Tim: When I go to your website, SapienX, the first one of the taglines, the first thing I see is you're smashing HR silos. What does that mean? That's disruptive talk right there. So what does that mean?

Luke: It's a great place to start. And it is disruptive talk for good reason. So what does that mean? We have now had decades of the Ulrich model, which is siloed by its very design.

You have this situation where you have different centers of excellence and different service areas and different parts of the whole HR infrastructure and people operations deliberately split out into different sections that operate in silos.

I've had some fascinating conversations with Dart Lindsley recently. I don't know if Dart is someone that's on your radar. But anyone listening, go and look up Dart because he's fascinating. I'm going to talk a bit more about him as we go in.

In one of those conversations with Dart I had recently, he was talking about how really that was a procurement model, right? So that was almost HR's procurement. How can we standardize, streamline, and cost strip? How can we optimize for humans as resources? Literally, how do we treat them as a cost? How do we treat the human component of our business as something to be managed and controlled and commercially focused, but in the wrong way?

So, it was very much about divide, conquer, control, and scale, but not in the right ways. So, when I talk about smashing HR silos, we can't continue down that path of stripping down the end-to-end people experience and the end-to-end employee life cycle into these little boxes of L&D sits over here. Talent sits over there. People operations sits over here. D&I sits over there. Well-being sits over here.

Because that's what we've done for decades now. And we seem to just keep adding different categories to that and go, We need a person for that. We need another subdivision for that. We need another category of work for that. And really they're all features of the same thing.

Now I can dive straight into my perspective on what the alternative is, but perhaps just pause there to allow you to chime in on that.

Tim: What's coming up for me is just when I think about that classic diagram of the employee life cycle, and then we slot positions in that employee life cycle to say you're responsible for this, you're responsible for this.

But I also hear from social media, specifically LinkedIn, that HR folks are expected to know so much about so many different positions. And so then we get into that conversation of, then we just silo it out, which is what we're not looking at doing, and I agree, we need to create some unification across that entire function.

But before we get into it, you also said a couple of words that I think we should define, which are people experience. And how is that different from employee experience?

Luke: Yeah, to some extent. There's some semantics at play, and so depending on what you're doing with employee experience or people experience, they can be interchangeable as phrases.

But people experience, as I've come to define it, is actually the product of work. The people experience is the product that your employees and key stakeholders are buying from you. And that is an end-to-end product experience. It's not a singular moment, and it's not a singular piece of employee experience.

It's an end-to-end subscription product, as I would now define it, of a definable, measurable, mappable, traceable, and improvable product experience. So when I talk personally about the shift from HR to PX, for me it's to do with shifting mindset first. So that's the key thing here. There have been 1001 rebrands of HR personnel and human capital.

There have been 1001 different rebrands. This is not a rebrand. It can't be a rebrand. It can't just be a new name slapped on the old practices. It's a complete switching up of how we think and work in the profession of HR, because the profession remains. We can't just rip HR out from our shared cultural vernacular, so we still need to remain attached to that in, to some degree, so that people actually understand what we're there to do.

But HR to PX for me is about taking the function from a support and service-based administrative-based function, which is there in service of the business, and shifting it into a strategic growth driver, an enablement function where the primary focus actually is how do we optimize the experience of work, let's say, and the work products that we're offering to get the most out of our people and to drive and accelerate business growth.

How do we align the people product that we're designing with the top organizational priorities of the business, and how do we connect all of those now-siloed people functions and initiatives and programs, and how do we actually refocus them on a singular objective, which is to create a unified people experience product for our end users, who are employees, being our main customer base, but then we've also got internal stakeholders and external stakeholders that factor into that?

And actually, by a few degrees of separation, our external customers who are buying our company products are also a subsidiary benefactor of the people experience product that we are delivering internally because that is going to have a direct impact on the quality of output, the quality of service, the quality of everything that the end external customer experience is going to be driven by the quality of those people experience products internally.

So that was probably maybe too many words to address your very direct and simple question, but hopefully that gives the flavor of where I am thinking that

Tim: I can tell you're passionate about this topic. And as you've been in the HR position yourself and head of HR, no, even from working in a startup or in large organizations that are either doing it all from that maybe that administrative side, and yes, there's still the admin side of HR.

But I think with the rise of AI, and we'll get into the conversation of AI in a bit, there are things that we can offload so we can think strategically. And not just think strategically, but align our HR plans to the company goals to then go and implement the change.

I like how you said the employees are customers. And you put out a clip on social media about that, about talking with somebody about that exact thing. If we actually think about that, that they're just not employees; they're customers, and we are delivering a product to those customers, I think that's what you're saying, right? Is wrapping it in that.

Luke: I'm going to come back to that, actually, but just to touch on where you started there. For anyone listening, my experience in this is that the last operational role I did before starting SapienX was that I was ahead of people and operations in a startup myself. It was in Birmingham here in the UK.

We were a payment solutions startup for the fleet industry. I always joke and say it's not a particularly sexy industry, but actually, we were a sort of a challenger brand within that because there's a lot of established incumbents, and we were actually breaking the mold in turn, particularly in terms of service delivery and how we actually serviced our external customers.

My role in that was exactly this. It was building our internal people product, although I didn't actually use that language at the time. That's language that I can now apply retrospectively as I've been able to spend time codifying how I was working, what I learned, and pairing that with the work of others like Jessica Swan, Marie Krebs, Lauren Gomez, Dart Lindsley, and others, JooBee Yeow.

You've got to go. Okay. I'm not the only one thinking like this, but to backtrack to my position, I joined to head up everything to do with people and talent, as is often the case in a startup. It's like we need people in, and we need them to stay. Okay. I can fix that for you. No problem.

Then by passion and naivety, accepting opportunities that came up to me probably more than I should have. And by the time I left, I was operationally responsible for everything to do with people and talent across the business and org development more broadly, product. So I was actually heading up our product development and what we're doing in terms of building new products for customers, marketing, and branding, including a full rebrand of the company and relaunch of our positioning and everything to do with marketing efforts.

I was supporting all of the functional heads, who I actually brought in and created that infrastructure for, supporting them with their strategies and everything to do with continuous improvement and strategic go-to-market.

Everything basically, which is why I was like, okay, some of this stuff that I've been taught or that I'm finding out about how to do certain things in HR just isn't right.

This actually doesn't make any sense. And it's in direct conflict with these amazing design practices and product principles and these other things that I'm learning. We need to reset here because there's so much we can learn from outside of HR that is going to make us way more impactful and value-creating in the work that we do.

That's another key distinction of this move from HR to people experience. HR is service delivery. PX is value creation. And so that's another key distinction. And that was what I learned from naively taking on all responsibility for all those areas: that there's way more outside of our professional domain that is going to help us deliver way more value to our end users, our internal customers.

And that's how it started for me. And it was only after I left that I then had a chance to reflect, codify, meet some of those other people that I've already named, and start going, okay, wow, there's a language out there, there's a language framework that I can put to this, there's, okay, I can see what I did there matches to that thing that Jessie shared in her blog there, and this model looks like it's quite similar to what Lauren and Marie have open-sourced at Learnable, and it's just starting to go, okay, great.

Between us, we're starting to layer on that language and the skills and the tools required to shift quite dramatically from service to value creation in our field.

If I can continue riffing on this, the clip that you mentioned that you'd seen on my socials actually was a conversation with Dart Lindsley recently.

He's released brilliant, co-authored as well. I do apologize. I forgot the name of his co-author, but he's co-authored a brilliant HR business review article that went out a couple of weeks ago called Reimagining Work As A Product. And again, it took my thinking to another level because I was just thinking about the people experience as a product that we're designing and delivering, which is great; that's one side of it to our customers.

But what Dart and his co-author brilliantly introduce is that we can actually learn quite a lot from the jobs-to-be-done framework and how, actually, I and Tim, as employees, were actually buying our jobs to perform various roles for us, like we were actually buying our jobs, so subscribing in this case to, let's say, I was going into another head of people role. I'm making a purchasing decision to buy that, and it's fulfilling certain requirements for me.

So that might be the basic ones of money, maybe status, time, purpose, and meaning; there's all sorts of things.

But then, as you, as in Dart's research, they go layers deeper. I think he said that he found 36 different reasons why people buy their jobs, which are many and varied.

Then there's this idea then, okay, if that's the case, then over time, what someone is needing from that job and what they're expecting from that job is going to be different because the job is going to perform different roles for them as they themselves develop.

It's a really fascinating concept. And then the counter to that is what does that cost us as the employee? What is the opportunity cost for us taking that job? And there's this whole layer of interesting complexity to that whole job dynamic, which completely leans into this idea of work as a product and how we need to design for it in a very different way than we have been doing up until this point.

Tim: I think that I find that fascinating, like designing work as a product. And I like how you and the guest were sharing about how we're customers, and I think about the future of work, and I can't help but think about, and even from previous guests who've been on the show, and they talk about how there's this rising movement of fractional work and there's this rising movement of employees who just don't want to just work the same job for 5 or 10 years.

We already see that we've seen this numerous years ago before the pandemic, where people are a year, 18 months in a job, and then they're switching and moving things around.

When we think about that future of work and we think about redesigning our workplaces, even from an HR perspective, how do we do that? What is that?

That's a massive undertaking. Not only do we have a blank slate to start with, but we also have the competing pressures of the day-to-day admin, the CEO and founding team saying, Here are the goals, or HR is costing us too much.

Whatever you're hearing, I can imagine somebody listening to this and going, I don't know where to start. It's overwhelming.

Luke: It's a good point because there are easier places to start and there are harder places to start. So an easier place to start isn't a startup scale-up where it's more greenfield. You've got more opportunity to do things differently. The language fit is better because early-stage companies in the product-market fit stage itself were going to recognize the type of experimentation and agile practices that were required to work in this way.

There's an easier starting point, which is there. But even there you've still got expectations of people thinking HR is performing certain tasks because that's what they've always experienced from HR in previous roles or in the media. Because HR is the classic fall guy scapegoat in any sitcom.

There's always an HR person that is the fall guy in a business or the boring one, or, oh, we've got to do some mandatory training again. Here comes HR; everyone hide, close your drawers, and stop talking. HR is coming. There's all of this legacy sort of expectation around this idea of HR.

That is probably why the naming convention change is important too, because as we have new generations entering the workplace, we can give them a different experience of their people functions, which isn't the HR that perhaps you and I experienced in our early careers and our parents certainly experienced in their careers because of the mechanisms by which human resources was being delivered and applied.

Again, not bashing Dave Ulrich, like what he introduced was revolutionary and really worked, and it really scales very efficiently. It scales because it's a procurement model. It's not particularly human-centered, and it doesn't take into account. Things like we were just talking about there.

First of all, it was decades pre-COVID, and yet it's still the dominant model. So if we ignore everything else that's happened up until COVID, and a lot has happened and changed in the workplace before COVID, COVID was this massive sort of global wrench in the very concept of work and the role that work plays for us.

While the normal person on the street maybe doesn't have, again, the same type of language and knowledge set that Dart would have around talking about what's happening there, the role that work plays for many people changed. And that's why we saw so many people going, actually, I'm not doing that anymore.

No, I'm no longer going to come to the office every day, because actually I realized that there's a different set of priorities at home, and I'm going to put them first now. And the job that I now take, we'll have to respect and accommodate how I actually want to experience my life, not just my work.

So, it's a radically different shift. The question you asked was where to start. So startups are a much easier place to start, but it's still difficult. As you get into bigger organizations, again, you've got more complex systems. You've got more layers to consider, and you have the very practical consideration that standardization scale is much better than personalization.

There are all these very real challenges to resolve. In that conversation with Dart, I'm going to keep referencing back to it because it was a very interesting conversation; I introduced him to Elinor Ostrom. I don't know if you've come across Elinor at all. I think the late Eleanor Ostrom, but she was part of a team who won a Nobel Prize in economics for their research into, essentially, it was that she's a systems thinker, and it was like a systems-thinking-based approach to the study.

But essentially, it sounds like common sense to us now that the people closest to a problem are the best people to solve that problem. And so the study was actually around how communities managed resources or the resources of the commons as defined in the study. But what they found conclusively, which again, sounds like common sense now because it's become mainstream thinking at the time, was quite revolutionary: the best people to manage resources are those that are closest to them; the local communities are best placed to manage local resources rather than top-down governmental control and regulation of how resources were allocated and distributed, which was the prevailing methodology.

We still have that in many places, and even in countries like the UK, where we have local government to perform that role, we still have a top-down control of the budget, let's say. So there's still ways to go, but it's the same idea in work, right? And so you've got the ability to enable others to create and build the people experience product for those local to them.

Those are your managers. There are your different regional teams. You don't have to have a standardized, one-size-fits-all approach. If you approach the problem very differently and you go, Not how does HR solve this problem for the organization. It's how does HR enable those closest to the problems to solve those problems more effectively for the end users to which they have a more direct impact on value creation.

So it's just a very different way of thinking about it, and it's again breaking down those silos and making not HR this function of isolation but getting into the business and integrating and co-creating within the business and making much better utilization of the managers and those on the closest to the ground that can actually have the biggest impact on people's experience of work.

Tim: I love how you framed that, with HR being the department to solve all the problems. But HR is the enabler to go into the organization to support people where they're at to solve the problems. I've spent some time in the disability inclusion space, and it's often said, Don't come up with a policy without talking to those who live with a disability.

Don't come up with accommodation policy unless you're crowdsourcing it, bringing in the actual stakeholders. Is this an accessible space? Is it an accessible policy? Do people understand it? And that's just one little example, but I could see where you're going because otherwise it's like, Oh, HR is now going to solve this, or HR is going to do this.

And I feel like that is where the future of work needs to take us because let's face it. I don't know. I talked to a lot of HR people, and we're tired of doing admin work. We're tired of those administrative things. Let's grab some AI and plug it in, and we can leverage systems to then free up that space because I think that's still a thought, like that could be a barrier for people to get over that hurdle.

Luke: 100 percent it is, and the two things on that.

My newsletter that I started writing today that will go out tomorrow actually focuses on the idea of designing for the worst affected. And it speaks to that point exactly. So there was a brand called OXO that I don't know how global they are.

In the UK, they're known for making gravy and stuff like that, gravy granules. They also had a range, I think it was called Good Grips, the range, but they had a range of like kitchen utensils, peelers, and other sorts of handheld kitchen utensils that they released that were designed specifically for those with severe arthritis in their hands and joints.

They were designed so that those users could still use the products. And they turned out to be category-leading across all buyer demographics because they were designed for the worst of the worst. The worst affected user, in that case, is someone who could barely hold a handheld kitchen utensil, and that may improve the product experience for everybody else.

And so you have this idea of actually, we don't need to design for everyone. We need to understand the moments of matter and the problems that exist and solve for the worst affected users first in each of those use cases. And you improve the overall experience and people product experience for everyone.

There are clever ways that we can go about this; again, directly stealing from product and design outside of you would never find that solution in an HR handbook, but you'd absolutely find it in the world of design and product because that's how they think and how they operate. So we need to bring a lot of that thinking and mindset into the work we do in HR and people experience design. So that was that on that part.

Then to jump into AI and optimization, 100%, right? If it's predictable and repeatable, it should be automated, like it just should be, because why wouldn't it be if we're still doing manual processes, which we know are coming up? Let's say onboarding is a classic, right? We can map that experience of onboarding to every detail, and most of it can be automated.

Then you put in the people element, the human element, where it's most critical. It's absolutely possible. If nothing else, I'm a curator of other ideas. And, JooBee Yeow, again, another one for anyone listening, check out the scaling startups blog by JooBee Yeow. One of the things she talks about is the inverted HR hierarchy of needs.

I'll try and do a good job of visually presenting this to anyone listening and not looking. So I have to model, but we're all familiar with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, I should think. So the standard pyramid, and you go up the layers, the bottom being the most critical first, and then you go up the layers, etc. And so you get the self-actualization at the top.

Within the HR Hierarchy of Needs, we have at the bottom is “Run,” which is running. HR that just works. So that's a lot of that current admin, like function ops stuff that just needs to be churned and done. A lot of that is still manual or clunkily done with AI, and the width determines the amount of time we spend on it. So the bottom of the pyramid. Running HR that just works is a huge chunk of time that is used by most HR functions.

The next layer is “Drive.” So that's actually okay. We've now got a little bit of time where we can use HR to drive internal strategy. So we can actually contribute then. That's great.

Then we've got “Scale” and then “Grow.” But again, I'll go through each of them, but essentially every time you go up, you're doing more and more strategic things that are actually accelerating people and business growth and moving away from that HR and support function.

So if you're still with me, listeners, we've got that pyramid we've “run” at the bottom, which is the widest element. And we've got “Grow and Scale” at the top, which is the narrowest element, which shows that we're doing more work in Run than we are in Scale and Grow.

Joobees’ model flips out on its head. So actually, the layers remain the same: Run, Drive, Grow, Scale, but now the pyramid is inverted, which means the smallest chunk of time is in Run, and actually the greatest amount of human time is in Scale and Grow.

Because this is where automation and technology come in, and AI and the emergence of so many AIs is actually most of what's taking up our time at the moment and is making us an administrative support function that can and should be automated.

And we should use technology to free up time to do the actual human work, the design work, the user conversations, the research, understanding the business strategy, understanding the top priorities, and designing solutions that enable growth and drive growth, not spending the majority of our time managing administrative processes that don't scale.

Because we haven't built scalability into them. So again, hopefully, that mental model translates into an audio format.

Tim: I'm picking it up. And I was just imagining, okay, I didn't have my eyes closed, but I was thinking about it at the bottom of the pyramid, like you said, Run. We're running our departments. We're filing paperwork. We're ensuring performance reviews are done. We're ensuring that whatever it is, your comp structure is people adhering to it, and you're running the team versus scaling and growing.

And so if we can build in those automations, somebody who's listening to this is probably having an aha moment. If you actually just even map out your time, I'm just making this up on the fly. So hopefully this works, but take a week, take a month. You probably need more than a week; take a month, and at the end of every day, just have maybe a couple of columns, and just as Luke said in that hierarchy, which element that you worked on, where does it fit? Because now you can actually, and just like when you're designing a process or product, you have to collect the data first.

And now I can just envision that flipping that upside down. And the term that comes to mind is that the future of work is actually where HR is not just connected to leaders as a business partner but actually connected to the organization at the individual level as a business partner. Walking that shop floor and saying what's going on?

What do you need? What are your barriers? How's it going? Not just sending out a survey every quarter, but actually gathering real insights on the fly.

Luke: You're only going to know that by speaking to people and actually, like you say, getting into those conversations, because most people do pull surveys or engagement surveys.

And at worst, maybe they're quarterly, and then maybe, sometimes they're maybe annually in some companies, but all you're doing is capturing a moment of time. You're not actually getting any high-quality feedback. You're not actually getting feedback at the point where it really matters.

And so part of this product analogy, anyone listening, if you're not comfortable with the idea of this people experience as a product, and to be clear, I think confusion comes; people are not the product; the people experience that we're designing for them is the product.

So just to make that distinction, it's not that we're now treating people like products, it's that we're building an experience for them. And that is the product to which they're subscribing, like you would a Netflix subscription. And the idea with that is that in order to maintain a customer in a subscription model, you have to create continuously increasing value.

Otherwise, that person is likely to self-notice on that subscription. And leave, which is why many people have their complaints about Netflix selection, but it is continuously changing, continuously updating, and improving. They invested heavily in their own production, so they've got unique content that's only available on Netflix.

That's why they've done all those things, because they need to keep subscribers engaged. And yeah, you better believe that they're capturing as much data as they possibly can about user behavior.

And that's why your Netflix screen is tailored to you, like things you like, things that you might like, because they know based on you and your actions and those of your demographics and the persona in which you sit in, they can reliably predict things that you're going to find entertaining because they understand you and it's that level of understanding that we need to get to and we can only get there by again, adopting UX principles and carrying out user interviews and understanding again, like I say, the mapping out the key moments that matter across that life cycle and focusing on that and say, okay, where's the friction here and how can we remove friction and how can we put force into this by adding something new that is a positive element.

And where do the problems exist? And not through the phrase "anecdotal." So not through anecdotal feedback that may or may not be true, but hard data that we can measure and track, and then we can take action on and experiment and ideate and problem-solve and prototype and all of the things that you should do when you're solving problems that we don't do.

Because so often in traditional HR functions, again going back to that smashing HR silos, not only do silos exist within HR, HR often operates as a silo as a whole within a business. So it's a case of, Oh, we think there's a problem over there, or we think there's something that we can do or a program that we need to develop, that we'll sit in a room together as HR folk, we'll come up with what we think is a good idea, or say, Oh, how does Netflix solve this problem?

Let's go and steal from their playbook. And we'll go, okay, great. Copy and shift will design it in a room, will spend months creating this program, and then we'll launch it to the business, and everyone will go, I usually swear when I'm telling this bit. I don't know what the vibe is on this. So I'll hold back the swear words.

But what is this thing? You can imagine. The language I might use in other contexts. What even is this? We don't want it. We don't know how to use it. Why have you given this to us? And the engagement on most HR programs and initiatives is so low because it's been designed by HR people in a box.

Rather than getting onto the shop floor, like you say, understanding the actual problem, breaking down our assumptions, and applying some first principles thinking. So okay, what do we actually know to be true here before we even start designing?

And then when we are designing, let's design with our end users. What a novel idea. Let's actually create with them. Let's co-create with them. Let's co-design with them. And let's give them prototypes to test and tell us what works and what doesn't. And then only when we've proven that we've got a program of value do we then push it into scale mode and go, We can now push this into more user groups across the business because we know that it adds value.

Or conversely, we've tested it; it doesn't add value, and now we actually have an objective way to go back to internal stakeholders and say, I know you wanted us to do that thing, CEO, founder, but actually, we've tested it; it's not adding the value; we're going to put our time into something else. And those are the sorts of conversations that a lot of HR functions find so hard, and why we end up saying yes to so many things.

Or can you just, and HR needs to do this, and this is where we're thinking. So can you get on that, please? HR is, yeah, maybe, but let's just slow down a little bit, and let's just make sure that we have an objective way of assessing value and prioritizing the work that we do based on value creation, impact, and growth.

Tim: I can imagine someone listening to this and having maybe their mind blown a little bit or just thinking this is hard. It's a new way of thinking. It's a new language.

As we wrap up, there are a couple of questions swirling around in my mind. One is somebody's listened to this going, Okay, I know that we need to adapt for the future of work. Our workforces are changing where we work, how we work, our business, and everything is changing.

Where do I start? How do I change from going, and maybe that's a long question, but let's see if we can be succinct?

What's that one thing somebody can do to start their journey in reframing how HR as a service functions for people experience?

Luke: The most fundamental shift, which will start everything else going, is an. And I'll just come back, actually; our caveat is saying you don't need the whole people function to be on board; you don't need to be the strategic lead.

At any level, whatever role that you're in, entry level through to CPO, VP. If you are listening to this and you want to make this shift, you yourself just go, Okay, good, our employees are our customers. And as soon as you do that, it's going to shift you into thinking very differently already, because then you can start empathizing with not someone who is a mandatory user of your service, but as an optional elective subscriber of your product.

And there's a very different way that you're going to then start to think about the work that you're doing. And even you might look at some of the projects that you're assigned to now and go. Let's just pause and maybe ask a question: How do we know this is important? How do we know this problem exists? And how are we going to objectively measure the value we create off the back of it?

Because if we haven't already established our baselines, which is so often the case, what's the current state? So that we can measure what happens after we launch something.

But those are the ideas, right? Very simple. The shift you can make today at any level is that employees are customers, and that means they have a choice. That means they can choose whether or not to engage with this, and they don't have to do anything we tell them and ask them to do. So, it's our job to create experiences that they want to engage with.

Tim: Yeah, that's a simple yet complex reframe, and even as I'm thinking about that, supporting an organization a little bit on the HR side and just thinking of, okay, they're my customers. And so designing processes and creating systems as a product, we have to adapt that mindset.

One question is, when we think of the future of work, what is one thing that excites you the most?

Luke: I think flexibility in a true sense is because I think we've now got to the point where universal and not global, and there's still work to be done, but where this idea of flexibility is no longer viewed as a perk or a benefit. It's a mandatory requirement of this experience of work and the fact that work now is something that is more socially integrated with life.

It's no longer this thing that we do in this place that we go that is completely separate from our lives. I think that excites me greatly because when I think about what I want from work, it's freedom, largely freedom to be genuinely autonomous with what I do and who and when and where I spend time with, like with my young family, for example.

So I think it's exciting on a level of both work and social significance that flexibility is going to be now a mainstay and will be designed into work experiences rather than being this perk that you often have to sacrifice for traditionally. Like, what am I going to exchange? Be that salary sacrifice or some other commodity that I'm going to exchange with my employer to give me flexibility, which is an awful way to approach it.

So it's great. I think that excites me on a more meta level. I think seeing work as a product is becoming more mainstream, and Dart’s HBR article is a good example of that. Getting it into the mainstream conversation. And I think that is going to radically change the whole mindset that we apply to work design, which is very exciting.

I used to say, and I still believe this, we can change work, society, and the world in that order. Because actually, if we can design higher quality, higher value work experiences, the flow-through impact of that and how we feel in every other aspect of our life is going to be so significant that I think we can radically change our outlook as a species if we can get this right, which sounds crazy, but when you actually break it down to how much time most of us spend at work and the level of impact that has, it's not insignificant.

Tim: Luke, I'm eager to apply some of these principles, even with the organizations that I support, and think of our employees as customers. And we think about that for the future of work; that is going to help us redesign the jobs, the work, and the programs that we were in charge of. So, people probably have a lot of questions. It's hard to cover a lot in 40 minutes. Where can somebody find you if they want to track you down?

Luke: Absolutely. The best place to find me initially is going to be LinkedIn. I go through periods of high output and lower output, but you'll always find me there. And when you get there, you'll find your routes to my newsletter, which is every week taking one of these concepts that we've talked about at a high level and going right. Now here's a practical framework for you to apply this. So that would be a great place to go.

If anyone wants to get practical, go there on my LinkedIn profile; you'll find a link to The PX Espresso Library, where you will find now 70 editions of newsletters, which are highly practical. Here's one of these concepts from product design UX. Here's a framework you can use to apply it. And here are some examples and cases of what you can expect. So it's highly practical. It's a good place to go.

Tim: Amazing. And we'll make sure that you are linked in the show notes, and we're going to just collaborate across all the platforms.

‍