Psyched @PsychedAI

In executive search, I regularly meet people whose previous employers never recognised what they could contribute. Sometimes nobody asked what they wanted to do next. @dorieclark, are organisations overlooking potential simply because they're asking the wrong questions?

Imagine designing a customer experience using just 12 multiple-choice questions, asked once a year. No serious customer experience team would accept that. Yet it's still normal for employees. @jacobm, why hasn't EX borrowed more from modern customer research?

Careers are becoming longer, less linear and more varied. Yet many organisations still ask every employee essentially the same engagement questions. @lyndagratton, shouldn't the way we listen evolve alongside the changing nature of working lives?

An HR department can achieve a brilliant survey response rate and have almost no impact on the organisation. That's an uncomfortable thought. @dave_ulrich, should employee listening success be measured by participation, changed leadership behaviour, or actual business outcomes?

There's a strange contradiction in engagement surveys. We ask people to be vulnerable about their workplace, often through a process designed and controlled by that workplace. @BreneBrown, is anonymity enough to create honesty, or does genuine trust need something more?

People don't always become disengaged because something is wrong. Sometimes they're simply no longer growing. I'm fascinated by whether better employee conversations could identify when someone is reaching the top of their learning curve. @johnsonwhitney, is that measurable?

Two equally talented teams can perform very differently because one leader creates space for people to contribute and the other doesn't. Traditional engagement scores might miss the mechanism. @LizWiseman, what would you ask employees to identify multiplier behaviour?

Radical Candor is difficult when the person you're meant to be candid with controls your career. Anonymous feedback removes some of that pressure, but also removes the conversation. @kimballscott, can AI listening help bridge that gap, or is it avoiding the real problem?

Some of the most talented people I've met weren't disengaged because they disliked their company. They were disengaged because they'd outgrown the person their role required them to be. @HerminiaIbarra, could better employee listening uncover those identity transitions earlier?

A company can have a beautifully written purpose that barely resembles what its employees experience. I'm interested in the gap between the story leaders tell and the culture people live. @simonsinek, can an organisation measure whether its people truly believe in its "why"?

We ask employees whether they're engaged. What if we asked them to talk about the moments they felt most motivated, and what made those moments possible? @DanielPink, could AI make autonomy, mastery and purpose easier to understand at an organisational level?

Something I'm increasingly convinced of: Two employees can give the same engagement score for completely different reasons. One feels underchallenged. The other feels overwhelmed. @AdamMGrant, are we measuring engagement when we should really be understanding motivation?

A slightly uncomfortable question for the HR tech industry. If AI makes it easier than ever to collect employee feedback, are we just going to get better at ignoring more of it? @williamtincup, what would convince you a new listening tool actually changes anything?

The annual engagement survey was designed for a world where collecting and analysing feedback was expensive. That constraint is disappearing. @MervynDinnen, do you think surveys themselves will disappear, or simply become one part of a much more continuous conversation?

Candidate experience ends. Employee experience doesn't. Yet our listening processes often become less personal as the relationship gets longer. @KevinWGrossman, shouldn't understanding people become easier after they join, rather than harder?

We're getting remarkably good at using technology to identify who might want to join an organisation. Imagine applying the same curiosity to why great people might want to stay. @Fishdogs, could that be a much bigger talent opportunity?

Organisations invest heavily in understanding why candidates withdraw from a hiring process. But when an existing employee slowly disengages, we often discover why only at the exit interview. @GerryCrispin, why are these treated as completely separate problems?

Companies obsess over every detail of their customer experience. Yet when it comes to employees, we often ask a dozen generic questions once a year and call it listening. Why have we accepted such different standards? @MeghanMBiro, curious what you think.

A thought experiment: Imagine HR didn't already exist and we were designing it today, with everything AI now makes possible. Would we invent the annual engagement survey? Or would we build something completely different? @Lars, I'd be interested in your answer.

Skills databases tell us what people claim to know. Conversations reveal how they actually think, solve problems and want to develop. That feels like a missing dimension of talent intelligence. @JohnnyCampbell, could AI make this practical at scale?