year‑round, AI‑driven benefits actions and guidance - link

• Chime Workplace integrates financial wellness with Workday - link

• Guardian Life expands Guardian Access APIs for real‑time benefits data exchange - link

• EMPTrust Employee Onboarding Modules debuts EVA Section 2 Employment Verification Agent for I‑9 - link

• TraineryHCM launches AI in ReviewCloud + new JobArchitect module - link

• iCIMS releases the 2025 State of Frontline Hiring report - link

• ADP announces Lyric HCM named a Top HR Product of 2025 - link

• Workday announces Workday Wellness named a Top HR Product of the Year - link

• Paradox, A Workday Company announces Immersive Job Preview named a Top HR Product of the Year - link

• Eightfold AI announces recognition as one of HR Executive’s 2025 Products of the Year - link

• RedThread Research announces Ingentis has joined its Tech Consortium and previews member showcases at HR Tech - link

• The Josh Bersin Company announces 30 AI HR Tech Trailblazer vendors to be unveiled in the HR Tech 2025 keynote - link

• HR Executive & HR Tech announce the 2025 Top HR Products of the Year - link

A note on this newsletter going forward

I am still working on getting up to speed in my new role, so things might be touch-and-go for a bit as I get into a new rhythm. Stay tuned for updates on the evolution, and maybe eventually some new brand and name. If you’re subscribed, you won’t miss it. If you’re not? Well, I pray to the LinkedIn algorithm that you’ll find me sooner than two weeks later.

That’s it for this week!

AI runs on 1s and 0s. Binary is clean. It’s precise. Yet, how that binary is interpreted through layers of code that run the latest AI and automation technology is definitely not precise.

So when I hear HR or marketing leaders ask, “Should we use AI for this?”, I know we’re stuck in the wrong kind of binary thinking. That’s not anyone’s fault, though.

The way most teams have been taught to think about AI is incredibly reductive: automate or don’t. Human or machine. Yes or no. That might’ve been fine when automation meant a glorified macro. But now we’re building systems that talk back, generate ideas, even “reason.” The stakes are higher and the question needs to grow up.

We need to start asking different questions. Stop asking whether AI belongs. Start asking what kind of partnership you’re designing between AI and your people.

Let me explain.

The Question That Gets You Nowhere

Almost every AI conversation I have starts with some version of:

“We’re thinking of using AI to do [X]. Have you used this before? Should we?”

That’s like asking, “Should we use electricity?” It’s too broad, too vague, and completely divorced from the actual work. Some tasks are ripe for full automation. Others? You’d be out of your mind to take the human out of the loop.

There’s a Better Question and a Smarter Framework

Stanford researchers recently published a framework called the Human Agency Scale (HAS), and although it’s dense as academic research tends to be, it’s also surprisingly pragmatic.

HAS maps AI-human collaboration across five levels, from full AI control (H1) to fully human-led tasks (H5). It’s not flashy, but it’s honest. And honestly, that’s what most teams need right now. We should talk about how AI should show up in the work, not just whether it should.

Here’s the shorthand from the research:

• H1: AI runs the show. Humans aren’t needed.

• H2: AI leads, humans keep an eye on it.

• H3: It’s a true partnership where both contribute.

• H4: Human leads, AI supports in the background.

• H5: AI, stays out of it. Human-only zone.

The intent is simple: Start by intentionally using the right level of AI for the task, not just simply saying yes or no to it.

It’s so intuitive in its nature that you might not think it’s a revolutionary line of thinking. But again, I still get the binary question over and over. Clearly, we need to reinforce this line of thinking even if it feels obvious.

Design for Trust

Another finding from the research is that AI that erodes human agency tends to backfire. AI that respects and amplifies human skill? That’s what ends up working best for everyone. The HAS isn’t just for leaders making decisions, but also a framework for employees to think and talk about where they want help.

The best use cases aren’t typically the flashiest that you might hear about (or that science fiction writers have dreamed up). Instead, they’re the ones that remove the grind without stripping the soul out of the job. Inbox triage, not creative direction. Summarizing claims notes, not breaking bad news to a customer.

Next time you’re evaluating AI for a workflow, don’t ask whether or not it should be automated. Ask:

• What’s the ideal mix of human and machine here?

• Who needs to stay in control?

• Will this make the work more meaningful—or more miserable?

Want to dig into this more? I wrote way more words about it for Reworked in one of my monthly columns.

What else did I see this week?

• Your Prize for Saving Time at Work With AI: More Work via WSJ

• $21 for an InMail? You’ve got to be kidding me via Shannon Pritchett

• When It Comes to AI Talent, $100 Million Can’t Buy What Matters via Reworked

• AI is changing the world faster than most realize via Axios

That’s it for this week!

This is a different sort of newsletter. When friends write books, we read them. When they are as good as what Robin Schooling has put together in Real HR: What It Is, What It Can Be, and How to Get There, we talk about them on Work Leader Weekly.

It clocks in under 100 pages according to Kindle’s somewhat-accurate estimate and it took me less than 90 minutes to read through it.

Here’s what I liked: Schooling doesn’t sugar‑coat the profession. She opens with field stories that feel too familiar: leaders defer tough calls, HR receives the fallout, budgets evaporate when people work turns expensive. The book’s through‑line is simple: stop defending a system that keeps you powerless.

She positions HR as the place where risk collects and credit evaporates. Practitioners juggle compliance, coaching, and cleanup while authority sits elsewhere. Her diagnosis lands because she details the mechanics, not the drama. When finance trims the head‑count plan or operations bypasses policy to hit a deadline, HR starts behind the curve and pays interest on the decision for months.

“You’re more than an HR policy manual with legs.”

That sentence arrives early and sets the tone for the book. Schooling urges every HR professional to write a personal manifesto. The exercise isn’t therapy or self-aggrandizing. It forces clarity about personal purpose and limits. Without that line in the sand, HR absorbs every overdue task and owns failures it never controlled.

The middle chapters dissect culture theatre. Cupcake days, branded hoodies, emoji‑heavy Slack channels — none of it matters if managers reward toxic behavior or dodge feedback. Engagement lives in daily choices, and Schooling calls out leadership teams that praise values at town halls while ignoring the obvious mismatch on the floor.

“Best practices are a conduit to conformity.”

Schooling’s swipe at copy‑paste playbooks is well-timed, especially in an era of AI moving everyone to the mean. HR loves a template, yet she shows how imported frameworks become straightjackets. Context wins over fashion. When a process creates friction, strip it back. When a metric distracts from results, drop it. The book treats simplification as a strategic act, not a weekend tidy‑up.

Technology gets the sharpest critique. Vendors promise that AI will predict turnover, write job ads, and coach managers in real time. Automation can clear repetitive tasks, but it cannot rebuild trust or teach courage. Schooling reminds readers that data reveals trends, but people still choose whether to act. If leaders ignore red flags today, a prettier dashboard tomorrow changes nothing.

“You don’t fix broken trust with branded hoodies.”

That line doubles as a verdict on the entire quick‑fix mindset. Cosmetic perks, chatbots, and endless pulse surveys distract from the hard work of clear expectations, consistent feedback, and fair decisions. Fix the system before you ask employees to rate it.

Schooling keeps circling back to the only point that matters:

“HR’s purpose is to connect the capabilities of individuals to organizational success.”

With that anchor, every tool, policy, and conversation turns practical. If a process speeds alignment, keep it. If a rule blocks performance, rewrite it. If a technology buries judgment beneath scores and categories, walk away.

By the final chapter, Schooling offers no redemption arc, only responsibility. HR will gain influence the same way every function gains influence: by demonstrating value that leaders can’t ignore. That means framing problems in business terms, forecasting consequences, and refusing to carry risk that belongs elsewhere.

The takeaway for practitioners is brutal but freeing. Stop waiting for validation. Claim authority by drawing boundaries, applying evidence, and speaking in the language of outcomes. When AI hype rolls in, test it, but measure it against purpose. When leadership asks for a quick morale boost, show them the cost of ignoring root causes. When someone forwards a “best practice,” ask whether it solves the problem in front of you.

Real HR is a short book, but the ideas stretch beyond the pages. They demand daily vigilance: how much of your schedule is reaction, how much is influence? Which metrics inform decisions, which merely decorate slide decks? Whose priorities shape your workload tomorrow?

Schooling never promises ease because that magical world doesn’t exist. If you believe work can be profitable, fair, and sustainable, the text gives you language to press the point. It strips away comforts, clichés, and hero narratives until one challenge remains: do the work or keep polishing the mask.

That challenge is the book’s worth. HR doesn’t need another inspirational slogan. In an age where AI is coming for HR, clarity and challenge are what we need more than ever. Grab the book from Amazon today.

We’re in an era of deep economic instability. Tariffs are back (and gone, and back, and gone, and…). Trade tensions are escalating. The dollar’s dropping. The stock market swings between panic and euphoria on an hourly basis. And somehow, in the middle of all this chaos, employees are expected to keep calm, carry on, and “do more with less.”

The truth? People aren’t stupid, they’re disillusioned.

I recently wrote a piece for Reworked about Big Tech layoffs and how performance isn’t the real reason so many people are being let go.

Despite the narrative of cutting the fat from their payrolls, these decisions aren’t really about underperformance. Many of the people impacted were top contributors. The real drivers? A mix of economic posturing, shareholder appeasement, and internal politics.

It happens, but as I concluded in my column, truth matters:

“Companies need to acknowledge when their own decisions, rather than employee shortcomings, are driving layoffs. The longer they continue to rely on performance-based messaging to explain away poor planning, the more difficult it will be to regain trust and establish honest accountability.”

The disconnect between effort and reward is what’s breaking people’s trust. And if doing great work in an age where everything feels uncertain doesn’t shield you, what does?

When people can’t trust the economy, and they can’t trust leadership to protect performance, they start looking for something that feels steady and safe. And they won’t find it in companies that behave like fairweather allies.

It’s painfully clear that some companies are happy to trade long-term reputation for short-term stock bumps. They lay off workers in record numbers while raking in profits. They spin narratives instead of owning hard truths. They lose credibility and think they can buy it back later (like they do with their stocks).

But trust doesn’t work that way. You can patch it up once it’s broken, but it won’t be the same.

So if you’re in a leadership role right now, ask yourself: Are we building a place where people can trust the system they’re in? Or are we just hoping the perks will distract them from the instability?

You can be honest and still lead with strength. You can tell people the truth and still retain their respect. You can make tough calls and still protect your long-term credibility.

The world outside is unpredictable. That’s why the systems inside your organization must be grounded in clarity, fairness, and truth. I continue to be unmoved by the accusation that EX is soft. It’s not fluff. It’s the backbone of trust.

And trust is what keeps people showing up when everything else feels like it’s falling apart.

Don’t be the kind of company that cracks under pressure. Be the one people remember for doing the right thing, especially when it would’ve been easier not to.

QUICK HITS FROM AROUND THE WEB

• Alleged Mole Admits To Spying in Rare Drama for HR Tech via Morning Brew

• Spotify’s Head of HR Outlines Transformative Strategy for Talent Acquisition, Retention via the HRD

• Why HR Posters Matter via Punk Rock HR

• Taking AI Talent Out of FAANG (and Microsoft) via ERE

• Ford: If HR Tech ‘Isn’t Solving a Problem, It’s an Irritation’ via Unleash

• Thousands of North Korean IT Workers Have Infiltrated the Fortune 500—and They Keep Getting Hired for More Jobs via Fortune

• The People-First Workplace Approach Is Slipping Away, Researchers Say via HR Dive

• Quiet Cracking: A Hidden Workplace Crisis via TalentLMS

• AI Is Changing Work—The Time Is Now for Strategic Upskilling via the World Economic Forum

• Layoffs Reached a Near Record High in March, Most From DOGE’s Hatchet Job on the Federal Workforce via HR Brew

• Top Five Labor Law Developments for March 2025 via The National Law Review

Predictive Analytics Goes Off The Rails

I know my crystal ball is still a little hazy after the last few years but in the UK, maybe that isn’t as big of a problem. They have now developed an algorithm that can predict who will be murderers:

Researchers are alleged to be using algorithms to analyse the information of thousands of people, including victims of crime, as they try to identify those at greatest risk of committing serious violent offences.

This all feels very familiar.

That’s it for this week!

As my plane landed in Phoenix for isolved’s inaugural analyst event on Monday, my phone buzzed with messages and texts. Why? Deel and Rippling are locked in a battle straight out of an episode of Silicon Valley, complete with allegations of corporate espionage and Slack messages as star witnesses.

You might think watching two unicorns slug it out would be pretty entertaining. You’d be right. I almost got popcorn on my way to the hotel. Is all of this drama relevant to work leaders? Maybe not directly, but I’ll admit: I’m keeping an eye on it (And seriously, if the allegations are true — maybe don’t do that? Just an idea.)

But not every tech company story has to be ripped straight from the tabloids. My 1.5 days in Arizona with my friends at isolved were notably drama-free.

Honestly, a little more action wouldn’t have hurt, especially since customers weren’t around to dish out those great, informal insights between sessions. Usually, those casual conversations provide context that’s just as valuable as the formal presentations.

I did get a beer from a burro, though. Also, I got to see Taliesin West as an adult who could fully appreciate Frank Lloyd Wright’s masterful work. Not bad? Not bad!

As usual, I had some clear takeaways from the huge amount of things we covered.

1. Small is Big (No, Really)

A 500-employee company might sound modest unless you’ve actually tried running one. Without the right tech or approach, managing 500 people can feel more like wrangling 5,000. Trust me, I’ve been there.

Go to the typical vendor event and you might be shocked to hear this stat: fewer than 25,000 of the nearly 19 million businesses in the U.S. have over 1,000 employees. The vast majority of companies are far smaller, yet so many vendors often dismiss these businesses as low-margin, high-hassle clients. And to be fair, if you haven’t built your business around that, that can be exactly what it is.

isolved, however, sees genuine opportunity here, leveraging a hybrid sales approach of direct customer relationships and reseller and partner networks. Their flexible tech approach and shared sales and service model with payroll bureaus, ASOs, and PEOs can combine high-touch service with tech-forward solutions, all depending on what best serves their client’s business.

Could some of their product naming be clearer? Absolutely. I didn’t exactly get why they branded some of their products (like Perfect Payroll™) while others were left with just descriptive names. Their demos weren’t exactly mind-blowing, but they were practical, robust, and showed genuine awareness of SMB needs. AI agents were in the product roadmap as you might expect, but if anything, it was focused on the pragmatic.

Bottom line: Small businesses deserve solid software and support. I hope isolved keeps them at the heart of what they do as they continue their growth.

2. Quiet Confidence (Maybe Too Quiet?)

Payroll-first companies like Paychex, Paylocity, and Paycom quietly rake in billions annually. Paycor is nearly there too, soon to join forces with Paychex. isolved doesn’t publicly disclose revenue, but anyone who knows how to do some quick, back-of-the-envelope math based on employee headcount could tell you they’re comfortably holding their own.

Despite the company’s bold, neon-pink branding, the event itself felt intentionally low-key. No flashy walk-up music, minimal hype around upcoming announcements, and a product roadmap that felt reasonable and aligned with what I hear from companies outside the enterprise.

isolved’s strategic bets, particularly in hospitality, professional services, and staffing, are also backed by solid research rather than buzzwords and gut feelings. It’s generally a smart, methodical approach and refreshingly driven by ethnographic research (my colleague Aaron Delgaty would’ve loved to dive deep into the conversations they were able to have with users and buyers).

Bottom line: This is another reason why I like having customers there: Energy. Some of these features are going to be super helpful and customers should love the direction here. A little humblebrag now and then doesn’t hurt.

3. What’s Next for isolved?

Could isolved eventually mirror the Ultimate-to-UKG evolution? Possibly. They’re recruiting talent from large-scale HR tech companies and cautiously exploring the enterprise market.

But they haven’t lost sight of their roots. They continue to solidify their position in foundational markets that they’ve done so well in and steadily grow their direct customer business.

However, don’t hold your breath for immediate global expansion. isolved remains unapologetically focused on the U.S. market, leveraging partnerships (like Remote.com) to meet international customer needs. They acknowledge their North American focus, comfortable playing to their clear strengths.

Regarding future plans or potential exit paths (like the aforementioned Paycor acquisition by Paychex), isolved was open but not overly forthcoming. Their private equity backers, Accel-KKR, appear perfectly content to support their unwavering growth. Cheap money still isn’t cheap and an IPO isn’t a sure thing, even for companies with a solid track record and healthy profit margins.

Bottom line: While isolved’s event lacked the TMZ-esque drama of Deel and Rippling and other tech-forward events, maybe that’s precisely the charm of the whole thing: straightforward, reliable, and practical. Keep it real and keep growing, without the weird spy vs. spy shenanigans.

It was great to reconnect with peers in the analyst community like Steve Boese, Karen Steed, Stacey Harris, Tami Nutt, Joey Price, Nicholas W.J. Biron, Jessica A Cheung, Matthew Brown, George Rogers, Steve Goldberg, Ivan Oz, Jan Erik Aase, and probably a few more I’m missing. A few have already posted some recaps of the event and I’m sure there will be some fantastic takeaways.

Finally, it was great to get hosted at the event by the folks at isolved and it was a nice excuse to get out of the dreary PNW. Big thanks to Amberly Dressler and her team for all her hard work in making it a success as well as the folks at isolved who took the stage like Celia Fleischaker, Pragya (Malhotra) Gupta, Kelli Rico, Amy Mosher, Opal Wagnac, Megha Shah, Alice McDonald, Megan Coen, Meredith Reilly, and Todd La Fever.

Now, it’s time to be back in my cozy confines.

QUICK HITS FROM AROUND THE WEB

• AI Is Coming for the Laptop Class via Vox

• How AI-Enabled ‘Bossware’ Is Being Used to Track and Evaluate Your Work via ComputerWorld

• Job Redesign Around AI: Work Intelligence Tools Arrive via Josh Bersin

• Employers Are on an Unsustainable ‘Hiring Spree’ for AI Talent, Report Says via HR Dive

• Breaking the Stigma: Menopause Benefits Gain Momentum in the Workplace via ERE

• Federal Agencies Plan for Mass Layoffs as Trump’s Workforce Cuts Continue via NPR

• The “No Robo Bosses” Act (SB 7): How California’s New Bill Targeted at AI Could Impact the Workplace via California Labor & Employment Law Blog

• How Rippling’s Legal Action Against Deel May Affect the HR Tech Market via HR Executive

• Assessing the ‘Mood Music’ - Are Employee Surveys the Right Tool? via HR Grapevine

Flimsy NDAs and a Little Streisand

Meta’s effort to silence a whistleblower is possibly turning into a labor law fiasco. KQED reports that Meta’s attempt to enforce an NDA against a former employee’s tell-all book has now raised significant questions about labor law, inadvertently boosting the very story it sought to bury.

Two key points immediately jump out:

1. Labor law isn’t typically center stage in tech disputes, but Meta may have handed critics and federal labor officials a compelling case. Labor protections cover more than union organizing. They shield employees’ rights to speak openly about workplace issues, even controversial ones. Meta’s aggressive tactics could soon put them under unwanted scrutiny but part of the question will be how Trump labor officials read and enforce the law.

2. This saga is a classic example of the Streisand Effect. Many people would never have paid attention to the whistleblower’s book had Meta not taken such aggressive steps to suppress it. By overusing NDAs, Meta amplified attention and curiosity — exactly the opposite of its goal.

Meta’s situation underscores a valuable lesson: the harder companies fight to suppress information, the louder and more damaging the conversation becomes.

That’s it for this week!

We teach the next generation how to work, whether we mean to or not.

Cat’s in the cradle and the silver spoon… If you know the Harry Chapin song, you know how this goes: Kids watch their parents, learn from them, and often repeat the same patterns. Sometimes for better, other times for worse.

Work is no different.

For decades, younger employees have looked at their overworked, overwhelmed bosses and thought, “That doesn’t seem like a great deal.” And now Gen Z is saying it out loud.

As Fortune covered last week:

More than half (52%) of Gen Z employees report to recruitment company Robert Walters that they’d rather not be middle managers—according to a survey of 2,000 white-collar workers, 800 of which were Gen Zers. Taking note of burned out and unprepared managers, as well as the current state of white-collar work, Gen Zers are setting their sights on bigger dreams than becoming bosses.

Sound familiar? It should.

My generation of Millennials had the same hesitations about middle management, and for good reason. We watched Gen X and Boomers work late, take calls on vacation, and wear burnout like a badge of honor (then be first out the org when bad times came). Then we entered the workforce and were expected to do the same.

When we pushed back, we were called lazy. Now Gen Z is pushing back, and the cycle continues.

But here’s the thing: Every generation should want the next to be smarter about work than they were. If Gen Z rejects stress without support, if they question whether middle management is worth it, that’s not entitlement — it’s progress.

So instead of dismissing them, maybe we should listen. Maybe we should ask: What needs to change so that leadership isn’t just more stress for a slightly bigger paycheck?

The goal shouldn’t be to convince Gen Z to accept burnout. It should be to build something better — so that when it’s their turn to lead, they actually want to.

Meets Expectations? Not This Rating System

Five-point rating systems have some advantages, but they can also be problematic and discriminatory, at least in some cases.

A new study in Nature shows how even seemingly neutral rating systems — like customer reviews or performance scores — can reinforce bias. When people rate others, their judgments are shaped by existing stereotypes, whether they realize it or not. Over time, those small biases compound in ratings, creating systemic disadvantages like pay discrepancies and lost opportunities.

A better way, especially for shorter interactions like a customer survey, is to use a simple thumbs-up or thumbs-down rating. For longer interactions like in employment, there are some potential trade offs like a lack of granularity that comes over a period of time.

It’s easy to focus on obvious discrimination — blatant bias and bad actors are clear-cut cases. But the real challenge is recognizing how built-in systems, like the way we evaluate performance, quietly tilt the playing field.

It’s difficult to coach and train bias out of people. If fairness matters, we can’t just look at individual decisions. We have to rethink the structures that shape them. Good food for thought for all the performance management junkies.

QUICK HITS FROM AROUND THE WEB

• This Former HR Tech Exec Thinks Companies Are Losing Sight of Hiring Top Talent. She Wants to Help. via HR Brew

• Majority of Employee Referrals Made During Work Hours via SHRM

• How A Smart Watch May Lead To Unintended Concerns For Employers via California Labor & Employment Law Blog

• U.S. Workers Are More Worried Than Hopeful About Future AI Use in the Workplace via Pew Research Center

• ChatGPT vs Deepseek – Which Is a Better Sourcing Tool? via ERE

• Democracy Dies, First, in the Workplace via In These Times

• How Generative AI Is Pushing the Boundaries of User Interfaces via Reworked

• Apple to Push for Free Speech Tests in Labor Case at Fifth Cir. via Bloomberg Law

• Is the Workplace Less Friendly? Employees Say They Care Less About Having ‘Work Besties.’ via HR Dive

• How Musk’s Efforts To Reduce the Federal Workforce Compare to Efforts in the 1990s via NPR

Cybersecurity Still Matters

Getting hacked is bad. Getting hacked and losing your job? That’s brutal.

A Disney employee just learned this the hard way after a hacker stole their passwords and work data, uncovered potential violations, and ultimately led to them being fired. The former employee is suing Disney, claiming he never accessed racy material on his work device.

Companies love to tell employees to “be careful” with security, but let’s be honest — individual vigilance only goes so far. If one mistake can cost someone their livelihood and a whole lot of sensitive data, maybe the real issue isn’t just user error, but how we design security in the first place.

Also, if your password is still password123 and you’re still downloading random stuff on the internet, consider this your sign to change your ways.

That’s it for this week!

Dear Elida,

Today is the first day of a new decade. A decade where you will go from bicycling age to driving age. You will grow and learn so much, and I can’t wait to be a part of it. By 2030, you won't be done growing, either. You’ll just be beginning, if my experience is anything like yours. Like Elsa in Frozen 2, we are taking our own journey into the unknown.

One of my favorite things to do with you is to go on adventures. We have done all kinds of fun trips, from climbing Beacon Rock to hiking at Latourell Falls. Remember seeing all the dogs on the trail? I think you took a picture of every single one.

We went to the Ape Caves in October of last year. Maybe you’ll remember but it was dark and kind of spooky. We had lights but we couldn’t see everything. After getting used to the dark and the limits of our lanterns and flashlights, we were able to get along just fine. We spent an hour and a half underground and explored 1.5 miles of cave. 

You told me you were a little scared but that you wanted to keep going. That’s definitely your approach to life at five and three-quarters years of age. 

There are a lot of similarities between our experience spelunking and looking ahead a full decade. It’s easy to be overwhelmed or to be unsure. Like I told you that day, it’s okay to be scared. 

What we can see ahead of us is very limited. I know we’ll have some laughs and some tears. I know we’ll have some hard times. I know some days will feel easy. But, I can’t predict what will come around the next bend. Sometimes, that would be a pretty nice skill to have. 

What I can tell you is that if you give the next ten years what you gave the last five, you’ll be better than good. You’ve grown into an amazing little girl. You give me courage to step into the unknown like you do: Forging ahead, full of energy, even if I don’t always audibly share my self-doubts and fears like you so transparently do. 

2020 is going to be a great year and you’re a big reason why. Let’s take on this year like we did the last. 

Love,

Dad

As we twisted our way around Mt. Tamalpais on the way to the beach in our Subaru, something felt different. A sense of melancholy washed over me as I looked in the back seat. My daughter, now five, looked out her window at the redwoods getting denser and then thinning as we wound our way to the coast.

After a year of firsts — of exploring as many places as we could within a few hours of the Bay — we were reexploring some possible lasts. Maybe not last lasts, but almost certainly lasts as residents of the Bay Area. When a lazy Sunday morning lingered into an afternoon, as it often did, we found ourselves surrounded by the beauty of the Northern California coast. Those days don’t happen on vacation, they happen at home.

But California never truly felt the part of home.

I’ve read a lot of stories about people who have left the Bay Area. They talk about legitimate gripes about the area that I could identify. High cost of living? Homelessness? Transit? Toxic tech culture? Inequality? I get it.

In the end, all of the challenges that California faces are ones that other areas of the country face (or will eventually face, to some degree).

I had (and still have) a great job, one that supported us. It didn’t allow for a lot of saving or doing but we also weren’t ever wanting.

I also never felt ostracized. Which, as a straight, white, married male in his mid-late 30s who worked in a tech-adjacent industry, I stayed mostly in people’s comfort zone here. If you’re new to an area, it can be helpful to blend in but it can also feel a bit invisible.

I also really loved the area we lived in. The area of Marin we were in was a perfect combination of walkable community, suburban comfort, and city accessibility.

The sun dances across my daughter’s face as we continue to drive toward the Sonoma coast. I wondered what Elida would remember about California. I hope she remembers the small co-op preschool that her mom was able to be a part of. I hope she remembers a few of our adventures. I hope she remembers just the amazing beauty that was all incredibly accessible.

For me, moving far away from family and friends put my priorities in sharp relief. I love being able to wander and explore — it’s what ultimately drove me to move, and if we’re being honest, what made me happy to go along with other moves. What I missed was coming back to a place I could truly call home.

California, while glorious and nearly perfect if you have the means to make it work, didn’t have the key things that my wife and I both identified as important parts of our own childhood.

It’s not just the backdrop to the scene that mattered but the people who were in it.

We’re lucky to have people in California we call friends now, but our core is in the Pacific Northwest. That’s home. Not for now, but maybe as forever as we can anticipate.

“When can we come back?”

When you have a five year old, that’s always the question for any place that’s fun. This time, I didn’t know when we’d visit our favorite beach again. So, I told her we’d have to see.

She sat quietly as we listened to music. Our feet were caked with sand and the car smelled like sunscreen and sea air. After a few minutes, she broke her silence.

“I like that beach,” she said.

“So do I, baby,” I replied back.

“Do they have beaches where we are going to live?” she asked.

“They’re not as close but they definitely do,” I told her.

“I bet I’ll like it, too,” she replied.

I looked in the rear view mirror and smiled at her. She smiled back.

I think she’ll remember the right parts about California. I think I will, too.

I was reading an interesting article that popped up while researching another piece of content. It was about how our ideas about masculinity can harm the workplace. Here’s a quick excerpt:

“It’s not about succeeding at whatever the work mission is, it’s about me winning and me proving I’m the winner by showing these dominant traits,” says Peter Glick, professor of psychology at Lawrence University. “It becomes so much a part of proving you’re the ‘man.’ That becomes the central thing.”

Workplaces that promote “show no weakness” attitudes are usually the ones most susceptible to a culture of competition among its employees, Glick says.

It’s an interesting read but to me, it goes beyond just unhealthy competition and ways of proving that you are worthy of being called a man.

Help: How We Get to the Best Work

In many environments, asking for help can feel foreign. We might associate that with white collar, knowledge-based work where someone may know all the answers or feels like he needs to take on the weight of the work. That’s problematic, too.

In blue collar work though, asking for help or pausing work when something isn’t right has to be repeatedly trained and rewarded in order for the habit to stick. For instance, a man may feel like he needs to push through fatigue but in a manufacturing environment, it can lead to mistakes or even serious injury.

Now, I’m at very little risk of being harmed if I nod off at work but outside of safety concerns, throwing up a hand that you need help is the best thing you can do to product the best work possible. For many, including me, it isn’t always an easy thing to tell people that you can’t do something or that you need help.

That’s less about competition and more about vulnerability. Organizations need to make serious, intentional space for vulnerability.

When “I Don’t Know” Unlocks the Truth

Knowledge work is driven by more than just knowledge. It’s also driven by ego, assertiveness, confidence, and a little—or a lot—of hot air. In the right situation, like in a meeting that requires you to think on your toes, it’s the difference between building and eroding trust.

That can be helpful in a presentation or a sales meeting, but in a collaboration with peers? Or an open consult with a client?

It can be toxic. It can encourage a lack of genuine vulnerability.

It’s really simple in practice. If I’m willing to admit that I don’t know everything (true, unfortunately), it builds credibility. People are more likely to believe me and listen when I do know something to, instead of just assuming that it’s me blowing smoke… yet again.

At times, even if I am unable to utter the words I don’t know, a simple pause of silence and waiting—sometimes very uncomfortably—can help someone else speak up.

Strengthening Our Weaknesses

Finally, vulnerability is good for admitting when we’re not good at something and getting better at it with the help of your team. If you’re the type that gets nervous for a presentation, it is easy to internalize the nerves and stress and just try to power through it.

For example, I had a client presentation that I was nervous about because I wanted to push them outside of their comfort zone. I talked to one of my colleagues about it and essentially said, “I’m nervous about this part of the presentation. We talked about this and you had some good points, so can you chime in there to just support what we’re recommending in your own words?”

Not only was this helpful for me, but it helped the person I was presenting with prepare for that section and know why I’m asking for support. I could’ve pushed through and maybe I would’ve been successful, but I played for a more assured outcome.

If you work in an environment where you can’t do this, you are assured that there will be some major screw ups at some point. Even allowing space is no guarantee that you won’t mess up on occasion.

I’m sure there are some organizations that could also swing the pendulum so far toward vulnerability that there is no room for any sort of gritting it out or overcoming obstacles. In my experience though, the vast majority of organizations are already oriented toward sucking it up and getting shit done. Easing off that stance is probably not going to kill your organization — and you might find that better work and a better workplace is the result.

The New iPad Pros Can Help You Get More Done if You (And Whatever Software You Have) Let it

I’ve read a few reviews about the new iPad Pros that came out a couple of weeks ago. They seem to unanimously come to one conclusion: Great hardware, limiting software.

One of the lines I saw quoted on Twitter many times was one from Nilay Patel’s comprehensive review on The Verge:

I don’t think people should adapt to their computers. Computers should adapt to people.

The inflexibility of the iPad’s software to do what a person wants, most often in the way a person wants, seems to be a consistent refrain.

The problem is, we have spent decades adapting to our computers — either unwittingly or by choice. If you’re like me, a kid born in the late 70s or early 80s and later, you’ve spent the better part of your educational and professional career trying to get your computer to adapt to you. An objective look at this says we haven’t had a great track record. It takes practice or a willingness to try and fail to do the most basic things.

Take a simple copy and paste operation on a computer. It’s only natural to people because we’ve done it literally thousands of times. If you’ve spent time with someone learning how to work a computer for the first time, you know it’s anything but second nature. They’ll often use menus, hunting for the right command, rather than simple shortcuts and right-clicks of the mouse that we all eventually learn. Even things like mouse usage aren’t natural in the human sense, but simply natural in decades of computing.

My point isn’t to simply dive all in on Patel’s argument here. But I think the iPad’s limitations are actually a benefit to not just our relationship with technology, but with the way we do our work productively with the help of technology.

A multitasking myth

Humans don’t multitask. We’re very adept at switching between multiple tasks but there is a switching cost involved in all of those different changes. The cost of this multitasking is actually reduced capacity and productivity. People who claim to be good at multitasking are often as bad, or worse, than their more-aware counterparts.

I don’t pretend to be above this myth myself. I’ll answer emails at the playground with my daughter. I’ll be on Slack or chat during long conference calls where I’m primarily a listener taking notes. I have to fight against this learned instinct at every turn.

But, if I’m being honest with myself, I’m not doing any of these things well when I try to do multiple things at once. My primary attention is focused on one task but is being split in many different directions.

When I use MacOS, Windows, or ChromeOS, the only limit on multitasking is my monitor size, the capabilities of my machine to run multiple programs, and my ability to see everything. There is no gate on my ability to switch between email, chat, Slack, GoToMeeting, text messages, personal emails, sports sites, reddit, and more — all in the same screen.

These computers that boast productivity and power have the unique ability to hamper your ability to get stuff done, at least in an efficient manner.

The iPad: A singletasker’s dream

The alternative to multitasking is singletasking: Focusing on one thing, rather than impossibly dividing that attention between multiple things. Devora Zack’s Singletasking: Get More Done-One Thing at a Time gives you a framework for doing this by arranging your schedule and environment to make you more productive and sane.

There are all kinds of guides beyond Zack’s book that can help you create a system that works for you so I don’t want to create a primer on singletasking.

What I will tell you is that an iPad is uniquely capable of helping you focus this way, by design. Even on the largest iPad, you can only have three apps open and on your screen at once, two in split screen and one in pull over mode. In order to multitask on your iPad, you have to do so intentionally. You don’t accidentally get into multitasking mode.

Now, there’s one tweak that makes singletasking really shine on the iPad but I don’t think many will like it: Turn off your notifications. All of them if you can, but you can also use the do not disturb setting built into iOS to help you focus even more at the task at hand. My phone and watch do a better job of notifying me of truly important messages so I generally manage it through there. Outside of calendar notifications that keep me from missing meetings, I try to keep my notifications off or to a bare minimum.

There are apps that let you do similar things on Mac and PC to create a space for singletasking. But on a traditional laptop computer, you have to be intentional about going into singletask mode and the allure of multitasking is the default.

I’ve tried hard to be the boss of my schedule and technology. The iPad Pro is part of my strategy for reducing how many devices I have to switch between. Outside of productivity reasons, there’s another reason why traveling with my work-provided MacBook Pro has become even less and less important.

Better than a laptop in many ways

I’ve been on the iPad train for a long time, but until I got a cellular version of the iPad and a keyboard, I’d say my tablet use had been relegated to a couch or vacation device.

There are more than a few use cases where the iPad almost always gets pulled out, even if I already have my laptop.

• Traveling: From tiny tray tables, to inconsistent hotspots, and the sheer versatility of being able to use with touch or keyboard, the iPad is fantastic. From quickly checking emails and travel schedules to downloading and watching movies from Netflix and Amazon Prime. Oh, forgot to download a magazine or a book on the Kindle app? No problem, even if you’re outside of the range of crappy airport WiFi.

• Commuting: I just started commuting again after almost a decade of working from home. I already loved taking my iPad Pro to the coffee shop, but being able to work from a bus seat or the middle of San Francisco Bay on a ferry is great. I spend my commutes in looking at my calendar, my work tasks, and creating a plan for getting it all done. On the way home, I close up my day, archive emails, and maybe watch a TV show.

• Meetings: I end up going to many meetings and an iPad not only keeps me connected but I am able to be more focused on the meeting and note taking. When we’ve dialed in other people, it makes a great speakerphone with its many microphones.

• Around the house: My wife and I own a 15” MacBook Pro and an ancient Mac Mini that we share. The Mac Mini is basically a host for all of our backups, movies, and music and we share the MacBook Pro for when we need a computer. My wife also has an iPad Mini and my daughter a regular iPad. We both ended up selling our regular MacBook and MacBook Air because we would go weeks between using them. The iPad has basically stepped in for all of my personal computing outside of a few niche tasks (like our owned digital music and movie collection).

• A second traveling screen: In the cases where I do need to bring my work MacBook Pro, the iPad gives me more screen real estate with the help of Duet (iOS, MacOS/Windows, $9.99). The problem with this I have less and less reason to bring a MacBook Pro with me. I generally leave it docked in the office except for the once a week I bring it home to back it up to Time Machine.

Not for every use case

Now, I will admit, I have an ideal case to use an iPad. My work uses Google’s G-Suite for productivity. Their apps are all more than fine for my use and we’ve built letterhead and slides templates to let me quickly and easily create new docs. The only other app I use a ton is Bear (iOS, MacOS, $15/year) for note taking and research compilation. I’ve used on occasion the Microsoft Office Suite (free with subscription), which seems to be pretty outside of certain functionality, particularly in Excel — an app I hope I never have to be a heavy user of.

In my work as a practice director for a marketing agency, document and slide creation are my typical deliverables for work and I’ve typed hundreds of thousands of words on my iPad. I’d love to have support for the mouse so I can plug the iPad into a giant screen and manipulate it, but not at the expense of the intuitive touch experience. If it’s a choice between one or the other, I’ll take the iPad as it is today.

My glowing review aside, there are some issues primarily driven by apps. For example, until recently, our project management system Workfront wasn’t available on iPad. Even now, tracking time against client work isn’t always so straightforward and seeing my Flash-based capacity allocation report simply isn’t possible (this will soon be fixed, I’m told).

Most of the problems I’ve encountered look like this one: A particular piece of web-based software is difficult to run or incapable of running on iPad. Or, an app that only runs on Windows or Mac and has no web-based alternative.

The reasons why people are still using these pieces of software or sites are usually for both good and bad reasons: They run some critical piece of their business and it may get updated, some day. In enterprise software, mobile capability is often dumbed down rather than gracefully made easier to use.

Even consumer apps, like Google’s Gmail app (iOS, free), don’t always play nicely with features on the iPad, such as split view

As a consumer, we can make decisions to use software that works nicely with our devices but most of us aren’t lucky enough to do so with work applications.

If you’re in that unfortunate case, and that software is the center of your world, you’ll certainly get less value out of an iPad. But, I think for many casual home computer users with minimal niche software needs, an iPad (or even Chromebook) is a better choice than a full featured operating system.

Changing yourself is tough

A full operating system might feel more familiar but let’s not pretend that we have been trained by our computers to do things in a certain way.

For those who never felt at home on a computer or might never have to be at home on a computer, an iPad can feel like a more natural experience. I can jump right into my iPad and read a book where I left off or watch a show. Similarly, I can pick up this post where I left off in three taps.

Retraining my brain to prefer the get in, get out approach to iPad to the world of multiple apps on the laptop that I could open all at once, always at the ready for me was the toughest part about the transition. There are some things that are slower, like copying and pasting from other apps, or moving documents from one place to another. I’ve learned some shortcuts that make it easier, but ultimately, you have to decide if the savings a few seconds when you’re going back and forth copying and pasting between docs is worth the time lost in a multitasking black hole.

That said, it feels good working on my laptop — even if it might not get my work done faster or better on it. But singletasking feels good for how much I can complete and how good it feels to focus, especially on ideas. The versatility to turn from that into a device that is as easy to enjoy live sports, movies, games, and music on as well makes the iPad my favorite computing device since my first smartphone.

Can you get real work done?

This question has popped up again and again in thinking about the iPad’s place in a person’s tech stack. While it’s an individual determination, I can say with full confidence that yes, real work can get done on an iPad. I’ve researched, outlined, created, and delivered reports and presentations with my iPad as my primary device. I got paid real money to do this work, too.

Here’s the thing: I couldn’t imagine getting this work done as well without it. The fact is at the bare minimum, it stands in for significant portions of my work — especially researching and outlining — makes it a key piece of how I can get work done at a reasonable quantity and quality.

It’s enough that I’m happy to bypass other upgrades to my technology to keep my iPad up to date, and spend $20 a month to keep it connected to my unlimited cell plan.

Can the iPad Pro do the same for you?

It does depend, but in looking at the way many of my friends and colleagues do work, I would bet that many of them certainly could replace their use of laptops and may even find themselves getting more done by eliminating another source of multitasking. What’s seen as a shortcoming of functionality can actually boost productivity. Intentional or otherwise, the iPad’s limitations have made me better at focused work.

Disclosures: Other than this section, I used my 11 inch iPad Pro with Smart Keyboard Folio to write the entirety of this article. All of the things I’ve written over the past 18 months personally have been written on the iPad Pro 10.5 inch I had before. I wrote this post in the Medium iOS app but had to come to the Medium website (in desktop mode) to add tags and schedule the post. So, why did I have to come here on my Mac? Because Medium’s app and desktop site on Safari do not support the ability to resize the header and body image in this story. That’s it.

Note from Lance: I wrote over a thousand words on my thoughts on Saba Insight, Saba’s user conference, the weekend after the event. The Monday following the conference, they announced their purchase of Lumesse and I held this post back. I’ve had some time to reflect on both that acquisition and the conference itself, which is what you‘ll read here.

Regardless of what people say with all of the confidence of the world — including me — nobody knows what’s going to happen to talent management in the future. If I knew, I would be selling it to the highest bidder, not writing free shit on the internet about it.

Talent management is changing, though. The din of disruption was an unstated guest at Saba Insight this year. I say unstated instead of uninvited because if Saba has done one thing well, they’ve been transparent about how they think about the future and where the opportunities and challenges lie. That includes the very real challenge of acquiring Halogen Software approximately 18 months ago and integrating the Canadian technology company into the Saba family. Oh, and there’s something that wasn’t announced at the conference with a little company called Lumesse. More on that in a bit.

Like all user conferences, Insight was a great reality check into the nuts and bolts of how HR technology actually gets off the ground. The audience and presenters skewed pragmatic. These were organizations trying to solve real problems, whether that’s working on performance management retooling or rolling out new learning programs. Talent management was alive and well in Scottsdale.

Something I heard many attendees talk about were implementation and adoption hurdles—not necessarily related to Saba, though. How do we get people using the performance management software? How do we convince them that these learning resources will help them in their careers? How do we tie this all to engagement? What do executives care about—and what should they care about?

I was pleased to hear many organizations thinking smarter about building programs that worked from the bottom up, not the top down. There was a lot of focus on employee communications and marketing. Ultimately, the success of talent management is dependent on your people’s buy in.

Unfortunately, there’s still too much talk about issues that I believe hold talent management back from taking a real step into the future.

1. Thinking programs instead of holistic. Performance management doesn’t work in a vacuum. Learning management doesn’t exist without context about what people need to learn. We need more stories about companies that get the connection between performance, learning, recruiting, recognition, communication, etc… How are we breaking down long-standing silos and actually taking an integrated approach to talent management? Or is the now decades-long promise of an integrated approach so impossible to reach that the focus on creating or reimaginging narrow programs is our best bet to make something work?

2. Too much focus on executive buy in. It was a question at every session I hit, I think. Which, I get it on one level. We need to get our C-level folks on board and part of that is building relationships and knowing what they care about. On the other hand, most executives didn’t get their jobs by being idiots and ignoring obvious needs. Good solutions don’t sell themselves but it certainly doesn’t hurt. It makes me wonder if people are still pitching programs (let’s fix performance management process) rather than outcomes (let’s improve performance and retention). That might help organizations focus on looking at all potential impacts.

3. Not enough focus on employee attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs. I still don’t know why generations come up time and time again but it seems to be a poor stand in for actual psychographic data, skills, and competencies. What we lose in this conversation is that our enterprise systems—whether it’s communications, financials, or HCM—need to be more people focused for all employees. I would suggest that instead of focusing on executive buy in, work to trial software that your people actually love to use and have them work with you to get it implemented across the organization.

These challenges, and how organizations using Saba are approaching it, aren’t unique. Years and years of talking to leaders of HR in organizations makes me simultaneously hopeful that there is movement and concerned that we aren’t moving fast enough.

There are some things that are unique to Saba that I do want to highlight.

They are calling themselves a talent development company, which is an interesting move. I’m not 100 percent sure if this represents a change in strategy or approach, but based off my conversations, it seems like it is a reflection of where they’ve landed since the acquisition of Halogen—and maybe where they are going with the addition of Lumesse.

My initial impression is that I thought it pulled them back into their learning comfort zone. I still feel this way, but I think development is one of the most human things that actually happens and can be attributable to work. There’s a counter message that talent, the kind most organizations want at least, doesn’t want to be managed—at least with the suite of solutions most ascribed to this category.

Descriptions aside, in contrast to a generally pragmatic user conference agenda driven by customer stories and product managers, Saba’s vision is big.

This is not a change. The folks at Saba have always been happy to be out front. With all of the talk of AI and personalization at scale, Saba was ahead of this trend by a good three years with TIM (The Intelligent Mentor). Being able to leverage learning from TIM and iterate before competitors were even thinking about it has served Saba well. Their move to add Saba Labs formalizes a culture that already values innovating.

We also got a view into the roadmap that Saba is working on with their Cloud and TalentSpace (formerly Halogen) products. I’ll be honest, I had some concerns with actively selling and building two flagship technologies that have a ton of functional overlap. The addition of Lumesse won’t make things easier—and you can bet competitors are going to latch onto any stories coming from these camps.

I understand the reasons why Saba is staying the course on this today. Saba TalentSpace customers in particular are passionate about this platform. Saba Cloud customers are often there because Saba was the only solution that could meet their complex learning requirements. The same could be said about Lumesse in talent acquisition and learning on an international basis. TalentSpace traditionally focused on the mid-market down to the SMB. Cloud is largely an enterprise initiative, though I believe that is less true today than it was in the past.

Saba executives, on and off the record, will tell you there’s no plan to change this approach. They believe there is a growing market for both and that they have the resources to tackle that challenge—and still gain many of the efficiencies from the acquisition. In public, they were careful to show balance to both, with no favoritism to either platform. They also sold hard on the advantages of these solutions being built together.

Conventional wisdom says it’s really hard to do this. That same wisdom also says it’s something that private equity-backed firms rarely do. I’m willing to suspend disbelief because Saba is making progress and clearly has the trust of Vector Capital to swing big. They are making money and converting legacy customers into cloud customers, something other software companies who have been around as long as Saba aren’t always doing so great on.

This leads us to the epilogue of the user conference, Saba is acquiring Lumesse. I would’ve loved to gauge the reactions of attendees to that news—better luck next year.

Funny side story: At the analyst lunch, Saba President and CEO Phil Saunders was asked a direct question about whether more acquisitions were on the horizon—five days before the announcement. Let’s just say I’m not playing at his poker table next time we’re in Vegas.

Tangent aside, Lumesse has some pretty great technology that not many people in the North American market know about.

1. Lumesse’s talent acquisition platform is very good. It gives Saba an easy in to international markets and a talent acquisition solution that is in line functionally with the rest of the platform. Talent acquisition is one of the hardest areas to internationalize (besides learning content) and Lumesse has given them a head start on this front.

2. Lumesse’s learning experience is underrated. Aragon’s Jim Lundy covers this better than I could but in short, Saba bolsters their learning chops with this move—not to mention, again, that Lumesse is built for international markets. Learning content and technology are some of the hardest HCM solutions to get right from market to market.

Read some other great takes from Sarah Brennan, Ben Eubanks, Steve Brooks, and Michael Rochelle if you want to really take a deeper dive into this acquisition. Most of them see many of the same opportunities and challenges ahead.

Saba has had an amazing turn around in the last four years. Considering all of the disruption inside and out of Saba, that’s an accomplishment in its own right.

But history doesn’t dictate the future. Saba has to sell the market on a future vision and roadmap that goes beyond functional rollups, consolidation, customer acquisition, and increasing their international presence. Until that vision is clear, the market uses the vacuum to create its own assumptions.

On the other side of the Lumesse acquisition, we could be looking at a new talent management leader—or whatever you want to call the category. A company that can sneak into the largest enterprise talent management deals in the world—and win.

Other cloud HCM and talent management providers will have their own piece to say about that possibility. Certainly SAP SuccessFactors and Cornerstone OnDemand still lead the enterprise market in talent management, at least for the time being.

But this market isn’t set. Not by a long shot. While cloud giants battle each other and others worry about market pressure, private equity backing has one major advantage: The ability to focus.

I can’t wait to see what it eventually looks like.

Being a human resources leader can be a slog. I know this on an intimate level, but to be fair, I haven’t experienced it personally for nearly a decade. Instead, I’ve spent a lot of time talking with some of the best (and yes, worst) HR leaders in the world.

For all the scorn that HR gets from everyone, I end up speaking to a lot of leaders who give a shit about their people and their organizations. They relish their role, something I could never square up with my own ambitions. On the flip side, when you’ve seen a leader run an organization in the ground on the people front, you appreciate the good ones even more.

So, I had a little patience when a vendor confidentially told me that the people he talked to at the HR Technology Conference didn’t get what he was doing to change the future of work for good.

They Just Don’t Understand

This vendor rolled out trope I’ve heard thousands of times: That talent acquisition is too advanced for an HR conference, that even recruiting leaders outside of the most progressive have issues understanding their vision for the future, and that in a perfect world, recruiting would never have to exhibit at an HR conference ever again.

I paused. There were a few things to untangle there. And there’s a whole post on whether talent acquisition belongs in close alignment with the rest of the talent management function (they do, by the way).

Here’s was the crux of my concern about this whole line of thinking:

1. They had to have HR on board with their solution: Even they told me this. They were imagining a future that didn’t exist, and probably won’t exist for at least a decade or more.

2. They didn’t understand HR buyers: They assumed they were idiots, yet I knew of a number of CHRO’s that had accomplished much more complex projects in recruiting, workforce planning, alignment, and development than what they proposed. We’re talking multimillion dollar initiatives. Their teams were there in spades.

3. If people don’t understand your solution, that’s your problem: Look, most of the people you’re talking to are college educated. They can understand words if you string them together the right way and we’re not talking about quantum string theory or the multiverse here.

But maybe the biggest aha moment I had was that he — along with many other folks I spoke to on the trade room floor—were actually too future-focused.

The Future of Work Doesn’t Address the Present

Forever — is composed of Nows —

—Emily Dickinson

While I haven’t always beaten the drum of the future of work, I’ve been as guilty as the next guy of talking it up when I have, usually for the sake of eyeballs.

And look, it’s a lot of fun to talk about the future of work — the same way it’s fun to talk about destinations that you want to visit at some point in your life. It’s a lot less fun to research plane tickets, hotels, excursions, and the like to make one of those dreams happen. Travel shows are escapism for people who long for exotic vacations the same way listening to the future of work is for talent leaders longing for an easier way to get their job done.

No matter where you are in the workplace technology ecosystem, anybody with real budget has to get shit done today. There’s a lot to get done, too. It can be compliance or productivity. It can be development or planning. It can be inclusion and culture. It can be managerial. It can be strategic. It can be tactical.

If you’ve plotted yourself too far ahead, it’s easy for organizations to say not yet. In fact, it’s probably the responsible thing to do. There are a lot of problems for organizations to fix. Where does your solution fit and why should they care? Even if your message is about the future, how do you stop the escapism and get them thinking about how this actually happens in the workplace of today.

It’s More Than Buzzword Hate

Buzzwords are so easy to diss on. But it goes beyond that. These buzzwords are often thrown out there with no context for how they work, why it’s better, and why it matters.

In some cases, it’s not simply a language problem—it’s a function problem. When you dig into some of these “all too advanced” innovations, you find something more akin to vaporware. An AI solution only takes you as far as its creator’s ambition and talent.

Most buyers have done enough to see through that charade and it becomes problematic for anyone who latches on to the hot buzzword of the year. That’s not just bad marketing but it’s damaging to your organization if you do have a solution that actually has promise to impact organizations today.

Own the Present of Work

When I see an industry zig, I want a brave soul to zag. There are a lot of companies out there chasing the dragon that is the future of work. I saw companies talking about 2025 or 2030, just like they talked about 2010 and 2000 in years past. I don’t think I saw anyone talking about 2020, which is good since that’s a little over a year away.

I’d love to see a company that’s rooted in today with solutions for today. Some of those may not be sexy, but they may actually fix issues that exist right now. Ignore all the future proofing bullshit, after all, there is still a large contingent of buyers with software hosted on-premise.

And they are happy with it.

(That’s pretty weird)

Anyway, I’d love to get some organizations up to 2018. If I’m being realistic, I’ll take even 2015. There’s a market there that would be way more appealing than being just another buzzword has-been. Fixing problems of the present? That never goes out of style.

Not-so-secretly, there’s a part of me that always wants to be moving. I like travel. I like the discomfort. I like living in new places. The other part of me wants to be sitting on the couch watching Star Trek: The Next Generation re-runs on Netflix. It’s a hard balance to maintain.

So five months ago, I embraced the former side. I packed all my shit and moved from rural Eastern Washington to the San Francisco Bay area.

Exciting, right? But wait, things are a little more complicated.

The Pieces Fall Into Place

Fourteen years ago, my then girlfriend (now wife) followed me from Pullman to Portland and Walla Walla. After we married, I followed her back to Portland, then to Seattle and Kennewick. It was my turn to have her follow me, I guess. If it was just us, it would just be another adventure.

Something happened in our stop in Kennewick, though. We sprouted a little one. We bought a house. We had a small community we relied on. We even gained a new cat. Maybe we were there for good? Okay, probably not but it wasn’t a bad spot to be.

Something did change, the most critical was that a job at my company’s San Francisco office was available and seemed like a good fit. Another critical change? My wife was ready for something… different. After a decade of 70+ hour fall weeks of wine harvest, who could blame her?

If only just a year-long hiatus from the craze, the timing couldn’t be better. Our daughter, now four and a combination of outlandish, shy, and adorable, wasn’t getting younger. The pieces were in place for a successful move, a rare one where the person coming behind doesn’t have to worry — at least in the short term.

In Theory

Logistically, everything came together fine. The timing couldn’t have been better for almost everyone. The relocation went smooth. Even when a tree fell on my car an hour before our movers were showing up with a trailer full of my stuff? My only thought was, “This is as bad as it will get.”

I was right. At least, in theory.

In reality, change was only just beginning. My daughter, used to 8 hours in a full preschool environment, turned into a very small wrecking machine when she stayed at home full time. She frayed my wife’s nerves to exhaustion.

For four years, I was the primary parent for my daughter. I worked from home, 10–20 minutes away from preschool. I shuttled her to appointments. I went to almost all school functions. My wife worked an hour away in a time intensive industry, so there was no real conflict about this arrangement. For however difficult my job can sometimes be, it was the more flexible of the two. If work spilled over to after bedtime, a glass of wine would usually guide me to the end of an extended work day.

My wife stepping into not just being the primary parent, but going from working full-time to watching your daughter full-time at age four? With no ramp up?

Four-year-olds are their own version of insane. My wife is a wonderful parent, but she was shifted into an entirely different role that is nearly impossible to prepare for. I won’t write on her behalf but even taking a temporary break from your career, even without the stress of a move and caring full-time for a kid, is no easy task. She’s handled it remarkably well.

What About Me?

In theory, everything is fine. The job is going great. San Francisco is as advertised. But reality is more complicated.

I miss the people I love, of course. Although we’ve moved a lot, we’ve never been as far away. That’s tough.

The part that surprised me is that I miss a lot of my old, boring daily life.

I didn’t realize how much I personally got out of ferrying my kid back and forth from preschool or just being there for silly little after school moments while cooking dinner. And I was damn good at it. We had such a solid routine and this kid really appreciates that. There were months where I would arrive back at home within about a ten minute window. I would schedule 8am meetings without hesitation. I loved being able to be at almost every dance class and negotiate every side trip to the playground, driving detour over the white cable bridge, or a walking spot on our way home.

All while belting out my favorite Frozen or Moana songs.

I did get lonely and I did miss the in-person camaraderie of an office. I hated traveling so frequently, especially from my crappy airport, which required at least a layover each way. I hated that my wife spent two hours on the road, in addition to the crazy hours. I didn’t like the amount of time our daughter spent in preschool.

It wasn’t perfect but I perfected it. Why did I need to change it?

Disrupted Perfection

I don’t know if there is a moral to this story. I’ve always been happy to take risks and not wonder “what if.” I know what life would’ve been like if we had stayed. This has been a more difficult five months than those ones would’ve been.

Working with industries where disruption is often seen as a net positive, I can’t make a call on that with my own life disruption. At least, not yet. But even through some of the lower moments of the last few months, I’ve felt optimistic. I’ve looked up more than down. I’ve felt pain, but some of that pain is growth. It feels good in that way that change always feels good to me.

As I get accustomed to commuting and we prepare for a new preschool and the routines that brings, a new normal approaches.

That will feel good, at least for a little while. Then?

Well, I guess we’ll see.

“Pick three.”

I scanned a table full of one-inch buttons with different labels. It was supposed to be a lesson in being vulnerable and honest — getting beyond job titles to talk about ourselves. Most of the descriptions didn’t fit me: Religious, middle child, conservative, queer… So I picked a description that may be obvious at first glance (straight white male), one that is not so obvious (introvert — though I tend to be more of an ambivert), and one that might provoke a reaction (carnivore).

https://twitter.com/kararogers/status/1006722380998168577

The second person I met in the morning was wearing a vegan button. Of course.

We introduced ourselves and both of us somewhat uncomfortably laughed about the carnivore button. It was a weird description: I mean, no human is actually carnivore. I certainly wasn’t, I was eating a scone and some fruit for breakfast.

I told her why I picked it: My family has been in the meat business for three generations. I told her about Walla Walla and what its idyllic pastures and landscapes looked like, cows grazing next to vineyards. Okay, I embellished a little. She told me about her own struggle with becoming a vegan and the challenge of living that way in the south. She loves it there, though.

I’ve had conversations like this at conferences before but they usually involved alcohol as a truth serum. This one was happening before a 9:00 a.m. keynote. All thanks to a label that I chose for myself and pinned to my lanyard.

That was my introduction to Culture First, the first major conference put on by Culture Amp. Culture Amp has been putting on many smaller meetups for years and cultivating a community of over 40,000 members through their People Geeks initiative.

I’ll be honest, at times it felt like I was transported back to WorkHuman, an event that Globoforce, another technology company in HR, runs. It’s heavy on thought leadership and community, less on product — at least on the main stage. It doesn’t look like a user conference that a tech company would run.

[embed]https://twitter.com/HealthEquityP/status/1006568156146462720[/embed]

That’s not a bad thing.

The refreshing honesty of the Culture Amp team—a willingness to tell people where they’ve failed and where they’re unsure of the evolution in this strange category that they play in—is to me a sign of enlightenment instead of weakness. Other companies substitute a lack of crystal ball clarity about the future with empty bravado and false promises. Culture Amp told their story, laid out a vision that was humble and open to change if and when conditions shifted. It felt true and it wasn’t limited to just their product.

And employee engagement, culture, feedback: It’s all changing.

That brings me back to the buttons and labels.

Categories in any market sector are necessary. Sometimes, they are a necessary evil, especially as a segment changes or evolves.

Culture Amp today describes their product as an employee feedback software. That’s the label that they share and it’s really a category that fits the market today. If you know Culture Amp, you probably know about things like surveys and reporting and all of that other fun employee insights. They’ve told you this. The same way I would tell you about what I do or my job, or maybe even the city I live in. But in a few years, that label may change or shift— or buyers can expect something else entirely.

But in times of uncertainty and change, business leaders need to look past RFP checklists and product roadmaps. Here’s what I want to know as a buyer of any software in this category: Do these people get me and what I am trying to accomplish and do I get them and their approach to solving these issues? Those are the labels that every company wears. It’s rarely stated but always there. Culture Amp focused heavy on wearing their labels on their sleeve.

Is it an emotional connection? For sure. Can it feel irrational? Of course! However, it also manifests itself in the way tech companies design and prioritize product development and releases, or how they offer services surrounding their product. That part is tangible and very rational.

[embed]https://twitter.com/jenistyping/status/1006691688721477632[/embed]

A day with Culture Amp helped me understand the labels they embrace that don’t always translate to marketing messages or product sheets. It gave me a peek into a nuanced worldview and vision of the future of work and engagement that’s rare. Engagement and culture doesn’t begin or end with their product. They’ve embraced their role as a key piece that every organization must solve: How do you understand and embrace the employee voices at your company?

The broader market category they play in, employee engagement, is changing rapidly. Culture Amp clearly has the technical pieces in place to compete and evolve into whatever this category will become. But they also have the, in the words of Patti McCord, spirit to compete. I have a point of view about those shifts as well that I’ll be sharing at InfluenceHR.

It also gave me insight into myself and even forced me out of my comfort zone, at least for a little bit. Even if it made me a little hungry and hyperaware of my need for space.

[embed]https://twitter.com/thelance/status/1006601675224670209[/embed]