Most people remember the famous I Love Lucy chocolate factory scene. Lucy and Ethel are happily wrapping chocolates until a supervisor decides productivity would improve if the conveyor belt moved faster. No one asks whether the work can be done at that pace, so the line speeds up anyway and chaos follows. Funny in a sitcom. Less funny when it's your workforce strategy. _____ Over the last few years, organizations made workforce decisions based on what AI was expected to do

As a small business owner, feeling overwhelmed by numbers, accounts, tax rates, AP/AR, income statements, cash flow... blah, blah, blah... is practically a rite of passage. Whether you're running a software development company, a consulting practice, a farm, or a house/pet sitting business, or you simply suffer from arithmophobia (an intense fear or anxiety surrounding numbers and math - which I truly believe some of my clients experience at times), trying to keep your busine

Few technology decisions carry as much organizational weight as the choice of a core HR system. An HCM platform touches every employee, anchors a growing share of people processes, and tends to remain in place for the better part of a decade. The cost of choosing poorly is measured not only in license fees, but in the disruption, the workarounds, and the loss of confidence that may follow. And yet buyer's remorse is remarkably common. Organizations that ran a thorough process

A new HR system is one of those investments that arrives with enormous promise and, too often, a sobering reality check somewhere between month three and the first payroll run. The technology itself is rarely the problem. What derails most implementations, and there's no shortage of cautionary tales here, is the human and organizational work that surrounds it: the planning that didn't happen, the data that wasn't cleaned, the employees who were simply handed login credentials