Workplace Stories by RedThread Research

In this episode, we sit down with John Barrand, CHRO for the State of Utah, to discuss an inspiring transformation in public sector performance management. John led a bold effort to overhaul Utah’s performance management system—moving it from a culture of “adequacy” and silence to one focused on learning, growth, connection, and accountability. John shares how he and his team achieved legislative change requiring quarterly check-ins, implemented management training, and shifted the state’s mindset around performance and development.

 You will want to hear this episode if you are interested in...
[01:16] Initial state of Utah’s performance management system
[06:23] Value of continuous learning and curiosity in government 
[10:06] Defining the “why” for performance management in Utah
[17:02] Risks and Resistance in Systemic Change
[20:06] Quarterly employee check-ins initiative
[25:59] Balancing fairness and measurement without alienating staff 
[34:28] Creation of a system-wide talent mobility program 
[40:01] Development of incentive structures and bonus allocations 
[44:22] Sustainability and future of the program

Performance Management is a Sector-Spanning Challenge

Performance management has a notorious reputation, often maligned as bureaucratic and misaligned. These challenges aren’t confined to just the private sector. Public organizations often face a wealth of bureaucracy and challenges that can inhibit transformation, compounded by a cultural tendency towards silence and an adequacy mindset.

When John assumed his role in 2021 for the state of Utah, over 70% of employees had an “unknown” performance rating, and only 16% had received annual reviews. The pervasive culture of silence fostered disengagement and suspicion, and performance management, where it occurred, was simply about maintaining adequacy—a relic from nearly a century and a half of defensive bureaucracy.

From Compliance to Connection

The first pivotal move was defining purpose. Clarity on the “why” behind performance management is crucial. For Utah, the why was growth: enabling employees to learn and grow while retaining top talent—shifting away from the punitive roots of performance management. As John says: “Employees don’t want feedback, they want connection. They don’t want evaluation, they want attention”.

One of the new steps John took was to require quarterly check-in conversations with all employees. The effect was transformational: from just 16% of employees having annual reviews to 89% participating in four quarterly check-ins within the first year. This regular cadence broke the culture of silence, making communication a legal and cultural imperative.

Overhauling the System: What Changed

Where most organizations tinker at the edges, Utah’s public sector embraced bold, structural change. They implemented legislation for conversations, which included quarterly check-ins and annual reviews, demonstrating a high-level commitment to improving performance management.

Only 30% of managers previously had any training, and now, over 87% have been developed in crucial skills such as feedback, resilience, and collaboration. Utah also funds performance management by reallocating cost-of-living adjustments and introducing performance-driven bonuses. Goals now consist of both output-aligned objectives and developmental “how” objectives, pushing employees to reflect on and improve their impact.

Evidence of a Transformed Culture

Performance conversations have become increasingly meaningful. The organization saw a 40% increase in first-year exits for cause—not a sign of ruthless weeding out, but of identifying and addressing performance issues sooner, thereby improving overall health without a drop in retention. High-potential (HIPO) employee retention rates rose 16% above the general population, and newly calibrated bonus systems rewarded and motivated top talent. Utah’s success has garnered attention from major institutions—including Harvard and the London School of Economics—looking to distill lessons from its model.

 Resources & People Mentioned
Utah Governor's Office
Utah Legislature
Harvard University
LSE 
HB0104
GRIT Initiative      

Connect with John Barrand
John Barrand

Connect With Red Thread Research
Website: Red Thread Research
On LinkedIn
On Facebook
On Twitter

Subscribe to WORKPLACE STORIES

In this episode, we welcome Lisa Kay Solomon, designer-in-residence at Stanford's d.school and host of the "How We Future" podcast, and Jeffrey Rogers, principal of Learning and Facilitation at Radical and co-founder of Projectory. We discuss why foresight—the ability to anticipate and design the futures we want—is everybody's job, not just the domain of senior leaders or specialized futurists. They challenge the idea that organizations operate on an "official future" built from unexamined assumptions, and explore how narrative shapes both our approach to work and our readiness for rapid change, especially in the face of AI disruption.

 You will want to hear this episode if you are interested in...

[00:00] Rethinking future-focused leadership
[03:39] HR's evolving role in shaping the future
[07:18] Understanding contested narratives and the potential to challenge them 
[21:50] The importance of adopting futures thinking through broad learning across multiple perspectives
[25:47] Strategic foresight and future practices
[35:13] Rethinking knowledge and learning priorities
[39:21] Reflecting on AI adoption barriers
[47:08] Helping leaders develop future-oriented skills
[51:14] Looking ahead to the future

The Leadership Muscle We Forget to Use

One of the most powerful ideas to emerge from the conversation is that of foresight as a "leadership muscle." Most leaders are trained and incentivized to focus on quarterly results and annual plans. The urgent often squeezes out the important, leaving little room for the kind of long-term, strategic thinking that anticipates disruption rather than simply reacts to it.

Foresight isn't someone else’s job—it's every leader's job. Yet, most organizations have let this muscle atrophy. Through scenario planning and immersive exercises like those facilitated at last year’s Summit, the hosts argue that HR and organizational leaders can rediscover the collective ability to inquire, imagine, and influence the future, rather than endure it.

Challenging the "Official Future" and the Power of Narrative

Every organization operates on an "official future," a set of unspoken assumptions about what tomorrow holds. In stable times, these guiding narratives are rarely questioned. But when the world is in flux, from technological disruptions like AI to geopolitical shocks, such narratives become vulnerabilities.

Leaders, especially in HR, have a responsibility to both recognize and challenge prevailing stories about the future. Wherever there’s a narrative, there’s also the possibility for a counter-narrative, and organizations need to cultivate the skill of holding multiple possible futures in mind, letting diverse perspectives inform strategic choices rather than defaulting to inherited assumptions.

Building Organizational Foresight: Tools, Skills, and Community

The value of events like the Red Thread Summit lies in three core takeaways: the experience of stepping back to envision the future, a toolkit of practices that can be applied immediately, and the creation of a community dedicated to learning and experimentation.

There are three critical skills:

Recognizing the narrative: Are you taking assumptions as fact, or seeing them as just one possible story?
Crafting your own narratives: Are you able to articulate clear, alternative futures?
Communicating vision: Can you equip others to see and believe in those visions?

Perhaps nowhere is the need for foresight and narrative-shaping more acute than in the realm of AI and automation. Today’s leaders are under immense pressure to adopt and justify new technologies, to navigate uncertainty, and to avoid being blindsided by change.
A key theme is the emerging digital (and AI) divide: those who are experimenting, learning, and shaping technology are pulling ahead, while those waiting for certainty risk being left behind. Learning, experimentation, and cross-pollination are essential. 

Creating the Conditions for Resilient Futures

Rather than chasing after blueprints or one "correct" answer, try to cultivate a design mindset: creating organizational conditions in which new ideas and approaches can flourish. This means expanding our definition of leadership to include not just the preservation of knowledge, but the nurturing of curiosity, experimentation, collaboration, and adaptability. 

 Resources & People Mentioned

Peter Drucker
Articles by Lisa Kay Solomon 
Pascal Finette on LinkedIn 
Implications Wheel
View from the Future at Stanford d.school  
Hazel Henderson

Connect with Lisa Kay Solomon and Jeffrey Rogers

Lisa Kay Solomon on LinkedIn 
Jeffrey Rogers on LinkedIn 
Connect With Red Thread Research

Website: Red Thread Research
On LinkedIn
On Facebook
On Twitter

Subscribe to WORKPLACE STORIES

This week, we’re sitting down with Ron Storn, Chief People and Culture Officer at Truckstop, to discuss culture—how it forms, who owns it, and how it scales in growing organizations. We explore the relationships between systems, processes, and cultural values, and discuss signs of cultural breakdown and the keys to recovery. We also discuss how AI is reshaping workplace dynamics, hiring practices, and performance management, and Ron offers practical, research-based insights and strategies for understanding and supporting positive workplace culture. 

You will want to hear this episode if you are interested in...

00:00 How company culture is formed
09:19 Building strong HR and leadership systems
11:54 Creating a positive culture for business success
18:59 Scaling and preserving company culture
22:53 Defining team behaviors and principles
29:26 Aligning culture with decision-making
32:13 Signs of a broken workplace
36:50 Challenges with management and team culture
41:45 Advantages of remote vs in-person work
44:56 AI's impact on workplace culture

Defining Culture

Some companies treat culture as little more than a list of values on the wall, disconnected from the day-to-day decisions and actions that define what it’s really like to work there. Ron believes culture is best understood as a set of shared behaviors, decision rights, and expectations to determine how a company actually executes its strategy when no one is watching. It’s how decisions are made, how people are hired or rewarded, and how work gets done when leadership isn’t in the room.

In smaller organizations, culture often starts with a clear vision or set of norms, and systems are built around it. As organizations scale, systems and practices increasingly shape (and sometimes reshape) the prevailing culture, the challenge is finding ways to make culture systemic, woven into processes, rewards, and leadership behaviors, so that the company’s values endure as it grows.

Who Owns Culture? Leadership, HR, and Systems

While HR is often perceived as the “owner” of culture, Ron believes it should be a shared responsibility, with ultimate ownership being at the very top. CEOs and founders define and embody desired cultural norms, while executive leaders model and cascade those norms through decisions and behaviors. HR’s role is to craft the mechanisms for how people are hired, evaluated, and developed to reinforce the company culture at scale. If only HR champions culture while leadership pays lip service or models different behaviors, culture will break down. Everyone, especially managers, must reinforce and live the culture for it to endure.

Signs of Cultural Erosion and How to Recover

When culture unravels, it’s usually a gradual process, increasing decision friction, high performers becoming disengaged, and inconsistent behaviors creeping in across teams. If left unchecked, the result is a loss of trust, bureaucracy, and top talent walking out the door.
Recovery is possible, but it needs radical transparency and recommitment.

Ron recommends that organizations in crisis go back to their roots and principles, engaging teams in candid conversations about what must change. Leaders should model vulnerability, drive clarity on decision-making and expectations, and ensure every manager is accountable for rebuilding the cultural fabric.  

Resources & People Mentioned

Truckstop.com 

Connect with Ron Storn

Ron Storn on LinkedIn 

Connect With Red Thread Research

Website: Red Thread Research
On LinkedIn
On Facebook
On Twitter

Subscribe to WORKPLACE STORIES

On this episode, we’re with Jenna Filipkowski, the Head of Learning and Development at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. With a background in organizational psychology and research, Jenna brings a fresh, outsider perspective to the world of L&D, challenging traditional approaches and driving innovation within the unique environment of the Fed.

We discuss the importance of team development over individual learning, the shift from self-directed "Netflix of learning" approaches to more guided, in-person experiences, and the crucial role of branding and communication in building credibility for L&D organizations.  

You will want to hear this episode if you are interested in...

00:00 Team-based learning evolution
05:06 Improving the workforce experience
07:59 Embracing opportunity in HR leadership
15:46 Team coaching as facilitation
19:56 Aligning learning with business goals
25:40 In-person vs. virtual leadership training
33:12 Improving organizational learning through data
37:46 Cohesive branding and storytelling
40:20 Leadership accountability and development
From Individual Focus to Team Development

Historically, L&D programs have targeted individual upskilling and career navigation. At the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Jenna Filipkowski is pioneering an approach grounded in 6 Team Conditions, a research-backed model that moves beyond one-off workshops.
Her Energize program uses diagnostics, assessments like Hogan and Insights Discovery, and customized workshops to identify and strengthen the underlying conditions for team success. Rather than a one-size-fits-all or quick-fix model, teams undergo a tailored process, allowing for deeper systemic improvement. It’s about giving teams the tools and support to accelerate their performance because they’re set up for success, not just treating every challenge as an off-the-shelf problem.

The Death of Netflix of Learning

For years, L&D has been swept up by the promise of Netflix learning, providing endless on-demand content and empowering employees to self-direct their learning journeys. But this laissez-faire model has started to unravel, because organizations and individuals are craving more structure and intentionality. 

At the New York Fed, the move to in-person, cohort-based programs is intentional. In-person learning provides social connection, time to focus, and shared experience, resulting in deeper reflection and lasting impact. While technical upskilling may still leverage digital and asynchronous methods. Blending modalities based on program intent, not defaulting to digital just because it’s easier.

Branding L&D

Standing out in a large, multifaceted organization is a challenge for any L&D team, and Jenna’s approach is to treat L&D as a brand. Programs at the Fed share unified branding with cohesive names and visual identity, making offerings memorable and fostering a sense of exclusivity and aspiration.

Branding goes hand-in-hand with effective communication. Frequent roadshows, town halls, engaging graduation ceremonies, and leadership conferences help communicate value not only to employees but also to senior leadership. 

Measurement and Accountability

At the Fed, Jenna and her team use a mix of reach, participant demand, stakeholder feedback, and practical business cases solved to demonstrate L&D’s value. They push to correlate L&D participation with metrics like engagement and retention—demonstrating impact beyond traditional learning outcomes. The vision for the future includes more robust, passive data collection and real-time intelligence—but for now, using multiple data sources creatively is key.

As workplaces shift once again, the future of L&D will center on three things: helping people grow in their roles, building strong leaders, and fostering connection through learning alongside others. The journey away from content chaos and toward strategic, human-centered, and measurement-driven L&D is just beginning. 

Resources & People Mentioned

Hogan Development Survey 
Insights Discovery® 
6 Team Conditions

Connect with Jenna Filipkowski

Jenna Filipkowski on LinkedIn 

Connect With Red Thread Research

Website: Red Thread Research
On LinkedIn
On Facebook
On Twitter

Subscribe to WORKPLACE STORIES

Strategic workforce planning is back, and not in a nostalgic “this trend is back around” kind of way. It is back because the old staffing model, react late, hire fast, hope the market delivers, is failing more often than it works. The biggest misunderstanding is still the same one: strategic workforce planning is not long-term headcount forecasting. It is not a spreadsheet exercise dressed up with better visuals. It is a business discipline that exists for one reason, to stop leaders from committing to strategies the workforce cannot deliver.

In this episode of Workplace Stories, David Edwards, author of The Strategic Workforce Planning Handbook, lays out a definition of SWP that is refreshingly usable. Strategic workforce planning is workforce planning for the strategic things in the organization, not an attempt to plan the entire workforce. That single shift makes SWP more approachable, more realistic, and far more effective.
If you have not listened yet, this is one of those episodes worth hearing end-to-end. The conversation is practical, occasionally blunt, and full of the kind of “this is what actually happens inside companies” detail that most workforce planning content avoids.

You will want to hear this episode if you are interested in...

[00:00] A clearer, more usable definition of strategic workforce planning.
[00:43] Why SWP is back right now.
[03:20] How SWP supports scenario thinking without false precision.
[09:50] The questions SWP must answer to be useful.
[11:40] Uncertainty, talent scarcity, and skills half-life as drivers.
[14:30] Why SWP is an exercise in ambiguity, not certainty.
[17:20] Why SWP works best as a business process, not an HR project.
[20:05] What HR should do if it is not included in strategy conversations.
[22:00] How to define “strategic” beyond leadership roles.
[25:10] Why tasks matter more than skills for future work.
[28:00] The contextual data missing from most workforce planning.
[31:15] How AI forces better workforce planning questions.
[41:20] What happens when SWP forces leaders to narrow priorities.
[45:30] What to do when the business will not listen.
[46:45] Why this work matters at the human level.

Strategic Workforce Planning Starts With One Uncomfortable Question

Strategic workforce planning becomes useful the moment it stops pretending it can predict the future. The real starting point is simple: Is the workforce fit for the organization’s future business purpose? That framing does two things immediately. First, it moves SWP out of the “HR process” bucket and into the “business execution” bucket. Second, it forces the conversation away from false certainty and toward risk, trade-offs, and feasibility.

One of the most helpful parts of this episode is how clearly the conversation draws a line between strategic and long-term. Strategic does not automatically mean five years out. In some organizations, planning 15 months ahead is strategic compared to how they have historically operated. If you want the cleanest definition of SWP in the most human language possible, it is worth listening to the early part of the conversation where this is unpacked in real time.

Why Workforce Planning Has Returned

Workforce planning always comes and goes. It resurfaces when the world feels unstable, and it fades when leaders believe they can hire their way out of problems.Right now, hiring your way out of problems is not working.There is too much uncertainty, and it is coming from too many directions at once. Geopolitical instability affects where work can happen. Talent shortages continue to constrain hiring. Skills decay faster than most organizations can reskill. Generational shifts are changing expectations around mobility and development. And technology is changing the shape of work itself.

The point is not that leaders suddenly became more disciplined. The point is that the environment is forcing discipline.Strategic workforce planning is the response to that reality. Not because it gives certainty, but because it gives options. It gives a way to talk about what might happen without having to pretend anyone knows exactly what will happen.

Strategic Workforce Planning Works When It Stops Being “HR’s Thing”

A lot of SWP efforts fail for a predictable reason. They are treated like an HR deliverable. A report. A deck. A spreadsheet. A set of numbers handed over to leadership. Strategic workforce planning is not a deliverable. It is a business process. It is a feasibility process. It is a risk conversation. One of the strongest through-lines in this episode is the idea that HR must initiate this conversation, not because HR owns strategy, but because HR holds the missing information. HR knows things about recruiting realities, workforce behavior, retention patterns, internal mobility, and capability development that business leaders often overlook.

But knowledge is not enough. The shift HR has to make is from reporting to synthesis. People analytics without business context is just numbers. When workforce data is layered onto business strategy, a story emerges. A small function may be revenue-critical. A demographic cliff may be coming. The external market may not supply replacements. The timeline may be unrealistic.This is where SWP becomes sharp.

Strategic Does Not Mean Leadership Only

Many organizations quietly turn strategic workforce planning into succession planning. They define strategic as director and above, focus on leadership roles, and build plans around titles. That is leadership continuity planning. It is not strategic workforce planning. Strategic workforce planning is about what is material. Sometimes the most strategic workforce segment is a small team of individual contributors with rare expertise and direct revenue impact. They may never appear in succession planning decks. They may not have high-profile titles. But losing them becomes a board-level issue the moment revenue drops or delivery fails. 

Skills Are Not the Answer, Tasks Are the Missing Middle

Skills still matter, but the skills conversation has gotten out ahead of itself. The problem is not that skills are irrelevant. The problem is that skills are being treated as the answer to a question they cannot solve. Skills describe people. Work is made of tasks. People use skills to perform tasks. That middle layer is what connects workforce planning to reality. This becomes especially obvious when AI enters the picture. AI does not simply change which skills people need. It changes which tasks exist, how tasks are performed, and which tasks no longer require a human at all. If an organization cannot describe how work is changing at the task level, the skills conversation stays abstract. It becomes a taxonomy exercise instead of a planning exercise .This is one of the most useful reframes in the conversation, and if you are wrestling with the skills-versus-tasks debate inside your organization, it is worth hearing how this is discussed in context.

Workforce Planning Has to Include the Person, Not Just the Skill

A skill taxonomy can tell an organization that someone has a skill. It cannot tell the organization whether that person wants to use it. Whether they have demonstrated it in real execution. Whether they are willing to take on leadership. Whether they just moved into a role and are still ramping. Strategic workforce planning becomes more realistic when it includes contextual data, not just skill labels. This is where SWP becomes less about classification and more about decision-making. It stops treating people like skill containers and starts treating them like human beings with preferences, histories, and constraints.

HR Influence Requires Persistence, Risk Language, and Political Skill

Even when HR gets the analysis right, many organizations still do not listen. That is not paranoia. It is often true. In environments where HR has historically been transactional, leaders do not expect HR to challenge strategy feasibility. They do not expect HR to raise uncomfortable risks. They do not expect HR to show up with options. Strategic workforce planning forces HR into a different posture. It requires HR to speak in the language of risk, to persist, and to get political when necessary. If one group will not listen, find another that will. Engage operational risk. Borrow credibility. Use the channels that the organization already respects. This is one of those episodes where the advice is not theoretical. It is practical, and it is the kind of thing HR leaders often need to hear said out loud.

Connect With David Edwards

David Edwards on Linkedin

Connect With RedThread Research
Website: Red Thread Research
On LinkedIn
On Facebook
On Twitter