Welcome to another exciting episode of All About HR! This is the series for HR Professionals and business leaders who want to future-proof their organization and learn about the latest trends & insights from industry experts, CHROs, and thought leaders.
How can HR use organizational design to build a future-proof company? In this episode of All About HR season 2, we discuss with Naomi Stanford — Organization Design Author & Consultant — what HR needs to know to help their business thrive with organizational design.
Naomi is an organizational design expert, author, and consultant who advises and supports multinationals, non-profits, and government bodies worldwide.
In this episode, we’ll talk about:
- Organizational Design in simple terms
- The value of scenario planning for HR
- 5 key principles of Organizational Design
Watch the full episode to discover how HR can help companies prepare for the future of work with organizational design.
Transcript:
Naomi Stanford: You need to be designing continuously, not during initiatives. So the continuous organization design requires someone or a group of people with the role, responsibility, and accountability to be looking at the design of the organization and flagging signals for the world. You just mentioned that it’s time to start thinking about shifting a bit, not an initiative to do something different.
Neelie Verlinden: Hi, everyone, and welcome to a brand new episode of All About HR. My name is Neelie. I’m your host, and on today’s episode, I speak with Dr Naomi Stanford. Naomi is an organization design practitioner and an author. During her early UK career, she worked for several big companies such as British Airways, Marks and Spencers, and Price Waterhouse. Nowadays, Naomi is freelancing as an organization, design consultant, and advisor. And earlier this year, the third edition of her economist book, “A Guide to Organization Design”, came out. I’m sure that we’re going to talk about that as well. But the main topic of today’s conversation is the importance of organizational design to enable your business post-pandemic.
Neelie Verlinden: Welcome to another episode of All About HR.
Neelie Verlinden: Now, before we get to that, though, let me welcome Naomi to the show. Hi, Naomi, how are you?
Naomi Stanford: Hi. It’s lovely to be here. And thanks so much for inviting me. It’s always good to be talking about organization design. So it’s a great delight to me.
Neelie Verlinden: It is! I’m very happy to have you here, Naomi. Before we really dive into today’s topic, maybe you want to tell our listeners a little bit more about yourself and the work that you’re doing.
Naomi Stanford: Sure. So a little bit about myself. I’ve been in the organization design sphere for decades. And it’s very interesting to see how it’s changed over the years. I’ve worked in numerous different countries. I lived in America for 11 years being an organization design external consultant. As you said, I before I left for America, I worked for major companies in the UK. And when I came back, I worked for the nonprofit in the government sector. I left the government sector about two years ago now. So in the course of being an internal consultant and external consultant and working in multiple sectors, I’ve also worked in different countries, so China, the Middle East, America and Europe. And so I’ve seen a huge number of different countries and organizations and the way different cultures impact things and the interaction within organizations, of their relationships with suppliers with partner organizations. And when they work for us, of course, it’s a very dynamic field right now, particularly given the geopolitical climate and things to do with climate change – all impacting organizations radically, totally apart from the pandemic, which is a sort of huge storm of things for people to think about very rapidly.
Neelie Verlinden: Yes, absolutely. And I think we will actually circle back to that a bit later during our conversation Naomi. First I would like to start with talking a little bit more about organizational design as a discipline. So maybe we can start with how can we define organizational design in simple terms?
Naomi Stanford: You are asking the impossible. I can just tell you how to define it and how to not define it in simple terms. Organization design is not about the organization chart. And so when you say it’s not about the organization chart, an organization chart tells us things but it isn’t doesn’t tell us about an organization. And so if you start from the point of view of what an organization chart does and doesn’t tell us, you do in fact start to get a good impression of what organization design is, because an organization chart does not tell us how people interact with each other. It does not tell us how the work flows. It does not tell us about all the people you employ in your organisation as contractors, as part-time workers who are perhaps working for a partner organization and have a third party contract with you. It does not tell you about the technologies that you’re using to deliver the work. It does not tell you about the relationships with supplier organizations. And organization design is about all those things that the organization chart does not tell us, as well as the much smaller numbers of things that the organization chart does tell us – which is basically who reports to who and how many are on your direct payroll, and potentially your hierarchy and grading structure. So you can see if you start in simple terms, think about what the organization chart doesn’t tell us and think about what it does tell us. List it all out, and the totality is what organization design is concerned with.
Neelie Verlinden: I like that approach. I like that approach of thinking of okay what does it not tell us and what does it tell us and then you know, we are going to get a definition in simple terms. So, thank you for that Naomi. Now, sometimes organizational design processes can have not necessarily a great reputation, even though unfairly so. So I would like to perhaps get rid of some of the myths associated with organizational design. So in your opinion, what are some of these myths?
Naomi Stanford: The major one is that it’s about the organization chart. The thing about organisation design is what you’re trying to do all the time is make all the different elements work together smoothly. It’s a bit like trying to construct a jigsaw puzzle. But that isn’t a tremendously good analogy, because that’s a fixed thing. And an organization is constantly shifting. So you’re trying to make sure that all the shifting parts, say introducing a new IT system or changing a supplier contract, all of those moving parts are going to still work together effectively to deliver your product or service. So one of the myths – apart from the chart myth – is that it’s about people only. It’s not just about people. In fact, if you design around people, that is quite a dangerous and risky thing to do. It’s about in my terms workflow, and how work is organized in the decisions you make around whether people are going to do the work or is it going to be outsourced? Or is automation going to do the work? And then you start to think about how are you going to get the linkages? I guess your question about the myth is quite interesting because people I don’t know if it’s expressed as a myth. They talk about an organization designers, their organization, but that is very, very difficult to define and design. If I started to ask you are your suppliers in the organisation or out of the organisation, are the third-party contractors that you use part of the organisation or not? That can become very blurred. So organization design is about organizations and the way they interact as much as it is about your organization. And just a small illustrative example. At the time I worked for British Airways, all the check-in agents in the airport wore British Airways uniforms, but none of them was employed by British Airways. They were employed by a third party. Now they’re representing the face of British Airways, and they’ve got to act as if they are British Airways, but they’re not. Now, are they part of your organization? Or are they not part of your organization?
Neelie Verlinden: Well, I mean, if I would have to answer that, I would say yes, they are part of my organization. But I guess that every organization does it differently judging by your question, or I wrong there?
Naomi Stanford: Well, they do judge it differently. Because now if you take that to the next step, and I think say on training programmes, who is going to provide those check-in agents who are not employed by British Airways with their training to do the job? Is it their employer or is it British Airways? Or is there some partnership? And how is that factored into financial planning? And what does the service level contract tell you about that? And so you can see with organizational design, linkages and boundaries are very critical. So the myth that it’s about our organization’s needs, if you can describe it as a myth, needs exploring because it’s actually about interactions between your organization and other organizations. So that’s quite a critical message that leaders know how to design, which I won’t go and explore at the moment. But leaders very often do not know what is going on at the grassroots of the organization. And there have been some horrendous failures when leaders of the Volkswagen emissions thing was a sort of thing that was because leaders didn’t have a close grip on what was going on in totally different parts of the organization that they were much less likely to be exposed doing their daily work relying on leaders to make organization design decisions is also rather risky.
Neelie Verlinden: Part of me feels that here we have a material enough to do an entire episode around myths associated with organizational design almost, Naomi.
Naomi Stanford: You’re probably right. I think I just wrote an article on the 10 myths of organization design quite a while ago.
Neelie Verlinden: Please do. Now one more thing before we are going to dive in a little bit more into the actual enabling of organizations through organizational design. But sometimes, when I speak to people, I can get some contrasting views regarding design around work versus designing around people and talent, which you just touched a little bit as well. So I can guess the answer may be a bit here. But what is your perspective when it comes to that? So designing around work versus designing around people and talent, what’s your perspective?
Naomi Stanford: I always design around work, because people are very shifting, and you can deliver the work in all sorts of different ways. And the ways that you choose to deliver the work then affect the type of people that you need, and the talent and capabilities that you’re looking for. And you know, the decisions around whether to automate or not. You can see that happening in a very straightforward example, which is warehousing. If you imagine a warehouse, say an Amazon warehouse or any large distributor warehouse, delivery of the goods into the dispatch area used to be done by people in forklift trucks. And so that takes people who can drive forklift trucks. Now, if you did carry on designing your warehouse around people who could drive forklift trucks or recognise a barcode with a scanner, or what have you, then you’re going to become non-competitive with the distributors who are using robots employing s quarter the number of actual people having very good data analytics around the warehouse stock, etc, that you can’t get with a workforce in the same way, if you’re reliant on prior technology solutions. If you start to think about the work and what’s the best way of delivering the work for our particular organization, then you can start to lay out all the steps and the activities and not in huge detail, but you know enough to give you some visibility, and see whether you prefer to do it by people or by outsourcing or by automation, or even not do it at all. And you can see very different decisions in the airlines. Interesting examples, because we’ve got the budget airlines who take one view of what the work is in terms of delivery of it, and high end airlines that take a different view. So that you’ll find that the way that the actual work is exactly the same, they’ve got to deliver people from A to B safely. That’s all they’re doing. But delivering people from A to B safely is very, very differently done by the different airlines. And they employ different proportions of staff to each activity because they’re making, you know, quality over costs over time over automation decisions. Until you know how you want to organise the work. You don’t really have a good handle on the people. And managing and designing with people in mind exposes you to huge risks. Think how difficult organizations are finding it now with the massive sickness due to COVID and how they’re trying to fill the gaps and how the notion of work is changing as people realise they can work from home. And I guess you’ve heard that terrible phrase, the great resignation of people changing jobs. If you designed around those people who are now leaving, you’re going to be in great difficulty. If you’re designing around here’s how we could do the work. I’m here so we could do the work. If our entire workforce left then we could be in a more resilient position.
Neelie Verlinden: Yeah, I mean, I think this makes a lot of sense. Especially given the fact that that yeah, people can change jobs, they can decide to leave or they move around a lot. So that thing just makes it makes a lot of sense to design around that work. Now, Naomi, you mentioned that a few times already, because these are intense times on many different levels, of course, for I would say every organization out there. So how in these times can organizational design be a strategic enabler, and how can it not turn into a stumbling block? What are your thoughts on that?
Naomi Stanford: That’s a very good question. And there’s a very interesting article in last week’s economist on supply chains and supply chain disruption and supply chain resilience, which kind of looks at that in terms of the network effect of things happening, and how organization design can be an enabler. You start if you’re in a big organization, first of all, look around and see all the people who’ve got the title design in their job title. So you’ll find there are enterprise designers and graphic designers and communications designers and software designers and customer experience designers, and whatever the design field in big organizations is, it is multi-discipline. Now you’ve got a strategic advantage if all of that community of multi-discipline designers is working together, collaboratively and not independently because then they’re going to see the organization from them multiple lenses, because to be strategic, you may have a strategy that you want to speed up your supply chain, as I’m focusing on the supply chain. It is a huge issue at the moment. You want to have a more resilient one, a lot of that can be looked at through a technology lens, but it also through a legal lens. And because it’s a political decision as much as anything and the regulatory decision and the cost decision. So it’s looked at through a financial lens. So if you get in the room, all the people who see supply chain efficiency through their lenses, you start to think how can we design this together more effectively. Then you’ve got a strategic advantage. You have a strategic disadvantage when someone says, oh, how can we speed up this bills of lading bit of the supply chain in isolation? The whole thing about good design is trying to look as far as possible at the system, and the network nodes, and how the bits of the system interact with other bits both within and tune to the outside of the organisation into the wider ecosystem. And the article in The Economist I mentioned does look closely at that. And a lot of researchers are looking at the network effect and the impact of that.
Neelie Verlinden: Very interesting, and I think a very relevant example that one of the supply chains. So thank you for sharing that. I think it really makes it a bit more tangible as well for our listeners. Now, Naomi, from an HR perspective, how can organizational design enable us to be prepared for the next, let’s call it a crisis? Or let’s call it the next challenge? Because I find that a little bit less daunting?
Naomi Stanford: Well, there are some ways actually that they can. The HR profession can start to look strategically at the design of the organisation. First of all, if they’ve got very high-quality data on the current workforce, and they’re very familiar with the strategy in as much as you can have a strategy in this sort of turbulent time, then you can start to ask questions about if we wanted to deliver this strategy. Have we got the skills and talents to do it? But you could also be saying: if we just quickly change strategy, then what would happen? So I don’t know how many HR functions around scenario planning workshops with multidisciplinary people, you know, if we lost half the workforce to another pandemic? Or Well, suddenly, I guess most people across the globe have had to shut down operations in some parts of the world at some point. And you see that currently, people making decisions on if we had to shut down our operation in Russia, what is the impact on our workforce? And how do we deal with that? Now, that decision, that scenario that people are currently wrestling with, could have been played out ages ago in scenarios, and that would help make a resilient cut. Now, who would have more ability to respond to that with less of a knee jerk reaction? But I haven’t met many HR functions which are running scenario planning. And the reason the reasons I’ve been given, which I think a ridiculous reasons, but when I’ve tried to suggest it, is that people don’t want to be scared. So they don’t even want to think that they might have to do X or Y or, you know, they will be hit by a meteorite. They don’t want to consider a potential scenario and that means that you’re not resilient when something vaguely similar happens. So running scenarios can be very helpful. Because then you can look at your data going back to the data point, and if it’s current and reliable and valid, you can start to see if x happened. Have we got the work force? You can deal with it in terms of skills and capabilities, in terms of numbers, in terms of location, in terms of competency levels, etc. But another interesting thing about workforce data, is it tells you things that you asked for, it doesn’t tell you things that you don’t ask for, and in one organization I worked in, I just randomly chatted to people, and I realised that a lot of them had incredible skills that we weren’t using. So you know, they might be a champion rose grower, which, in fact, one person actually was, or they might be running a Parent Teacher Association at school or being a football coach or any of these things, which takes huge skill, and we don’t know about them. And those skills, you can play them into the organization should the situation arise. And we don’t value the skills that people deploy outside of the organization. And as much because we don’t necessarily know about them, or we don’t think to ask or consider the relevant. But what was so interesting about the pandemic for two years was we started to see ordinary day to day people exhibiting incredible skills that they’ve never exhibited in the workforce. And you can see now in Ukraine, the number of people I’ve met, who are helping to mobilize stuff going to Ukraine, you know, you think, Oh, that’s a fantastic logistical exercise, and that logistics thing they’re not using in their day to day work in the workplace. So thinking about what we’re not asking of the workforce isn’t in the data could also be very helpful and develop massive levels of resilience.
Neelie Verlinden: Yeah, absolutely. I think that’s a great point that you’re making there, thinking of what we’re not asking and how tremendously helpful that can potentially be. Very good point there, Naomi. Perhaps briefly, a few things for HR practitioners. So what would you say are some of the signs in their organization to look out for that could indicate that it’s time to embark on an organizational design initiative?
Naomi Stanford: Well, that’s another kind of hot button. Because you need to be designing continuously, not during initiatives. So the continuous organization design requires someone or a group of people with the role, responsibility, and accountability to be looking at the design of the organization and flagging signals for the world. You just mentioned that it’s time to start thinking about shifting a bit, not an initiative to do something different. So for example, one that I’ve used, I think, in the book designing organizations, this new book on designing organizations why it matters and ways to do it. Well, it’s about the semiconductor industry. We’ve known for years and years that rare metals are getting rarer and rarer. That’s why they’re rare. Or that the rare metals for making semiconductors and batteries and stuff are in countries which are rather conflict-ridden. No, that weak signal from I think it was 10 years ago, when that started to be highlighted. Nobody has done anything about it till now. But if you have a group of people who are skilled at looking at what is called weak signals, and in the book, I do mention these weak signals, and you start to think, oh, that’s an interesting signal we need to start thinking about, then you don’t need an initiative. You’re already beginning to prepare the organization. And in fact, there was, I don’t know if you remember the year 2000, when there was that big kind of anxiety that all the computers would fail because of the way they’ve been programmed?
Neelie Verlinden: Yeah, the Millennium.
Naomi Stanford: Yeah. But that was known years in advance. And that was a continuous organization designed piece of work, years in advance, continuous. And then on that, was it the first of January 2000, nothing happened. It was all fine. You know, because people have been continuously looking at it. And that level of looking is important when you’re picking things up, you know, now. Now, if you look at the current situation, are we looking at what countries might falter now that our partners in our work, or countries that are going to have to respond very differently? How is that going to impact now? Those are strong signals. You know, how is Germany going to manage an oil embargo? For example, though, that’s the strongest signal. But a weaker signal might be how is the hydrogen industry building up in countries where they might want to accelerate it, that sort of thing. We’re doing anything about recruiting people with hydrogen skills into our organization to change our buildings and other things for sure. We should be thinking about it years in advance, when we don’t need a hydrogen skilled person right now, potentially, but we do know who could possibly be interested in it. You know, that’s the sort of thing that we need to be asking.
Neelie Verlinden:Yeah, absolutely. And that comes back…
Naomi Stanford: So I don’t know a lot about hydrogen. So take that example with a pinch of salt.
Neelie Verlinden: I think that comes back again, Naomi, to these different scenarios and the scenario planning, right, that you mentioned earlier? I mean, I think if people are ready and willing to talk about and to think about possible scenarios, then I think a logical consequence that would roll out of that would then be what are the signs we can start to look out for? And are these weak signs? Or are these stronger signs? Because you’ve thought about various scenarios, and you can, I guess, assign various different signs to each scenario. So I think it comes back to that or not.
Naomi Stanford: Yeah, there are other ways of doing it, though. There, you think of a lot of help. There are very good, you know, organizations like the Institute of the Futures and the World Future Society, and most governments have future forecasting groups working on future forecasts, and some organizations I’ve worked in have had what they called Horizon scanners. And that would be a great skill for HR people to develop, that horizon scanning capability.
Neelie Verlinden: Yeah, absolutely. Perhaps it can be a new course here at the Academy to Innovate HR at some point.
Naomi Stanford: It’s a good idea.
Neelie Verlinden: Yeah, exactly. slightly moving tack again here because I wanted to also talk a bit about the key principles for effective organizational design, starting with, perhaps briefly, Naomi, the five key principles for effective organizational design, could we maybe run through them?
Naomi Stanford: Yeah, sure. So the first one that I had in my book, and the book is based on these five principles, is that the design is driven by the purpose of the organisation and the strategy. So you’re really thinking, and if this applies, whether you’re working on redesigning just a team, what is the purpose of the team? What is the purpose of the business unit? What is the purpose of the whole organization? It’s important to know, and a lot of people don’t know. And I’ve had some great discussions in redesigning HR departments, or functions, when I say, what is the purpose of your HR function? And that discussion can go on all day. And until you are crystal clear on what is the purpose of that function, or that department or that piece of activity, you’re not going to be able to design it. It’s rather like trying to design a machine and you don’t know what it’s supposed to do? Is it supposed to dry your hair? Or is it supposed to take you from A to B? You can’t design something without knowing what the purpose of the design is. And you need to also have an agreement on that. What is the purpose? And that can also take time because if you think about the purpose of an HR function, it could be to recruit the right people into the right place at the right time. But it could be to ensure diversity and equality and inclusion as a purpose. Or it could be to make sure that most of the good work is offered to all employees. But they’re all completely different design possibilities. If you’re actually trying to design an organization with those different purposes in mind, you’d have different policies and different activities. And you may want to say, well, it’s about all of those things. But if you want to say that, then you need a statement that simply says all that but very straightforwardly in a way that people can follow. But in most organisations, there’s a bit of a. particularly around HR, a bit of fuzziness around what is the purpose of HR? And which is why, you know, you get this sort of wonderful statement about why can’t we have a seat at the table, that sort of, you know, how can we be strategic that don’t go there either. So I’ve mentioned this second principle about systems thinking HR people, and anyone working in organization design really needs to know about systems thinking and systems approaches, and what is a system and be able to understand that an impact, something that you change in one part of the organization has an impact somewhere else. And you can see that even at a team level, if one of your team members leaves your team and you get a new person, everybody will see that the work is being done differently by virtue of that person’s personality, and everyone adjusted around it. And they’re not necessarily doing that consciously, but the new colour has effectively redesigned the team and those minor micro designs are going on all the time. And if you don’t think about those systemic impacts all the time, then you’re not going to be able to design something that is ultimately well functioning. It will have glitches in it. The third principle, we’ve mentioned, is about the future-oriented mindset you’re designing for an unknown future. And because it’s unknown, you have to be prepared for a number of possibilities. So you’re trying to look at what prepares us for an unknown future and the unknown could be you know, immediate, it could be that something happens right now, like a gas leak somewhere and road blows up, which, you know, in London that happened a few years ago. And the underground station had to be evacuated and all the office buildings around the pipe had to be evacuated. And we’re out of commission for three weeks. And so that thing about what could happen, just going repeating the thing about the scenario can be quite small. But it can also be potentially quite major, and building in the thinking that this could happen, what are the skills we need if it does, because other things will happen which potentially aren’t exactly the same, but similar enough to use those resilient attributes. The fourth principle is about the design processes of conversations and social interactions. And again, that doesn’t show up on the organization chart. But there’s some very good software which designers are using now to map influencers and to look at how social networks interact. And in the old days, when I started, not the very start because when I started working, people were allowed to smoke in the workplace. But after a few years, people had to go outside and smoke. Now, smoking is a great leveller, because you go and have a cigarette, and you go to this area outside your office or your workplace, called smokers area, and you meet people from right across the organization, because what they’ve got in common is smoking, but then they started chatting about the work. And then you’ve got a social network. And that social network can be really, really powerful and influential. Now you know whether I haven’t actually connected smoker’s networks to levels of influence, but you can see levels of influence and interactions are not related to hierarchical communication, they’re running within all of that all the time, and can be incredibly powerful. And so those informal conversations are as much a part of the design trying to pick up on them as the formal. The fifth principle I’ve already mentioned is the continuous design process. It is not an initiative, it’s not a one-off, it’s continuous maintenance, shift shaping change sort of thing on a continuous basis.
Neelie Verlinden: Thank you for that. Naomi and by the way, I love the smokers example. And I think you’re actually right on that one. I’ve seen it in various companies I’ve worked in, especially in France, and yeah, it’s definitely something powerful happening there. While people are going for a cigarette break, it is not to be underestimated. I think I have one more question. And then we’re going to wrap up, because when we’re talking about organization design, and when we’re having this ongoing initiative, what tells us that we are on track? Can you maybe briefly say something about that?
Naomi Stanford: Yeah, that also is a good question. Because on track sometimes shifts, and, again, is the issue with knowing whether you’re on track is having both the short term and the slightly longer term view simultaneously. So you’re looking for indicators, and new organizations do collect a lot of indicators of customer satisfaction, of productivity, of sickness and absence, blah, blah, blah. And what you can start to see is patterns in those if you look across a selection of the data, and one of the things that I tried in an experiment within one organization fairly recently, was to look at patterns of sickness and absence in relation to change initiatives because I wanted to know whether the number of things going on there, which was shifting the context, was having an impact on workforce thickness, which it was, but that meant that because we knew that there were a lot of projects than these were actual projects. So they had a beginning and an end date going on at the same time, and we were able to shift some of the milestones of the projects to even them out. So people weren’t being impacted by all these changes at the same time, which was obviously very stressful for them, but having the data to map the two completely different things the project should do, plus sickness and absence, historically, was an eye-opener for some people and that sort of question around how do you know you’re on track? You know you’re on track when some of the important indicators like sickness and absence is an important indicators for people in an organisation. But other important indicators are things like machine failures. or productivity drops, or financial slippage, or stuff like that. So knowing what your original baseline indicators of effectiveness are, is part one. Part two, then, is the design intended to improve those indicators? Or at least maintain them? Are they staying stable? Or are they dropping? If they’re dropping, what in relation to what else, if you see what I mean? And then if we want to bring in some new indicators, so saying you’ve opened up a new product line or another customer segment, how are you going to start building that up and looking? So having clarity on what you consider indicators of effectiveness. And one of the indicators of effectiveness, which is kind of interesting is customer satisfaction, or you know, that all this sort of social networks reports on who may come into your outlet, and then they get furious at something and how the way that’s dealt with could be an indicator of effectiveness. Some of the indicators of effectiveness are fairly random, but they don’t look for patterns. And I do, in the book, talk about patterns a lot, about how you look for patterns in data.
Neelie Verlinden: Yeah. I think that is a perfect bridge for us to wrap up this conversation. And before I do so where can people find your book?
Naomi Stanford: Well, in all good bookshops, as I say. It’s available as a paperback. It is available on Kindle. I don’t think it’s available just as an audiobook yet. But it’s very accessible. And if you go to the profile books, who published for the economist, they have it on their website, and then there’s a button that says “Click here for suppliers”. So it’s not difficult to get ahold of.
Neelie Verlinden: No. And we will actually also include it in the information when we when we publish this podcast episode. Naomi, I want to thank you very much for being here today with me on this episode and for sharing all your really interesting insights and examples with me. Thank you.
Naomi Stanford
You’re very welcome. I’ve enjoyed it a lot. You’ve got great questions that make me think, which I always love.
Neelie Verlinden: And thank you everybody for tuning in again to another episode of All About HR. I hope you enjoyed this conversation just as much as I did. And if you did, don’t forget to like this video, subscribe to our channel, and share this episode with a friend. Thank you very much and I see you very soon again for a new episode. Goodbye.
Weekly update
Stay up-to-date with the latest news, trends, and resources in HR
Learn more
Featured content from AIHR Academy
Related articles
Are you ready for the future of HR?
Learn modern and relevant HR skills, online
