This episode of the 12 Minute HR Podcast uses Tim Minchin’s song Come Home (Cardinal Pell) to explore how difficult truths can be delivered calmly and effectively without emotional padding or aggression.

The key takeaway is that hard words sometimes need to be said plainly and calmly—without sugarcoating, apology, or anger because clear, composed delivery allows the words themselves to do the work and be heard.

We’re living through a step change with AI, much like when platforms such as Facebook suddenly became universal after years of quiet development. The key issue isn’t the technology itself but how we use it: AI can be a powerful tool — like upgrading from a shovel to a digger — that makes us faster and more effective while we retain responsibility and judgment.

When people outsource their thinking entirely and attach their name to work they don’t understand or check, AI stops being a tool and becomes a subcontractor, and that makes them dangerously expendable.

Email is not true communication — it is only evidence that something was sent. Using examples from history and communication theory, we explain that communication only occurs when the idea in the sender’s mind is clearly understood in the receiver’s mind, which email alone cannot guarantee.

Written messages are easily misunderstood, and without feedback or verification, the sender cannot know if understanding has occurred. Therefore, while emails are useful for records and low-risk situations, real communication — especially when accuracy matters — requires speaking directly, checking understanding, and confirming that the message has truly landed.

This lesson explores why listening is a complex but essential skill at work, arguing that many people struggle either because they’re distracted or because they listen with an agenda rather than to understand.

It frames listening as an “art” rather than a formula and offers a practical model—X + Y + 1—to improve it: first, passively listen and let the other person say what they need to say (X); then actively ask open questions to draw out relevant information (Y); and finally, ask one clear wrap-up question that clarifies what the person wants or what a good outcome looks like (+1).

The goal is not agreement, but helping people feel heard by giving them a fair turn.

This episode explores why moving people from a period of lax rules to stricter expectations is one of the hardest challenges in people management. Using analogies from war and the film Inception, the host explains that real change doesn’t come from coercion but from internalisation—getting someone to genuinely accept and believe in a new way of working.

When employees have grown comfortable with discretion, flexibility, or autonomy (as seen especially post-lockdown), asking them to accept tighter controls feels like a loss of freedom and triggers predictable resistance. Even when management’s reasons are sound, persuasion is difficult because people are psychologically invested in the old arrangement.

The key advice is to recognise how inherently hard this shift is, allow more time and explanation than feels necessary, listen carefully to objections, and accept that in some cases, after fair consideration, leaders may simply need to set clear expectations and enforce them.

This episode argues against “sugary” learning in HR and leadership—catchy slogans and simplistic insights that feel good but don’t actually change behaviour. Using stand-up comedy as a metaphor, we contrasts cheap, stereotype-driven laughs with the kind of complex, nuanced thinking that takes time to build but delivers real insight, likening his approach to comedians like Chris Rock who earn meaning through depth rather than slogans.

We discuss how these podcasts deliberately avoid reductive ideas in favour of complexity, because real learning only counts if it leads you to do something differently in the future. Warm buzzes and motivational soundbites create the illusion of learning, but genuine development comes from slower, more demanding ideas that lodge in your brain and subtly change your decisions next time you face a real situation.

The podcast explores the idea of “magic words” — phrases we treat as if they automatically change situations — and warns against falling for their spell. Using fantasy literature as a metaphor, it explains how magic only works when there are rules and systems, then applies that thinking to real life, especially work and HR contexts. Social niceties like “please” and “thank you” are shown to be powerful because they signal respect and cooperation, while sales phrases and workplace terms such as “sorry” or “work–life balance” can be misused as conversation-enders rather than starting points for understanding.

The key message is that while words matter and convey meaning, they are not magic: hearing a familiar phrase should not stop inquiry or discussion. Instead, we should keep listening, ask what the person actually means, and look for evidence of understanding, intent, and future action — believing in words, but not in spells.

This week we talk about the “flawed mentor” — that Gandalf/Dumbledore/Merlin figure who guides us… until the moment their limitations show us it’s time to grow up and step out on our own. Then we flip that archetype onto real-world management.

Why do the models that help new managers eventually hold experienced ones back? And how has the well-meaning push toward nurturing, supporting, and “cheerleading” accidentally discouraged everyday correction, early feedback, and the small course-adjustments that prevent big problems later? If you’ve ever felt the tension between being supportive and holding people to account, this episode shows you where that comes from — and what to do about it.

This episode delivers a practical HR lesson on decision-making, arguing that HR’s role is not to make decisions but to ensure decisions are made well by identifying risks and variables. It distinguishes bad decisions from risky ones, explaining that a bad decision is not simply one with a poor outcome, but one that was flawed based on what was known at the time—rather than judged through hindsight.

Risky decisions are inevitable whenever outcomes depend on variables, and they are not inherently bad; the real problem is unanticipated or unknown risks. The focus for HR, therefore, should be on surfacing known and unknown variables, closing awareness gaps, and “setting the table” so managers can clearly see the possible consequences of each option.

Managers must own the decisions, while HR’s responsibility is to prevent bad, risky decisions by ensuring risks are recognised, understood, and consciously accepted rather than discovered after the fact.

This episode examines how hype often outpaces reality in business, using WeWork, Bodega Boxes, and Theranos as examples of ideas that generated enormous buzz but couldn’t deliver on their promises, then applies Gartner’s hype cycle to show how new concepts move from excitement to disappointment before settling into their true value. You use this lens to question whether the shift from This episode examines how hype often outpaces reality in business, using WeWork, Bodega Boxes, and Theranos as examples of ideas that generated enormous buzz but couldn’t deliver on their promises, then applies Gartner’s hype cycle to show how new concepts move from excitement to disappointment before settling into their true value. You use this lens to question whether the shift from “HR” to “People & Culture” represents real change or just a rebrand, concluding that the answer varies by organisation and may be more hype than substance, especially since the underlying administrative and compliance work hasn’t disappeared. Ultimately, you argue that if workplaces want genuine improvement, they must change their practices—not just their job titles.

“HR” to “People & Culture” represents real change or just a rebrand, concluding that the answer varies by organisation and may be more hype than substance, especially since the underlying administrative and compliance work hasn’t disappeared. Ultimately, you argue that if workplaces want genuine improvement, they must change their practices—not just their job titles.

Tracy Chapman’s Fast Car reminds us that some things are deeply felt but hard to express—just like real expertise. The Dunning–Kruger effect shows how confidence often gets mistaken for competence: those who know little can sound certain, while true experts speak more carefully. This episode explores why that happens and how leaders can recognise the quiet, thoughtful voices who actually see the full picture.

What would future beings think of us if humanity suddenly vanished?
This week’s episode dives into that thought experiment — and into the bigger problem it exposes: how often we mistake distorted reflections of reality for truth.

From airport duty-free to Instagram influencers to (yes) HR content on LinkedIn, we’re surrounded by glossy simulacra that look real but aren’t.

The skill we all need?
-Spot the illusion.
- Question the “truth.”
- Ask: When might this not be true?

If you’re up for a mind-stretching episode that connects archaeology, social media, and modern work culture:

Ever wonder why punishment rarely creates better behaviour — but a simple “thank you” can?

This week’s episode dives into the psychology behind carrots and sticks, and why my chocolate fish policy might be the best leadership tool you’ve never tried

A lot of the time in HR, we don’t actually have power — we have influence. And the most effective kind of influence often comes from calmness.

In this week’s 12-minute HR lesson, I share a story that started with a car accident (literally, half an hour before recording!) — and ended with a lesson
about leadership, composure, and how to take charge when no one’s in charge.

We unpack:
-What it really means to be “in charge”
- What calmness looks like in action (even when you’re paddling like mad underneath)
- How to assert influence through tone, timing, and clarity; not volume

Because sometimes the most powerful person in the room… is the calm one.

This week's podcast: Strategising up.

Ever felt stuck in HR, waiting for the business to tell you what to do? What's important?

Falling for the trap of focusing of what looks good, but doesn't provide much ROI?

In this week’s 12-minute HR lesson, I unpack how “The Remains of the Day” teaches us about managing up,anticipating needs, and making your HR strategy actually matter. It’s less about doing what you think is right, and more about knowing what the business truly needs before they even ask. It's about anticipating what will make the boat go faster and being 2 steps down that road before others ask you.

Are you a Mr. Stevens or a Mr. Faraday in your organisation?

We interview. We personality-test. We talk endlessly about “fit.” But we rarely ask candidates to actually do the work. Work samples — small, simple, real-world tests — are one of the strongest predictors of job success, and yet almost no one uses them.

But the lesson isn't really about that. I’m challenging habits- our own, and our following ours habits because that's what most people do. Why we interview the way we do. Why we trust data that feels scientific but isn’t. And why the secret sauce you’ve been missing might be as simple as saying:
“Show me how you’d actually do it.”

There’s an old saying: “Dissecting jokes is like dissecting a frog. No one laughs—and the frog dies.”

In this week’s 12-Minute HR Lesson, I’m unpacking what comedy can teach us about risk—and why playing it too safe can quietly kill your organisation’s growth.

How is a dinosaur like a piece of legislation? The lesson of Jurassic Park is chaos theory; life is too complicated to be fully accounted for by any system. It's the same with the law.

You've written the policy, you've launched it, you've had the awareness day, you've posted the photos of people smiling in bright coloured t-shirts. You've plucked the low-hanging fruit. Now what?

The problem with low hanging fruit is that it can't be picked twice. There's more work to do, and it's harder to reach, harder to get, and smaller gains. But gains can't be made by doing the same things again and again.

How can an iconic song give you insight into your workplace language? In broad vague sloganistic safe phrases?

Love as topic of music has become so generic that we cease to hear the words. But what about songs about home?