Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
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.”
Rebecca Taylor (00:17)
Hello and welcome to HR Voices. I'm your host, Rebecca Taylor, and I'm here with Marie Garrigue, the Chief People Officer at Fitness Connection USA. Marie, thank you for being here.
Marie Garrigue (00:26)
Yeah, thanks for having me. I'm excited for our discussion today.
Rebecca Taylor (00:29)
I'm excited too. I think this is going to be a really good one. And I know I say that at the start of every episode because I genuinely mean that every time. So when we were prepping for this yesterday, I think you brought up so many really good points. So I'm excited to kind of dive in a little bit more and let everybody here kind of benefit from what you what you have to say. And so for anyone who's new here, a little bit about HR Voices. So this is a podcast that explains real and fabricated anonymized employee relations scenarios through the lens of experienced HR and people leaders, just like Marie.
So we evaluate realistic workplace situations and demonstrate how we'll assess risk, apply judgment, and design practical responses. So our goal here is to reveal how strong HR leaders think when facing ambiguity. We're not here to find a single correct answer because unfortunately, that so rarely exists in our work. And that's kind of what the nature of the work is, is figuring out how to make the next best decision when there isn't always the clear one right in front of you.
So that being said, Marie, are you ready for your scenario? Okay, so we're calling this one the pronouns policy. A company updates its inclusion policy to ask all 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.
Marie Garrigue (01:27)
I'm ready.
Rebecca Taylor (01:53)
HR is caught between religious accommodation requests, LGBTQ plus 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 statement. Not a hairy situation at all and something none of us have ever seen, right? So before we dive into the sort of meat and potatoes of everything,
When you're looking at this from the sort of the glance of when we're first starting in, what stands out to you as the most risky or unclear in this particular scenario?
Marie Garrigue (02:31)
Yes, I see it.
several obvious risks. mean, certainly the religious accommodation. There's certainly a lot of legislative activity that's happening in that world right now. So you can see where that might go somewhere. Certainly any kind of discriminatory cases that might come out of this. The potential for that to be present is here. I'm actually not super concerned about either one of those ⁓ in this scenario. My biggest concern, honestly, is the
to productivity and the distraction that this becomes in the workplace and potentially the damage to the culture that's there, right? The biggest thing that's unclear for me as we dig into it is...
Rebecca Taylor (03:06)
Mm.
Marie Garrigue (03:14)
how much this is like a policy mandate attempt to do something inclusive versus where the culture actually is in this organization and is the policy meant to be just supportive of the already existing culture or is it something that they're trying to force by way of mandate, right? So as we go into the scenario, I'm not sure about that. And I think that really would
Rebecca Taylor (03:42)
Yeah.
Marie Garrigue (03:44)
change my perspective or how I would handle it as a leader.
Rebecca Taylor (03:48)
Yeah, yeah, and that's fair. And these are all fabricated scenarios too. So we always have to kind of take some of what we see with a grain of salt because we don't have any more information than what is here. And certainly the culture plays a big part in kind of figuring out where to kind of begin, what this really is. Like, is this a huge change? Is this, you know, what's the part that is sort of like really, really uncomfortable for a lot of these employees and how...
How drastic, quote unquote, is this change compared to what they're used to? ⁓ And so then as you're, let's say this does come across your desk, you're kind of starting to dive in. Who do you talk to and what information are you looking for just to start this investigation?
Marie Garrigue (04:18)
Right.
I really, well, I hope some of this would have happened before we put a policy in place, but I really would have wanted to understand where the senior leaders were on that type of inclusive policy to begin with, where the general public was. I think doing that kind of investigation and understanding before you write and implement a policy is super helpful, right? Because it helps you to understand where your obstacles are in implementing something. think when you know where your population is and you know
it needs ahead, it helps you to develop a roadmap, right? So you don't step into something unintentionally as much as possible. That being said, I mean, we're here now, right? So I would start by talking to the individual who's bringing up the concern. I want to understand where their concern is coming from. Certainly understanding...
where their kind of litigation interest is, right? What is the background behind this? Because I think this is such a politically charged topic. And we will find that in cases like this, there are people who have, let's call it, I don't like the word legitimate, but that's the one that's coming to mind right now, right? A legitimate heartfelt concern about their beliefs, whatever they are, that they are having an objection
Rebecca Taylor (05:33)
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
Marie Garrigue (05:52)
to internally and really struggling internally with how do I live my authentic self in this environment that feels forced on me. So there's that, or there's someone who has an agenda that wants to turn this into some sort wide scale political movement. And I need to understand that from the get go.
Rebecca Taylor (06:11)
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, I think it's such a, like, it's, love that you're starting with that right away because it's like, you want to, you have to kind of balance it between, you know, legitimacy is the word that you used or also, I can't think of a better one either, but just like, I guess like a true, yeah, like, is this like a true feeling that you're having that's challenging your beliefs or are you trying to stir the pot because you can? Because that's the, it's kind of the way sometimes some of these things go is like, you know, an employee wants to,
stir the pot because they can in different ways. And that's kind of the thing that is always that balance, right? Like how much of this is real versus how much of this is orchestrated. And if it's, if it is orchestrated, what are they trying to get out of it? Like what's their end goal? Yeah. And you mentioned, you know, hopefully before you have a policy in place, you kind of know where senior leadership stands. in this scenario,
A senior leader backs, quote unquote, backs the religious objector. So what do you think about that? mean, is that like a blindsided situation or could that be a consensus thing?
Marie Garrigue (07:24)
Yeah, I think it could be both, right? The scenario described it as a public backing too, right? So I imagine there was a statement made in some sort of public forum, whether that was in writing and responding to something or in a meeting saying something that is apparently in dissension to the policy, right? ⁓ It does sound like it is.
Rebecca Taylor (07:43)
Mm-hmm.
Marie Garrigue (07:48)
a blind side for the organization. That's how I'm reading it. And that makes it a little bit more difficult to handle, in my opinion, right? Because you're caught off guard. And it's never nice to be caught off guard. It does make things a little bit more challenging.
Rebecca Taylor (08:00)
Yeah.
Yeah, it's very true. it's, you know, I think with any kind of policy, you know, let's say in you are partnering with senior leadership and all of senior leadership is sort of involved in any kind of policy conversation. It's hard to you're never really going to get to a scenario where everybody agrees. mean, even this particular one is that this policy is meant to be one that sort of threads the needle to kind of try to please multiple sides of similar kind of situations.
because they're asking to put pronouns in your email and to use it in introducing yourself, but it's not mandatory. So I see that where that's that thread, the needle, and I'm sure there are gonna be senior leaders who object or who were not on board, but it's like, do you publicly object? Do you talk to that senior leader and say, hey, if you had an issue with this, maybe come to me first because now you're making this into something else.
Marie Garrigue (09:01)
Yeah, in my experience, most of these things happen actually in a passive aggressive way and much more quietly or under the surface. I almost, as I think about it, I almost would rather have this. I'd rather have it not have it at all. But if it was going to happen, I'd rather actually be public so then we can actually address it. I think the.
Rebecca Taylor (09:16)
Yeah.
Marie Garrigue (09:24)
under the surface problems ⁓ make really damage the culture a lot more. This public event
would potentially give us a chance to certainly talk to the senior leader, understand where their objection came from, why they chose to behave in that manner, and then hopefully give the team an opportunity to either, well, to fix it, right? To make the repair publicly. When it happens publicly, you can make the repair publicly. When it's all under the table, it makes it a little bit more difficult, right? Because then things get triangulated and ⁓
maybe someone loses some credibility because they're saying one thing in public and one thing behind the scenes. So I almost thought that, again, I'd rather it not happen, but if it were and it were to happen publicly, it gives you the chance to fix it.
Rebecca Taylor (10:16)
Yeah, yeah. It's almost like if it does, it's like sometimes when things like this do happen publicly too, it's usually an indication that that person maybe doesn't feel heard. It's like that's the only way that they could actually feel heard because maybe they did share their opinion before that. And again, this is pure speculation on a fabricated scenario, right? But, you we've all been in a situation where someone may have expressed dissent in, you know, in private.
Marie Garrigue (10:35)
Right.
Rebecca Taylor (10:42)
the things still moved ahead, whatever that policy might be. The policy still moved ahead, even if one person didn't agree, right? Because sometimes it's just the way business goes. And usually when you have something kind of, I'm not going to say blow up because we don't know if it's blown up, but if you just see it sort of aired in such a public way, it's usually someone's last ditch resort to be heard. And I think you have to address that differently when it's a senior leader versus when it's an employee.
Marie Garrigue (11:09)
Absolutely. Senior leaders have an obligation, right, as leaders and as visible leaders to be able to promote the course of the business, right, and protect and preserve the course of the business. And I do think there's an issue in a lot of organizations where people have a difficult time having serious conversations when this kind of dissension occurs behind the scenes, right? Because ultimately,
there should have been a conversation with this individual if it had come out earlier behind the scenes to say, look, I assume this is a cultural thing that everybody is wanting to go this way, you know, at large. And this is where we are passionate about as an organization. We want to be inclusive. I understand you have objections to this. Is this something that you are able to get behind and fully support for the organization's sake or is
Rebecca Taylor (11:49)
Yeah.
Marie Garrigue (12:06)
this a turning point for us together where, you know, we have to have another conversation about what's best for you and your interests, understanding that you can't get behind this type of inclusive policy, right? And I think sometimes we're afraid of having those conversations, both with senior leaders, but also with the general population in the organization. And if we could get a little bit more comfortable with it, we would be able to make a lot of good decisions for organizations.
and for the people that we lead, ⁓ right? And I think it's just an uncomfortable, awkward thing for some people that they're not experienced in.
Rebecca Taylor (12:37)
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah, I agree with that. Especially when you're looking at something like inclusion, it's very broad. It's a very broad kind of sentimentality or broad definition what that could mean because, you know, when you're looking at a truly inclusive environment, it means all are welcome here, right? Like, ideally you have inclusion and belonging, meaning that, you know, everyone is sort of, you know, being called in, everyone's sort of part of and feels represented.
Marie Garrigue (13:03)
Right.
Right.
Rebecca Taylor (13:13)
So it
is hard when you're dealing with two sets of employees whose things that make them who they are are directly in conflict with each other. And this happens in every single organization, some more openly than others. But this to me is like the hairiest part of a situation like this, because it's like you want to be inclusive. You can't be 100 % inclusive to both sides in this.
Marie Garrigue (13:22)
Right.
Right, there's someone at some level that is going to feel left out or violated in some sort of way, especially if it's coming down as a policy change and not addressed in a different way, right? I think there's other ways to be able to promote this type of environment ⁓ without necessarily making it a policy change. I have a personal issue with the policy as it was described to us in the scenario too, because there is an
Rebecca Taylor (13:51)
Yeah.
Yeah.
Marie Garrigue (14:06)
of being inclusive and forcing someone to out themselves if they're not wanting to be public at work that I'm uncomfortable with in the scenario to begin with, right? But besides that, I mean, I do think that, you know, there's some better ways to be able to launch things like this.
Rebecca Taylor (14:17)
Yeah.
Yeah,
you know, makes me think, and I don't know the answer to this, but it's just kind of like, maybe this sounds like I'm playing semantics and because maybe I am. can you have the part of this is that the inclusion policy is updated to ask employees to share pronouns optionally. Can you have a policy that's optional? Aren't those two things in conflict in and of themselves?
Marie Garrigue (14:47)
Yeah, I definitely mentioned that, right? In the scenario that the LGBTQ individual represented, the transgender side is not really being enforced well enough or supported well enough because it's optional. And I agree with that, right? And I do think that it's very difficult to say you have a policy that is going to be followed and yet it is an optional policy. Those things are not congruent with one another.
Rebecca Taylor (15:14)
Yeah.
Marie Garrigue (15:15)
Which again is why I don't know that a policy addressing this is the same. think getting buy-in and alignment from senior leadership to begin with to start action related to putting pronouns out there in introductions, et cetera, and have them lead the way is probably a much better way to go about this than just coming out with saying, hey, we changed our policy.
Rebecca Taylor (15:38)
Yeah, yeah. And so as you're kind of starting to dig deeper and to, you know, talk to some of these employees, you know, to get everybody involved, to hear their perspective, what's the risk of moving too fast? And what's the risk of moving too slow to resolution?
Marie Garrigue (15:54)
Yeah, I'll add the slow part first. It is certainly getting to resolution too slow. Well, certainly causes more more dissension in the team and adds to the lack of productivity that I was concerned about in the beginning. It also...
may cause additional doubt among the team that you're committed to this policy change to begin with, or more importantly, the inclusion efforts, right, that we were trying to get to. And I think that would lose confidence in the senior leadership team or in the leadership team or the organization around whether or not we want to be an inclusive and organization dedicated to belongingness. And that is, I think, really detrimental to the culture that they're trying to
Rebecca Taylor (16:21)
Yeah.
Marie Garrigue (16:38)
build here. In terms of the of moving too fast, you know...
Rebecca Taylor (16:39)
Yeah.
Marie Garrigue (16:46)
missing different perspectives, not bringing people along. One of the biggest things that could have helped and would help in this scenario is the process of bringing people along, getting advocates in from all sides, representing as many, I say all, but as many perspectives as he possibly can before the launch to get the momentum behind it. So that I think continues in this too, right? Not allowing for some of that time to bring people along, but it's a fine line.
Rebecca Taylor (17:04)
Yeah.
Marie Garrigue (17:15)
because if you move too quick there's a problem, if you move too slow there's a bigger problem in your mind.
Rebecca Taylor (17:20)
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah. And it's like there's an opportunity for change management to kind of come into play throughout this a little bit better too, right? Like I think when you're introducing policies or policy changes of any kind, it's like you have to do a good change management process to kind of get there. Because like any policy, any major new policies really shouldn't be introduced like...
you're saying your album's dropping. Like it shouldn't be a surprise. There should be usually policies like codifying behaviors and the culture, right? So it's like, this is stuff that's already happening. This is stuff people are talking about. You can't just kind of show up and be like putting this on the wall. This is the policy now. Because that's where you tend to get more aggressive reactions. And by aggressive, I just mean like, like, you know, people just feel caught off guard. And so, you know, they're going to push back because they don't get the chance to be brought along.
Marie Garrigue (17:54)
Right.
Sure.
Rebecca Taylor (18:16)
and it kind of feels like it's just like being thrust on them, especially because no matter what the policy is, people just hate being told what to do.
Marie Garrigue (18:23)
Right.
And as much as I said earlier, you know, having the conversation with people to say, hey, is this still the organization for you? The reality is most people are dependent upon their paycheck to live. Right. And so that conversation becomes a real threat. Feeling like you're forced to do something to be able to continue to eat or pay your mortgage or whatever it might be is a very tangible threat for most people. And so we have to recognize that as much as
Rebecca Taylor (18:31)
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
Marie Garrigue (18:52)
looking at the organization's sake sometimes when we're making policy changes, we're also talking about the individual lives of the people that work with us.
Rebecca Taylor (19:02)
Yeah, yeah, people might not want to walk away from a job just because this is sort of a deal breaker for them and they shouldn't have to either. know, when, you it's obviously like you can have some clear cut and dry policies around, you know, workplace behavior that makes sense, right? But then there is sort of this area where it's like you shouldn't have to be, you shouldn't have to be put in a position to choose between whether you're going to feed your family or keep your job over something that.
Marie Garrigue (19:10)
Right.
Thank
Rebecca Taylor (19:28)
you know, feels like it was so abruptly introduced to you that you just can't buy into.
Marie Garrigue (19:33)
Yeah, I don't like the term that you're using shouldn't have to because I think that in, you know, this is a really good example of where you would have two populations and certainly more are represented. But let's call it two populations here, right? That would say this violates the integrity of who I am. ⁓ And I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but that's how they would feel in this circumstance, right? And if you were presented with representing who
Rebecca Taylor (19:48)
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah. Now.
Marie Garrigue (20:03)
I am the should of should have to leave becomes a little bit more negligible, right? Like I should represent who I am and I should be able to do that in the organization I'm with. But if the organization no longer supports me and who I am, I have to make a call that helps me to stay true to myself. So I'd love to live in a world where that's that's not the case and everybody is included all the time. But I think these are two good examples of where people would take a stand.
Rebecca Taylor (20:10)
Yeah.
Yeah.
Marie Garrigue (20:32)
because it's something they're so passionate about.
Rebecca Taylor (20:34)
Yeah, yeah. And I'm all for that if you can and if you want to, right? I think I just think about it as like, you know, feeling forced, because that's kind of where, because I'm taking, I'm sort of taking the angle where I see employees, you know, from organizations that feel like they've been forced out because they're no longer represented there. And sometimes that's for valid reason, right? And sometimes it's, you know, for something where it's like you could have, you could have had, there was more opportunity for those discussions to happen with
those people with the organization before it gets to that point where someone's like, my only option is to leave. Like I'm kind of in the thought where it's like losing people should be the literally last ditch resort for most of these scenarios and situations. So just see it as such a missed opportunity that like, you know, it's like, okay, I have to leave because I'm not here. It's like, well, let's, you know, maybe that's not, let's talk about that. What does that mean? Right.
Marie Garrigue (21:17)
Yeah, 100%.
Right, yeah, what I'd say is that is the job of the organization and planning to think through some of those things. And you mentioned change management, and we've talked a little bit about bringing people along, right? If that all is done well, the damage should be minimal.
Rebecca Taylor (21:42)
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so how should HR leaders prepare managers for this kind of moment? And it could be, it doesn't necessarily have to be a moment that's specifically the scenario itself, but even more a moment where there's this kind of divide between employees based on an inclusion-based policy that a senior leader is sort of undermining the actual policy itself.
Marie Garrigue (22:08)
Now, one of the things I like to consider, you know, I mentioned my biggest concern is kind of the impact of productivity and culture and slowing things down for the organization. When I'm talking to leaders, helping them to understand, if you plan or if you do some of the things that might feel like they're taking longer, it will help you to be more productive, faster in the long run. So this is another good example of that, where I could talk to the managers, the leaders in terms of leading with empathy.
with their teammates when something like this becomes apparent and teaching them to be good listeners, teaching them to have those conversations, having good relationships with their teammates where they can talk to them, they can understand where they're coming from. And that series of 30 minute, hour long conversations, taking them to lunch here and there, understanding where they're coming from will help them to help the individual come
along
a lot faster and get back to kind of the core productivity piece and feel good about the work that they do, hopefully, right? Faster, even though it feels like, but that means I have to cancel this other productivity meeting or that means I have to, you know, stop writing this report because I've got to have the conversation. But when you do that, you can get to the meat and potatoes or productive work a whole lot faster.
Rebecca Taylor (23:15)
Mm-hmm
Right.
Yeah, yeah, it's true. It's just like, let's, let's help people get back to doing their jobs as quickly as possible in a lot of ways too, because that's also what they want to do, right? Something, you know, any type of policy change that isn't something like, this is the new sales process. Here's how you have to do this. Any kind of policy change that doesn't immediately embed, embed itself in someone's flow of work necessarily. It kind of feels like it's.
you know, as an employee, almost feels like it's like a random act of HR was the term I've heard someone use before. And that's kind of the thing that you were kind of this scenario kind of reminds me of. And again, we don't know the context of this fake scenario. Were there communications before this? We don't know. But usually when you see this level of kind of disagreement at the rollout and distraction at the rollout part, it's because this feels like a random act of HR. And, know, you need to help people to get to understanding before you get to enforcement.
Marie Garrigue (24:06)
Yeah.
Right. that's, you know, again, and people over time have had a hard time quantifying the ROI of soft skills, right? Or the ROI of building a team with relational aspects as opposed to just task oriented aspects, right? ⁓ But it's in these times where you can start to quantify how long am I spending talking to these individuals? How much time is being missed because they're not as productive as they could have been? Now I've lost somebody because we couldn't get them back
Rebecca Taylor (24:39)
Mm-hmm.
Yeah.
Marie Garrigue (25:02)
Now I've lost multiple people because they're arguing with each other and I can't get them back to work. So, you know, there's actual work that can be done to quantify the benefits of having just relational skills as a manager.
Rebecca Taylor (25:15)
Yeah,
yeah, so, true. And so who ultimately would own the outcome of this type of scenario? Whatever the decision is about the policy or the employees, who's kind of in charge of it?
Marie Garrigue (25:27)
I like to look at culture efforts as cross-functional teams, right? And ultimately I would think of it as the executive committee, executive team, senior leadership team, however that's quantified there. But it's all of their responsibility. do think I would love it if I had, you know, let's call it COO that was owning this. The reality is I think that most people would point to the head of HR, whatever their title is, as kind of the owner of
and I do think that it's maybe their responsibility to quantify, speak about, report on, coach on, but if you don't have maybe other ownership, like I said, operations ownership or CEO ownership to begin with, it's probably not gonna be as effective as it could have been anyway.
Rebecca Taylor (26:16)
Yeah,
I love that because it's true. It's like HR can sometimes either be the scapegoat, like the person who's or the team that's sort of left holding the bag for things like this when to your point, it should be the whole executive team. It's like we're all supposed to be in this together. Or sometimes HR is kind of like, you know, people bring in HR too late because they're worried about how, you know, HR folks are going to ruin whatever it is that they're trying to work on or whatever the situation is, ⁓ which is kind of like, you know, it kind of leads to
Marie Garrigue (26:41)
Right.
Rebecca Taylor (26:46)
our last question, because I know we're actually at time, which is kind of like wild because there so many other pieces of this that we could talk through. ⁓ But what's one assumption about HR that you think needs to be challenged?
Marie Garrigue (26:50)
Quick conversation. Yeah.
One of the ones that, you know, grinds my gear the most is that HR is a roadblock.
Oftentimes we see, let's call it the operational arm of an organization that feels like they have to keep HR out of things. They see HR as maybe the personnel department of the past that doesn't actually bring in actual value. And so they see it as, can't talk to HR because they're going to stop the progress that we're making. Oftentimes this is in an employee relations issue or I want to separate somebody and they dread having that conversation.
Rebecca Taylor (27:29)
Mm.
Marie Garrigue (27:35)
right, because it's going to slow down or stop their progress. The reality is your HR team, your people team should be
a true partner to help enable you to achieve the goals that you have. And so hopefully your HR people can speak the language with you, right? Be able to do the job that you do, at least on some level of proficiency so that they don't become this roadblock. If you bring us in earlier on, you help us understand what your goals are, or we try to understand what your goals are, we can be a partner in helping you to get there.
Rebecca Taylor (27:56)
Yeah.
Marie Garrigue (28:13)
as as possible, certainly while mitigating some risks, certainly while helping to avoid some of the actual roadblocks that exist, but really trying to get there as fast as possible with you.
Rebecca Taylor (28:25)
So well said, so well said. And thank you for sharing that and thank you for walking through this scenario with me too and being here sharing all your wisdom, your perspective. I think there's so much more that we could say on this topic too that maybe we'll do a part two at some point. But ⁓ thank you for this and thank you everybody for listening and I hope you have a good rest of your day. Bye.
Marie Garrigue (28:39)
Yeah.
Thanks,
bye.