Featuring scholarly and practitioner insights from HR and people leaders, industry experts, and researchers.

In this HCI Webinar, Dr. Jonathan H. Westover talks with James Davies about how to evolve your style when your team, culture, or market changes. James Davies is the Chief Executive Officer of Kinetic Data, a Minneapolis-based software company focused on empowering organizations to deliver unified digital experiences across complex technology ecosystems. With over a decade at Kinetic, James has helped evolve the company from its workflow roots into a leader in digital experience platforms serving both enterprise and government sectors. Before assuming the CEO role, James served in multiple operational and leadership capacities, shaping the company’s growth strategy, culture, and partner ecosystem. Under his leadership, Kinetic Data reorganized around four key pillars—Growth, Product, Success, and Operations—creating an agile, scalable structure designed to drive collaboration and efficiency. James is known for his transparent and people-first leadership style, often communicating directly with employees through his “Friday Thoughts” updates—open reflections on company direction, lessons learned, and team progress. His approach blends operational discipline with an emphasis on empowerment and trust, traits that have earned him recognition for cultivating both performance and authenticity inside growing tech organizations An advocate for sustainable growth and innovation, James is passionate about bridging the gap between legacy systems and modern experiences—particularly within government and large-scale enterprises. He also champions the “low-code revolution,” believing that empowering small teams to build and adapt workflows quickly is key to organizational agility. A graduate of James Madison University, James credits his alma mater with shaping his collaborative, team-first mindset. Outside of work, he’s known for drawing leadership parallels to his love of restoring classic Toyota Land Cruisers—symbols, to him, of durability, reliability, and purpose-driven engineering.

This presentation explores the global trust gap regarding artificial intelligence, arguing that institutional legitimacy is more critical for adoption than technological capability. The research suggests that public skepticism in developed nations stems from concerns over distributive fairness and the potential for economic exploitation. To overcome this resistance, organizations must prioritize procedural justice by involving stakeholders in decision-making and ensuring gains from automation are shared equitably. Successful implementation requires a shift from top-down management to transparent communication and robust support for worker transitions. Ultimately, the source concludes that AI thrives only when people believe the technology serves a collective purpose rather than merely enriching a few.

Abstract: Global attitudes toward artificial intelligence reveal a paradox: nations leading AI development express greater skepticism, while countries historically cautious about Western innovation show remarkable optimism. This divergence reflects not technological literacy but deeper questions about institutional trust, distributional fairness, and whether citizens believe they will benefit from disruption. Drawing on comparative innovation studies, organizational justice research, and economic sociology, this article argues that AI adoption succeeds or fails based on the perceived legitimacy of the systems deploying it. Organizations cannot technology-manage their way past institutional distrust. The article examines how distributive fairness, procedural transparency, and psychological contracts shape technology acceptance, offering evidence-based strategies for building technology governance that stakeholders experience as inclusive rather than extractive.

The video addresses a critical and complex issue of our time: the question of trust in artificial intelligence (AI). Rather than focusing on the technology itself, the core challenge lies in the social trust placed in institutions and leaders who develop and deploy AI systems. Intriguingly, countries leading technological innovation tend to exhibit greater skepticism about AI, while less technologically advanced regions often demonstrate more optimism. This paradox is rooted not in technical understanding but in differing experiences with social and economic impacts of technology. Highlights 🤖 The central issue with AI is not technology itself but public trust in those who control it. 🌍 Advanced economies show greater skepticism toward AI compared to developing regions, reflecting different lived experiences. ⚖️ Trust in AI depends on fairness, transparency, and respect from institutions deploying it. 💼 AI-driven efficiency can harm workers’ autonomy and dignity, undermining trust. 🛑 Public resistance is strongest when AI replaces human judgment without accountability. 🏛️ Three pillars of justice—distributive, procedural, and interactional—are critical to building trust in automated systems. 🔍 Organizations must commit to radical transparency and human-centered appeal processes to foster trust. Key Insights 🔐 Trust is the true currency in AI adoption: The video emphasizes that the fundamental barrier to AI acceptance is not a lack of understanding of the technology but a deficit of trust in the institutions that deploy it. This insight redirects the conversation from technical capabilities to governance, ethics, and social contract, underscoring that AI’s future depends heavily on rebuilding institutional trust. 🌐 The global trust paradox reveals socio-economic divides: Wealthy, tech-savvy countries paradoxically exhibit more skepticism toward AI, while less developed regions tend to be more hopeful. This phenomenon reflects deeper societal experiences with inequality and economic insecurity, rather than ignorance or naivety. It highlights how historical and structural factors shape perceptions of emerging technologies. ⚙️ Efficiency without empathy erodes social trust: The example of AI-driven labor scheduling shows that while algorithms can optimize costs and productivity, they often do so at the expense of workers’ control over their lives. This trade-off illustrates how technological efficiency alone cannot substitute for humane treatment and respect, which are essential to maintaining trust and stability in workplaces. 🗣️ Human oversight and appeal mechanisms are essential: The difference between a tool that assists a human decision-maker versus one that replaces them is profound. Trust requires that affected individuals have avenues to understand, question, and appeal AI-driven decisions. Without these procedural safeguards, AI risks becoming a source of alienation and social backlash. ⚖️ Three pillars of justice provide a roadmap for ethical AI: Distributive justice focuses on equitable sharing of benefits, procedural justice demands transparency and fairness in decision-making rules, and interactional justice requires empathy and respect in interpersonal interactions. Together, these pillars form a comprehensive framework to assess and guide AI implementation in socially sensitive domains. 🛠️ Building trust requires deliberate organizational effort: Trust is not automatic but must be actively cultivated. The video outlines practical steps such as radical explanation of AI processes, clear disclosure of data usage, and robust human appeal rights. This approach reframes AI governance as an ongoing social contract that must be negotiated and maintained through openness and accountability. 🌱 Social memory shapes AI expectations: People’s past experiences with technology-driven economic shifts influence their reception of AI. In advanced economies where gains have disproportionately benefited capital owners, AI is often viewed with suspicion as a force for inequality. Recognizing this “social memory” is crucial for policymakers and technologists aiming to design AI systems that are perceived as fair and inclusive. Ideal for leaders, HR, product managers, and policy makers who want “trust-first, tech-second” deployment frameworks. Like and share if this helps your AI strategy. #AIgovernance #AItust #OrganizationalJustice #AIethics #AIadoption OUTLINE: 00:00:00 - Trust First, Tech Second 00:01:22 - The Global Trust Paradox to Three Pillars 00:02:49 - Three Pillars, Steps, and Path Forward

In this HCI Webinar, Dr. Jonathan H. Westover talks with Josefine Campbell about developing your strengths to create a positive change. Josefine Campbell is a distinguished executive coach, educator, and inspirational speaker who empowers multinational leaders, companies, and employees to unleash their full potential. Through meaningful conversations, she elevates clients' situations by maintaining an open, non-judgmental mindset, sharing data-driven insights that challenge conventional thinking, and emphasizing actionable outcomes that create tangible impact.

This conversation explores the global trust gap regarding artificial intelligence, arguing that institutional legitimacy is more critical for adoption than technological capability. They suggest that public skepticism in developed nations stems from concerns over distributive fairness and the potential for economic exploitation. To overcome this resistance, organizations must prioritize procedural justice by involving stakeholders in decision-making and ensuring gains from automation are shared equitably. Successful implementation requires a shift from top-down management to transparent communication and robust support for worker transitions. Ultimately, the source concludes that AI thrives only when people believe the technology serves a collective purpose rather than merely enriching a few. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this podcast episode, Dr. Jonathan H. Westover talks with James Davies about how to evolve your style when your team, culture, or market changes. James Davies is the Chief Executive Officer of Kinetic Data, a Minneapolis-based software company focused on empowering organizations to deliver unified digital experiences across complex technology ecosystems. With over a decade at Kinetic, James has helped evolve the company from its workflow roots into a leader in digital experience platforms serving both enterprise and government sectors. Before assuming the CEO role, James served in multiple operational and leadership capacities, shaping the company’s growth strategy, culture, and partner ecosystem. Under his leadership, Kinetic Data reorganized around four key pillars—Growth, Product, Success, and Operations—creating an agile, scalable structure designed to drive collaboration and efficiency. James is known for his transparent and people-first leadership style, often communicating directly with employees through his “Friday Thoughts” updates—open reflections on company direction, lessons learned, and team progress. His approach blends operational discipline with an emphasis on empowerment and trust, traits that have earned him recognition for cultivating both performance and authenticity inside growing tech organizations An advocate for sustainable growth and innovation, James is passionate about bridging the gap between legacy systems and modern experiences—particularly within government and large-scale enterprises. He also champions the “low-code revolution,” believing that empowering small teams to build and adapt workflows quickly is key to organizational agility. A graduate of James Madison University, James credits his alma mater with shaping his collaborative, team-first mindset. Outside of work, he’s known for drawing leadership parallels to his love of restoring classic Toyota Land Cruisers—symbols, to him, of durability, reliability, and purpose-driven engineering. Check out all of the podcasts in the HCI Podcast Network (https://www.podbean.com/podcast-network/HCI) !

This video explores the often invisible but critical emotional labor that university leaders must perform alongside their formal managerial duties. While the visible aspects of leadership—budget management, strategic planning, and operational oversight—are well recognized, the emotional dimension of leadership remains underappreciated and under-supported. University leaders, including provosts, deans, and department chairs, constantly manage their own feelings and those of their diverse campus communities, ranging from anxious students to frustrated faculty. This emotional labor involves adopting different strategies—surface acting, deep acting, or enduring emotional dissonance—to align their internal emotions with the external demands of their roles. Highlights 🎭 University leaders perform a hidden but heavy emotional labor alongside managerial tasks. 🔄 Emotional labor strategies include surface acting, deep acting, and emotional dissonance. 🚀 Rapid change and financial pressures amplify the emotional demands on campus leaders. 💔 Emotional exhaustion leads to high leadership turnover and institutional instability. 🌍 Women and underrepresented groups experience heightened identity strain in leadership roles. 🛠 Five domains for action: transparent communication, fairness, leadership skills, role design, well-being support. 💡 Emotional labor must be recognized as legitimate work with structural support and recovery. Key Insights 🎭 The Dual Role of University Leaders: Managerial and Emotional University leaders are not only tasked with operational and strategic responsibilities but also with the continuous management of their own emotions and those of their campus communities. This dual role is mentally demanding and often overlooked, yet it is crucial for maintaining institutional harmony and progress. Leaders must frequently mask their true feelings to present calm and control, which requires immense emotional regulation. 🎭 Three Masks of Emotional Labor: Surface Acting, Deep Acting, and Emotional Dissonance The transcript identifies three emotional labor strategies: surface acting (faking emotions), deep acting (trying to genuinely feel the required emotions), and emotional dissonance (holding conflicting internal and external emotions). Each approach carries psychological costs, with deep acting demanding more emotional bandwidth and dissonance leading to long-term strain and burnout. 🔄 Escalating Pressures in Higher Education Amplify Emotional Demands Higher education is undergoing rapid, multifaceted transformation—demographic shifts, adoption of AI and other technologies, and changing societal expectations create an environment of constant disruption. Leaders must simultaneously champion innovation and steward tradition, a balancing act that intensifies emotional whiplash and requires sophisticated emotional labor to navigate successfully. 💰 Financial Constraints Compound Emotional Labor Challenges Declining public funding, tuition dependencies, and rising costs force leaders to make difficult budget cuts and decisions that provoke fear, anger, and grief among faculty and students. The emotional burden of delivering and managing the fallout of these decisions weighs heavily on leadership, often without adequate institutional support. 💔 Consequences of Ignoring Emotional Labor: Turnover, Stagnation, and Personal Harm When institutions neglect the emotional labor of leadership, they face costly turnover of key figures like deans and provosts, disrupting continuity and signaling instability to stakeholders. Emotionally exhausted leaders tend to adopt short-term fixes and avoid challenging conversations, hindering innovation. Personally, these leaders suffer from exhaustion, health problems, and identity strain, especially women and minority leaders, causing loss of talent and diversity. 💡 Recalibrating the Psychological Contract and Institutional Culture The video stresses the need to redefine the implicit psychological contract between institutions and their leaders by recognizing emotional labor as legitimate, essential work requiring support and recovery. This includes building cultures of continuous learning, encouraging reflection and support-seeking, and establishing sustainable contribution norms to preserve leadership vitality and institutional health. If this helped you, please like and share to spread awareness. #HigherEd #EmotionalLabor #Leadership #Wellbeing #UniversityAdministration #AcademicLeadership OUTLINE: 00:00:00 - The Unseen Second Job 00:00:37 - Masks, Moments, and Dissonance 00:01:43 - The Three Masks of Campus Leadership 00:02:52 - The Modern Pressure Cooker 00:03:57 - Costs and Five Ways Forward 00:05:12 - From Invisible to Sustainable