Unmuted kapak görseli

Unmuted

Unmuted

Yazan: WRKdefined Podcast Network
Şimdi ücretsiz dinle, üyelik gerekmez

This Season's Biggest Deal | £0.99/mo for 3 months + £10 Audible bonus

£5.99/mo after 3 months - terms apply. Cancel monthly
Özet
 Hosted by Jeff Waldman, Unmuted features candid conversations with the leaders, innovators, and builders shaping the future of work. From AI and leadership to culture and change, each episode delivers practical insights without the jargon or hype.All rights reserved by WRKdefined Economics Management Management & Leadership
Bölümler
  • Human in the Loop. Or Just Someone to Blame?

    Human in the Loop. Or Just Someone to Blame?
    29 Oct 2026
    Unmuted Podcast | Episode #91Human in the Loop. Or Just Someone to Blame? Guest: Kerris Hougardy – SVP People, Ting InternetHost: Jeff Waldman – Founder & HR Tech Evangelist at ScaleHR & SocialHRCamp Episode Overview: As AI becomes increasingly embedded in hiring, performance management, compensation, and other workplace decisions, organizations often point to one important safeguard: keeping a "human in the loop". But does having a human involved actually guarantee meaningful oversight? Or are we simply giving someone responsibility for decisions they don't really control? In this episode of Unmuted, Jeff Waldman sits down with Kerris Hougardy, SVP People at Ting Internet, to challenge one of the most commonly used phrases in responsible AI. They explore why human oversight can become little more than a rubber stamp when employees lack the time, information, confidence, or authority to question AI-generated recommendations. Drawing on her experience leading people strategy through organizational transformation, Kerris explains what genuine accountability looks like, why the level of human involvement should reflect the risk of the decision, and how organizations can prepare employees to work effectively alongside AI. She also shares Ting Internet's approach to AI literacy, which prioritizes human capabilities like critical thinking, judgment, curiosity, empathy, and courage before technical AI skills. We Explore: What "human in the loop" actually means in HR and why we should question it Why human oversight often breaks down when people lack time, context, or authority How automation bias can turn meaningful review into a rubber stamp Who should be accountable when AI influences important workplace decisions Why higher-risk decisions require greater human involvement and judgment How Ting Internet is building AI literacy by focusing on human skills first What organizations can do to make human oversight meaningful and measurable What Meaningful Human Oversight Requires: Time to properly evaluate AI-generated recommendations Access to the information and context behind the output Authority to question, override, or reject recommendations Psychological safety to challenge technology without consequences Timestamps: 00:00 – Introduction and episode overview02:08 – Meet Kerris Hougardy and her role at Ting Internet03:40 – What "human in the loop" really means06:45 – Time, context, process, and automation bias09:39 – Where human oversight breaks down10:00 – Accountability and the self-driving car example13:17 – What meaningful oversight looks like16:16 – Balancing efficiency with human judgment18:10 – Ting's AI literacy approach: human skills first22:35 – The biggest takeaway for HR leaders23:33 – Closing remarks About Kerris Hougardy Kerris Hougardy is the SVP People at Ting Internet, where she leads employee experience, organizational development, and culture strategy across a distributed workforce. With more than 20 years of HR and organizational leadership experience, Kerris has guided organizations through complex transitions, including restructuring, rapid technological change, and large-scale transformation. She is passionate about advancing AI workforce readiness and helping organizations balance technological innovation with human judgment, trust, inclusion, and long-term capability. Her approach emphasizes transparency, resilience, and shared ownership, with a belief that organizations must invest as much in human readiness as they do in technology. Connect with Kerris on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kerrishougardy/ About Ting Internet Ting Internet is a US-based internet service provider focused on delivering high-speed fiber internet to communities. Within the organization, Kerris and her team are approaching AI adoption with an emphasis on workforce readiness, responsible use, and strengthening the human capabilities needed to work effectively alongside emerging technologies. Key Takeaway Having a human involved in an AI-driven decision doesn't automatically create accountability. Meaningful oversight requires people who understand what they're reviewing, have the time and information to evaluate it, and possess the authority and confidence to challenge the technology. The question isn't simply whether there's a human in the loop. It's whether that human actually has the power to make a difference. About ScaleHR Unmuted is powered by ScaleHR (https://goscalehr.com/), helping emerging HR, Recruitment, and Work Tech companies accelerate brand awareness and lead generation through Catalyst, our community-driven omnichannel marketing solution. Unmuted is also part of the WRKdefined podcast network, available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and other platforms. 🌐 Explore Unmuted: https://goscalehr.com/theunmutedpodcast🎧 Find Unmuted on WRKdefined: https://wrkdefined.com/podcast/unmuted #Podcast #AIinHR #HRTech #ResponsibleAI #HumanInTheLoop #AIGovernance #...
    Daha fazlasını göster Daha Az Göster
    25 dk.
  • The AI Trust Gap: Who’s Responsible When HR Uses AI?

    The AI Trust Gap: Who’s Responsible When HR Uses AI?
    15 Oct 2026
    Unmuted Podcast | Episode #90 Topic: The AI Trust Gap: Who's Responsible When HR Uses AI? Guest: Haley Friary-Schenk – Founder & CEO, HumaniCore AI Host: Jeff Waldman – Founder & HR Tech Evangelist at ScaleHR & SocialHRCamp Episode Overview AI is increasingly influencing how organizations hire, evaluate, promote, compensate, and manage people. But as these technologies become more deeply embedded in workplace decisions, a critical question is emerging: Who's responsible for ensuring we can actually trust them? Vendors build the technology. Employers choose and deploy it. Employees and candidates experience the consequences. Regulators establish the rules. But when something goes wrong, where does accountability begin and end? In this episode of Unmuted, Jeff Waldman sits down with Haley Friary-Schenk, Founder and CEO of HumaniCore AI, to explore the growing trust gap in AI-enabled HR technology and what it will take to close it. Drawing on her experience as a former Chief People Officer who has implemented complete HR technology stacks across five organizations, Haley explains why trust cannot rest on vendor assurances alone. Organizations need independent, defensible evidence that AI-enabled people decisions are being made responsibly. Together, they explore emerging AI regulations, the challenges of evaluating increasingly complex HR technology stacks, the importance of independent verification, and why employers cannot simply outsource accountability to their technology providers. We Explore Why AI trust and accountability are shared responsibilities across vendors, employers, and regulators What HR leaders should demand from vendors before deploying AI-enabled technology How fragmented HR systems, missing data, and algorithmic bias can undermine fairness Why emerging AI regulations are changing expectations for employers and technology providers Whether HR technology is approaching its own version of cybersecurity's SOC 2 moment Why independent verification must be ongoing, reproducible, and supported by meaningful human oversight What organizations need to do today to establish defensible evidence of responsible AI use Five Questions HR Leaders Should Ask AI Vendors Who tested the tool, and did they also sell you remediation? How many people were not counted in the audit? Whose data was used for testing -- real applicants or a designed dataset? When is the model retrained, and will you be notified before it happens? Where does the vendor's responsibility end and the employer's begin? Timestamps 00:36 – Introducing Unmuted and the AI trust gap01:35 – Why AI trust matters in HR02:05 – Trust and accountability across the AI ecosystem03:31 – Meet Haley Friary-Schenk04:37 – Haley's HR background and the origin of HumaniCore AI05:05 – Independent certification for AI-enabled people decisions06:23 – The role of regulation in AI adoption07:15 – Existing laws and emerging AI regulations09:08 – Who needs to trust whom?10:37 – Why employers can't outsource accountability to vendors11:33 – The risks of fragmented HR technology stacks13:15 – What HR leaders should ask AI vendors13:52 – Five critical vendor questions14:21 – How missing applicant data affects audit results15:46 – Model retraining, accountability, and legal review16:58 – Navigating global regulatory differences19:17 – Is HR technology approaching its SOC 2 moment?20:21 – What meaningful independent verification must prove21:18 – Reproducibility, ongoing audits, and certification23:42 – Building genuine trust in AI-enabled HR technology24:11 – Why evidence must exist before a complaint or lawsuit25:11 – Making human oversight real and measurable26:01 – AI in hiring, promotion, compensation, and termination27:05 – The most important takeaway27:36 – Why "our vendor said we were covered" isn't a defense28:28 – HumaniCore AI's launch plans29:53 – Closing remarks About Haley Friary-Schenk Haley Friary-Schenk is the Founder and CEO of HumaniCore AI and a former Chief People Officer with extensive experience leading HR technology transformation. Throughout her career, Haley has implemented complete HR technology stacks across five organizations, ranging from startups to publicly traded companies operating in 28 countries. After witnessing AI begin to reshape HR technology and recognizing growing gaps in accountability, Haley pursued further education in artificial intelligence, including studies at MIT Sloan and graduate studies at Penn State's Smeal College of Business. She founded HumaniCore AI to help establish greater accountability, transparency, and trust in AI-enabled employment decisions. Connect with Haley: https://www.linkedin.com/in/haleyfriarysphr/ About HumaniCore AI HumaniCore AI is an independent third-party certification body focused on AI-enabled people decisions across the full employment lifecycle. The organization works with technology vendors developing AI-powered HR solutions...
    Daha fazlasını göster Daha Az Göster
    26 dk.
  • When Your Investigation Gets Investigated

    When Your Investigation Gets Investigated
    9 Oct 2026
    Unmuted Podcast | Episode #89 Topic: The $200,000 Employee You Already Have Guest: Samantha Carter - Founder at trACT Software ⁠Host: Jeff Waldman – Founder & HR Tech Evangelist at ScaleHR & SocialHRCamp Workplace investigations are only as strong as the process behind them. In this episode, Jeff Waldman and Samantha Carter unpack what “defensible” really means, why documentation matters months or even years later, and how jurisdiction, neutrality, and procedural fairness shape every step. It’s a practical conversation for HR leaders, investigators, and business owners who need to handle sensitive complaints in a way that can stand up to scrutiny. Key topics: In this episode, Jeff Waldman introduces the episode’s core idea - when an investigation gets questioned later, the process matters more than simply saying the outcome was fair. Samantha Carter explains that defensibility does not mean the outcome was “right” - it means the investigator can show clear, logical, well-documented decision-making from intake through final report. Samantha shares how her first investigation, early in her HR career, reflected an older mindset of trying to get people to confess - and how her approach evolved into one centred on neutrality and procedural fairness. We discuss why small and mid sized organizations often struggle with investigations because they are not doing them every day, may not have a repeatable process, and can end up doubting whether their file will hold up later. Samantha explains why documentation gaps are one of the biggest risks - especially decisions about which witnesses to interview, which allegations to pursue, and why certain people were excluded. We discuss jurisdictional differences, including how some provinces in Canada are more prescriptive than others and how Ontario’s workplace investigation expectations focus on thoroughness, neutrality, training, and appropriateness in the circumstances. Samantha notes that scrutiny is increasing, including through AI-enabled review and later challenges from complainants or respondents that can trigger additional complaints or retaliation claims. Jeff shares a practical habit from early in his career - writing summary notes immediately after meetings or interviews so the file still makes sense years later. Samantha outlines what organizations should do differently now: set clear expectations at the start, explain the investigator’s role, remain consistent across parties, and give respondents enough detail to respond meaningfully. We discuss the importance of going back to witnesses when new contradictory information emerges, even if that slows the process down, because procedural fairness depends on giving people a chance to respond. Samantha closes with the key lesson: thorough planning at the outset determines whether the process, if not necessarily the outcome, will be defensible. Procedural fairness - giving each party a meaningful chance to understand and respond to the allegations Neutrality - approaching the investigation without pre-deciding the outcome Defensibility - being able to show clear, fact-based reasoning for each decision Threshold assessment - deciding early whether the allegation requires a formal investigation Timestamps 00:00 - Setting up the conversation on defensible workplace investigations 00:58 - Why the process matters more than the final outcome 03:32 - Samantha Carter’s background and first investigation 06:28 - Why internal HR teams struggle with investigations 08:38 - What “defensible” means in practice 11:07 - Why jurisdiction changes the rules 15:48 - Common process and documentation mistakes 20:03 - What regulators expect to see in a file 24:33 - How to make investigations more consistent and transparent 27:30 - Why follow-up questions matter for procedural fairness 30:40 - The one thing every investigator should remember 31:31 - Closing thoughts and trACT Software update About Samantha Carter Samantha Carter is the Founder of trACT Software and HR TrAction, bringing more than 20 years of human resources experience specializing in workplace investigations, compliance, and people-first leadership. A Certified Human Resources Leader (CHRL), Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/C), and licensed Private Investigator (PI), Samantha has managed investigations across organizations of all sizes and industries. Her experience exposed a recurring challenge: inconsistent investigation processes, fragmented documentation, and growing compliance risks. She founded trACT Software to help HR professionals and investigators manage workplace investigations with greater consistency, confidence, and defensibility. Connect with Samantha: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samanthacarterchrl/ Visit trACT Software: https://www.tractsoftware.ca/ About trACT Software's Public Beta Workplace investigations are complex, sensitive, and often difficult to manage consistently. From documenting evidence ...
    Daha fazlasını göster Daha Az Göster
    27 dk.
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
Henüz yorum yok