Talent Edge Weekly - Issue 354 - Best of June 2026

The top 20 articles and resources—plus bonus resources—from the June 2026 issues of Talent Edge Weekly.

Author

Brian Heger
June 30, 2026

SPONSORED BY

Welcome to this special Best of June issue of Talent Edge Weekly!

First, a shout-out to Bridget Penney, Chief People Officer at Applied Systems, for referring new subscribers to Talent Edge Weekly. Thank you, Bridget, for your support of this newsletter!

🗞️ Not subscribed to Talent Edge Weekly?

And immediately get 5 of my PDF cheat sheets!

PRESENTED BY Draup

Boards are no longer impressed by AI initiatives or pilot counts. They want to know whether management can turn AI into real enterprise value.

Draup's latest boardroom briefing shows CEOs, CHROs, and executive teams what directors actually want to see.

  1. The questions directors now lead with, answered with evidence

  2. Why workforce readiness, not technology, is the real constraint

  3. What AI buys at constant headcount

  4. How to benchmark against peers on talent

  5. The scorecard that ties AI spend to enterprise value

Grounded in real enterprise examples, this paper helps executive teams turn AI activity into evidence of real business value.

THIS MONTH’S CONTENT

This Best of June issue includes the 20 most popular resources from the June issues of Talent Edge Weekly. They span three sections:

  • AI & The Future of Work. Explores AI and the future of work, including AI-human collaboration, AI adoption strategy, the impact of AI on early-career pathways, AI's erosion of critical human skills, AI's burden on middle managers, and the impact of AI on the future of coaching.

  • HR Impact and HR Function. Covers HR impact and function, including communicating the human capital narrative to stakeholders, HR's overall perception and sentiments of the HR function, and leading employees through organizational change.

  • Talent Practices. Addresses talent practices, including critical role identification, critical role talent placement assessment, performance goal recalibration, workforce and scenario planning, succession planning, leadership transitions from manager to leader, internal mobility, mid-career talent mobility, develop-in-place tactics, and employee reskilling.

There are bonus resources, such as information about company layoffs and movement in and out of the Chief HR Officer role.

My Private Community

We are entering the month of July and the first half of 2026 is complete. For many HR practitioners, the window to make meaningful progress on this year’s most critical priorities is getting shorter, not longer.

If you’re an internal HR practitioner who wants to go deeper with me and other internal HR practitioners on talent topics tied to your most critical priorities, I invite you to learn more about my private community,Talent Edge Circle.  

The goal is simple: to help you cut through the noise and complexity so you can accelerate the execution of your critical talent priorities.

September will be here before you know it. Don’t let more time pass by without the right support and community around you.

Let’s dive in. 

THIS MONTH’S EDGE

I. AI & THE FUTURE OF WORK

Explores AI and the future of work, including AI-human collaboration, AI adoption strategy, the impact of AI on early-career pathways, AI's erosion of critical human skills, AI's burden on middle managers, and the impact of AI on the future of coaching.

AI & HUMAN COLLABORATION

A 44-page report identifies five priority changes that leaders will need to embrace in the age of human–AI collaboration. I expand on building proactive external talent pipelines.

McKinsey released its HR Monitor, an annual benchmark survey on the biggest global workforce and HR trends. This year, the report focuses on five priority changes that leaders will need to embrace in the age of human–AI collaboration. The 44-page report covers topics such as workforce planning, talent acquisition, employee development, and employee experience. One section I want to zoom in on is the talent acquisition chapter, which emphasizes building proactive pipelines through active relationship management with passive candidates, strong referral programs, and reengaging prior "runner-up" candidates. An often-overlooked pipeline source I would add is former employees. Although not every former employee makes sense to re-recruit, some high performers who voluntarily left may want to return after realizing their new role and/or culture was not the right fit. And research supports the case for rehiring. A study in the Academy of Management Journal found former employees often outperform new hires in roles requiring relational skills and coordination, while research in Organization Science shows returning employees tend to help colleagues more than external hires. Is rehiring part of your talent strategy? As you think through your strategy, consider a Visier analysis that found the average time away before returning is 13 months (up to 36), but likelihood drops sharply after 16, making 13 to 16 months the critical window. Don't let that window close. These are the types of strategic discussions we have in my private community, Talent Edge Circle.

AI IMPACT

A new 29-page report with findings from BCG’s fourth annual AI at Work survey, including how AI use and time savings are rising, but translating it into value remains a struggle.

BCG released the findings from its fourth annual AI at Work report, based on responses from 11,749 workers across 14 markets. One headline: 74% of frontline white-collar workers now regularly use AI, up 23 percentage points in one year, with 42% reporting a full workday or more saved per week. Time savings are even higher in functions such as marketing (60%), IT (53%), and human resources (50%). Yet, most organizations have not yet learned to convert that time into value. In fact, 66% of frontline employees who reported time savings say they receive limited or no guidance on what to do with it, and more than half are not reinvesting it into more strategic work. A few other stats I pulled from the report that might help to explain what is blocking that conversion: nearly half are spending more time directing AI than doing the work itself, with 72% saying AI has changed the skills expected of them. And 60% say the bar for what counts as good enough is rising. Add to this what BCG calls the joy paradox, where regular AI users report higher job satisfaction and greater cognitive load simultaneously, and these factors compound making it harder to translate “time savings” into true value. A good starting point for HR leaders: where is the greatest AI-driven time savings taking place in your organization, what is preventing it from being converted into value, and what is the plan for closing that gap?

IMPACT OF AI ON ENTRY-LEVEL ROLES

A new 42-page report shares a four-component framework for reinventing early-career pathways in an AI era.

Entry-level roles have long served as a foundation for building the institutional knowledge, judgment, and tacit skills that underpin long-term organizational capability. But as AI reshapes how work is performed, early-career workers are feeling the effects directly. This new report indicates that 37% of young workers globally are employed in occupations with medium to high exposure to AI-driven task change. The report offers a four-component framework for identifying where risk is emerging and what deliberate action is needed: job access (how organizations hire and onboard early-career talent as AI shifts role requirements); job design (how roles are restructured to develop capability rather than just execute tasks); talent pipelines (how organizations continue building future managers, specialists, and leaders); and education system alignment (how learning systems keep pace with rapidly changing workforce needs). Regarding job redesign, rather than simply automating entry-level tasks, some organizations are redesigning early-career roles so they continue building capability, judgment, and future leadership pipelines. In April, I made this post on how IBM is tripling its U.S. entry-level hiring in 2026 while redesigning junior roles around judgment, oversight, and customer engagement. Last month, I shared this post on how one banking organization is redesigning entry-level roles so junior analysts challenge AI outputs for incorrect assumptions, missing data, and logical flaws. How is AI changing early-career roles in your organization? Do you have a strategy for redefining them before the gap shows up in your leadership bench?

AI AND SKILLS

A new BCG article argues that over-reliance on AI erodes critical human skills such as judgment and creative thinking, and offers six strategies to address it

Layoffs and job cuts have dominated much of the recent headlines about AI and its impact. The Challenger Job Cuts Report, a monthly tracker of U.S.-based corporate layoff announcements, reported that AI led cited reasons for job cuts for the third month in a row. Separate from the job cuts narrative, a less visible risk is quietly compounding: organizations leaning too heavily on AI may be weakening the human capabilities they need most. A new BCG article argues that without deliberate design, widespread AI adoption leads to distributed de-skilling: the collective erosion of critical thinking, judgment, and problem framing across an organization. Half of the leaders surveyed say they are already seeing this, and more than 60% expect it to become a real threat within three to five years. The skills most at risk, such as judgment, problem framing, and creative thinking, are the same ones considered most essential to long-term performance. The article offers six strategies. Two stood out: redesigning work so humans retain ownership of judgment (Shell requires early-career employees to frame problems and build a baseline before using AI); and making human skill development visible in performance management (at CNIL, managers assess employees on their ability to challenge AI outputs, not just use them). As organizations identify the human skills most essential to their strategy, I am resharing a 39-page World Economic Forum report, New Economy Skills: Unlocking the Human Advantage.

IMPACT OF AI ON MIDDLE MANAGERS

A new article examines how AI adoption could be creating an uneven distribution of burden across organizational levels, with middle managers absorbing most of it.

Much of the discussion around AI has focused on how efficiency gains will help employees create new forms of value. But does this hold true in all cases? A new HBR article explores who captures AI’s upside and who absorbs its costs. Based on 18 interviews across two major consulting firms, it finds AI is enabling role elevation at the junior and senior levels, but not in the middle. Junior consultants are moving into work they may not have done as early before, such as joining strategy conversations that were once more likely handled by senior staff. Senior leaders are also expanding the scope of work they can take on. But the middle manager layer is where the pressure seems to be building. Managers are now expected to validate AI outputs, catch what the authors call workslop (AI-generated content that looks professional but lacks substance), coach teams on AI use, and maintain quality standards, while still facing the same delivery pressure and limited formal support. This adds to an existing middle-manager burnout problem, already shaped by leaner structures, layoffs, and broader spans of control. It also raises a longer-term concern: if managers spend more time checking AI-generated work, they may have less capacity for the coaching and apprenticeship that help develop future leaders. While based on a small sample of consultants, the article usefully challenges the simplistic “AI frees everyone up for higher-value work” narrative. Question: When your organization measures AI adoption success, are you tracking what is happening to manager workload and capacity, and the unintended consequences on other important outcomes?

AI-ENABLED COACHING

The inaugural ICF report explores how coaching might evolve by 2036 across four scenarios, ranging from AI-dominant delivery to community-centered human connection.

Last month, I had the pleasure of having Dr. Anna Tavis — Clinical Professor and Chair of the Human Capital Management Department at NYU and author of The Digital Coaching Revolution (2024) — join my private community, Talent Edge Circle, as a guest for a discussion on how AI-enabled and digital coaching are reshaping how organizations develop employees at scale. We covered everything from the democratization of coaching and the emergence of fully AI-powered coaches to privacy and data ownership, to name a few. As this topic continues to generate strong interest among Talent Edge Weekly readers, I want to share this 76-page report by the International Coaching Federation. While published earlier this year, it remains highly relevant for HR, learning, and talent leaders thinking through how coaching strategy and tactics may need to evolve, including the role AI-enabled coaching might play. It provides a glimpse into five drivers of change shaping the future of coaching and four plausible scenarios for what coaching could look like by 2036, from a high-tech, high-collaboration future where AI expands access broadly, to scenarios marked by digital divides or a return to locally rooted, human-centered models. The report provides a useful starting point as you begin to think through how AI-enabled coaching might fit into your organization's overall coaching strategy. For those already in Talent Edge Circle, the replay and discussion notes from our conversation with Anna are also available in the community.

II. HR IMPACT & FUNCTION

Covers HR impact and function, including communicating the human capital narrative to stakeholders, HR's overall perception and sentiments of the HR function, and leading employees through organizational change.

HR CREATING STAKEHOLDER VALUE

A chapter from the recently released open-access eBook (Age of HR) examines how organizations can tailor their human capital narrative to different stakeholder groups, including the metrics that can support it.

A few weeks ago, I shared a new open-access eBook, The Age of HR, edited by Anthony Nyberg, Rebecca Kehoe, Dave Ulrich, and Patrick Wright. This excellent 332-page resource brings together 85 global thought leaders across 62 chapters organized around four human capability domains: talent, organization, leadership, and HR. Given the depth and breadth of topics covered, I will highlight one chapter each week over the next few issues. This week, I want to draw attention to Chapter 56, Telling the Human Capital Narrative, by Patti Phillips and Rebecca Ray, beginning on page 262. They share how different stakeholder groups, such as investors, current and prospective employees, customers, and strategic partners, are each likely to be most interested in different parts of an organization's human capital narrative. Their guidance covers how to start with the business-related challenge or opportunity that has the attention of key stakeholders, a topic on which I have shared many of my own resources, including Framing Talent Initiatives Within the Business Context, through to the metrics that can help support the narrative shared with each group. As CHROs and their teams work to tailor their human capital narrative to key audiences while drawing from a single source of truth, this chapter provides practical and actionable guidance. For those in my private community for internal HR practitioners, Talent Edge Circle, I look forward to Patti joining us in August for a discussion on demonstrating the ROI of HR, and to Dave Ulrich joining us next month for a discussion on how HR practitioners can deliver more stakeholder value through human capability (talent, organization, leadership and HR).

HR SENTIMENT

A new 38-page report examines the perceptions of HR professionals about various aspects of the HR function.

There is no shortage of survey reports on how HR is thinking about the priorities it will focus on for any given year. However, this recently published report by The Talent Strategy Group takes a different angle by gaining insights on the perceptions that HR professionals have about the function itself, from how engaged HR is to where the profession is stalling. While there are several insights across this 38-page report — based on a census of 500+ HR professionals across levels, functions, and geographies — one that stood out is the recommendation to make commercial fluency and interest a hiring and promotion criterion for HR roles. The report finds that HR professionals who are in the function primarily to help their organization succeed financially, and who genuinely believe in the mission of the companies they work for, are more likely to reach senior levels, and that this orientation appears to be a condition of advancement rather than something that develops once people arrive. The report draws a pointed distinction: business acumen is a skill, meaning the ability to present HR in business terms. Commercial orientation is something different: it is whether someone is fundamentally in HR because they want their company to win. One practical implication for Chief HR Officers is to audit HR hiring and promotion criteria and ask whether it screens for commercial orientation, not just business acumen. There are many other insights in the report, so you will want to be sure to dig through it. Thanks to Marc Effron and The Talent Strategy Group for bringing us these insights.

CHANGE ENABLEMENT

Outlines three suggestions for managing change more effectively. I build on the one related to sequencing change based on employees’ capacity.

As organizations implement new technologies, AI tools, team restructurings, and other organizational changes, change fatigue has become a growing concern for HR and business leaders. Change fatigue happens when the volume and pace of change outpaces what employees can realistically absorb. Prosci's 2023 Best Practices in Change Management Report found that the average organization is managing five major change initiatives at any given time. Many are juggling 10 or more once smaller projects and process changes are factored in. A new MIT Sloan Management Review article adds important context: research cited in the piece finds that employees can realistically absorb only one or two major changes per year, yet leaders are planning three or four by 2027. Most organizations don't fail at change because they are doing too much. They fail because they are not intentional about the cumulative changes occurring at the same time. The article outlines three suggestions for managing change more effectively, including sequencing change with people's capacity in mind. With this as the backdrop, I am resharing my one-page template that provides space to capture current and proposed changes, priority level, degree of impact, timing, risks, and recommended action. It gives leaders a practical starting point for aligning the pace of change with what employees can realistically handle.

III. TALENT PRACTICES

Addresses talent practices, including critical role identification, critical role talent placement assessment, performance goal recalibration, workforce and scenario planning, succession planning, leadership transitions from manager to leader, internal mobility, mid-career talent mobility, develop-in-place tactics, and employee reskilling.

CRITICAL ROLE RISK

My one-page cheat sheet to evaluate six risk factors in your critical roles and prioritize actions accordingly.

In every organization, a segment of roles (~20%) have a disproportionately large impact on strategy execution and business performance. These are often referred to as critical or pivotal roles. But simply knowing which roles are critical isn't enough. The real value comes from strategically and proactively managing talent investments in these roles. A good starting point is knowing where risks exist in critical roles and how to convert these risks into a talent advantage. My cheat sheet helps you evaluate your critical roles across six risk factors: Top Talent Risk (the best talent is not in the role), Incumbent Risk (high risk of the incumbent leaving the role in the near future), Internal Bench Risk (weak internal pipeline for backfilling this role), Development Risk (challenging to develop internal talent within a reasonable timeframe and cost), External Talent Risk (hiring externally would take considerable time and cost), and Role Change Sensitivity Risk (the requirements and skills for this role are highly susceptible to rapid shifts from AI, automation, or changing business conditions). Input your critical roles (assuming you have a process for role identification) and click a box to indicate which risks apply. Upon completion, the visual will highlight where the greatest risks exist, helping you prioritize actions. This exercise is not about filling out a template. It is about jumpstarting a thought process and discussions that lead to more informed talent decisions in the roles that have an outsized impact on business performance.

TALENT IN CRITICAL ROLES

My cheat sheet offers five factors for evaluating whether a critical role is staffed with the talent needed to deliver its full value.

In recently shared my cheat sheet for evaluating six factors that can signal risk in an organization’s critical roles. These roles, which may represent roughly 20% of total roles, have a disproportionate impact on business strategy execution. The intent is to jumpstart discussions that help organizations proactively identify risks and turn those insights into actions that protect performance and strengthen talent advantage. One factor I presented is top talent risk, where a critical role is not occupied by the best available talent. This risk can signal an opportunity to strengthen organizational performance by ensuring the role is staffed with the talent needed to deliver its full value. To help make this determination, I’m sharing another cheat sheet that considers five factors, including performance results, such as whether the person is delivering what the role requires, and internal benchmarking, such as whether someone internal could perform the role significantly better. The cheat sheet also includes why each factor matters, probing questions, and indicators. These are examples, and you can use your judgment to determine the criteria that best fit your organization.

CRITICAL ROLES AND AI

A new McKinsey article revisits the firm's Talent to Value framework, arguing that in an AI era, value is no longer created by critical roles alone.

Identifying and managing critical roles remains an important talent strategy for creating organizational stakeholder value. These roles often make up a small share of total roles, sometimes around 20%, but they have a much larger impact on strategy execution. I've shared many of my tools on critical roles, including two recent cheat sheets on identifying risks in these roles and determining if they are staffed with top talent. As AI reshapes how work gets done, a key question is emerging: how does the concept of a critical role and who occupies it need to evolve? A new McKinsey article this week explores that question, updating its Talent to Value Framework for an era in which value is no longer created by roles alone, but by humans and AI agents working together. It covers five steps, and I highlight two. Step 2 asks: where can people and AI agents work together in ways that create the most value? The third step reframes who should occupy those roles, suggesting the goal is no longer simply matching the best person to a critical role, but assessing how much that person can amplify value with AI. One implication for determining who occupies a critical role is: prioritizing individuals who build AI fluency, reimagine workflows through AI, and know when to use AI versus when human judgment is needed. With this in mind, how might you need to redefine your approach to managing critical roles?

PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

My one-page cheat sheet provides six questions to help teams recalibrate performance goals, priorities, and capacity when new work is added midyear.

As we enter the second half of the calendar year, it is a natural time to pause, assess progress against performance goals set at the start, and determine what adjustments may be needed. It is even a time when new goals are added. If these additions are not managed intentionally, they can create competing priorities that outpace capacity, putting both original and new objectives at risk. This is often referred to as goal creep: goals gradually expand without recalibrating priorities and resources. To help teams address this, here is my one-page cheat sheet for evaluating any new goal and clarifying what will change to make room. It starts with a simple premise: when a new goal is added, either resources should be added, or an existing goal should be deprioritized. It also includes questions such as: What changed in business priorities that justifies adding this goal now? What are we willing to deprioritize? What minimum viable version can we commit to this cycle? Rather than being prescriptive, it is a strategic exercise to help teams stay intentional about what work is taken on in the second half, protect critical priorities, and increase the likelihood that goals translate into outcomes. As a bonus, I am also sharing another one of my cheat sheets to identify ways of working that can get in the way of execution, such as slow decisions, unclear ownership, or approval layers. Together, both cheat sheets can help teams recalibrate goals and ways of working for the second half of the year.

WORKFORCE AND SCENARIO PLANNING

My one-page worksheet for thinking through workforce planning responses to different scenarios.

Strategic workforce planning (SWP) consistently ranks among the talent practices with the largest gap between importance and capability. One contributing factor is that workforce plans are often built on a single expected scenario, which can make it harder to respond when business conditions shift. Scenario planning (SP), the practice of anticipating and preparing for plausible future business conditions, can help close this gap. While SP is best enabled by technology, data, and analytics, even a high-level discussion is a strong starting point. My worksheet covers three elements: 1) a Base Scenario, the scenario your organization expects and its workforce implications; 2) at least one Alternative Scenario, a plausible different scenario informed by your organization’s strategic business planning process; and 3) the Triggers that signal the alternative scenario is more likely to happen, along with the workforce plan changes you would make. As I noted in a 2019 People + Strategy article, one reason the SWP gap persists is that organizations wait for perfect technology and analytics before acting. This cheat sheet helps you get started. Even directional insights put you in a better position than having no view at all. For members of my Talent Edge Circle community, you can catch the replay of our 6/17 discussion with thought leader Adam Gibson on agile workforce planning. The replay is in our Zoom library in our private platform.

SUCCESSION PLANNING

My cheat sheet consolidates four of my SP resources into into one view, including SP questions, metrics, development role audit, and triggers that prompt SP reevaluation.

Succession planning (SP) continues to get more attention from CEOs, boards, and investors. A recent report by The Conference Board and Heidrick & Struggles found that 61% of CEOs and boards expect SP effectiveness to have a greater influence on company valuation over the next five years, especially as investors look more closely at succession depth and planned leadership transitions. In response to frequent requests for SP resources, here’s my one-page cheat sheet consolidating elements from other cheat sheets I've previously shared. It includes four components: 1) SP Questions: Ten questions to clarify an organization's approach, such as determining which roles to focus on and how to assess successor readiness; 2) SP Metrics: Twelve sample metrics that can help evaluate SP effectiveness. 3) Development Role Audit: Four starter questions to help determine when to redeploy talent from a high-impact development role, particularly when their continued placement in the role limits opportunities for developing successors; and 4) Trigger Events for Reassessment: Nine examples of events that may warrant an off-cycle reassessment, such as shifts in business strategy. To build on the last component, SP can become less relevant when not updated as circumstances change. While a regular SP process cadence can help, identifying trigger events that necessitate a more immediate reassessment outside that cadence can ensure plans stay relevant between review cycles.

LEADERSHIP AND TRANSITIONS

A new article by Michael Watkins updates his seven-shift framework for making transitions, including functional to enterprise leadership.

The ability to prepare employees for successful transitions into new and more complex roles has long been a cornerstone of development planning, leadership development, and succession planning for many organizations. While several frameworks guide these transitions, one widely used is Michael Watkins' (author of The First 90 Days) seven-shift model from his 2012 HBR article, which identifies key changes leaders must navigate, including moving from functional to enterprise leadership. In a new HBR article, Watkins revisits that framework, noting the seven shifts still apply but that three forces have changed what each requires: generative AI (shifting the leader from producing insight to governing human-AI decision systems), geopolitical instability (making external complexity a first-order leadership concern), and a compressed leadership pipeline (removing stepping stones that once prepared leaders for enterprise roles). While each force has meaningful implications, one I want to highlight is AI. Watkins reinforces that high-potentials need hands-on AI governance experience before stepping into enterprise roles, raising a practical question: how do we prepare people to lead in an AI-enabled workplace? With this as the backdrop, I am resharing my post about Zapier's AI Fluency Framework, which covers how the company defines and assesses AI fluency across its workforce. While still evolving, the approach might provide others with ideas for articulating expectations and integrating them into various talent practices, including development planning.

WORKFORCE PLANNING + DEVELOPMENT

A new 41-page report highlighting corporate inclusion practices, including Schneider Electric’s workforce planning approach that helps manage retirement risks.

An important factor in workforce planning is analyzing demographic data, including aging workforce trends and retirement projections, to understand how demographic shifts may affect the supply of available talent. These data can surface risks that are easy to overlook until they become urgent, such as the loss of critical knowledge when experienced employees retire. However, knowing retirement eligibility alone is insufficient since it does not mean an employee wants to retire or would not continue contributing in some form. Schneider Electric (SE) is one organization that has approached this topic with intention. Facing a projected shortage of 85 million skilled workers by 2030, with 20 to 25% of its workforce expected to retire within the next decade and 56% having over 30 years of tenure, SE launched its Senior Talent Program. The program uses four profiles to represent the career aspirations and needs of experienced employees age 51+: 1) Continue (remain in current role), 2) Pivot (shift to different work), 3) Accelerate (take on more responsibility), and 4) Transition (move toward retirement). Career conversation toolkits support managers and employees in using these profiles to plan unique career paths and inform workforce planning. SE’s case is in the WEF’s newly published Future of Inclusion Lighthouses 2026. I am also sharing a white paper with more on SE’s approach. 

INTERNAL MOBILITY

A new 41-page report finding that 24.2% of mid-career professionals are stalled— 5 or more years with no meaningful promotion. I zoom in on how lateral moves can help.

Internal mobility (IM) is a critical talent management strategy. However, IM is often viewed though a narrow lens of upward movement, such as job promotions and hierarchical progression. Lateral moves, or transitions into roles at a similar level across functions, teams, or disciplines, are often seen differently. Employees may view them as a career setback, while managers may treat them as a fallback when promotion opportunities are limited. A new report from the Burning Glass Institute and NYU School of Professional Studies challenges that view. Drawing on over 1.3 million career histories, it finds that 24.2% of mid-career professionals are “stalled,” defined as five or more years with no meaningful promotion and negligible wage growth. The report notes that warning signs of a stall are often visible as early as the 10-year career mark. For HR and talent practitioners, this creates an opportunity to utilize data and analytics to identify employees showing early signs of a career stall and offer lateral development moves (which also helps supply work demand) before disengagement and attrition sets in. One example in the report: a stalled IT worker who pivots into an adjacent, lateral data science role can see their stall risk drop by 86%. My takeaway: organizations need to better position and market lateral moves as a deliberate and valuable development strategy that have significant benefits to employees, managers, and leaders. This report provides a useful starting point for beginning to craft that message.

DEVELOPMENT

My quick take on how develop-in-place tactics (in one’s current role) can be effective when organizations actively signal which skills matter most to their strategy.

Internal job movement—where employees transition into new roles within the same organization—is a valuable source of development and internal mobility. While an effective tactic, these moves are inherently limited in supply and must be augmented with other talent strategies. And as work increasingly gets organized beyond the boundaries of the job itself, organizations need approaches that develop people without relying solely on role changes. One underutilized approach is "develop in place," where managers and employees identify ways to use the current role to broaden development—not just for the individual, but in areas that build organizational capabilities where it matters most. This requires organizations to signal which skills matter most to their strategy, so develop-in-place opportunities reflect what the business needs, not just what feels like growth to the employee or manager. For employees, this strengthens candidacy for future opportunities; for the organization, it builds capacity to execute. Three questions to consider: What is our philosophy on employee development: to develop for performance in current role, building capabilities the organization needs, both, or something else? Have we identified the skills most critical to executing our strategy and made those visible to managers and employees? Are development plans connected to organizational capability gaps, or driven only by personal growth goals? I'll be sharing more on this, including tools to help, but wanted to put the idea out there first so you can begin to think this through for your organization. In the meantime, here is a one-pager with examples of 10 ways to develop in place.

INTERNAL MOBILITY

A new article and underlying research highlight how occupational identity can become a barrier to internal mobility, even when employees have the capability to move into new and unfamiliar roles.

Internal mobility, or the movement of employees across roles and opportunities within the same organization, is a critical component of talent management. However, several factors can limit internal mobility, such as manager talent hoarding, restrictive policies, and other reasons I've shared previously in my one-pager on the topic. Another factor than can turn into a barrier and which is highlighted in this new article and the underlying research it references is occupational identity: the degree to which workers see their current role as part of who they are, not just what they do. For some, especially when a role, field, or career path feels unfamiliar or is not an obvious match, the reluctance to pursue it may have less to do with capability and more to do with identity. The article points to research where only a third of job seekers were willing to take a reskilling course leading to new opportunities, and some required a stipend just to consider a career switch. While the research is based on a small segment of job seekers, one practical implication is that offering reskilling and job opportunities alone is not enough. Organizations need to help employees envision themselves in new and unfamiliar roles, which is really a positioning and marketing opportunity. This connects to the previous resource I shared, Sidetracked: The Hidden Crisis in Mid-Career Mobility report (Burning Glass Institute and NYU SPS): better positioning and marketing of lateral moves can open up renewed interest in them as a way to grow and develop one’s career.

JOB CUTS TRACKER

Here is my tracker, which includes announcements from a segment of organizations that have announced job cuts and layoffs since the start of 2023.

A few announcements from June:

  • Bell Canada / BCE (TSX: BCE). The Canadian telecommunications company confirmed the elimination of approximately 690 positions across Canada, representing about 1% of its workforce. The cuts, which include roughly 230 unionized roles, with most affected employees offered voluntary separation packages, are part of an ongoing multi-year transformation plan focused on network modernization and operating efficiency.

  • Diageo (NYSE: DEO). The global spirits company has begun cutting jobs across its North American operations as part of a cost-reduction effort led by new CEO Dave Lewis, with reports indicating approximately 200 roles eliminated on its North American team and roughly 150 more at risk in Ireland. The cuts follow a period of declining sales, and Lewis has set cost-reduction targets for department heads rather than specifying a fixed headcount number.

  • Uber (NYSE: UBER). The ride-hailing and delivery company cut 23% of its People and Places division, which covers human resources, recruitment, workplace facilities, and culture. The affected headcount represents less than 1% of Uber's 34,000-person global workforce; the company ruled out AI as a factor, attributing the cuts to overlapping responsibilities and organizational complexity following a recent leadership reorganization.

  • Volkswagen (OTCMKTS: VWAGY). The German automaker confirmed it will reduce its German workforce by 19,000 positions by the end of 2026, with a binding target of more than 28,000 job cuts at the core Volkswagen brand by 2030. CEO Oliver Blume is set to deliver the update at the company's annual general meeting on June 18, citing a 20% reduction in German factory costs already achieved through 2025 and ongoing pressure from Chinese competition, high production costs, and slowing electric vehicle demand.

CHIEF HR OFFICER MOVES

In June, I tracked 68 hires, promotions, and resignations in the Chief HR Officer (CHRO) role through CHROs on the Go, my subscription-based digital platform that monitors movement in the CHRO role.

A few headlines from June:

  • BD (FRANKLIN LAKES, NEW JERSEY) [NYSE: BDX] — a leading global pure-play medical technology company — promoted Manish Sinha to Chief People Officer. Sinha brings 15 years of HR leadership at BD across the company's global business segments, regions, and functions, supporting transformative mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures. Prior to this promotion, he served as SVP, HR covering the Interventional Segment, US and Canada, Innovation, and HR Technology. 

  • Cencora (CONSHOHOCKEN, PENNSYLVANIA) [NYSE: COR] — a leading global pharmaceutical solutions organization — announced that Silvana Battaglia, EVP & Chief HR Officer, will retire following a distinguished seven-year tenure. She will be succeeded by Samantha Hammock, who will join Cencora as EVP and Chief HR Officer, effective July 13, 2026. Hammock joins from Verizon Communications, where she most recently served as EVP and Chief Human Resources Officer.

  • ​Dana Incorporated (MAUMEE, OHIO) [NYSE: DAN] — a global powertrain systems manufacturer serving commercial and light vehicle markets — announced that Erin Rowse, currently SVP HR, Industrial at Eaton (NYSE: ETN), will serve as Chief HR Officer of the combined Dana/Eaton Mobility company upon closing of the companies' definitive merger agreement. The combined company will operate under the Dana Incorporated name and retain its NYSE listing. ​

  • Yum! Brands (LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY) [NYSE: YUM] — a global restaurant company franchising and operating more than 63,000 restaurants in 155 countries and territories under KFC, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and Habit Burger & Grill — announced the retirement of Tracy Skeans, COO and Chief People & Culture Officer, after more than 25 years with the company. Skeans will remain in her current role through late 2026 before transitioning to a senior advisory position; her expected retirement is March 1, 2028. Yum! is working to fill both the Chief People & Culture Officer and Chief Scale Officer roles, into which her responsibilities will be divided.

Join CHROs on the Go to access all detailed announcements and +4,800 archived announcements. Monthly + annual subscriptions available.

If you are already a subscriber to CHROs on the Go, log in here.

My Private Community

We are entering the month of July and the first half of 2026 is complete. For many HR practitioners, the window to make meaningful progress on this year’s most critical priorities is getting shorter, not longer.

If you’re an internal HR practitioner who wants to go deeper with me and other internal HR practitioners on talent topics tied to your most critical priorities, I invite you to learn more about my private community,Talent Edge Circle.  

The goal is simple: to help you cut through the noise and complexity so you can accelerate the execution of your critical talent priorities.

September will be here before you know it. Don’t let more time pass by without the right support and community around you.

I look forward to sharing more resources with you throughout July. Have a great month ahead, and I’ll see you in next week’s regular issue!

Talent Edge Weekly is written by Brian Heger, a human resources practitioner. You can connect with Brian on LinkedIn and brianheger.com.

🗣️ WANT MORE?

Want access to all my curated resources?
👉️ Visit my website, brianheger.com

Are you an internal HR practitioner?
👉️ Apply for my private, paid community, Talent Edge Circle

Are you a provider of HR-related services?
👉️ Become a sponsor of Talent Edge Weekly

Want to know who’s moving in and out of the CHRO role?
👉️ Join my CHROS on the Go subscription