News


Can You Reach Your Potential If You Play It Safe?

September 12, 2019

HRD'S - Can you really reach your potential if you play it safe (and just stay in Collins Street!)?​


Derwent recently continued its successful HR forums in Sydney and Melbourne which addressed the matter of  “Elevating HR Executives in the Boardroom”.  
Courtney Blood, Principal Derwent was joined by Athalie Williams, Chief People Officer, BHP and Davina Stanley, MD Clarity College and Clarity Thought.
The key themes that were discussed centred around HR having the courage and necessary commerciality to influence the executive team and the board in a way that the people and culture agenda is not considered an add on. Playing it safe doesn’t get results.

Be Brave and Courageous!


It is vital to consider and understand the direction of the conversation you want to have with the board. You need to be a  truth teller  and help them make sense of a cluttered landscape.
Have conversations with the directors as and when needed and be open with the executive team about your interaction with the board.
Use data, be commercial, be purposeful . Have a clear point of view and utilise data and commercial information to illustrate and prosecute your case. Davina shared with the group her thoughts on articulating your message, if you can’t concisely put your message onto one page, then do you really know your topic?
Be structured and very clear about the purpose.

Frame your presentation based on the following question:
“As a result of the communication, I want my audience to….”  E.g. agree with the proposal. It will shift the emphasis of your communication to action focused rather than just passive information sharing.

The Hayne report is having a significant and far reaching impact.


Make sure you have read it! Boards are spending an increasing amount of time understanding and assessing cultural risk and remuneration alignment. What does a good governing board look for and what are the signs of a healthy and constructive culture?

Although there are many cultural measures available, there is a need to ensure the right mechanisms are in place to measure cultural risk. This is an area of uncertainty for many organisations and it’s crucial to identify leading indicators rather than lag indicators e.g. starting to see cultural dashboard developments.

Executive remuneration is continuing to be an area of internal and external scrutiny. Financial versus nonfinancial measures. HR’s role in this debate is to ensure that effective KPIs are in place that appropriately flow down to company, team and individual targets. The structure of executive remuneration needs to be reflected in the values and priorities of the organisation from a cultural and commercial perspective. Typical measures such as employee satisfaction surveys are inadequate. Available data is not being utilised effectively and with boards taking more a  “show me, not tell me",  HRD’s need to be truth tellers to the board – utilising available information and articulating the issue clearly with an action plan ready.

You can’t build your career if you stay in the same lane.


Dean Barr – Principal Industrial and Courtney Blood – Principal Consumer shared their recent experience in conducting senior HRD searches. The terms ‘commercial, transformation and business partner’ have become overused in the industry. The language is used, however, the examples and the capability that underpins these terms is not readily evident.
They suggested the need for HR to ensure that they understand the financial impact of any initiatives - if it's cost out, then, how much? If it’s business integration, then what was the saving? If it’s talent strategies, then can you show the difference the talent made to the business performance?
Pay attention to this information, and then use it to describe your contribution – LinkedIn, your resume, in interview.
To grow your career, playing it safe isn’t going to be enough of a differentiator – you need a willingness to change job location, a desire to move onto broader business-based roles (e.g. organisational transformation roles) and the ability to build strong collaborative relationships outside of the function.
Traditional career paths in HR are changing. Skills required will include strong project or program experience with lean and agile environments. Larger business partnering functions are making way for much smaller executive business consulting capability, underpinned by strong shared service functions.
We discussed what makes best in class HR.
  • Highly curious – burning interest in how things work.

  • They take the approach that it’s business first. Often, they have been in consulting or broader business roles. They avoid advocating solely on behalf of the employees without understanding the demands and priorities of all stakeholders.

  • Take the time to deeply learn the business.

  • Stay connected to the workforce – spend meaningful time with employees and follow the processes, not just the odd site visit.

  • Critical that time has been spent in programme/project management – understand how different levers are used in the business e.g. time, spread and scope; everyone is competing for capital within the business. 

  • They take risks in their career, location, role. They have a bigger plan for themselves. It's not about the need to tick all the boxes, e.g. I would like to only work in the CBD.

Share this Article

Recent Articles

By Lindsay Every • September 23, 2026
By most measures, this is the fastest adoption of a transformative technology in human history, and the pace itself, more than the tools, is what's testing leaders right now. The question we explored at our AI & The People event in Perth last week wasn't whether to engage with AI, it was how quickly leaders could learn to work through the ambiguity it creates – adapting their leadership style and their team's dynamics on the move, without the luxury of mastering every technical detail first. A shift which asked a lot more of leaders than most changes they've led before. We were lucky to have both Peter Tonagh , Executive Chair at Quantium, and Jacky Connolly , Chief People Officer at CBH Group, join the conversation. Five key themes stood out. The energy is there. The paradox is what happens next. Most people aren't resistant to AI, they're cautious, and the caution has more to do with job security than the technology itself. Some roles changed materially enough to bring the challenge of redeployment. For most people though, roles simply changed shape, and the job for leaders is to harness that energy rather than manage it down. Underneath that sits a harder problem. The productivity paradox. Individuals are getting faster and better at their jobs with AI, but those personal gains rarely show up as enterprise level returns. Team members without proper support will find their own workaround – bringing in their own unsanctioned tools or leaving for an organisation who gives them a better one – so the case for organisations investing properly is not really a choice. Lead it from the top. Guard it just as fast. This is an organisational problem before it's a technology one. Business models are set by leaders, not technologists, and senior people being visibly comfortable using the tools is what gives everyone else permission to engage with them. The common myth is that graduate roles are most at risk, however the real risk sits with middle management – executives will become more productive and carry more direct reports, resulting in fewer layers in between. Guardrails need to be set fast rather than perfected in advance, particularly around the risk of losing intellectual property. Starting with a small set of approved tools, and expanding as trust builds, is better than waiting for a comprehensive policy before allowing any use at all. Boards need to be brought in early too, so they understand their own obligations from the start rather than being briefed after the fact. AI tools tend to agree too readily. Adjusting the settings to instruct the tool to push back and challenge assumptions, instead of defaulting to agreement, was raised as a small fix that can help improve decision quality. Bring the whole workforce. Not just the office. AI tools in organisations work when technology and people are treated as one problem. Leaders need to understand the tools well enough to drive change through them, rather than leaving it to IT alone. Frontline and operational team members matter just as much as corporate functions: practical wins like rostering and attendance carry real weight, and leaving teams behind undermines the case for AI everywhere else in the business. There is also a real shift reshaping recruitment. Hiring is moving away from purely skills-based selection towards attributes: curiosity, critical thinking, persistence, agility, and optimism. It's a genuine move back toward classical study, backed by heavier investment in structured training to bring people onto the same page. Claim the gain. Then change how you measure people. The strongest examples of AI delivering enterprise value tend to be simple and specific – one tool that is purposefully built and applied across the organisation, is better than everyone building their own individual version of the same thing. But individual productivity gains don’t redirect themselves. Organisations need to actively claim the time being freed up and decide what it's used for, rather than leaving the decision to individuals. That same discipline needs to extend to how performance is measured. Early adopters should be rewarded for bringing others along and sharing what they’ve learned, not just for their own output. A cost-out mentality, or pitting people against each other, will corrode culture quickly. Redesign the work. Don’t just hand out the toolkit. The most common mistake organisations make is retooling an existing process rather than redesigning the work itself. Give someone an AI tool without rethinking their role, and the result is usually chaos, not efficiency. The real gains come from pairing someone who understands the AI tools with someone who deeply understands the work, then letting them rebuild roles and workflows together from first principles. New competitors are already emerging built exactly this way – a key consideration for any organisations still only automating. One example was given of a leader building a personal "digital twin", an AI trained specifically on their tone, feedback style, and decision-making patterns. It was developed over approximately 200 hours, though the benefit was felt within the first couple of hours of use. Six leadership principles had already been documented; the AI was then used to interview and draw out roughly 30 more. The tool is now used for communications, coaching a wider team, and personally – including when weighing a difficult decision while tired. The organisations that get this right won't be the ones with the best AI. They'll be the ones whose leaders go first – closing the gap between individual and enterprise gains, setting guardrails fast, bringing the whole workforce with them, and redesigning the work rather than just the toolkit. _________________________________________________________________________ Our thanks to Lindsay Every , Group Managing Partner at Derwent, for hosting the morning, and to Peter and Jacky for such generous, on-the-ground insight into what AI adoption looks like. A special thanks to Julie Colvin , Managing Partner – Perth, and our Perth team for their support in bringing this event to life. Continue the conversation For further insights or to explore how Derwent can support your organisation's approach to AI and workforce transformation, connect with our team at perth@derwentsearch.com.au To register your interest in future Derwent events, please reach out to us at events@derwentsearch.com.au .
By Michelle Gardiner • August 19, 2026
The boardroom has changed. Permanently. The issues filling board agendas today are not temporary disruptions. They are the operating environment. AI, cyber risk, geopolitical instability, regulation, climate exposure and cost volatility are reshaping how organisations compete, invest and make decisions. For boards, the expectations have changed. Directors are being asked to understand more, engage more deeply and bring increasingly relevant experience to the table. Regulators, investors and other stakeholders are also looking more closely at whether boards are equipped for what lies ahead. The question is no longer simply whether a board is well governed. It is whether the board has the right mix of capability, judgement and adaptability to lead the organisation into its next chapter. The capability conversation is changing Credentials and experience remain important, but they are no longer enough on their own. Curiosity, adaptability and a willingness to keep learning are becoming equally valuable. AI is a clear example. Directors do not need to become technologists, but they do need enough understanding to ask informed questions about risk, ethics, data, accountability and return on investment. Cyber security and data governance present a similar challenge. These issues now sit firmly within board accountability. Scenario planning, crisis preparedness and understanding where the organisation’s exposures lie are no longer occasional agenda items. They are part of the boards regular rhythm. Renewal cannot wait for a vacancy Strong board renewal starts with future strategy. What capabilities will be required over the next five to ten years? Which risks will become more material? Where does the board need deeper commercial, functional or sector experience? Which perspectives may be missing? These questions are more useful than simply asking whose term is ending next. The most effective boards are moving beyond static skills matrices and periodic succession discussions. They are treating board composition as a dynamic capability plan that evolves alongside the organisation. They are refreshing skills matrices against future strategy, building learning agendas across AI, cyber, ESG, risk and geopolitics, reviewing committee structures and linking succession to capability rather than tenure alone. They are also paying closer attention to board dynamics. A technically capable board can still underperform when trust is low, challenge is poorly handled or directors struggle to work together under pressure. Constructive challenge, sound judgement and the ability to listen, learn and adapt are central to effective governance. The briefs are changing Across Derwent’s Board practice, we are seeing more mandates where recent sector and functional experience is a primary driver of selection. Boards are seeking contemporary expertise in areas including technology and AI governance, audit and risk, renewables and infrastructure, capital allocation and mergers and acquisitions. The profile of who is considered “board-ready” is therefore broadening. Traditional governance experience remains valuable, but boards increasingly need directors who bring current knowledge, diverse perspectives and the ability to contribute to new and fast-moving conversations. Board search and succession planning are not simply about filling a vacant seat. They are about building a board that is ready for the future of the organisation. The strongest boards will be those that renew with intent – bringing together the experience, behaviours and perspectives required not only for today’s agenda, but for the decade ahead. ___________________________________________________________________________ If you're reviewing your board's composition, capability, or succession planning, reach out to Michelle Gardiner , Managing Partner – Board Practice, or contact us here . We'd welcome the conversation. Derwent brings together executive search, interim solutions, and board search, partnering with your organisation to find and connect the right high-impact talent to support your leadership needs, now and into the future.
By Lindsay Every • May 25, 2026
Every leader in the room on Tuesday 5 May had something in common: they are being asked to guide their organisations through a transformation they are still learning to understand themselves. That shared reality – not a technology problem, but a leadership one – set the tone for our AI & The People breakfast in Melbourne, where senior executives gathered to examine what AI transformation actually requires of organisations, their people functions, and their leaders. The internet took decades to reshape business. AI is compressing similar changes into years, sometimes months, and waiting for certainty is not an option. We were privileged to have Peter Tonagh and Jenny Bryant join us as guest speakers – both navigating this transformation firsthand, not observing it from a distance. Five themes shaped the conversation. This is a leadership moment – not a technology decision AI is not primarily a question of which tools to buy. It is a question of how value gets created in an organisation, and who takes responsibility for leading that shift. The organisations pulling ahead are not the ones that have AI figured out – they are the ones learning to experiment intelligently while others hesitate. The most effective leaders are approaching this as conductors of human-AI teams: setting direction, making judgement calls, and ensuring AI amplifies their team's capabilities rather than displacing their critical thinking. That requires adaptive leadership, evolving cultural awareness, and a genuine commitment to bringing people with them through the change. This also reframes where accountability sits within organisations. AI transformation is not an IT project. It is a workforce capability shift – which means HR, learning and development, and operational leaders need to be at the centre of it. Adoption is the constraint – not capability When senior leaders use AI visibly in their own work – for writing, analysis, and decision-making – adoption accelerates across the organisation. Where leaders delegate it to an innovation team, uptake stalls. The tone is set from the top. AI capability is advancing well ahead of organisational uptake. Most businesses already have access to powerful tools but are significantly underutilising them. The gap is not about access or functionality – it is about behaviour, confidence, and whether AI has been genuinely embedded into daily workflows. Many organisations are still treating AI as a procurement decision when it is, in reality, a usage problem. When AI tools are positioned as specialist or optional, adoption stays low and uneven. When they are treated as standard infrastructure – available to everyone, expected to be used, as commonplace as email – adoption normalises quickly. The organisation that emerges looks different As individuals become more capable with AI support, the rationale for traditional management layers is shifting. Where a manager's primary function has been information aggregation and reporting – and AI can do much of that work – the case for that layer weakens. This does not mean fewer leaders. It means leaders operating with broader remits, and decision-making moving closer to the front line. The nature of the work itself is changing too. As AI absorbs routine, process-driven tasks, roles are becoming more focused on judgement, problem definition, creativity, and communication. That shift is not straightforward – the cognitive load on people can increase, and organisations need to be realistic about supporting teams through it. As AI tools become widely available, competitive advantage is shifting to how deeply they are integrated with internal data, knowledge systems, and the specific context of the business. The proprietary knowledge organisations hold becomes more valuable, not less, when AI is properly grounded in it. That grounding requires deliberate effort and consideration – providing AI with the context of the organisation's actual situation, its people, its way of working. The organisations doing this well are building human intelligence into their models, not just deploying generic tools and expecting meaningful results. Beyond organisational structure, AI is also changing how people functions operate in practice. Leaders are using AI to support coaching conversations, sharpen performance management, and improve the quality of feedback to their teams. Used well, AI does not replace those human interactions – it helps leaders show up better in them. Build broadly before you narrow Rather than concentrating effort on a small number of high-impact use cases, the organisations making the most progress are enabling broad, distributed adoption. Hundreds of small improvements across individuals and teams compound into significant productivity gains – individually modest, collectively meaningful. The practical approach: create the conditions for open experimentation without over-structuring it early. Allow teams to test different tools, discover what’s possible for the whole business through different perspectives, styles and responsibilities, share what they are learning, and let value emerge before formalising investment decisions. More mature organisations are beginning to focus on a small number of enterprise-wide priorities – customer experience, supply chain, and contact centres among them – but they arrived there through exploration, not by picking their bets upfront. Explore widely, then narrow with evidence. Talent strategies are evolving – and so is the baseline Hiring is shifting toward the attributes that enable individuals to keep pace with change: curiosity, critical thinking, learning agility, and resilience. Technical skills are increasingly table stakes. The differentiator is how quickly someone can learn, unlearn, and relearn as tools and roles continue to evolve. Building that capability internally is more scalable than chasing scarce external talent. The organisations making progress are treating AI literacy the way organisations treated digital literacy a decade ago – as a baseline expectation built through training, coaching, and everyday use, rather than a specialism held by a small number of experts. The conversation was a reminder that the leaders thriving through this period are not waiting for certainty. They are turning uncertainty into opportunity – experimenting intelligently, bringing their people on the journey with them, and building AI fluency from the inside out across the whole workforce. Our thanks to Lindsay Every , Group Managing Partner at Derwent, for hosting the morning, and to Peter and Jenny for sharing their experience and expertise with such honesty and depth. Continue the conversation For further insights or to explore how Derwent can support your organisation's approach to AI and workforce transformation, connect with our team at melbourne@derwentsearch.com.au To register your interest in future Derwent events, please reach out to us at events@derwentsearch.com.au .
Show More
By Lindsay Every • September 23, 2026
By most measures, this is the fastest adoption of a transformative technology in human history, and the pace itself, more than the tools, is what's testing leaders right now. The question we explored at our AI & The People event in Perth last week wasn't whether to engage with AI, it was how quickly leaders could learn to work through the ambiguity it creates – adapting their leadership style and their team's dynamics on the move, without the luxury of mastering every technical detail first. A shift which asked a lot more of leaders than most changes they've led before. We were lucky to have both Peter Tonagh , Executive Chair at Quantium, and Jacky Connolly , Chief People Officer at CBH Group, join the conversation. Five key themes stood out. The energy is there. The paradox is what happens next. Most people aren't resistant to AI, they're cautious, and the caution has more to do with job security than the technology itself. Some roles changed materially enough to bring the challenge of redeployment. For most people though, roles simply changed shape, and the job for leaders is to harness that energy rather than manage it down. Underneath that sits a harder problem. The productivity paradox. Individuals are getting faster and better at their jobs with AI, but those personal gains rarely show up as enterprise level returns. Team members without proper support will find their own workaround – bringing in their own unsanctioned tools or leaving for an organisation who gives them a better one – so the case for organisations investing properly is not really a choice. Lead it from the top. Guard it just as fast. This is an organisational problem before it's a technology one. Business models are set by leaders, not technologists, and senior people being visibly comfortable using the tools is what gives everyone else permission to engage with them. The common myth is that graduate roles are most at risk, however the real risk sits with middle management – executives will become more productive and carry more direct reports, resulting in fewer layers in between. Guardrails need to be set fast rather than perfected in advance, particularly around the risk of losing intellectual property. Starting with a small set of approved tools, and expanding as trust builds, is better than waiting for a comprehensive policy before allowing any use at all. Boards need to be brought in early too, so they understand their own obligations from the start rather than being briefed after the fact. AI tools tend to agree too readily. Adjusting the settings to instruct the tool to push back and challenge assumptions, instead of defaulting to agreement, was raised as a small fix that can help improve decision quality. Bring the whole workforce. Not just the office. AI tools in organisations work when technology and people are treated as one problem. Leaders need to understand the tools well enough to drive change through them, rather than leaving it to IT alone. Frontline and operational team members matter just as much as corporate functions: practical wins like rostering and attendance carry real weight, and leaving teams behind undermines the case for AI everywhere else in the business. There is also a real shift reshaping recruitment. Hiring is moving away from purely skills-based selection towards attributes: curiosity, critical thinking, persistence, agility, and optimism. It's a genuine move back toward classical study, backed by heavier investment in structured training to bring people onto the same page. Claim the gain. Then change how you measure people. The strongest examples of AI delivering enterprise value tend to be simple and specific – one tool that is purposefully built and applied across the organisation, is better than everyone building their own individual version of the same thing. But individual productivity gains don’t redirect themselves. Organisations need to actively claim the time being freed up and decide what it's used for, rather than leaving the decision to individuals. That same discipline needs to extend to how performance is measured. Early adopters should be rewarded for bringing others along and sharing what they’ve learned, not just for their own output. A cost-out mentality, or pitting people against each other, will corrode culture quickly. Redesign the work. Don’t just hand out the toolkit. The most common mistake organisations make is retooling an existing process rather than redesigning the work itself. Give someone an AI tool without rethinking their role, and the result is usually chaos, not efficiency. The real gains come from pairing someone who understands the AI tools with someone who deeply understands the work, then letting them rebuild roles and workflows together from first principles. New competitors are already emerging built exactly this way – a key consideration for any organisations still only automating. One example was given of a leader building a personal "digital twin", an AI trained specifically on their tone, feedback style, and decision-making patterns. It was developed over approximately 200 hours, though the benefit was felt within the first couple of hours of use. Six leadership principles had already been documented; the AI was then used to interview and draw out roughly 30 more. The tool is now used for communications, coaching a wider team, and personally – including when weighing a difficult decision while tired. The organisations that get this right won't be the ones with the best AI. They'll be the ones whose leaders go first – closing the gap between individual and enterprise gains, setting guardrails fast, bringing the whole workforce with them, and redesigning the work rather than just the toolkit. _________________________________________________________________________ Our thanks to Lindsay Every , Group Managing Partner at Derwent, for hosting the morning, and to Peter and Jacky for such generous, on-the-ground insight into what AI adoption looks like. A special thanks to Julie Colvin , Managing Partner – Perth, and our Perth team for their support in bringing this event to life. Continue the conversation For further insights or to explore how Derwent can support your organisation's approach to AI and workforce transformation, connect with our team at perth@derwentsearch.com.au To register your interest in future Derwent events, please reach out to us at events@derwentsearch.com.au .
By Michelle Gardiner • August 19, 2026
The boardroom has changed. Permanently. The issues filling board agendas today are not temporary disruptions. They are the operating environment. AI, cyber risk, geopolitical instability, regulation, climate exposure and cost volatility are reshaping how organisations compete, invest and make decisions. For boards, the expectations have changed. Directors are being asked to understand more, engage more deeply and bring increasingly relevant experience to the table. Regulators, investors and other stakeholders are also looking more closely at whether boards are equipped for what lies ahead. The question is no longer simply whether a board is well governed. It is whether the board has the right mix of capability, judgement and adaptability to lead the organisation into its next chapter. The capability conversation is changing Credentials and experience remain important, but they are no longer enough on their own. Curiosity, adaptability and a willingness to keep learning are becoming equally valuable. AI is a clear example. Directors do not need to become technologists, but they do need enough understanding to ask informed questions about risk, ethics, data, accountability and return on investment. Cyber security and data governance present a similar challenge. These issues now sit firmly within board accountability. Scenario planning, crisis preparedness and understanding where the organisation’s exposures lie are no longer occasional agenda items. They are part of the boards regular rhythm. Renewal cannot wait for a vacancy Strong board renewal starts with future strategy. What capabilities will be required over the next five to ten years? Which risks will become more material? Where does the board need deeper commercial, functional or sector experience? Which perspectives may be missing? These questions are more useful than simply asking whose term is ending next. The most effective boards are moving beyond static skills matrices and periodic succession discussions. They are treating board composition as a dynamic capability plan that evolves alongside the organisation. They are refreshing skills matrices against future strategy, building learning agendas across AI, cyber, ESG, risk and geopolitics, reviewing committee structures and linking succession to capability rather than tenure alone. They are also paying closer attention to board dynamics. A technically capable board can still underperform when trust is low, challenge is poorly handled or directors struggle to work together under pressure. Constructive challenge, sound judgement and the ability to listen, learn and adapt are central to effective governance. The briefs are changing Across Derwent’s Board practice, we are seeing more mandates where recent sector and functional experience is a primary driver of selection. Boards are seeking contemporary expertise in areas including technology and AI governance, audit and risk, renewables and infrastructure, capital allocation and mergers and acquisitions. The profile of who is considered “board-ready” is therefore broadening. Traditional governance experience remains valuable, but boards increasingly need directors who bring current knowledge, diverse perspectives and the ability to contribute to new and fast-moving conversations. Board search and succession planning are not simply about filling a vacant seat. They are about building a board that is ready for the future of the organisation. The strongest boards will be those that renew with intent – bringing together the experience, behaviours and perspectives required not only for today’s agenda, but for the decade ahead. ___________________________________________________________________________ If you're reviewing your board's composition, capability, or succession planning, reach out to Michelle Gardiner , Managing Partner – Board Practice, or contact us here . We'd welcome the conversation. Derwent brings together executive search, interim solutions, and board search, partnering with your organisation to find and connect the right high-impact talent to support your leadership needs, now and into the future.
More Posts