Is HR Obsolete?

“HR is irrelevant and AI will replace it” is the sort of claim that gets repeated until it feels true. We slow it down and ask a better question: if the admin and compliance bits are automated, what should a modern people function actually do that makes organisations stronger?

TL;DR / At A Glance

• retiring transactional HR work that technology can automate
• why rebranding HR does not fix purpose, trust, or credibility
• employee trust gaps and the case for advocacy or ombuds roles
• shifting people management back to leaders with HR as architect
• the leadership capability gap in coaching, feedback and difficult conversations
• AI in performance feedback and why AI plus human coaching matters
• redesigning jobs for humans and AI, not just adding tools
• moving HR metrics from compliance to organisational capability

We pull apart the case for retiring the term HR and the case for keeping it, from the Ulrich model to today’s rebrands like People Ops and employee experience. Then we get into the real issue behind the labels: trust. 

Many employees assume HR represents the organisation first, which creates a credibility gap. We explore whether advocacy and ethics roles should sit outside HR, and what that means for fairness, transparency, and day-to-day employee experience.

From there, we go straight at the uncomfortable fix: leaders must own people management. That only works if we stop promoting accidental managers and start building leadership capability in feedback, coaching, and difficult conversations. 

Finally, we debate AI and performance feedback. AI can be candid and consistent, but it cannot replace human judgement and empathy, so we argue for “AI plus a human coach” and, crucially, redesigning jobs for humans and AI rather than layering more tech onto broken work.

If you want a practical, future-of-work conversation about people strategy, agentic AI, organisational design and leadership development, press play.

Subscribe, share with a colleague, leave a review, and tell us in the comments: should we retire HR, or reinvent it?

Transcript

People Strategy 2030 And Big Question

Kieran Gilmurray 0:04

Today we're going to introduce you to People Strategy 2030, our take on the world of work, and we will answer questions you don't dare to ask and discuss HR and work in a way that others don't or won't. We'll be human, we'll be practical, hopefully fun. This is not a boring suit podcast, but a relatable shoot the breeze. Today, Laura, let's begin with our first talk. Is it time to retire the term HR?

SPEAKER_02 0:30

And bearing in mind, while obviously I'm a HR practitioner, specialist by trade, I will attempt not to be too biased here, but there is a growing narrative that HR is becoming irrelevant, that AI will automate it. Controversial, I know, that leaders should own their own people management. Crazy but true. And that HR has to become too focused on policy and processes. I actually think that the debate is useful because I suppose some parts of HR probably should disappear. And if HR is mainly about forms, compliance, and process ownership, then yeah, of course, technology will absolutely replace a lot of that. But the interesting question isn't whether HR disappears, it's whether it evolves into something more valuable. And that function that helps organizations build, as I mentioned, the leadership capability, designing work for humans and AI and creating cultures where people are actually able to perform. So I think is the conversation whether we should retire HR or maybe it's what we need to replace the version of HR that no longer works. So if you bear with me, and we look at this from a couple of perspectives, and you know, I'm challenging myself here as well, you know, whether we defend the existence of HR and what replaces it. So if we look, if we can go way back when we go old school and let's think of the Ulrich model, we're all familiar with that in the HR space. And the argument here, right, is that HR absolutely should not disappear, but that the administrative function should. This isn't new, guys. We've heard about this over the years. But you know, Ulrich did argue for years that HR needed to evolve from that process manager to the strategic architecture. We know that. And from that perspective, that allows HR to become responsible for leadership development. Imagine that. Responsible for strategy execution. But the view that HR becomes more important in the AI era and not less, because the more technology that organizations introduce, the more they need humans, okay, that understand what goes on in the background, the behaviors, the leadership, the organizational design. So that argument or that perspective would suggest that we retire the transactional HR, which by God, we're really keen to cling on to. Okay, the an alternative perspective that we we might consider is the rebrand perspective. And you and I, uh Kieran, we've spoken about this, we've spoken about some of the more quirky or different names that you know, particularly maybe the tech companies that they're coming up with for their HR departments, you know, and many organizations have already done this, they've quietly retired the HR label. Okay, instead, we're seeing things like people in culture, people

Retiring Transactional HR

SPEAKER_02 3:12

ops, talent in culture, employee experience. And I am laughing at this because some of these new labels that are coming through a decade ago, I I was an employee experience manager 10, 15 years ago. I was an organizational capability manager 15 years ago. You know, so is it really that radical? But the the concept or the thing behind it will be that the HR frames people as assets, okay, not contributors. So we're not seeing as enablers of strategy, right? And companies like you know, the the companies of this world, you know, they've they've popularized terms like people off where they focus on behaviors and they focus on employee experience. So then the question becomes is HR outdated or is it the language that is outdated? So can you see my thought process here, Kieran, where I'm I'm I'm trying to challenge myself in in coming at it from a few different angles here.

Kieran Gilmurray 4:07

I'm watching you argue with yourself, which is kind of fun. So if we jump back a little bit to where we've got today, then because Ulrich was set up to remove or to stop HR being an admin function for one of our better phrases.

SPEAKER_02 4:19

Exactly.

Kieran Gilmurray 4:22

And this is a 30-year-old model, I think it's 30-year-old this year, to allow people a little bit of freedom to actually spend time doing on the thing, doing the things that actually impact you or I. But what has happened over the last 30 years, regardless of title, regardless of structure, in many instances, HR is becoming a people pushing exercise. We've had centers of so-called expertise, we have had service desks, and what we're attempting to do is you know, volumize the moments that matter to you and to I. So if someone comes in as a new unexpected parent and all of a sudden you're getting the outsourced service desk in a third-party country, the moment that matters to me very much doesn't feel like the moment that matters to you as the organization. Not only that, the demands that are now being placed on organizations and what I call the people strategy function, or what should be called the people's strategy function, have changed. So the generations that have come into the workplace since Ulrich was invented now require something radically different. Not only that, the technology that we've got inside of organizations requires something different. And even in the last couple of days, I read Harvard that said, great news, we've now got a gentic AI. Ulrich's been around, HR has turned itself into a paper pushing department or allowed itself to be. That's a different conversation. And now agentic AI can handle everything routine. And I'm still going, hold on, folks, we're putting technology at something and we're painting it over the top. We're not actually reshifting how people strategy, HR, people, whatever the heck you want to call it. Exactly. So so how do we what's what's the solution? Because anyone here is going to go, they should be nodding along at this stage, going, Yeah, you're telling me what I already know. We're not adding value. I'm not getting what I want out of my people strategy, HR, workplace experience, and God knows what a rebatch team it is. But where

Trust Problem And Employee Advocacy

Kieran Gilmurray 6:20

are we going to put this? Because AI is not the only answer. You can't AI it.

SPEAKER_02 6:24

I I I I do want to just before we we move into solution mode, and I know we love solution mode, but I also love to argue. And I I want to just pick up on one of the points you mentioned there around say generations and expectations, and it the employee trust perspective has to come into this when we're looking at HR and the future of HR and research that we know from organizations, whether it's C IPT, they know that there's constant, consistently kind of like a tension between how employees actually view HR. And that needs to be recognized where employees believe HR ultimately represents the organization's interests, not theirs. And that perception creates that kind of credibility challenge as well. You know, so some organizations are experimenting with alternatives. So again, we're coming back a little bit to the language here where we're looking at employee advocacy roles and ombuds offices. I know, crazy but true. Ethics and trust office, okay? But in these models, HR still exists, but the trust functions sit outside HR, which kind of allows us to then consider a deeper question around well, can HR genuinely represent employers and employees, or should those roles be separated? And this is a conversation that I've actually had with some of my clients, particularly in the legal world, where they're they're quite challenged by the concept of HR sitting internally, building that trust, building those relationships and representing employee and employer interests. And I thought it was quite an interesting one when we when we are looking at the future of HR and its position going forward, is that a question that we need to be asking?

Kieran Gilmurray 8:01

Well, well, here's the question here, just say it because it have again, have we put HR in a difficult position? Because how can you represent two different two varying uh entities when sometimes they are at diagonal opposites? You know, should we actually give HR a bit of breathing space and say actually your job is to represent the business and that's it? You know, your your job is not to represent employees or or colleagues or whatever we want them to call them during the good times, because let's be honest, during the difficult times, they're probably going to get sacked anyway, you know.

SPEAKER_02 8:33

So it's it's it's when it's when it's uh and you're you're you're being very fair, I think, in that space where you know, do you allow HR to represent the employer? Do you allow HR to you know uh make the transactional stuff automated to allow us to you know design frameworks and maybe allow us become that trusted advisor, opposed to being the compliance or the police around you know, challenging conversations. Do we stop owning the people agenda potentially and start enabling our leaders to own it? You know, and I think this is why for I suppose some of our listeners walking away thinking, okay, but what do I do differently? You know, the most progressive organizations are shifting people responsibility back to leaders. Crazy but true. HR then becomes the architect, not the operator. Okay, so HR designs frameworks, yes, but leaders wait for it, run talent conversations and leaders actually coach and develop.

Kieran Gilmurray 9:32

Oh my goodness, you that's that seems very future-fetched. Well, let me let me delve into that a little bit because a couple of things.

Leaders Owning People Management

Kieran Gilmurray 9:40

As a leader at one stage or another in different organizations, I wasn't ready to actually lead. I'd been promoted because I was capable in my role, but nobody had career passed me quite intentionally and deliberately into leadership role. And I remember coaching was a two-hour exercise in the room where the the person or the leader, my leader, who then, as we were walking out the door, said, By the way, if you expect me to do any of that word I can't repeat on a polite podcast, the think again, which calls coaching tonight. So are we actually preparing our leaders, number one, to coach? That's the first thing. Are we career pathing our leaders to genuine to be leaders? And a third question, notice I've been very greedy here, is in one of the organizations I was in, I got all of the people responsibilities, all of the finance responsibilities, all of the IT responsibilities, all of the everything responsibilities, because everybody decentralized every task, and then I'd no time to do my own role. So lots of questions there.

SPEAKER_02 10:42

Lots to discuss there, and I think it's it's an interesting one because you can come about it from if we think about HR, and if HR does everything and our leaders become disengaged, the appetite and the interest to to develop and grow within a role suddenly isn't there, and the appetite to to have aspirations beyond your current role is quenched, you know. So so we're we're we're killing the future potential capability of our of our people. And as for are we the the question around are we coaching our people leaders to be leaders? We know we all know the honest answer is no. You know, we all know that we still put Laura into a people leadership position because she's been there forever. What else are we going to do with her? She needs a challenge, she needs an alternative. Heaven forbid, we will not ask her if she wants to manage people or if she wants to be a people leader, but we will put her in that position because that takes that box for us. We will not give her any support or development or guidance, and that's what I'm seeing a lot actually with with companies that I'm working with currently, is that those companies that are recognizing the need for HOR and for leaders to have that future focused capability, they're getting back to basics. And when I say basics, Karen, I'm talking about feedback, being able to have a challenging conversation, being able to guide your team through whether it's change, um, having agility, having a learning mentality, but it's quite in the world of HR, it's that software skill set that we would we've been teaching people for decades, but we've forgotten how to apply those skills in the workforce. We've forgotten, and I you know uh what I've seen a lot of when the the return to the workplace after COVID is it's like we all forgot how to behave. So we forgot how to give feedback, we forgot how to engage, we forgot how whatever minimal skills we may have had in that people leadership space, they were gone. We didn't have to do it for two or three years. We're still kind of not really having to do it because we know that HR will take that box for us anyway at some point because they've asked us to do it three or four times, we haven't done it, so somebody else will do it for me. And now I'm back in the office dealing with people, and I forgot how to do that. So I I'm working with you know very big organizations who would have had very big budgets in the learning development space, who are now training their people on how to give feedback. 2026, and this is we're talking about being a future-focused organization and building capability.

Can AI Give Honest Feedback

Kieran Gilmurray 13:21

So so just stay with that for a second, because I read the other day a research piece and it was it was amazingly stupid. Let me explain. Because they said staff are not getting feedback, but the good news is I can now use AI to give them feedback and coaching. And and I wasn't too sure whether I like that or not, Laura. Let me explain. Of all the most emotionally intelligent human exercises that I want, I want my manager communicating with me in a human way and giving me that feedback, the coaching, the mentorship, that leadership, the you know, to talk about the moments that matter. But I have to recognise at the same time that they're not always going to be available, they're not always going to be in the moment and something else. But I thought handing feedback entirely to AI felt like an entire dereliction of human duty. Now, I I and again, I love AI and I adore it and I use it all the time. And actually having an AI assistant with me provides training and expertise and contrarian opinions and feedback and coaching that I know I wouldn't get from a leader because that's not their job to be there available, you know, 24-7, whereas AI is. But to suggest that the only form of feedback and coaching that someone was going to get was at the end of an AI assistant seems stretched too far. Now, on the alternative, statistically, 34% of us are emotionally intelligent. I'm using us and hoping I'm in that group, probably not. And therefore, any coaching that I get from a manager, I have a one in three chance of someone actually understanding me and giving me sensible coaching, and two-thirds of a chance of someone telling me something a load of rubbish or avoiding it. So maybe AI isn't the worst thing in the world. But where do you fit then? Because we haven't got the change.

SPEAKER_02 15:03

If I said to you, if you knew that your performance feedback was generated entirely by AI, would you trust us?

Kieran Gilmurray 15:11

Well, it depends. If the AI is monitored, absolutely everything I'm doing, can see how I'm performing against my goals. I've been open and transparent with it, yes. And it's possibly more likely to be able to do that than a manager who's not sitting with me remotely 24-7. If my manager is one-third likely to be emotionally intelligent, my goodness, maybe I've hit unlucky over my career, most of the plus, then I'd much rather that feedback uh that comes from uh what I would say is non-biased, non-judgmental, non-I just want to tell you something nice because you know, I I can't practice radical candor and I don't want to upset you. And if I do tell you something not nice, then you and I have to face each other tomorrow style coaching that I've had for 20, 30 years. I'd much rather the independent robot coming back with very fact-based, candid feedback rather than BS feedback that I've had to just serve purpose, or came once a year, even worse, rather than telling me in March what I could have done better for the previous nine months.

SPEAKER_02 16:13

You say it's worse, but that is still alive and well. Annual feedback. Do you remember that project you did eight months ago? It's alive and kicking, and we are very happy to play with the various algorithms on the uh the spreadsheets to ensure that we can come to that roundy number three figure on the performance rating scale. But if we're thinking just coming back to the AI and providing feedback, I think the future will more likely be AI plus a human coach. I think there's potential a role there for AI in preparing an individual, you know, potentially generating insight, yes, maybe giving some practice scenarios, absolutely. But the human element of the judgment and the empathy, because you know, will AI be able to pick up on a hesitation, maybe, or a tension between uh team members, or when feedback might land badly in a challenging situation or current context, that kind of judgment would be more situational, right? And more relational. And that's where the human element will bring, you know, the empathy, the trust, the accountability that I don't feel AI will have the capability to bring. So, and bearing in mind that you're the AI lover and I'm the HR lover, um that relationship becomes, I think it will be AI plus a human coach rather than an either-or situation, would be my feeling on it. I think there is a place for AI in supporting a people leader in preparing for that conversation. But ultimately, we need our people leaders to step up and have those talenting conversations and not hide from them or advocate responsibility or think, well, HR will have that conversation for me. Or, as you said, I'll wait for another 12 months and tell them how I feel in 12 months' time about their performance.

Kieran Gilmurray 17:57

I think it's a mix as well, oddly enough. You know what I mean? If I'm in a sales role, I get AI to coach, you know, during the call, if not post-call. Whereas if you've ever built and have, you know, sales teams and service teams, you get maybe six coach calls a month if you're lucky, and that's because the human is taking time to listen to the call and then play it back, you know. So sales, service, absolutely everything. Uh performance in a particular task, I can get you know feedback on the tasks themselves. It's the emotional, the cognitive, the emotionally intelligent, but that I agree. So, how are we going to redesign HR then? So, are we are we actually keeping the term HR? And how do we actually go about redesigning HR? What I prefer, either kind of like business strategy, people strategy, and tech strategy. Yeah, I call that three-legged stool. Each leg has to be balanced, otherwise, something

Redesign Work For Humans And AI

Kieran Gilmurray 18:48

falls over. But as I say, you know, relabel it anything we want. But if the purpose of the team doesn't change, then we're in trouble.

SPEAKER_02 18:55

Yeah, and I think that's the point, Kieran, is that that you know, feel free to relabel, feel free to rebrand, but unless the purpose of the function isn't changing, you're achieving nothing other than delusioning yourself and your people. And I think when we're looking at what I suppose listeners can take away from today, I would suggest that we look at designing work for humans and AI, not just for humans. So where organizations are experimenting with AI tools, absolutely, very few are actually redesigning jobs. And that's where HR should be stepping in. Questions that we should be asking include you know, what tasks could AI handle? Or where is human judgment essential? And how do roles evolve when AI handles analysis or admin? And this is where a HR move from process support to kind of future of work design is something that you know I think our listeners can absolutely consider. So redesigning jobs for humans and AI, not just humans. Forget rebranding if you're not prepared to make changes in the background.

Kieran Gilmurray 20:01

But stay on the changes in the background because I want to chat. No, you I as you said, I'll represent all of AI, you'll represent all of the HR industry.

SPEAKER_02 20:11

It's all in a day's work, Kieran.

Kieran Gilmurray 20:13

Well, good, good. I'm I'm glad. No, no, no pressure here at all. Uh how many HR people? Uh and they are people, folks, by the way, not the enemy. How many are actually AI qualified? How many learn AI? How many sit down and study and research the future work? How many, if I use the word agentic labor, could understand the potential impact on roles and skills and organizational structures and future talent programs and future ways that organizations now need and must work in. And many of those are actually implementing it in their real work and acting as lighthouse leaders before they start telling the rest of the organization what they should or should or could be doing.

SPEAKER_02 20:59

No, and I I mean, I certainly off the top of my head, I wouldn't necessarily know the stat for that, but I think it's that the the number of HR professionals, and correct me if I'm wrong, that actually understand or implement AI in the workplace. You know, most HR professionals are aware of AI, yes, but far fewer understand how to operationalise it. You know, so we're we're we're still playing with it. We this idea of promoting kind of experimental learning and it being a sandbox, we put all these parameters in place and these guardrails in place, and you know, we we play with AI and it's all great fun. The reality is the number of con, I suppose HR professionals are confident in AI. You know, we know the stats suggest it's very low. We know that AI is still primarily led by IT and data teams. We know you know, HR, we we might play with it, but we certainly don't own it and we don't want to own it. You know, it's we're a user of HR rather than you know an architect of kind of using AI to enable that workforce strategy that that. I suppose legging that you referred to in your your three-legged still. You know, we talk a lot about AI transforming HR, but the reality is most HR teams are still experimenting rather than implementing. And if AI is going to redesign how work gets done, we should be leading that conversation. Or has it already slipped into the IT agenda? And I think it's quite likely that it's already slipped into that sort of kind of IT agenda and we don't really know what to do

Who Owns AI And Org Design

SPEAKER_02 22:25

with it.

Kieran Gilmurray 22:25

Yeah, this is where I think is part of the problem because now the surprise potentially for lots of people, I think agentic AI, future skills, future organizational structures, so not hierarchies inside of, you know, HR teams like the HR officer, HR, God forbid, business partner, CEO, actually is product managers, service managers enabled by AI. I actually think the future work as enabled by agentic labor with people understanding AI and AI doing so much of the work shouldn't be owned by uh technology teams or data teams. This should actually be owned by the people strategist, because future organizations are going to be a mixture of both. What I actually think we're seeing at the moment is because C-suite recognized that this is such a key function, that the CIO is going, well, this is technology and it sits in the cloud and it does this. I need to offer it. The data officer are saying, well, everything depends on data, and therefore I need to offer it. Then the HR person is saying, Well, actually, hold on, this is the good CHROs are saying, well, this is capability, and this is how the organization is going to operate. So I need to own it. And then you have the data and risk team going, well, what happens if an agent or a digital worker commits us to a contract that we shouldn't have committed ourselves to, therefore, it's a data risk or a risk and compliance issue. And what you're seeing organizations or lots of CEOs doing is their election of duty again, and they're introducing the CAIO, the chief AI officer to try and work across all of the different functions to bring manners to what everybody else is doing. And I actually think we've we're our organizations in terms of silos and splits and hierarchies and functions.

SPEAKER_02 24:02

I think it's just going to reinforce that, right?

Kieran Gilmurray 24:05

It's going to reinforce it. So I think we need to redesign the entire darned organization. And interestingly, Mondelees, or or one of them, I can't remember, which was the man at the global manufacturer, might have been uh I can't remember the group, I'll remember it afterwards and then kick myself. They've actually said, Look, uh, let's rethink business. Uh, we shouldn't have CIO, we shouldn't have CHRO, we need a chief digital and people officer. That role is now going to expand across the entire organization because actually we're going to reinvent how we work rather than putting sticky blasters or adding on another expense to the business to keep doing what we're doing. So I think it is actual time to retire what is awful HR. I think it's time that we, as workers, copped on a little bit to say, well, look, the HR function is not there to defend you against your employer. Obviously, they need to help build trust and a good working experience and a good working environment. And that HR position of sitting between two stools where you're going to get kicked by both makes no sense whatsoever. I think people need to own their own uh systems and support. Definitely the technology can do that, but I'd actually like to rip apart organizations and reinvent how we all work together, uh, work together, notice I didn't say against each other or in our little five thumbs, and actually create organizations that are fun to work in, that produce fantastic work, that create great and exceptional capability. Because I'd rather perform in a high performance team and try my best to remove some of the politics that exist. And I think that involves people in technology and new ways of working. So I absolutely would retire the damn old term and just reinvent entirely for 2026-2027. Not easy, but better fixing it now than live the way we're living over the next five years.

SPEAKER_02 25:54

Yeah, yeah, and in a lot of ways, I I agree in a lot of ways, despite my uh my inclination to disagree with you. It's a it's a knee-jerk reaction. Just in general. Just in general. Um but I you know, if we it's supposed the uncomfortable truth for for HR is none of the things that we should, I suppose those things that we do, like whether it's performance reviews, the talent processes, employee issues, all that kind of stuff, none of that should really belong to us. And it should belong to leaders, right? And when we are building what you're you're aspiring to there, and this this fabulous future of working together and not being in silos, you know, where we have strong leaders, they will hire wealth, they will develop their people, they will deal with poor performance, and they build healthy teams. You know, should so should we we never should be the owner of people management, but we do have a role as an architect of the system. And I think that's where to supporting your your suggestion there around redesigning the workplace for HOR and AI or for people and AI. And feel free to jump in with whatever creative suggestions as to what we should call ourselves from the AI perspective. It's a very different role to what we're currently doing.

Kieran Gilmurray 27:13

Yeah, I well, sorry, I've now remembered Moderna with the company that were doing this, and I don't know whether they've got it right or wrong. I think time will tell. Look, there's no easy answers here. My my fear is, you know, we talk about AI as if it's a magic wand, and it's not. It really isn't. Can it free up people to do amazing things? It absolutely can. The challenge is that we don't just create faster rubbish, you know, put a bit of an AI paintbrush on it and job done. I also think we shouldn't, you know, shy away from not just considering whether we redesign HR, I think we shouldn't shy away from whether we recreate, redesign businesses. And whether it's called people strategy, leadership strategy, it doesn't really matter. You know, if you live the old practices and do the old things the way you've always done it, except maybe a little bit quicker, what automation is like that. We've wasted the opportunity to reinvent businesses toward 2030. When you see some of the statistics at the moment coming out, and they've come out for decades, they aren't new stats talking about how miserable people are going to work, how

Strategic Subtraction And Takeaways

Kieran Gilmurray 28:10

disenfranchised, how they don't feel enabled, supported, capable, coached, mentored, our methods to date have been give them more technology or give them more everything. Have you ever noticed an organization that comes in and celebrates what I call strategic subtraction? Let's take stuff out, people. No, every year we get layered and layered and layered. And if you just layer and layer on top of what's there, all you're going to do is create more frustrated, more overworked. So we're not talking about job enrichment, we're talking about job enlargement. And after a while, we burn people out. We already are. We discard them and off we go again. So I think it's a mixture of actually reinvent the business. And if this, and that's explored a little bit in our next podcast, if it is not necessarily calling it HR people strategy, we say actually we're we're here to create amazing leaders who are going to come in to coach, you know, building businesses, and we give them the roles and the skills and the tools and the capabilities and the freedom and the whatever to allow them to excel and allow them to, you know, remove roadblocks and allow their teams to excel. Then I'm all for that.

SPEAKER_02 29:20

Absolutely. And you know, I think for for me as a starting point for our first podcast for our listeners, you know, let's get the let's get us thinking around, you know, stop owning the people agenda, okay, enabling our leaders to do that, designing that work for humans and AI, forget about rebranding. We need to look at redesigning jobs. We need to shift that HR metric piece from compliance to capability. So again, you know, I was presenting to a team only last week where the the headline item was the engagement scores. And that's all great, but are we actually building organization capability? Are leaders getting better at leading? And they're all areas that we are going to explore in more detail. But I think as three takeaways that we can get ourselves thinking about what we should be looking at for future forecast organizations, that's what I would be encouraging you to think about.

Kieran Gilmurray 30:08

Fantastic. And mine again will be AI isn't a magic wand. It is amazing when applied in the right place. So let's start thinking about where we should be using AI to augment these great individuals, these great leaders, these great businesses. And let's see what we get to. Folks,

Closing And Listener Questions

Kieran Gilmurray 30:24

thank you so much indeed for listening in. Hopefully, you get a flavor of our madness and the things that we're going to be talking about. If you have any thoughts and opinions about what we're saying, if you have any questions, please pop them in the comments below. We'll do our best to try and answer every one of them over the next six, eight, ten, twelve weeks. We'll do our best to reinvent toward 2030 and create organizations that you and I actually want to work in, as opposed to landing on a Sunday night going, oh my god, Monday's coming. Fear is still real. Folks, fantastic, Laura. Thank you so much indeed. Great. Thanks.