There is a growing belief that empathetic leadership, AI, and engagement tools are transforming the HR function. But insights from US-based HR decision-makers suggest something more nuanced. In reality, these well-intended strategies are often struggling under their own weight, too slow to shift culture, too reliant on over-engineered tools, and too fragile when change demands action over sentiment.

Across discussions on leadership development, DEI, hybrid work, employee engagement, and AI transformation, a common pattern emerged. These initiatives are not failing, but they are revealing cracks in execution, culture, and accountability.

Maybe empathy is not the problem. Maybe we’ve just made it the strategy rather than the mindset.

Empathy is Not a Shortcut to Cultural Change

Empathetic leadership was consistently highlighted as the backbone of culture refresh efforts. But a closer look reveals that while the language of empathy is pervasive, the actual outcomes are uneven.

Leaders from retail, healthcare, and logistics shared how coaching and psychological safety have been prioritised, but challenges like high turnover, internal misalignment, and regional inconsistency persist. Monthly roundtables and CEO-led conversations sound good, but when only 66% of leaders engage with tools like Culture Amp, it suggests empathy may be more performative than practical in some settings.

Key insight
Empathy without accountability does little to fix structural or cultural gaps. Where empathy is working, it’s tied to measurable leadership development and clear manager involvement, not just slogans.

AI in HR Sounds Strategic but Often Lands as Tactical

AI was another headline theme. Leaders explored tools like Copilot, ADP’s AI features, and AI-driven employee engagement platforms like Perceptyx. They spoke optimistically about automation, upskilling, and productivity. But dig deeper, and you’ll find most deployments are still stuck in the basics, rewriting emails, reordering resumes, or performing sentiment analysis with questionable depth.

One healthcare company trialled ChatGPT enterprise-wide for HR support, but avoided inputting employee data due to compliance concerns. Another used an AI model to predict turnover with 78% accuracy, without yet tying that insight to changed business outcomes.

Contrarian take
The rush to integrate AI into HR is less about transformation and more about ticking the innovation box. Leaders admit that most teams are not ready, systems are fragmented, and employee trust remains low.

Feedback Fatigue Is Real and Engagement Scores Are Hiding More Than They Reveal

Pulse surveys. Engagement dashboards. Feedback loops. These tools promise insight, but several participants admitted the response rates are falling, and the changes driven by results are increasingly cosmetic.

At one organisation, the communications team plays a critical role in “translating” what leadership is doing in response to feedback. But this suggests a deeper problem. If employees need polished internal comms to believe change is happening, then trust is already broken.

Statistic to note
Despite widespread feedback tool usage, one company saw participation in engagement events drop significantly year over year, particularly among remote workers.

DEI is Evolving but Not Necessarily Advancing

Many leaders were quick to say their DEI initiatives have not changed in response to new legislation or political shifts. This sounds commendable, but it may also point to stagnation. Programs like unconscious bias training and microaggression workshops remain standard, yet the impact and engagement are often unclear.

Some companies are rebranding teams from “DEI” to “Culture and Inclusion” to reflect broader goals, but does renaming fix the problem or just shift the perception?

Emerging tension
DEI efforts are increasingly employee-led to maintain authenticity. Yet when not anchored in structural support or executive accountability, they risk becoming isolated efforts that fade in relevance.

Leadership Development is Everywhere but Impact is Elusive

From tiered leadership academies to business acumen dashboards, companies are investing heavily in growing their people. However, several leaders admitted that adoption rates, real behaviour change, and cultural shifts remain limited.

One organisation had to reposition its benchmarking program as “voluntary” after pushback from managers. Others spoke about self-rating tools and mentor platforms, but the underlying theme remained clear, tools do not change behaviour unless there is buy-in and time to act on insights.

Contrarian view
HR might be overbuilding leadership development programmes without simplifying what leaders actually need to do differently. Volume is not the same as impact.

Succession Planning is Still Stuck in the Office

When asked how hybrid or remote teams factor into succession planning, many leaders offered incomplete answers. Visibility is still strongly tied to physical presence, and managers continue to favour those they see in person.

This is creating a bias baked into policy. One executive noted they’re working to improve visibility for remote workers, but inconsistencies across departments remain.

Real-world concern
Hybrid equity is a growing blind spot. While remote policies improve work-life balance, they are often penalising high performers in promotion discussions due to lack of “face time.”

Employee Wellbeing Programmes are Overwhelming Staff, Not Engaging Them

Wellbeing remains a core theme, fitness webinars, stress sessions, early wage access apps, chaplain services, virtual TED Talks. But several participants noted that participation rates are declining, particularly for remote workers.

It’s not that people don’t care about wellbeing—it’s that many feel overscheduled and under-supported. Engagement fatigue, especially after the pandemic, is leading to apathy.

Key quote
“We launched dozens of resources but found people just didn’t have the energy to sign up anymore.”

AI Is Shaping the Future of Work but Workers Feel Left Out

While leaders are crafting AI policy, frontline workers are often left out of the conversation. Leaders spoke of town halls and email updates, but meaningful involvement in AI transformation is minimal.

Matt, one HR leader, described how AI implementation revealed cracks in middle management, not because AI was flawed, but because it forced leadership to confront uncomfortable inefficiencies. Rather than resisting AI, employees were more concerned with how little training or inclusion they were offered in its rollout.

Reflection point
AI is not threatening jobs, poor change management is. Upskilling must start from inclusion, not just access to tools.

HR Strategy is Becoming Strategic in Name Only

One of the most telling takeaways came from a discussion on aligning HR strategy with company goals. Leaders admitted that many HR business partners are still seen as tactical executors rather than strategic advisors.

Despite efforts to measure ROI, implement listening tours, and refresh employee value propositions, the strategic shift remains fragile. In many cases, the business still drives the agenda, and HR reacts.

Final critique
Until HR stops over-relying on tools and programmes, and starts embedding into real-time business conversations, its strategic influence will remain limited.

The Tools Are Not the Problem The Lens Is

HR leaders across industries are doing impressive work in tough conditions. They are innovating, experimenting, and trying to drive cultural renewal. But perhaps the most honest insight from these roundtables is this, technology, empathy, DEI, hybrid work, and AI are only as effective as the execution behind them.

Empathy should be a lens, not a tactic. AI should enhance, not obscure human value. And engagement tools should be used to challenge assumptions, not validate them.

Until these ideas become behaviours, HR transformation will remain mostly aspirational.