Osborn Learning & Analytics, LLC

Category: Uncategorized

  • HR Is Not Your Friend?

    Oct. 1, 2026 | TRUST Pt. 5

    Part 4 here.

    Let’s consider one final example…

    No_Two_3617 shares the following, which is actually quoting Diji: “HR is not your friend…HR exists to protect the company FROM you…The name itself is a confession: Human Resources. You are a resource. Like coal…You are an asset to be managed, extracted, and eventually replaced when you depreciate…The safe space trap HR loves to say, ‘My door is always open…You can tell me anything.’ Do not fall for this. This is not a therapy session but a deposition. When you go to HR to complain about a toxic boss, you think you are asking for help. What HR hears is ‘This employee is a liability. They are creating a paper trail that could lead to a lawsuit.’ HR’s job is not to fix the toxic boss (especially if that boss brings in revenue). HR’s job is to minimize the legal risk. And the easiest way to remove the risk is to remove you.”

    Here, the complaint is that the individual is dehumanized by the organization and by HR in particular; in this person’s view, HR always sides with and supports upper management, even when there is exploitation.

    It’s difficult to argue with the complaint about the unfortunate term “human resources,” and I’m not even going to try.

    Instead, I’ll dial in specifically on the idea that HR will not (or cannot) hold upper management accountable.

    (By the way, if the claim is that HR’s sole function is to protect against lawsuits, then I could argue that holding leadership accountable ALSO protects against lawsuits…but then I’d be intentionally missing the point of the complaint.)

    Here, the reversal is obvious: be willing to hold everyone accountable, including those in formal leadership positions.

    If you’re too intimidated to do this, that’s okay…but that means the lower-level employees are correct in their belief that you aren’t safe to talk to.

    As with the other reversals, it’s simple but not necessarily easy.

    Now, I understand that many will protest, “But wait! This is all perceptual! These people might be misrepresenting the situation!”

    And that’s true. All complaints (in fact, all statements generally) are filtered through the perceptions of those reporting them.

    But HR problems are leadership problems, and leaders must rise above the pettiness of always having to be right.

  • More Anti-Complaints

    Sept. 30, 2026 | TRUST Pt. 4

    Part 3 here.

    Let’s explore another example from the dregs of Reddit…

    Two. lilcroc2 describes a variety of workplace complaints, including bullying, unfair treatment, etc. The primary complaint about HR is that they listen to the concerns but do nothing.

    Basically, the idea is that HR listens to concerns merely as a tactic to appease the discontented, with no intention of doing anything about them.

    (Remember all the usual caveats about how I have no idea if this really happened, or if the story is being told accurately…)

    Do the opposite: To build trust, respond somehow to every complaint.

    Clearly, you can’t always do exactly what the employee is suggesting. But I’d argue that you always ought to adjust something.

    When people express serious concerns, they may not always be correct about the nature of either the problem or the solution, but they are 100% correct about their feeling of discomfort.

    And yes, I recognize this level of responsiveness is far easier when the company is smaller. But I’m not saying you have to be able to respond immediately.

    If it will take time to review the complaint and put it into context alongside other complaints from that quarter…then just say that. Say whatever is true about what the process looks like and how you’ll respond (now or later).

    And then do follow up later to let people know what happened with the concern they expressed, how it was considered, and what adjustments will be made, if any.

    While we’re on this, I also have to point out that you gain a staggering amount of buy-in when you solicit suggestions and then fully implement them. (This applies to HR and all leaders alike.)

    This is one of the most powerful ways to gain credibility in the eyes of employees, but it’s shockingly underutilized.

    It’s not always fully possible, of course. Often, employees have suggestions that are impractical, usually for reasons that are invisible to them because they can’t see all parts of the organization. (It’s not their job to be able to do that.)

    But even a partial implementation or adaptation of a suggestion goes a long way. And then don’t forget to give the employee who suggested it all the credit!

    Okay, one final example tomorrow…

  • Deploy Anti-Complaints

    Sept. 29, 2026 | TRUST Pt. 3

    Part 2 here.

    If you want to send messages that contradict a narrative about HR being untrustworthy, then you need to do the opposite of the things people complain about.

    Do this publicly and repeatedly, over extended periods of time.

    To find some examples, let’s peruse the complaints of disgruntled employees in r/ToxicWorkplace on Reddit…

    (By the way, posts are regularly removed, so if a link breaks, you’ll just have to take my word for it.)

    ((Oh, also—I have no idea whether these stories are true, but I’ve heard many stories like them.))

    One. Sissy3463 reports a scenario with this progression:

    1. HR initially ignored certain complaints.
    2. Next, they held a team meeting for employees to express their concerns.
    3. Afterward, they described employees’ complaints as inflammatory, disruptive, and abusive.
    4. Finally, they asked employees to sign forms agreeing that they had made statements that were inflammatory toward management and abusive toward coworkers.

    Again, I have no idea if this really happened or if the actions of HR are represented fairly or accurately.

    Of course, we could get into various possible interpretations…

    • Perhaps the listening session was really just a way to pinpoint discontented employees and then reprimand them?
    • Perhaps HR genuinely did want to better understand employees concerns, but then discontented individuals began screaming threats of violence?
    • Perhaps the entire story was fabricated to win fake Internet points?

    We weren’t there, so we have no idea.

    But it doesn’t really matter. The point is that HR’s alleged actions were perceived as a trap.

    The fact that the context was an exercise ostensibly designed to build trust (i.e., identify concerns so that they can be resolved) makes it that much more combustible.

    So, what’s the “anti-complaint” here? What statements and actions would completely contradict the narrative?

    The first complaint was that HR ignored some problem or concern.

    Do the opposite: Respond to all concerns in some way. Even if the response doesn’t give the employee what they want every time, it’s still preferable to ignoring the concern.

    The second complaint was that HR tricked discontented employees into revealing themselves, then punished them.

    Do the opposite: Obviously, never use data collection to target individuals who express concerns.

    If trust is low, then take action to both assure and ensure anonymity. Provide options for sharing feedback that make it impossible to identify which individual expressed a particular concern.

    If trust is moderate or high, then anonymity may not be necessary. (Ideally, you are building a culture of trust and psychological safety, such that everyone feels comfortable expressing concerns.) In that case, you can reward individuals for expressing concerns, especially when it leads to important improvements.

    Okay, this took up more space and time than I expected. I’ll consider another example tomorrow…

  • Employees Distrust HR Because They Distrust Leadership

    Sept. 28, 2026 | TRUST Pt. 2

    Part 1 here.

    Okay, let’s talk more about building trust…

    First of all, if your HR personnel truly are just the handmaidens of an unethical leadership team, then you aren’t trustworthy, and employees shouldn’t trust you.

    (If this is the case, then this series of posts isn’t really for you. These are all about genuine ways to convey trustworthiness, and there are no genuine ways to mislead or trick people into trusting you.)

    But let’s assume you really do have the entire organization’s best interests in heart—including employees, leadership, business performance, everything…

    The solution boils down to publicly saying and doing things that send that message. As I said last time, the only way to build trust is to behave in a trustworthy fashion.

    This approach works even if you’re starting out with a negative reputation. If you consistently and persistently do things that are incompatible with any narrative about you, eventually the narrative is the thing that breaks down.

    Examine every aspect of HR communications and interactions, and ask, What message does this send about whether we have everyone’s best interest at heart?

    Pro-Tip: You can ask employees for this specific feedback too!

    If it doesn’t send the message you want, then your team needs to have a conversation about whether and how it should be modified.

    That’s it.

    Again, deceptively simple.

    Of course, the only way to pull this off is to partner closely with upper management. After all, that is where the real distrust lies.

    If HR sends constant trust-building messages through both words and actions, but leadership does the opposite, then this whole exercise comes across as a trap to get employees to let their guard down.

    Okay, that’s the general idea. Next time, I’ll look at examples from real-life complaints about HR…

  • How Do You Get Employees to Trust HR?

    Sept. 27, 2026 | TRUST Pt. 1

    I see a lot of posts online describing HR as the “handmaidens of upper management,” part of a “surveillance state,” or similar.

    Where does this narrative come from?

    Obviously, employees have had experiences where they felt like HR burned them. In addition to being posted online, these stories become part of many organizations’ oral traditions, sometimes continuing on even when no one involved is still employed at the firm!

    What would it take to get employees to trust HR?

    Well, you’ll probably never convince a Reddit mob, but at your own organization, there’s only one possible answer, and it’s deceptively simple: you build trust by behaving in a trustworthy fashion.

    Colloquially, we often describe trust as a binary (“I trust them” or “I don’t trust them”). But the truth is it’s a continuum.

    Additionally, your level of trust in someone is continually updating based on each experience you have with them…

    • When they do something slightly untrustworthy, your trust in them decreases a bit
    • When they do something moderately trustworthy, your trust in them increases somewhat
    • When they do something extremely untrustworthy, your trust in them plummets
    • Et cetera

    In this way, we continually update our trust in others based on evidence they provide that they should (or should not) be trusted. That evidence consists of statements but more so their behaviors.

    Additionally, these updates are cumulative, meaning all previous interactions also feed into the current trust level, at least to some extent.

    Based on this, the idea that you can immediately forgive someone or instantaneously choose to begin trusting them again, like flipping a switch, is a fantasy that only exists in fiction. (Actually, certain psychological conditions may enable this, but that’s not a good thing.)

    So, back to the question: How do you get employees to trust HR?

    Presumably, if they don’t trust HR, it’s because…

    1. They’ve been burned (or at least that’s how they feel), and/or
    2. They’ve heard stories of others getting burned, and they worry it’s going to happen to them.

    Repairing that—especially if you don’t believe you did mistreat anyone in the first place—requires humility and patience.

    I’ll get into more specifics next time…

  • Advice and Feedback Are Neither Right Nor Wrong

    Sept. 26, 2026

    I often hear people say things like, “That was great advice,” or “That was a terrible suggestion.”

    Whether the advice is judged to be right or wrong is usually based on one of two factors:

    1. Whether it sounds intuitively plausible in the moment
    2. Whether it later produces a desirable outcome

    The second approach may appear sensible, but it turns out that both reasoning approaches are irrational.

    (For example, even if you happen to win the lottery, that positive outcome doesn’t mean the original decision was rational. Almost literally everyone who plays the lottery loses, either completely or on average.)

    Relatedly, I often hear employees characterize feedback they’ve received as accurate or inaccurate.

    The other day, I heard someone say, “I think his feedback was 80% right but 20% wrong.”

    But things like advice and feedback are (usually) not the kinds of things that can be right or wrong.

    Both are types of guidance regarding what actions one should take under uncertain conditions. As such, their success rates are inescapably probabilistic.

    • It may be situational: some guidance applies well under certain conditions and poorly under others.
    • It may depend on the person: perhaps what works for you doesn’t work as well for someone else.
    • It may be generally unpredictable: sometimes an action is effective in one instance but ineffective in another, for reasons we don’t understand.

    Consequently, the key to effectively applying advice and feedback is to treat them only as descriptions of how things may work, at least in certain situations.

    They’re just more tools in your toolkit, examples of particular options among many others.

    You don’t need to verify if a particular piece of advice is “true” or “right.” Even if you do, you’ll inevitably run into situations that contradict your conclusion, sending you back to the drawing board.

    Instead, you simply need to discover the situations in which a piece of advice does or does not apply (for you). This can be done through critical thinking, reflecting on your own experiences, and of course experimentation.

    Caveat: The only exception is when there is no actual uncertainty. When a piece of guidance overwhelmingly leads to positive or negative results, across all people and situations, then it can reasonably be described as right or wrong.

    Of course, in those cases everyone tends to agree, so we rarely think of such guidance as “advice” anyway.

  • “That’s Easy for You to Say.”

    Sept. 25, 2026

    My usual glib reply is, “Yes, it is easier for me to say…That’s why I am the one who’s saying it.”

    (I picked up this quip from Peter Block years ago.)

    I know this response can be frustrating to hear, because it sounds dismissive. But I think you can find a valuable lesson if you unpack it…

    When someone says, “That’s easy for you to say,” they are implicitly conveying that they would like to be able to say or do whatever is being advised, but they don’t have the leverage / status / freedom / funding / whatever.

    Okay. Let’s start from there…

    How do you reverse-engineer ability to say it yourself?

    • How do you get enough leverage?
    • Where does higher status come from?
    • Where could you find more funding?

    The speaker’s natural inclination will be to frame the situation as being beyond the span of their control. (And they’re not completely wrong, of course!)

    But throwing up their hands and giving up is not the only option available to them.

    Another option is to reframe the situation in terms of what is within the span of their control.

    What would you have to do to make it easy for you to say too?

  • Hallucinating Meaning in AI Output

    Sept. 24, 2026

    I’ve argued previously that all meaning we infer from AI output is actually human hallucination. This doesn’t make the output useless, and it also doesn’t invalidate any resulting conclusions.

    It just means there’s no actual truth value in the output itself, other than what we create when making sense of it.

    Imagine you randomly pull three Scrabble tiles from a bag, and in order they happen to spell C-A-T.

    Any English-speaking person will find meaning in this particular sequence of characters. But no one concludes that the bag of tiles must be sentient.

    The fact that we can make meaning of a particular string of letters does NOT necessarily imbue meaning or consciousness into the process that produces those letters.

    Of course, an LLM doesn’t produce letters randomly; rather, it forms words using complex statistical processes.

    But those processes are not the same as how human brains produce verbal communication. They are computational algorithms designed to imitate human speech.

    As such, LLMs do not produce propositions per se—just strings of text that look very convincingly like how we phrase propositions.

    In this way, there is no meaning conveyed by the algorithm; rather, the meaning is extracted by the human.

    Extremely useful. NOT inherently meaningful.

  • Love the Person, Hate the Slop

    Sept. 23, 2026

    Question: What’s wrong with AI-generated writing? Why do some people call it “slop”?

    Yesterday, I sat through a webinar where nearly all of the slide content and even the presenter’s script were AI-generated.

    In my haughty view, it was pure slop.

    At first, I thought to myself, “I can still learn from this if I just push past that realization. There may still be something useful in here.”

    But I couldn’t do it.

    Once I realized that the wording came from AI, the presenter lost all credibility in my eyes. I couldn’t help but wonder if everything about the presentation, including the topic, structure, concepts, and “insights” were all AI output as well.

    I should address two questions…

    1. How do I know it was AI-generated?

    The prototypical AI writing cadence is painfully obvious to anyone who uses LLMs regularly. Here, I’ll show you…

    (I’m slightly changing the wording to disguise the identity of the consulting firm that presented this, since I would be embarrassed if I were them.)

    Slightly Disguised AI Slop:

    “Selling without a framework isn’t just inefficient; it’s quietly eroding your bottom line.
    ▪ Weak positioning caps your earning potential before you ever discuss a price.
    ▪     Poor qualification turns weeks of work into months of waiting.
    ▪     Premature proposals are politely—and permanently—ignored.”

    The AI tells are everywhere. This was clearly copy/pasted verbatim from a conversation with a chatbot.

    If you use LLMs regularly, it’s as obvious to you as it was to me.

    2. What’s wrong with copy/pasting AI output?

    Here’s my take on why people disagree about the quality of AI output…

    If you think ChatGPT is a better writer than you, then you’re more likely to think AI writing is good.

    In fairness, it is good, at least relative to you.

    If you think you’re a better writer than ChatGPT, then you’re more likely to think AI writing is bad.

    And maybe it is bad relative to you.

    I think this is a key reason why many people, myself included, cringe when we read AI-generated text.

    But more fundamentally, I think it’s empty.

    Sure, we humans can and do hallucinate meaning in chatbot output all the time, but that doesn’t make the underlying process itself meaning-generating. As has been said many times, it’s like highly sophisticated predictive text.

    Maybe that’s why my eyes glaze over the moment I spot the characteristic tells.

    In any particular interaction with another person, I implicitly assume that I will be exposed to human thought or even just consciousness. When I realize that’s not what’s happening, I disengage.

    Why would I want to interact with a person who functions solely as a conduit to a chatbot?

    If I wanted to know what a chatbot would say, I’d just go to a chatbot…

  • Against AI Anthropomorphism

    Sept. 22, 2026

    I recently heard a couple journalists argue that AI anthropomorphism is not really a problem. After all, they say, modern-day AI agents seem to act like autonomous entities, so why not treat them as such?

    Why not anthropomorphize AI?

    For the same reason you don’t hold other false beliefs.

    Misunderstanding how the world works generally leads to bad decision-making. It’s no different with AI.

    For example, if we pretend that an AI is a sentient entity, then we start placing responsibility in the wrong place…

    If an AI agent deletes all your files AND the backups, you’re probably going to have an impulse to blame the AI.

    But guess who’s really responsible for the mess-up?

    Yep. It’s you, the user. (And to some extent, perhaps the programmer as well.)

    Either the AI is programmed poorly, or you don’t understand how it works (and therefore how to use it effectively and responsibly).

    If the humans don’t take responsibility, then no learning occurs, and more problems ensue.

    The person is responsible. The AI is a tool.

    Misunderstanding how the tool works is not necessarily harmless.