2025 HR Predictions: Toot-worthy or Boot-worthy?

In this week's special episode, your host Stacey Nordwall joins the Toot or Boot hot seat with Erica Spitale and Rebecca Taylor, and producer Lexi comes out from behind the scenes for a rapid-fire edition of Toot or Boot, all about 2025 HR predictions. 

Lexi reviewed 15 different predictions sources (that’s over 75 predictions) which were organized into five different themes: AI, Remote/Hybrid Work, Leadership and Organizational Change, Employee Experience and Well-being, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). 

Unlike a usual episode of Toot or Boot, Stacey, Erica, and Rebecca had no idea what predictions/trends they would encounter. They were put on the spot to take each trend at face value, Toot or Boot it at the same time, then discuss.

Afterwards, Lexi reveals each trend's source.

Here are the trends we cover on this episode: 

1. Internal processes get an AI makeover: 5 predictions for HR and the world of work in 2025 | Culture Amp  
2. PR comes to HR: 2024 HR Trends and 2025 Predictions | SHRM
3. Despite the benefits of AI in powering accessibility tools, this author predicts that the cybersecurity risks from AI will lead to some organizations prohibiting such tools in greater instances in 2025: Neurodiversity and Disability Employment – Reflections on 2024 and Predictions for 2025 | Nathan Chung 
4. Mental Health Gets Personal. 7 Seismic Shifts Coming to HR in 2025 | Bill Brown
5. Leadership That Actually Leads: 2025 HR Predictions: Looking Into the Crystal Ball | Katarina Berg

Other articles referenced:
I talked to Meta's Black AI character. Here's what she told me.

The excerpt from Culture Amp's article that Lexi references about their cohort using internal AI: "When used right, Gen AI tools can dramatically improve workflows, eliminate inefficiencies, and make information available in seconds. In 2024, some Culture Amp employees gained early access to an internal Gen AI tool. They now show higher engagement levels and report having more energy at work than employees who weren’t in the pilot cohort. We’re only one company, but we can’t help but share our own experimentation with people solutions and strategies. We’re excited about the possibilities!"

Connect with Erica Spitale
On LinkedIn

Connect with Rebecca Taylor
On LinkedIn or email rebecca@skillcycle.com

Rebecca hosts the HR Confessions podcast with Kim Rohrer. The premise of HR Confessions is we collect anonymous stories of things that happened in HR, and Rebecca reads them live for Kim to react and respond to. Find it wherever you get your podcasts, and if you have your own HR confession that you want to submit, email hrconfessions@skillcycle.com

Chapters

• 5:03 Prediction #1
• 15:49 Prediction #2
• 21:19 Prediction #3
• 28:21 Prediction #4
• 36:10 Prediction #5

Transcript

Stacey (00:00):

Welcome to Toot or Boot, where each week we talk about news related to HR and the world of work. We toot the news we like and we boot the news we don't like. I'm Stacey Nordwall, a serial joiner of early stage tech companies as their first in or only HR person. And today I'm actually sliding into the guest seat along with Erica and Rebecca and our producer Lexi is stepping in as our host. So Lexi, I hand it over to you.

Lexi (00:27):

Hey, I am Lexi. I'm Stacey's co-producer and an HR tech marketer for nearly a decade. I am thrilled to be putting Stacey in the hot seat today because normally she does a whole bunch of prep for each episode and this one, she doesn't know what's coming, so that's very exciting for me. And Erica, would you like to tell us a bit about yourself as well?

Erica (00:53):

Sure. So happy to be here. Stacey and I have a awesome relationship. I'm so excited I got invited back. That means she likes me, which is great. But my name's Erica Vitale. I'm a clinical psychologist turned HR leader. I have been working in for-profit and now non-for-profit organizations for the last 10 years after practicing in the mental health field. And I love everything about being able to impart wisdom and come up with solutions and effective practices and processes for organizations. And so I'm super excited to be here and can't wait to dive in. I'm originally from Chicago, hailing from Atlanta now, but the weather seem to be similar now, so I don't really know why I'm here either, but cool, happy to be here.

Lexi (01:43):

Nice. Thank you for being here. And Rebecca, tell us a little bit about yourself.

Rebecca (01:47):

Yes, thank you Lexi. So I'm Rebecca Taylor. I'm the co-founder and chief customer officer of Skill Cycle. We're a talent development platform and we're actually one of those HR tech platforms that was built by HR people. So I spent 12 years in HR before rage-quitting my job and co-founding skill cycle with an old boss of mine. And our whole purpose here is to really build technology that helps people to get better feedback on their performance and then translate that feedback into actual development with support from a coach to actually then act on that development and see success in their career. So just trying to make it the workplace a little bit less awful every day. And I get to work with our customers who are doing all of this and working with our coachees who see a lot of results from coaching and it's just like it lights up my life every single day when I'm like, there's something good that comes from all of that at the end of the day. So I'm so excited to be here. I love Toot or Boot, first time guest, longtime listener. So thank you Stacey for the invite.

Lexi (02:42):

Ah, we love it. I think you are maybe the first person to say that and I'm so glad that we now have someone who has said that. So thank you. Okay, so our theme today is 2025 HR predictions. So I think we start to see these in December. The trends and prediction articles just kind of start coming out of the woodwork, so we thought it'd be fun to review them in the Toot or Boot way. So in order to do that, I tried to bring some organization to it. So I reviewed 15 different prediction sources. That's over 75 predictions. And truly there's probably thousands out there, but nobody has time for that. And I mean there's even webinars discussing this topic now. So we knew we had to weigh in and see what was out there. So I also categorized those predictions by themes and that's how I chose the five that will be Tooting or Booting today.

(03:39):

So the themes that we've seen, and like I said, I don't think any of these are surprising. We have ai, remote and hybrid work leadership and organizational change, employee experience and wellbeing and diversity, equity and inclusion. So the criteria for the ones that I'm bringing to you today, I did my best to pick non-generic predictions. There's only one prediction per author, but that's not part of, I'm not quizzing you on who wrote it. I will tell you who wrote it after we talk about it though. And there's only one prediction per main theme. So let's get started. You've got your Toot or Boot paddles? We're doing it a little bit differently today. We have it quickfire style. So how it's going to work is I will read the prediction, four out of five of the predictions have kind of a pithy title, and then I'll read you two sentences of description to give you a little bit more.

(04:37):

And then once I'm done, I'll either say Toot or Boot or I'll just look at you and then you'll hold up your answers and then we'll discuss. Are we ready? Okay, ready? Let's, let's do it. Okay. Prediction number one, internal processes, get an AI makeover. While many employees already use large language model tools independently to streamline their personal workflows, organizations will begin introducing AI tools designed for intentional internal use. Unlike public facing models that train on every input, you feed it and risk security of proprietary information. Internal gen AI models are designed specifically for ensuring data privacy. Are we ready? Should I count down?

Stacey (05:31):

Yeah, countdown.

Lexi (05:33):

Okay. 3, 2, 1. Okay, we've got two toots and one boot. One boot from Stacey. Stacey, do you want to give us your dissenting opinion first?

Stacey (05:52):

So one of what I'll say is I do think the way that that is framed, I thought about it, I wanted to toot it, but I think my boot comes from just not believing that, right? Not believing all of the kind of constraints that come within that description. And what I mean is, I think particularly because I'm in tech, it's just the echo chamber of venture capitalists, VCs saying to all their portfolio companies, we have to get AI in there somehow. You have to get AI in there somehow. All CEOs are in their echo chamber of we have to figure out how to get AI into our organizations. And I don't think they're even really having the conversations of what problems are we trying to solve by doing that. It's just because everyone else is doing it, they have to do it too. And I think the big challenge for me is that we have to think about who a lot of these who built these models, how they built them and how they built them for people like OpenAI Chat, GPT is stealing people's IP and putting in Reddit and Twitter as sources.

(07:08):

And it was built by a pretty homogenous group. And you see that with the news that came out of Meta's AI bot that was, I think it was meant to be a black queer woman. There's this article in Washington Post where the reporter is asking the bot questions and the responses are very stereotypical, and the reporter asked the bot, was there a black woman in the room who was one of your creators? And the answer was no. So you have this very homogenous group, you have this data that is kind of somewhat questionable. You see folks like Sam Altman, anytime he's trying to answer a question about the dangers of ai, and I'm not talking about the, it will become sentient and we're going to live in a terminator world, which is what all of the billionaires want us to focus on, but the actual harms of AI denying medical claims, AI identifying people for crimes, and those people being arrested.

(08:11):

When you ask him to talk about things like that, he kind of throws his hands up abdicates responsibility. And it's like, oh, well, the government I'm sure will make legislation. Meanwhile, these are the same people who are lobbying for deregulation and opposing the legislation. I think, and if you listen to our previous DEI episode, we're talking about in a capitalist country where the companies are meant to really, their driver is profit and their driver is increasing shareholder value. It's hard for me to then think about this prediction happening where it's very much rooted in ethics and safety and data privacy and everything that I've seen. It's hard for me to believe that that exists on a broad scale. Not to say that there aren't companies that are building that way. I just feel like that's not the majority of the companies because just OpenAI or, I mean, I know OpenAI is kind of pretending not to be for-profit, but I think they're incentivized by what's going to make the money. So I am just going to say, yeah, boots across the board for me on it. I don't see it. That's too many caveats of what it could be, but it's not those things right now. I mean, it might be, I just don't think it's those things. Now

Rebecca (09:49):

I think in my toots, these are my toots and these are my boots just for those watching. So my toot is kind of coming from, I hear all the concerns about the bigger implementation, all the bigger challenges. And I think mine was maybe it's kind of a simplified toot in the sense that I do think that there's going to be more processes internally that are going to be starting to transition to using AI more to help them happen in a faster way or an easier way. And so I try to think about things in terms of what's the next best step? And so I don't think by the end of the year, every single internal process is going to be completely run by AI and no one has to ever do anything. But I do think that we're going to start to really take steps now that people have a better understanding of what they can do with generative AI to use it in smaller pieces that do help them learn it for what the next best, the next step of implementation might be more broadly.

(10:50):

So how can I rewrite this candidate feedback? How can I take all of the feedback notes that I have from interviews and turn that into feedback that I can give a candidate that is helpful but isn't harmful? And I think the key for all of it is going to be having the human overlay where AI gets you 80% of the way there in the process, but a human still has to review it, tighten it, take responsibility for that final submission of whatever that process is. And that is to me, going to be the key. It's going to be helping you to make your job easier, do the 80% of the work, but you still take responsibility for a hundred percent of the result. And so we've seen it a lot. I mean, I'll also come in because I'm a tech founder, so there's my bias of that too.

(11:39):

We built AI within our platform that helps people to write performance reviews, to get feedback, to translate that feedback into action. So I know that I'm coming into this with that very obvious bias, and not every founder is thinking about how to thoughtfully integrate AI into their tech stack, which is very much, that was our goal for 2024 is thoughtfully embracing AI. But as we think about where it can help a lot with internal processes, I think just starting small with little things before we start to think about having an entire organization basically run by AI is where my toot comes from.

Erica (12:18):

Yeah, I want to echo honestly what both Stacey and Rebecca said, but yeah, my toot was definitely taking what Lexi you read at face value in the sense of yes, if you can commit to this, I'm totally on board, but that's a big if, right? So to Rebecca's point, and also starting small. So yeah, I was interpreting it as I can think of many processes we'd actually like to start but actually don't have the humans to enough humans in terms of capacity to actually do this from scratch or to do this. So how do we still run an equitable and effective organization with the help of a tool that could, to Rebecca's point, get us more than halfway there and then with the resources we do have, see it through, make sure it meets our ethical guidelines and be responsible for outcomes, et cetera. So yeah, my toot was very much like, if I'm going to believe you and if you're putting a hard stamp on these words of privacy and et cetera, then cool. And also recognizing that there are benefits to efficiency when you are truly committed to doing great work within organizations. And if there is a tool that's going to help you get there faster, sign me up.

Lexi (13:44):

Well, I love the dialogue on this and I'm excited to tell you in particular Stacey who wrote this. So this is from our friends at Culture Amp. This is Freia Jackson who is a good friend of mine and Heather Walker. And one of the things that I really liked about just how they approach the predictions is that they're using Culture Amp data to look at this. So that makes the article to me stand out and really fell into that. How do I pull something for you guys is that they're making these predictions based on their own data. And then Erica, I think you were saying taking it at face value. Actually they ran a cohort of this within Culture Amp using an internal AI system. I'm trying to find I the exact quote, we could put it in the show notes, but I thought that was really interesting as well. It's like they're saying they're only one company, but this is how this sort of prediction was playing out for them. 

Stacey (15:00):

So alright, this is very sneaky of You, Lexi, to put a CultureAmp article written by a friend of ours for me to boot. I feel you feel set up. I think was it a set up, oh, this is how this episode is going to go?

Lexi (15:20):

Well, I also think that Fresia is a great person to have a dialogue with and you know what I mean? So definitely not intended as a

Stacey (15:29):

Gotcha. Oh, I know.

Lexi (15:33):

Okay. This one might be though. Let's see how it goes. Okay. Prediction number two, PR comes to hr. Several organizations made headlines in 2024 because of internal HR policies and decisions which often caused unnecessary damage to their brand. Expect organizations to think more carefully about the intersection of HR and public relations as they look to make their employer brand stronger in 2025. Also, I want to caveat that. Yeah, we're taking these at face value. I'm just reading it and you're responding. Okay. This is Toots across the board. Wow, okay. Who wants to take this first? Because I'm so intrigued.

Stacey (16:26):

I mean, I could say I feel like people who have been working in HR know this already. I don't know if I would call it a trend for 2025. We've been talking about that, especially when you see people who are putting their layoffs on TikTok and all of these different kinds of things. We've, I think had these conversations about how important it is to think about your internal communications and know that they could go external and really have a kind of marketing and communications sensibility about what you're communicating. So I don't know. I mean, I just agree. Yeah.

Rebecca (17:07):

Yeah. It's almost like the same way when we were going through the whole evolution maybe 10 years ago or so with employer branding and thinking about your employer brand, which is more kind of marketing speak and more associated with marketing. It's almost sort of the natural next step for HR to take even more of a sort of public component to their work. Because in a lot of ways with the way the internet is, with the way that we live today, there's really not a lot that is private, fortunately or unfortunately. So it's like we have to always think about how we do our jobs as if the public could always access it or if the public is always watching. And so it's going to be a combination of making sure that you actually do the right things, but also then too making sure that those right things are known and that they're clear and that if there is a misstep somewhere somehow that there is the ability for HR to have support in navigating that and really think about it from your relationship to the public goes beyond just the company's products because your people are essentially also part of that whole thing.

Erica (18:10):

I love this too because to Stacey's point, when I think about talent attraction and also then just talent sustainability, people in HR are always thinking about their brand and the brand of their outputs, not only internally, but also then how that attracts people who they want to bring in. So there's always an external component to it. So I think this journey is very organic and was naturally occurring anyway. What I will also add to the caveat though is as long as the shift for organizations is not about solely just about damage control, because then we get back into this trap of this HR becoming not your friend and the bad guy or bad woman, bad person. And that is not a narrative we need to hone in on any further. And so as long as this transition for organizations that they make it formal or informal, what have you isn't about save us from rescue us from more about proactive championing and branding than I'm all for it. And so my hope, again at face value is that this headline is about that and not about how do we scapegoat and become the culprits again in this space that we were never responsible for anyway.

Lexi (19:35):

Okay, Erica, once again, I'm so glad that you said that because I think I know who wrote this one. I think that's where my bias was coming from because this one comes from SHRM, so she set us up again. That was a gotcha. But again, I think that Erica, you explained that so well because I think that for those of us who know under the surface of SHRM, I feel like when I read this knowing it was from them, I felt like that's where it was coming from. So that's why me hearing you all talk about the positive side of that, I was like, oh, yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And that is great if it is that. But yeah, so sorry, that one was kind of a Gotcha.

Erica (20:30):

My heart literally stopped beating for the moment you said that word.

Lexi (20:37):

I clutched

Erica (20:37):

My pearls.

Lexi (20:41):

Oh goodness. Okay. No, I will say it was not my intention to do gotchas and not gotchas, but that one, yeah, I think when I put it on the list, I just didn't think about a positive side that could be taken from it because I couldn't think of it outside of the context of it coming from SHRM. So I think that was a really good discussion. Okay, I'm going to move us on to the next one. In the interest of time, despite the benefits of AI empowering accessibility tools, this author predicts that the cybersecurity risks from AI will lead to some organizations prohibiting such tools in greater instances in 2025. This in turn, will make workplaces less accessible by taking away vital tools such as captions, transcription, and more cybersecurity. And IT teams must work together in order to allow AI powered tools and to address cybersecurity risks instead of outright prohibition. Are we ready? Rebecca is there? Oh we had Rebecca with a bold and ready toot, Erica was like a half a boot and then flying the toot up from the bottom of the screen and then Stacey with a very hesitant raise of the toot. So I feel like Erica, do you want to start us out on this one?

Erica (22:17):

Oh gosh, yeah. This is just such a tricky space to navigate for the reasons that I think we shared in the first headline because what humane human wouldn't want to equip their organization, company, employees, et cetera, with tools that make platforms more accessible, just inherently just that concept. I don't know anyone who's going to say, please don't do that. And then at the same time, yeah, it's so hard to think about all the things you then introduce, the risks that you inherit that you either are or are not aware of in order to better equip and enable your organization to include and also grant access to the tools that you use. So that's why I was hesitating because again, I am trying so hard to just take the language at face value. And so my toot is that I don't ever want to unequivocally say no to something that can greatly benefit and is greatly needed across the workspace and workplace.

(23:33):

And at the same time, I am also humble enough to know that I don't know all the risks that does introduce, and so I don't know what decisions we would be making without being further educated on, okay, yes, if we do allow close captioning and transcription and all the things here is what, based on how your organization operates and what you all do and how you make money or how whatever organize, this is what you need to be then watching out for. So I'm still tooting as I'm stumbling over my words, it's also how I showed up with my toot.

Lexi (24:15):

It's fabulous. Yeah, Rebecca,

Rebecca (24:17):

My bias is showing again with this one, so I'll be very honest with this because we have a tech platform that has ai, we work with enterprise companies that we had to partner really closely with them on all types of technical due diligence for us to even make this feature available to them. And so in a good way, our customers put us through the ringer, like customers that are highly regulated, publicly traded, we're talking insurance companies, medical type companies. And so we benefited a lot from that. And this is a very selfish perspective just because I'm so close to that type of experience that the only way companies that want to make money from their AI will make sure that their AI isn't disruptive and that it's secure and that it does all the things that it's meant to do is from pressure from their customers or from prospective customers who are going to pay them to bring it in.

(25:09):

And I do think that there's so much accessibility that can be opened up with AI for so many different reasons within so many different contexts within a company. And I think it's going to be really important for that balance between the opportunistic things that AI brings and the realistic risks and challenges that it might open and forcing those conversations to happen, those regulations to be in place, but also to really figure out how those decisions need to be made and who needs to be involved in those decisions. But that's my very close bias coming into it.

Lexi (25:47):

I think that everyone has a bias and I think it's a great perspective that you're bringing. So thank you. Yeah, Stacey,

Stacey (25:55):

I think right at the end of what Rebecca was saying was in part where my toot was hesitant, partially it was hesitant because this is an area that I don't have a lot of expertise in, so I don't know all of, to Erica's point, what risks would we be opening up? I don't even know all of the kinds of tools that people need access to or would want access to. So I think there's a little lack of knowledge for me there. The other part is, in this statement, if I'm recalling it correctly, I didn't hear we need to include people who are expert in accessibility. In that conversation it was like, we need to get together our IT people and cybersecurity people, and that's great. Are they experts in accessibility? I wouldn't necessarily assume that. And so that is a part for me of, okay, let's not make decisions about what people have access to and then not include them in the room and not include them in those decisions. So I think that's something where I feel a little bit hesitant on it as well. Yeah, so it's a bit more of just an open question for me, I think.

Lexi (27:16):

Yeah, I, so the author on that one, their name is Nathan Chung, and Nathan is writing from a neurodiversity and disability employment point of view. So I think in reading that, I think the line that you were calling out, Stacey, I think that is him from an expert point of view saying it's your job cybersecurity and IT to ensure that this level of accessibility and that these considerations are taken into account when you're reviewing AI things. So that's something that I liked about all of Nathan's predictions is that they were coming from that point of view, which is something that I don't often see called out when these predictions come out all the time. So all of his predictions have that lens, which I thought was great. Our next one is mental health gets personal employee experience is now a top priority. Companies that focus on wellbeing see 89% better retention and higher productivity, they do have a source for that, but mental health support needs to go beyond generic wellness programs. So what's your strategy? A recent client started offering subsidized mental health support beyond just their employees extending it to families, the result, higher engagement, stronger loyalty, and a workforce that feels seen. And again, the headline on that one was mental health gets personal.

(28:50):

I see some thinking, but in the interest of time, I am going to give you a countdown. So 3, 2, 1. Okay. We have toots across the board, but I would say they're all extremely hesitant and I feel like that comes from a variety of places. So Rebecca, do you want to start us off on this one?

Rebecca (29:17):

Yeah, so I think that benefits in general are moving in the direction towards personalization, which is a big toot for me by the way, because offering generic things to everybody, it doesn't really land. It's kind of like they're not going to be benefits that everybody's going to take advantage of. They're not necessarily things that are going to apply everybody. Where my hesitation comes in is just the term mental health is just so broad that I don't know what that means when they say extending mental health benefits to family, what does that mean? Are they paying for therapy for everybody? Are they giving everybody workout subsidies to go to workout together because that's good for their mental health? If we're covering things that go beyond just the employee, it's hard for me to then understand doesn't show bias or how that doesn't exclude other people who might not take advantage of that, but who could benefit from the money that they're spending for other people to be going through other mental health opportunities for who don't work there. And I'm kind of still trying to think articulate sort of where the hesitancy came from other than just mental health is just so broad that so many things kind of fall under mental health that I don't actually think are just because companies decided that they could make money by calling themselves mental health. And that's where, I dunno, it's dodgy. It's dodgy for me.

Lexi (30:57):

I feel what you're saying on companies calling it mental health to make, there's just a lot of mental health companies out there right now, and I think this one is probably a little bit broad, but I think that's part of the challenge.

Rebecca (31:14):

I saw a custom logo sock company call themselves mental health. They were like, because your employees will feel really good when they wear custom logo socks and it's grateful mental health and it'll encourage retention. So that's where it's like, what does that even mean?

Lexi (31:26):

Yeah, that's a little left field. Stacey, do you want to take this next? I know it's something that you've talked about just in the sense of how much do we expect HR people to be taking on this?

Stacey (31:38):

Yeah, so my hesitancy is somewhat to Rebecca's point as well as what does it mean? Because sometimes people want to give a meditation app, and these aren't really, I think, good interventions if you're wanting to improve folks' mental health on a broad level at your organization. I think part of the actual toot comes from that our healthcare system is not very good about including really good mental healthcare services for people. And so a lot of times companies do need to support that and add more into that and really, otherwise people might not get it. And it's good to make it personal. It's good to not treat a person when maybe it's really more the family dynamic where that help is needed. So give support to the family as well. But I also think there can be a tendency to instead of look at organizational problems and address things at an organizational level, that it's pushed down to the individual.

(32:57):

So I think part of it's also what are you trying to solve here? Because if at an org wide level you're trying to improve folks', mental health, giving everyone more therapy may not be the best way to do that, or more options for more types of mental health care. It might be that you need to look at your programs and policies and that's going to have a much broader impact and a much more substantive impact. So part of my hesitance is, is this another kind of abdication of responsibility at a org wide level and pushing it down onto the individual of cool, you manage yourself, and we're not going to look at the ways in which we could be contributing to the challenges that you're having. So that's a little bit where the hesitance comes from me, and I know Erica has a lot of experience in this as well. So

Erica (33:53):

Yeah, I'll just quickly add, the excitement for me was that this headline at least seems to acknowledge that humans don't live in a vacuum, that they live in an ecosystem that clearly has an impact and that they impact. And so the people they impact may need support too. So that, I love that, this acknowledgement of that through this headline. I agree with Stacey. One of my hesitancies was, yes, how much do orgs own in that ecosystem? I also say though, I also was very hung up when Lexi, when you were reading the headline, the word family, how are we defining that? Is the org defining that for me is the slippery slope of them all? Because it reminds me of the conversations we continue to have around other org policies and processes around bereavement. So you can tell me who I should be grieving and how much time I get for grieving these individuals. And it's just like no one can define that for me. So is this headline suggesting then that in an attempt to acknowledge that we live amongst others, that you're also then going to define who those others are that need the additional support? I'll just leave it at that.

Lexi (35:15):

Yeah, I think that's a great point. Stacey, did you want to add something?

Stacey (35:18):

Oh no, I was just going to say, yeah, I love that because I hadn't thought about that either, but that is an incredibly important call out.

Lexi (35:27):

So this one comes from Bill Brown, HR practitioner, currently CPO. And something that I liked about that he put together was that he actually revisited and scored his predictions from the previous year, which you just rarely see people do. And I'm just a big fan of that, just being like, Hey, did this come true? If not, why do I think it didn't? If it did, why did it? So just kudos to you, Bill on that. Okay, our fifth and final prediction, this one is a little bit shorter. I think we've got it. Leadership that actually leads the era of buzzword bingo is over. Real leaders are the ones rolling up their sleeves and clearing roadblocks, not creating new ones. If your team dreads seeing your name pop up in Slack, it's time to rethink your game. Pro tip, humility, visibility and decisiveness is the ultimate power move. And again, that headline is leadership that actually leads, everyone has their hand on their chin right now. We are deep in contemplation.

Stacey (36:41):

I wonder also though, if we're all trying to cover our mouths so we don't laugh. See, I'm just laughing.

Lexi (36:51):

Alright, well let's get into it. Okay, let's do our reveal. Ready? 3, 2, 1. Okay. We have boots across the board. Honestly, I'm floored. I'm floored. Who wants to take this? Who's ready?

Erica (37:12):

I was going to say the reason why my hand was on my chin, I was some philosopher and deep thought was because duh, this is not a prediction to me. This is not breaking news. This is not some new aged thing that none of us have been begging for or trying to require or hire or retain for just all the things. So I'm really struggling as to more of what this headline is suggesting because well, yeah, just like we need humans to be human, we need leaders to lead. We need you to behave in ways that reflect the expectations and the titles and the labels and all the things that we give people in this world. And so I guess I'm just struggling to understand why that earth shattering or wildly different than what we've been saying for centuries.

Stacey (38:18):

Yeah, I think it is a bit of like 2025 leaders will lead and you're like, cool. They supposed to be doing that. I don't know. I think it is just a very weird thing. And also if this isn't the stuff that they were doing, what were they doing? It's not a prediction. I don't think it's a trend. I mean, if anything, I feel like it's probably the opposite is what we're going to see this year. But that's another story. It just made me laugh. I don't know. It seems silly.

Rebecca (39:08):

I think the intention is right because, so we work, I mean, again, my bias is showing, but just from my own experience, we work with a lot of companies that want to invest in their leaders. That's the whole point of we offer coaching. So they're like, we want to get coaching for our leaders. This is really important for us to develop them, blah, blah, blah. And for a lot of companies that go about that intentionally and identify the leadership skills that they need to build, what success looks like when they build those competencies, make it really clear how those behaviors show up at work. Those companies are cruising, they're doing a great job. But that takes a lot of work effort and intention if you really want to take someone who's been leading and actually make them a better leader. Because leadership is not a personality trait.

(39:53):

Leadership is a skill that shows up in different ways depending on the types of conversations that you're having and the types of work that you do. And it's not just a question of, it's almost like saying leaders just lead. It's almost like giving the same energy as everybody, be more resilient just because that's what we want to do. Which I know Stacey, you posted about that yesterday or the day before. And leaders have been struggling to lead, not because they don't want to and not because they don't care, but because they're strapped for resources. Everybody's trying to do more with less. We see a rise in player coaches. So leaders and managers that also have individual contributor level work, which sometimes puts them in competition with their actual team and their work is that they're always going to prioritize their individual work over their leadership work because that's usually what's going to get someone to come after them and come after their job.

(40:43):

And so it's not about leaders being better leaders, it's about companies building better infrastructures for people to step into true leadership roles and giving those resources, those skills and those abilities for them to actually thrive in those positions. If this is actually the way that trend and that prediction is going, that's freaking amazing about time. But where a lot of companies fail is they do not invest the time and resources for that to happen. And they just expect people to just be able to lead just because all of a sudden they're being told to lead better or differently.

Stacey (41:15):

And I think obviously we're only getting a segment of the article, so maybe the person goes into why, what would cause this shift? What would cause this change? But I think it's hard to kind of imagine what the catalyst would be for this to be a thing that would significantly change within 2025. But I know Lexi can tell us a bit more about the article. I bet it's

Rebecca (41:41):

AI or something related to ai. It usually is.

Lexi (41:46):

I think the interesting one on this too is again, I was surprised by your boot responses on this one because I think I came into it with my own bias of how I interpreted this and what it meant to me. And also just from, frankly, I don't know that anybody's leadership prediction was super specific. Culture Amps does have one on leadership that goes into some of their data. But I think part of the reason that I put this one on is because I think it also shows that sometimes there are things that come up on these HR trends and predictions constantly because they're either so hard, they're not fixed or because they mean so many different things to different people. So this one came from, and hopefully I'm pronouncing her name correctly, Katarina Berg who is in HR at Spotify. And this was really the, and again, who knows what the LinkedIn algorithm is truly showing me, but this was the buzziest one that I saw on LinkedIn, so I also wanted to include it for that reason.

(43:04):

Yeah, thank you all and thank you for your trust in going along with this coming in, not knowing what I was going to ask you or who also, I didn't think about it until I started reading it aloud that who wrote it was also going to influence potentially what you said. So that was an interesting revelation for me. And also thank you. I guess we didn't ask folks for permission to cover their pieces today, but we don't reach out to reporters for a regular Toot or Boot episode. But yeah, I appreciate the people who are putting their thoughts out there on this topic. That's a vulnerable thing to do. So if you're one of the authors who's listening to this, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

Stacey (43:57):

I toot you personally.

Lexi (44:01):

Yeah, so wrapping it up, we'd love to know from Rebecca and Erica, how can people learn more from you? Is there a project that you want to share with our listeners and what's the best way for people to get in touch with you? Erica, do you want to start for us?

Erica (44:22):

Sure. So it's interesting. I love that question Lexi, and I feel like my answer is evolving, but in terms of getting in touch with me, I am on LinkedIn, not as much as I used to be though. And I've seen a lot of posts about that and just social media engagement in general, but I can be found there primarily. So Erica j Vitali on LinkedIn project, I'm just starting a new role at Project on government oversight, POGO for short nonprofit organization committed to holding our government accountable, which is another conversation and another podcast, however. So projects working on, because I'm just starting a new role, I'm really now diving in head first to figure out what our 2025 priorities are going to be. So more to come on that, Lexi. But I love that a lot of our conversation today focused on at least the roundup of our conversation focused on leadership because that will definitely be one of our heaviest priorities. So I look forward to having more to share as we unpack and what that's going to look like. I think I answered all your questions, Lexi.

Lexi (45:35):

You did. Thank you, Rebecca.

Rebecca (45:37):

Yeah, and I too am on LinkedIn. Some days I'm there more frequently than others. Some days I'll be commenting all day and others I'm just not there at all depending on whatever the algorithm's feeding me that day. You can also email me at rebecca@skillcycle.com. One of the projects that I'm really excited about that I'm working on right now is my own podcast called HR Confessions that I host with Kim Rower if anybody knows her too. And so the premise of HR Confessions is we collect anonymous stories of things that happened in hr, and I tell it, I basically translate it into a true sort of story with beginning, middle, and end. And I read it live to Kim on air for her to react. And it's basically filled in with sort of this is what I could have done differently if I were in this HR position. And also they really said that that's insane. So definitely check us out where wherever your podcasts are being hosted. So Apple Music, Spotify, it's called HR Confessions. And if you have your own HR confession that you want to submit, you can email us at HR confessions@skillcycle.com or you can DM me on LinkedIn with voice notes or text me if you have my number. I have so many random ways that people submit their stories, but I truly love hearing them. So please feel free to feed me and maybe your story will be told on air.

Lexi (46:50):

That is super fun. And we'll definitely put a link to both of your LinkedIns and to HR Confessions in the show notes so people can check them out. And we're also working on a compilation of all of the HR predictions that we've seen this year, so we'll be sharing that out as well. And we can link to the specific predictions that we spoke about on today's episode. I think that's it. Is there anything else you want to add, Stacey?

Stacey (47:20):

No, I am glad that we did this in this format. It was fun to be surprised and be in the guest hot seat, and glad that I got to do it with Rebecca and Erica.

Lexi (47:32):

Awesome. Yeah, thanks again for the trust and the gameness to just do this. I know it was new for everyone, so thank you all and have a great rest of your day.

Rebecca (47:45):

This was so fun. Thank you. So fun.

Erica (47:48):

Thank you.