Case in point from Block and Coinbase recently.

So what are these roles giving up (either completely, or to AI) that allows them to, in some cases:

• Increase their span of control massively (sometimes 15+ direct reports)

• Be strong on delivery, while leading a team

Curious for this communities thoughts on how the role is evolving and the possible knock on effects we'll see as a result of it.

Arguably there's never been a more important time for leaders in businesses, and yet we seem to be seeing them increasingly under threat.

I'd love to hear from you!

Here’s 3 ways to actually do something about it without losing your sh*t or the relationship...

Most people either say nothing and stew. Or they go in frustrated and it becomes a whole big thing.

The thing that changes it - stay specific.

There's a difference between "you keep pushing this" vs. "you're unreliable". One is something you can have a conversation about, yhe other just gets someone's back up.

Here are 3 things you can say to handle it.

#1 Curious and light: "I wanted to check in on X - I know you've got a lot on. Is there something making it hard to move forward right now?"

First time you're raising it, you're not accusing anyone of anything. You're just opening the door - and leaving room for context you might not have.

#2 Name the impact: "I've noticed X has been pushed a few times now and it's starting to impact my ability to move things forward on my side. Can we work out what's getting in the way?"

Same respect. But now you've named what it's costing you/the business. That's what shifts it from a casual follow-up to something that really needs to be resolved.

#3 - Direct and grounded: "I want to raise something because I think it'll help us work better together. I've been waiting on X for a while now and it keeps getting pushed. Can we make a call or agree on a realistic timeline for it today?"

You're not venting. You're not apologising for asking. You're being straight - and giving them a clear path to fix it.

Sometimes it looks like someone who isn’t accountable because you don’t have all the contxt. And maybe they aren’t able to share that context yet. And sometimes you just have one of those Managers who rolls with "do as I say, not as I do" mode.

By trying these out, you’re being the kinda person who names things directly and clearly - plus keeps the relationship intact while they do it.

This is a skill you can learn. And like most skills - it gets easier the more you practice it.

Please come say hi at Booth #2927 in the Expo! Our In Good Company lounge is offering up mini massages, a juice bar, and some branded takeaways. Would truly love to meet you all IRL and have some time to catch up.

See you in the expo!
https://shrm26.mapyourshow.com/8_0/exhview/index.cfm?selectedBooth=2927

A pattern I keep running into with hiring teams is that AI has quietly moved the bottleneck rather than removing it. Most teams brought in AI screening to cut down time spent on early-stage review, and on paper, it does. The volume gets processed faster, the shortlist arrives sooner, and the first reaction is that the funnel has finally been fixed.

What actually happens is that the work shifts to a stage where it costs more. When the screening logic rewards how well an application is structured, the shortlist starts reflecting application quality rather than capability. So the hiring manager spends interview time doing the verification the screen was supposed to handle, and that is the most expensive time in the entire process to be spent on filtering.

The part that surprised a few teams I have spoken to is that faster screening made their hiring slower overall, because every weak signal that got through early had to be caught later by a person. The tool was doing its job, but the job it was doing was not the one that needed doing.

Curious where this sits for your teams. Has AI screening genuinely reduced your hiring load end to end, or has it mostly moved the effort somewhere less visible?

What I'm passionate about: proving that people and profit are not in competition. I built my company around people-first HR that actually scales.

What you'll probably catch me posting about: practical HR tips, candidate experience, and the messy, honest side of building an HR firm from scratch.

Excited to learn from this community and share what's working (and what's not) along the way. If you're navigating HR for a growing team, let's connect! 😃

Most rejection emails say nothing. "We've decided to move forward with other candidates. We wish you the best." The candidate spent hours preparing, showed up, gave their best, and gets a template in return.

I run a recruitment and HR outsourcing firm, and one thing I refuse to outsource to a template is the rejection message for candidates who reached the interview stage. If someone made it that far and asks for feedback, they deserve something real.

Here's my workflow:

1. During and after interviews, my team and I take notes. Strengths, gaps, where they shined, where they fell short against the role requirements.

2. I feed those notes into Claude along with the candidate's name, the role, and the stage they reached.

3. I ask it to draft a personalized rejection message that includes specific, constructive feedback. Not "we found a stronger candidate" but "your project management examples were strong, and the area that held you back was depth in stakeholder reporting, which this role leans on heavily."

4. I review and edit before sending. The AI drafts, I make the final call. Always.

The prompt I use:

"Write a personalized rejection email to a candidate who completed an interview and asked for feedback.

Here are my interview notes: [paste notes].

The role was [role title] and the key requirements were [list].

Write a warm, respectful email that: thanks them genuinely for their time, names 1-2 specific strengths they showed, gives 1-2 honest and constructive areas that influenced the decision, and encourages them to apply for future roles if it's a fit.

Keep it under 200 words, human, and free of corporate filler."

The results?

Candidates reply to thank me. Some have referred friends to our open roles. A few have reapplied and gotten hired later.

Candidate experience doesn't end at the offer. It includes the people you say no to. AI just makes it scalable to treat them all like humans.

Has anyone else used AI for candidate communication? Would love to hear what's working for you.

Every HR leader I know does the same thing when they're looking at a new role.

They study the scope. They research the company. They check the funding, the growth stage, the Glassdoor reviews.

And they treat the CEO as a footnote. A nice conversation at the end of the process. A vibe check. Most often, the CPO tells me they had a "great dinner" and he was really nice. Great.

That's the mistake.

I once took a role where the scope was exactly what I wanted. The company looked right on paper. And I left, because the CEO was the entire problem and no job description was ever going to save me from that.

Here's what HR leaders forget. We don't get to do our jobs at arm's length from the person at the top. Chief People Officers are the closest function to the CEO's worst instincts. We execute the layoffs they decide on. We deliver the PIPs they want. We manage the exits they order. We're the ones in the room when they make the call, and we're the ones whose name is on it when it goes badly. Ever heard of "disagree and commit?" That happens a lot as a leader, but the CPO really gets burned for it because they also represent the employees, not just the company.

Remember, CEO doesn't just set your working conditions. They spend your credibility.

Look at how this profession gets talked about. Every few months a founder or VC publishes a hot take about how HR is broken, bloated, or unnecessary. Harry Stebbings did it. Got a lot of engagement. And the irony is that half the time the thing they're blaming HR for was a CEO decision HR was told to carry out. The CEO sets the strategy, HR executes it, and when it lands badly, HR is the one left holding the reputational bill. We get blamed for the very things we didn't decide.

That's the dynamic you're walking into when you pick a CEO. When they make a call that violates everything you stand for and you're the one who has to deliver it, the market doesn't blame the CEO. It blames you. You become the HR leader who ran the brutal layoff, who tolerated the toxic founder, who looked the other way. The CEO keeps raising. You wear it.

So when you're evaluating your next role, the order is backwards. The CEO is not the last question. The CEO is the first one.

Ask yourself whether you actually respect how this person makes decisions. Whether their values survive contact with pressure. Whether they'll own the hard calls publicly or quietly let you take the hit. Whether you'd be proud to have your name attached to theirs when things get ugly, because they will get ugly.

A great scope under a CEO you don't trust is a trap.

A modest scope under a CEO whose judgment you'd stake your name on is a career.

So before you sign, ask yourself the real question. If this CEO makes the worst decision of their tenure, are you willing to have your name on it?

What's the one CEO red flag you ignored that you'd never ignore again?

The knee-jerk reaction for many companies will be to simply pile on more automated tasks. But if we use AI just to make humans work like machines, we’ve failed the culture test.

Think about what happens right now when a tool saves us an hour. We don't take a breath; we just let an automated scheduler fill that empty slot with another "quick sync." We are facing massive meeting inflation and digital noise, trading actual focused work for the illusion of being busy.

As an HR leader, I see this as a classic skills gap puzzle. We need to clearly divide the labor so we can protect our humanity:

• AI-Led Tasks: The routine stuff. Data crunching, initial drafting, sorting through spreadsheets, and scheduling. (Basically, clearing our plates).

• Human-Led Tasks: The irreplaceable stuff. Reading the room during a tense meeting, navigating client chaos, motivating a discouraged team, and leading with deep empathy.

Our old training playbooks are built for a pre-AI world. We can’t teach emotional intelligence (EQ) via a checklist or a boring compliance video. We have to actively coach our leaders on how to manage with empathy, especially when tech is moving at lightning speed.

We are not robots. Let’s use AI to take care of the mechanical, so we can get back to being human.

👇 What’s your take? If your company gave you back 5 hours a week thanks to AI, would you want to use it for deep creative projects, mentorship, or maybe testing out a 4-day workweek? Personally, I’m taking more walks and getting some fresh air - no screens allowed.

🍻 In Good Company Austin Chapter Happy Hour

Join us on July 17 for the inaugural gathering of the In Good Company Austin Chapter at Culinary Dropout.

This casual networking happy hour is an opportunity for HR and People leaders across Austin to step away from the day-to-day, connect with peers, exchange ideas, and build meaningful relationships with others navigating the evolving world of work.

Whether you're looking to grow your local network, discuss the challenges facing people leaders today, or simply meet great people over a drink, we'd love to have you join us.

No presentations. No panels. Just good conversation, new connections, and a chance to spend time with fellow HR professionals in your community.

📍 Culinary Dropout at the Domain | Austin, TX
🗓️ July 17
⏰ 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM

Space is limited, so we encourage you to RSVP early.

We look forward to welcoming you and kicking off the Austin chapter together! 🌍