Howdy friends,

I’m on the road this week. 🐎

First, I’m also hitting the stage in KY and keynoting a conference. EEK! I’m dropping some knowledge on what employees are really thinking and how we sometimes get it wrong.

THEN!!! I’m heading to TX for a work event! I’m cooking up some new content ideas to surprise and delight you with.

Until then, make sure these are on your radar:

🎧 This week’s pod ep is all about the chaotic bad good neutral energy your more recent change at work is giving. Kaity joins me to laugh and drop knowledge on how to manage change without stressing your employees out and causing more issues.

📺 HR Therapy is coming in HAWT this month. I get to geek out with a legit lawyer on all things compliance which should be boring but trust me IT’S NOT. We’re getting into pay transparency and all the new laws that will impact HR somewhat or another. Join us here!

Okay now onto today, we’re talking about a clash in philosophies between you and your org when it comes to AI and more…

BUILDER MODE

A clash in standards:Copy anchor linkCopied

A question and then I'll explain myself!

How many times in the last month has someone asked you what we're doing about AI?

Legal wants to review the terms of the acceptable use policy. A manager wants to know if their team can leverage a new tool. Someone in recruiting wants to talk about what to do about candidates that are clearly using AI in the interview process. Maybe even your CEO saw a new Linkedin post about something AI related, forwarded it to you and said, “let’s do this!” UGH.

We are getting asked CONSTANTLY. It feels like the limit does not exist!!!!

The thing I’ve been thinking about lately is we have to answer those questions, potentially, without ever once having decided what we actually think.

I’ll give that a moment to settle.

We are usually the ones deploying a strategy, but what happens when we have different standards than our company?

I recently described myself as somewhere between an AI enthusiast and AI skeptic.

✨She’s got range, y’all. ✨

This is a biiiig topic, like I probably need six journal entries newsletters.

So, this week I’m breaking off one piece of this topic. It's a bit of a diff twist on the theme of improve, rebuild or tear down concept, but don’t worry I may get to a verdict…

But first, where does your company stand?

Where’s your company re:usage?Copy anchor linkCopied

Almost every org is somewhere on the AI journey, and the first part of that journey usually involves landing somewhere on usage.

Three spots a company could land:

🚫 Banned. No AI, not approved, don't use it. A very cut and dry stance but a teeny bit complicated when it comes to in practice and reasons why. TBH bans don’t always stop usage. See… even when AI is banned employees could still be using it on their phones, in incognito tabs, or on personal accounts. Worse case scenario: sometimes even company data pasted in. THAT’S REALLY BAD!! And all bans aren’t for the same reasons either. Some companies are against it because of the legal risk, confidential data, maybe even environmental impact.

⚡ Mandated. The other extreme! This isn't "you may," this is "you must." Orgs who have landed here usually have adoption targets, usage dashboards, AI proficiency appearing in the competency model (see: Zapier). In practice it can feel like a new performance expectation to add to everybody's plate. And the second a tool becomes mandatory, every question about it turns into an HR question. We’ve seen companies mandate, then walk it back, we’ve seen companies say it's the future and now our DNA. We've seen it all? JK, there's def more to come.

🤏 Somewhere in the middle. This one feels like the most common? There IS a stance, maybe something like please leverage this tool. The policy has been shared in writing and reiterated in company meetings. There’s even a hub for some light documentation, use cases and what not to do. This is the one where a policy technically exists but some employees could tell you what it says while others maybee not. In practice employees could be just… guessing sometimes on if they are allowed to do what they’re doing. Or quietly not using it for personal reasons because there aren’t clear repercussions.

IDK if I need to state the obvious butttt just because your company has a stance on usage that doesn't necessarily mean they have a philosophy on AI…

I said what I said!!!

➡️ A stance tells people what they're allowed to do.

➡️ ➡️ A philosophy tells people what we believe should involve a human here, and WHY.

And those are not synonymous but sometimes they are intertwined in the same mandate or CEO note.

So what does an actual philosophy sound like?

Think something like: We will not use AI to make promotion decisions, because a promotion is a judgment about a person's potential, and potential is something that doesn't necessarily show up in the data. Like somebody who had a rough year for reasons that never made it into our performance system or somebody whose best work happened on a project that got nixed. Therefore while AI can consolidate notes or flag potential promotions every decision regarding a promotion will be made with a human in the loop.

But… what if your company takes a stance that you might not agree with?? Or has a philosophy that makes you feel a tiny bit (or a lot) icky?

What do YOU actually think:Copy anchor linkCopied

Okay. This is where I hand you the mirror. And not for you to ask mirror, mirror on the wall who is the AI savviest of them all?

Where does your own line sit versus what your company allows?

Here's what I think is actually happening...

You probably already have a philosophy, it's just maybe never been said out loud, so you don't experience it as a philosophy. You could be experiencing it as a bad feeling or a hesitation in a meeting that you can't quite explain.

Somebody suggests using AI to screen a candidate pool and you instantly feel a way. A leader wants a "quick summary" of employee comments and you find yourself delaying. Someone asks you to draft a difficult message and you write it yourself.

What’s that?? Oh it's the friction of your philosophy bumping up against your company’s!!!

TBH: that friction is tiring!

Because when you can't name where you stand, you definitely can't argue for it. So you either go along with something you disagree with OR you push back on instinct and it comes across as “HR being difficult” about something else. 

UGH.

Neither path ultimately gets you what you want and could cost you credibility down the line.

Here are four questions I want you to think about…

1. Would you let AI draft a termination document? A PIP? A condolence email to an employee who just lost a family member? If you answered differently to those three, WHY? If your line is "not for emotional things," that can be a part of your personal philosophy.

2. Does it bother you when a candidate uses AI on an application?

3. Would you use AI on something an employee told you in confidence?

4. Where does a machine's input stop and your judgment start? An ex: if a system flagged someone as a flight risk, would you want to know what it based that on before you put together a plan of action. Would you want the employee to know the flag existed at all? THIS ONE IS JUICY SO THINK ABOUT IT!

Knowing the answers to these questions will lead you closer to your own operating philosophy.

And when your company’s philosophy conflicts with yours, bring the principle, not the objection.

"I don't think a system should make a call about employee promotions without a human reviewing every suggestion with additional context being layered on it because AI does not have the judgement to make those calls.” That my friends is a clear principle of your philosophy, see no4!

And if you bring the principle and your org goes a different way anyway? NOT ALL IS LOST. You still won something!!

You now know exactly where you and your company differ which can help let you decide what you can or cannot live with.

Some gaps you can work with, others you can’t. But you cannot make that call about a gap you've never named.

What’s the verdict:Copy anchor linkCopied

Okay I’ve babbled for far too long.

The verdict is simple: we’re looking at a classic rebuild.

The foundation is deffff worth keeping. We DO need AI policy in the workplace. We need documented positions, we need guardrails around confidential information, we need something to point to when someone does something wild. And trust, someone will do something wild.

👀 Your turn to place your vote! We’re making this interactive.

Does your company have an actual philosophy on AI, or just a stance?

🏢 A) A real philosophy: employees could explain the WHY behind it in a room full of skeptics.

📄 B) Just a stance: employees know what's allowed, not what we believe.

😶‍🌫️ C) Honestly? HR has been the philosophy this whole time and nobody knows it.

If you wanna vote, hit reply. I read every single one, and I'll even share in a future edition your votes.

We're all on this journey, sometimes it helpful just to know we're not alone!

(HUMAN) RESOURCES

• Ocean temps reach all time high
• Udemy Business makes agentic AI feel significantly less dystopian for HR and L&D leaders. Download their latest cheat sheet.*
• Hugging Face explores sale
• Neurodiversity at work
• Everyone hates performance reviews?

*This one is brought to you by one of my amazing brand partners

WORK-LIFE BALANCE

• 📚 What I’m reading: Yes, Chef by Grace Reilly. This was about 4 out of 5 chili peppers spicy. But if you like the grump vs sunshine trope this might be the book for you! This was my first read from this author and I find it quite delightful. I also love food so there being a plot around a restaurant opening was fun!
• 📺 What I’m watching: Outer Banks. Every episode of this show gets more and more ridiculous and somehow I’m still watching despite screaming WTF a dozen times. Finally finished this last season and again I’m left with a major wtf but also happy storylines got concluded.
• 💅🏽 What I’m obsessing over: nail art. Apparently nude nails are in but I like to have some fun, so hit me with what should be my next nail design and I promise I’ll consider it. I love crowd sourcing my ideas from y’all. This time I baby blue ombre.

SONG OF THE WEEK

🎧 Babydoll, Jamie MillerCopy anchor linkCopied

This has popped off on TikTok with celebs appearing in videos including Antonio Cipriano from Off Campus.

I did a deep dive on Jamie this AM and learned that he was on The Voice UK.

You learn something new every day.

I hope you enjoyed this, please let me know what you think and what other topics you'd love for me to cover. I'm allll ears.

Reminder: Take care of yourself and know that I support you.