HR Voices

Rebecca Taylor
  • 3.7 (6)
  • MANAGEMENT
  • UPDATED WEEKLY

HR Voices is a scenario-based podcast for People Leaders who’ve actually had to make the call. Each episode brings experienced HR and People leaders into realistic, anonymized workplace scenarios—the kind you recognize immediately. Performance issues. Messy conflicts. Investigations that don’t fit neatly into a policy box. Instead of talking about their own companies, guests react to outside cases and walk through how they’d think it through in real time. There are no right answers here. What you’ll hear is judgment: how seasoned leaders balance risk, fairness, legal reality, and humanity when the stakes are high and the path isn’t obvious. HR Voices is for HR, People Ops, legal, and leaders who want to hear how other smart humans actually handle employee relations—without confidentiality breaches, hypotheticals that feel fake, or a lecture on “best practices.”

  1. The Expectations Nobody Wrote Down

    17H AGO

    The Expectations Nobody Wrote Down

    Summary On HR Voices, host Rebecca Taylor and Jeannie Virden, Chief People Officer at Central Health, work through a layered employee relations scenario: an employee with an approved work from home accommodation whose manager wants to move to a PIP three months later. They unpack why the accommodation is often a distraction from the real issue, how unstated remote expectations set people up to fail, and what documentation a PIP actually requires. Jeannie makes the case that strong HR slows managers down, asks for the paper trail, and reframes "you could" into "should you." For any people leader who manages remote teams or owns the accommodation and performance process. Chapters 00:00 The accommodating conflict 03:40 Where a strong HR leader starts 07:15 Is 90 days really enough time? 08:45 A PIP has a brand 09:55 "I need more than the output isn't there" 11:20 Presenteeism doesn't survive remote 13:10 Talking managers down from a bad call 17:40 Training is the first thing budgets cut 22:50 You could, but should you? Takeaways The accommodation is often a spotlight on management gaps, not the actual problem.You can't fairly PIP someone for missing expectations you never set or wrote down."The output isn't there" is not a PIP; it has to name where the person is and where they need to get to.Documented coaching across those 90 days is what separates a performance plan from an ambush.Being technically allowed to act is not the same as it being the right, people centered move.Guest linksJeannie Virden on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeannievirden/Company Website: https://www.centralhealth.net/ Sponsor AllVoices brings all your employee relations work together in one place. No more jumping between spreadsheets, emails, and legacy systems — just one place to document and manage reports, cases, investigations, and performance conversations. It helps you run a more consistent process, takes busywork off your plate with AI, and makes it easier to spot trends early, so you can work proactively, not just put out fires. See a demo at https://www.allvoices.co/

    26 min
  2. Purpose, People, and Process: The Three Things That Hold in HR

    3D AGO

    Purpose, People, and Process: The Three Things That Hold in HR

    Summary In this episode of HR Voices, Rebecca Taylor is joined by Paul D. Brubaker, VP of HR for North America at KARL STORZ, to work through one of the most complex scenarios an HR leader can face: a confidential misconduct investigation has leaked from inside the function, and now HR must run two simultaneous inquiries without contaminating either one. Paul walks through his sequencing framework, explains why maintaining an open mind during a contested investigation is a form of rigor, and reflects on the two inputs that carry teams through organizational change. This episode is for HR leaders who want to think more clearly about what it means to hold the function's standards when holding them is hardest. Chapters 00:00 Welcome to HR Voices and show format02:00 The scenario: The Internal Investigation Leak03:30 First move: the legal hold06:00 Who investigates when your investigator is compromised?08:00 Fighting the assumption of guilt12:00 Zero gray: what happens when the leaker is found15:30 Building trust as an HR function17:00 Data, courage, and speaking truth to power22:00 Purpose and people: what holds teams through change24:00 Final advice: step back, stay open, follow the process Takeaways When an investigation leaks from inside your own function, issue a legal hold before you make any personnel decisions.Fighting the assumption of guilt is not kindness. It is what keeps the investigation clean and defensible.If the leaker inside HR or legal is identified, the consequence is termination. There is no gray area.The two inputs that stay stable through organizational change are purpose and peer relationships. Point people back to what hasn't changed.HR's credibility is built in the hard cases, not the easy ones.Guest links Paul D. Brubaker on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pdbrubaker/KARL Storz: https://www.karlstorz.com/us/en/index.htm?target=Sponsor AllVoices brings all your employee relations work together in one place. No more jumping between spreadsheets, emails, and legacy systems just one place to document and manage reports, cases, investigations, and performance conversations. It helps you run a more consistent process, takes busywork off your plate with AI, and makes it easier to spot trends early, so you can work proactively, not just put out fires. See a demo at ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.allvoices.co/ (00:00) - Welcome to HR Voices and show format (02:00) - The scenario: The Internal Investigation Leak (03:30) - First move: the legal hold (06:00) - Who investigates when your investigator is compromised? (08:00) - Fighting the assumption of guilt (12:00) - Zero gray: what happens when the leaker is found (15:30) - Building trust as an HR function (17:00) - Data, courage, and speaking truth to power (22:00) - Purpose and people: what holds teams through change (24:00) - Final advice: step back, stay open, follow the process

    26 min
  3. The $400K Retention Mistake: When One Counteroffer Becomes Four

    MAY 14

    The $400K Retention Mistake: When One Counteroffer Becomes Four

    SummaryA single counteroffer—a 22% raise to retain a valued analyst—triggered a pay equity crisis within weeks. Three teammates discovered the increase, demanded comparable raises citing discrimination, and two threatened to leave. The retained employee, furious her confidential salary became public knowledge, now distrusts leadership. HR must decide: conduct a broader compensation audit, address the perceived precedent, or risk losing the entire team. This scenario exposes the hidden cost of reactive compensation decisions. Danessa Quadros, VP of People at WHSmith North America, walks through how to stabilize the situation, investigate root causes without making three more emotional decisions, and prevent wandering eyes before employees start interviewing. Her framework: write everything down, ask broad questions first, and never solve for pay without solving for trust. Timestamps03:09 Why compensation disputes are always emotional—and solving for five people, not one  06:15 Stabilize first: who to talk to, what questions to ask, and why you start with the manager  09:41 The coaching moment: when leaders accidentally leak confidential salary information  12:28 Why "she got 22%" doesn't mean what employees think it means  15:23 Feelings aren't facts—but in HR, feelings are facts  19:42 How to prepare managers for pay conversations before the crisis hits  23:54 The most powerful phrase in HR: "I don't know—let me get back to you"  26:59 The assumption Danessa wants challenged: HR can be both heart-led and business-focused  Takeaways Counteroffer decisions made under emotional pressure create cascading equity problems—avoid making three more reactive raises in response to one.Stay interviews conducted quarterly give managers a pulse on retention risk before employees start interviewing elsewhere.Document every conversation and decision; without evidence of how comp decisions were made, you can't prove or disprove discrimination claims.Practice difficult conversations through role-play workshops—managers who rehearse pay and performance discussions build trust faster and make fewer mistakes.Ask broad, open-ended questions first to uncover root causes; employees upset about a raise might actually be upset about recognition, growth, or family pressure.Connect with the guestLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/danessa-quadros/Company: https://www.whsmithna.com/ Sponsor AllVoices brings all your employee relations work together in one place. No more jumping between spreadsheets, emails, and legacy systems—just one place to document and manage reports, cases, investigations, and performance conversations. It helps you run a more consistent process, takes busywork off your plate with AI, and makes it easier to spot trends early, so you can work proactively, not just put out fires. See a demo at https://www.allvoices.co/ (03:09) - Why compensation disputes are always emotional—and solving for five people, not one (06:15) - Stabilize first: who to talk to, what questions to ask, and why you start with the manager (09:41) - The coaching moment: when leaders accidentally leak confidential salary information (12:28) - Why "she got 22%" doesn't mean what employees think it means (15:23) - Feelings aren't facts—but in HR, feelings are facts (19:42) - How to prepare managers for pay conversations before the crisis hits (23:54) - The most powerful phrase in HR: "I don't know—let me get back to you" (26:59) - The assumption Danessa wants challenged: HR can be both heart-led and business-focused

    28 min
  4. The Promotion That Never Came: Investigating Pregnancy Discrimination at Work

    MAY 13

    The Promotion That Never Came: Investigating Pregnancy Discrimination at Work

    SummaryA marketing manager files a pregnancy discrimination complaint after being passed over for a director promotion. The role went to a male peer with less tenure. The hiring committee's written notes cite "bandwidth" concerns three times — only for her candidacy. The company insists the decision was legitimate business planning. HR's investigation reveals a pattern that looks less like strategy and more like unconscious bias. This scenario sits at the intersection of legitimate operational concerns and illegal discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The word "bandwidth" does significant work here — and none of it is defensible. When concerns about continuity appear only in notes for a pregnant candidate, intent becomes irrelevant. Impact is what matters. And the impact is discoverable, actionable risk. Timestamps03:09 Why "bandwidth" and "continuity" are doing illegal work in hiring notes  05:51 Tenure doesn't equal qualification: what the hiring team should have documented  09:01 Neutral language as a mask for discriminatory motivation  11:49 Shortterm thinking vs. longterm hiring: pregnancy leave is temporary, bad decisions aren't  13:03 What to do when "I didn't intend to discriminate" meets written evidence  16:39 Structured interviews for internal promotions: why they're harder and more necessary  21:29 Pregnancy discrimination doesn't look like malice — it looks like planning  24:57 Give options, not ultimatums: how to involve the employee in the resolution  27:40 The assumption about HR that needs to be challenged  Takeaways  A pregnancy leave is a shortterm operational challenge, not a reason to disqualify the most qualified candidate for a longterm role.   If "bandwidth" or "continuity" appears in interview notes only for a pregnant candidate, the decision is not defensible under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.   Structured interview rubrics and scorecards aren't bureaucratic obstacles — they're documentation that protects against bias and supports equitable promotion decisions.   Employees who file discrimination complaints often want validation and resolution, not litigation — HR's role is to acknowledge the harm and present options, not force a single outcome.   HR earns trust by understanding the business, not just managing emotional conversations — you're a business partner who focuses on people, not "the people person."  Connect with the guestLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lisasantin/Company Website: https://www.grahampackaging.com/ Sponsor AllVoices brings all your employee relations work together in one place. No more jumping between spreadsheets, emails, and legacy systems—just one place to document and manage reports, cases, investigations, and performance conversations. It helps you run a more consistent process, takes busywork off your plate with AI, and makes it easier to spot trends early, so you can work proactively, not just put out fires. See a demo at https://www.allvoices.co/ (03:09) - Why "bandwidth" and "continuity" are doing illegal work in hiring notes (05:51) - Tenure doesn't equal qualification: what the hiring team should have documented (09:01) - Neutral language as a mask for discriminatory motivation (11:49) - Shortterm thinking vs. longterm hiring: pregnancy leave is temporary, bad decisions aren't (13:03) - What to do when "I didn't intend to discriminate" meets written evidence (16:39) - Structured interviews for internal promotions: why they're harder and more necessary (21:29) - Pregnancy discrimination doesn't look like malice — it looks like planning (24:57) - Give options, not ultimatums: how to involve the employee in the resolution (27:40) - The assumption about HR that needs to be challenged

    30 min
  5. The $400K Distraction: What Happens When Senior Leaders Undermine HR Policy

    MAY 12

    The $400K Distraction: What Happens When Senior Leaders Undermine HR Policy

    SummaryAccording to a 2024 Society for Human Resource Management report, 67% of organizations now encourage pronoun sharing as part of workplace inclusion efforts — yet only 23% report zero employee objections. A company updates its inclusion policy to ask employees to share pronouns optionally in email signatures and during introductions. One employee refuses, stating that mandatory pronoun sharing — even optional in structure — violates his religious beliefs. Another employee argues that the absence of a mandate makes the policy toothless and fails transgender colleagues. HR is caught between religious accommodation requests, LGBTQ+ inclusion obligations, and a policy that tried to thread the needle but pleased no one. A senior leader publicly sides with the religious objector. HR must now manage both the policy question and the leader's statement. Marie Garrigue, Chief People Officer at Fitness Connection USA, walks through this scenario on HR Voices — revealing how experienced HR leaders assess risk, manage public dissent from senior leadership, and navigate the tension between inclusive intent and cultural readiness. Timestamps00:02 Rebecca introduces the pronouns policy scenario  01:40 Marie identifies the biggest risk: productivity loss and cultural damage  04:22 Why understanding employee intent matters before investigation  08:02 Should senior leaders publicly back policy objectors?  12:52 The problem with "optional" policies and inclusion mandates  16:13 Risk of moving too fast vs. too slow to resolution  19:58 When employees feel forced to choose between identity and paycheck  22:36 How to prepare managers for inclusion-based divides  25:58 Who ultimately owns the outcome of culture policy disputes  27:32 The assumption about HR that needs to be challenged  Takeaways- Investigate employee intent early: distinguish between heartfelt internal conflict and orchestrated political agenda before designing your response.- Public dissent from senior leaders can be an opportunity for repair if addressed transparently — underground dissent damages culture far more.- Optional policies and mandatory compliance are not congruent: if a policy can be ignored, it will undermine both the initiative and trust in leadership commitment.- Change management must precede policy rollout: inclusion policies introduced without stakeholder buy-in, advocate networks, and manager preparation become "random acts of HR" that distract from productivity.- Culture policy outcomes are executive team responsibilities, not HR scapegoats: cross-functional ownership from operations, CEO, and people teams ensures accountability and credibility. Connect with the GuestConnect with Marie Garrigue on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mariegarrigue/Learn more about Fitness Connection USA: https://fitnessconnection.com/ Sponsor AllVoices brings all your employee relations work together in one place. No more jumping between spreadsheets, emails, and legacy systems just one place to document and manage reports, cases, investigations, and performance conversations. It helps you run a more consistent process, takes busywork off your plate with AI, and makes it easier to spot trends early, so you can work proactively, not just put out fires. See a demo at ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.allvoices.co/ (00:02) - Rebecca introduces the pronouns policy scenario (01:40) - Marie identifies the biggest risk: productivity loss and cultural damage (04:22) - Why understanding employee intent matters before investigation (08:02) - Should senior leaders publicly back policy objectors? (12:52) - The problem with "optional" policies and inclusion mandates (16:13) - Risk of moving too fast vs. too slow to resolution (19:58) - When employees feel forced to choose between identity and paycheck (22:36) - How to prepare managers for inclusion-based divides (25:58) - Who ultimately owns the outcome of culture policy disputes (27:32) - The assumption about HR that needs to be challenged

    29 min
  6. What to Do When a Manager is Accused of Theft?

    MAY 11

    What to Do When a Manager is Accused of Theft?

    SummaryIn an exit interview, a departing employee discloses that her manager has been stealing several thousand dollars from petty cash over the past year. She estimates the total theft at thousands of dollars but admits she never reported it earlier due to fear of retaliation. HR must now investigate an allegation with a departing witness, limited evidence, and a manager who has no indication anything is coming. Claude Silver, Chief Heart Officer at VaynerX, walks through the investigation step-by-step: verifying access logs, reviewing security footage, interviewing witnesses with access to petty cash, and assessing whether financial discrepancies align with the allegation. Claude emphasizes the importance of gathering hard evidence before approaching the accused manager and highlights how critical it is to understand the relationship between the departing employee and the manager to rule out retaliation-driven false claims. The conversation shifts from investigation mechanics to how HR handles the human element when theft is confirmed, demonstrating how to balance accountability with empathy and offering a real-world example of choosing generosity over policy. Timestamps00:01 Rebecca introduces Claude Silver, Chief Heart Officer at VaynerX  00:36 HR Voices format: real scenarios, experienced HR judgment, no single right answer  01:16 The scenario: exit interview theft allegation with a departing witness  02:35 Claude's first questions: timeline, evidence, witness credibility, and access control  04:15 CSI mode: petty cash storage, video cameras, and who manages the cash  06:56 Evaluating the policy: who is authorized to access petty cash?  09:07 Investigation sequence: departing employee first, then witnesses with access  12:36 Protecting the accused: gather evidence before the conversation  14:45 Red flags: examining the relationship between the departing employee and the manager  16:12 Retail HR reality: exit interview allegations are 50/50 grudge or truth  18:09 The confrontation: how to speak to the accused manager with grace and accountability  20:38 Real example: VaynerX buys a plane ticket for an employee in crisis  21:53 The assumption that needs to be challenged: HR is not the department of "no" Takeaways Investigate exit interview allegations with the same rigor as any other report, but verify the relationship between the departing employee and the accused to rule out retaliation-driven claims.Gather objective evidence first—access logs, video footage, financial discrepancies—before confronting the accused to ensure the conversation is grounded in fact, not accusation.Approach confirmed theft with empathy and accountability: assume the person had a legitimate need, deliver the consequences clearly, and preserve their dignity in the process.HR's role is not to say "no"—it's to find ways to say "yes" within the boundaries of safety, compliance, and fairness.Connect with the guestLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/casilver/Company: https://vaynerx.com/ Sponsor AllVoices brings all your employee relations work together in one place. No more jumping between spreadsheets, emails, and legacy systems—just one place to document and manage reports, cases, investigations, and performance conversations. It helps you run a more consistent process, takes busywork off your plate with AI, and makes it easier to spot trends early, so you can work proactively, not just put out fires. See a demo at https://www.allvoices.co/

    21 min
  7. Why "Overqualified" Is Often a Cop-Out and a Legal Risk

    MAY 7

    Why "Overqualified" Is Often a Cop-Out and a Legal Risk

    SummaryA hiring manager consistently rejects candidates over 50, citing "overqualification" as a retention risk—but never mentions age explicitly. HR notices the pattern and must now assess whether the business justification is legitimate or a cover for ADEA violations. In this episode, Natalie Breece, Chief People and Diversity Officer at thredUP, reveals how to separate genuine fit concerns from coded bias, what questions expose a manager's real decision-making process, and how to protect both candidates and the organization without triggering retaliation claims. The scenario forces a choice: educate the manager, investigate the risk, or do both simultaneously. Natalie walks through the discovery process HR must run before making assumptions—starting with a single question that uncovers whether "overqualified" masks age discrimination, imposter syndrome, or a complete lack of interview training. She explains why HR should never make the final call on termination, how to use retention data to challenge gut-level hiring decisions, and why multigenerational teams outperform homogenous ones. The conversation also tackles the structural fixes that prevent bias before it surfaces: interview calibrations, resume literacy training, and reframing rejection logic from "why we shouldn't hire" to "why we should." Timestamps00:18 The overqualified candidate: a hiring manager's retention concern or coded ageism?  01:10 What HR must assess when "overqualified" appears consistently in rejection feedback  04:19 Who decides if a candidate is overqualified—and why it should be a partnership  05:57 Why "overqualified" is often a cop-out for unclear hiring criteria  08:07 The first question to ask: what would this person's first 90 days look like?  09:44 Assumptions HR must avoid when investigating potential age discrimination  11:17 Why hiring managers gravitate toward candidates who mirror their own experience  13:12 How turnover data can validate or debunk a manager's retention fears  15:30 Competing risks: candidate harm, manager retaliation, and legal exposure  17:28 Why HR should never fire anyone—and who actually owns the decision  19:52 Foundational fixes: interview guides, compliance training, and calibration sessions  22:01 How to read a resume without building a narrative before the interview starts  24:41 Flip the script: reframe "why we shouldn't hire" to "why we should hire"  26:44 The assumption about HR that needs to be challenged: we are not the enemy  Takeaways- When a manager labels candidates "overqualified," ask: "What would it look like if this person was on your team?"—the answer reveals whether the concern is retention, ego, or bias.  - Assume positive intent, then verify with data: pull 12–18 months of interview and hire records to see if rejection patterns disproportionately affect candidates over 50.  - HR should never terminate in isolation—serve up risk analysis and recommendations, then let leadership make the final call.  - Structural fixes prevent bias before it surfaces: institute interview calibrations, teach managers to read resumes as conversation guides (not narratives), and train teams on multigenerational workforce value.  - Reframe the hiring lens from "why we shouldn't hire this person" to "why we should hire this person"—it forces managers to articulate value instead of inventing disqualifiers.  Connect with the guestLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nataliebreece/Learn more about thredUP: https://www.thredup.com/ Sponsor AllVoices brings all your employee relations work together in one place. No more jumping between spreadsheets, emails, and legacy systems just one place to document and manage reports, cases, investigations, and performance conversations. It helps you run a more consistent process, takes busywork off your plate with AI, and makes it easier to spot trends early, so you can work proactively, not just put out fires. See a demo at ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.allvoices.co/ (00:18) - The overqualified candidate: a hiring manager's retention concern or coded ageism? (01:10) - What HR must assess when "overqualified" appears consistently in rejection feedback (04:19) - Who decides if a candidate is overqualified—and why it should be a partnership (05:57) - Why "overqualified" is often a cop-out for unclear hiring criteria (08:07) - The first question to ask: what would this person's first 90 days look like? (09:44) - Assumptions HR must avoid when investigating potential age discrimination (11:17) - Why hiring managers gravitate toward candidates who mirror their own experience (13:12) - How turnover data can validate or debunk a manager's retention fears (15:30) - Competing risks: candidate harm, manager retaliation, and legal exposure (17:28) - Why HR should never fire anyone—and who actually owns the decision (19:52) - Foundational fixes: interview guides, compliance training, and calibration sessions (22:01) - How to read a resume without building a narrative before the interview starts (24:41) - Flip the script: reframe "why we shouldn't hire" to "why we should hire" (26:44) - The assumption about HR that needs to be challenged: we are not the enemy

    27 min
  8. When the Best Manager in Your Restaurant Has Sticky Fingers

    MAY 7

    When the Best Manager in Your Restaurant Has Sticky Fingers

    Summary A departing employee drops a bombshell in her exit interview: she watched her manager steal from petty cash for over a year. She estimates several thousand dollars. She says she didn't report it sooner because she feared retaliation and needed her job. Now HR holds a disclosure it can't ignore—but the witness is walking out the door, the manager has a strong performance record, and the evidence is thin.  In this episode of HR Voices, host Rebecca Taylor sits down with Laura McLand, VP of Human Resources at Sun Holdings, to work through this fabricated-but-very-real scenario about what happens when the information arrives at the worst possible moment. Laura brings a restaurant operations perspective that makes this conversation especially practical. She walks through the 24 to 48 hours window for pulling camera footage, following the financial paper trail, and talking to other employees before approaching the manager.  She and Rebecca get into why there's usually a "final incident" that triggers exit interview disclosures, what it means if the HR hotline poster isn't hanging in a location, and the delicate balance between moving fast enough to stop the bleeding and moving carefully enough to avoid wrongly accusing a high performer.  Laura also makes a point that stuck with me: stealing is stealing whether it's $20 or $200, and people tend to escalate once they get away with it the first time. If you lead HR in restaurants, retail, or any location-based business, this conversation will ground your investigation process. Timestamps 01:38 The scenario: the exit interview bombshell02:05 Laura's first instinct: why didn't they tell us sooner?03:04 Who to talk to first and following the paper trail05:25 The "final incident" that usually triggers the disclosure07:28 How petty cash theft escalates from $20 to thousands10:37 What to do when the departing employee won't name witnesses11:25 The risk of moving too fast versus too slow14:30 Why a missing HR poster might be a signal, not an oversight Takeaways Move within 24–48 hours to pull camera footage, review financial records, and talk to witnesses before approaching the managerAsk the departing employee for specific dates and witnesses to narrow your investigation, but continue even if they won't cooperateCheck whether the HR reporting poster is actually hanging in the location—if it's not, that's worth understanding whyInvestigate the "final incident" that triggered the disclosure; there's almost always a straw that broke the camel's backGive employees transfer options if they fear retaliation; retaining good people matters as much as investigating bad onesTreat the departing employee's disclosure seriously and communicate that back to them—don't let them think it went into a void Guest LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/laura-mcland/ Company website: https://www.sunholdings.net/ Sponsor AllVoices brings all your employee relations work together in one place. No more jumping between spreadsheets, emails, and legacy systems just one place to document and manage reports, cases, investigations, and performance conversations. It helps you run a more consistent process, takes busywork off your plate with AI, and makes it easier to spot trends `early, so you can work proactively, not just put out fires. See a demo at ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.allvoices.co/ (01:38) - The scenario: the exit interview bombshell (02:05) - Laura's first instinct: why didn't they tell us sooner? (03:04) - Who to talk to first and following the paper trail (05:25) - The "final incident" that usually triggers the disclosure (07:28) - How petty cash theft escalates from $20 to thousands (10:37) - What to do when the departing employee won't name witnesses (11:25) - The risk of moving too fast versus too slow (14:30) - Why a missing HR poster might be a signal, not an oversight

    26 min
See All (79)

Ratings & Reviews

3.7
out of 5
6 Ratings

About

HR Voices is a scenario-based podcast for People Leaders who’ve actually had to make the call. Each episode brings experienced HR and People leaders into realistic, anonymized workplace scenarios—the kind you recognize immediately. Performance issues. Messy conflicts. Investigations that don’t fit neatly into a policy box. Instead of talking about their own companies, guests react to outside cases and walk through how they’d think it through in real time. There are no right answers here. What you’ll hear is judgment: how seasoned leaders balance risk, fairness, legal reality, and humanity when the stakes are high and the path isn’t obvious. HR Voices is for HR, People Ops, legal, and leaders who want to hear how other smart humans actually handle employee relations—without confidentiality breaches, hypotheticals that feel fake, or a lecture on “best practices.”

Information

  • Creator
    Rebecca Taylor
  • Years Active
    2025 - 2026
  • Episodes
    79
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Rebecca Taylor
  • Show Website
    HR Voices