When I joined John A. Logan College as Assistant Vice President of Human Resources in August 2023, one of my first responsibilities was to review the College’s human resource practices and procedures.
I expected to uncover opportunities for improvement. Instead, I uncovered a question.
I’ve always been a questioner. Not because I’m defiant. Not because I’m looking for flaws in the answer. I ask why because understanding matters to me. Before I can improve a process, redesign a system, or help others navigate change, I need to understand what exists today. What is working? What isn’t? What are people experiencing that the data alone cannot reveal?
By nature, I am analytical. I am a learner, a processor, and someone who looks for patterns and connections. Those tendencies have served me well in both project management and human resources. The question “why” has helped me break through barriers more often than any project plan ever has.
As I began reviewing our HR practices, I quickly realized that many of the tools organizations typically rely upon to create clarity were either inconsistent, outdated, or unable to tell the full story. Organizational charts provided structure, but not understanding. Job descriptions existed, but many were so generic that they failed to accurately describe the work employees performed every day.
As someone who strongly believes in integrated HR and in using data and insights to drive decision-making, I found that frustrating. If I was struggling to understand the work, the structure, and the expectations, I could only imagine how employees felt.
At about the same time, our office support staff approached Human Resources with a request. They wanted to revisit their evaluation process. They wanted evaluations that reflected the work they were actually doing.
It was a reasonable request.
But my response surprised them.
“How do we redesign an evaluation process when we cannot clearly articulate the work being evaluated?”
The form wasn’t the problem. Clarity was.
As we continued talking, another reality emerged. Employees often lacked opportunities for regular conversations about expectations. Supervisors approached the work differently across departments. The same position title could mean different things depending on where someone worked. People wanted to be evaluated fairly, but first, they wanted to understand what success looked like.
The more I listened, the more convinced I became that we could not solve these challenges from a conference room. We had to start by listening.
We began with brief conversations with our support staff leadership. From there, we designed a collaborative process. We met in small groups with support staff, then in small groups with supervisors, and then brought supervisors and support staff together in joint small groups. We developed the position descriptions collaboratively, and we followed up in one-on-one meetings.
When I shared that plan, the reaction was predictable.
The Question
“How are you possibly going to do that?”
The answer was simple. I wasn’t trying to move fast. I was trying to move forward.
Speed and Progress Are Not the Same Thing
One of the lessons I’ve learned through distance running is that speed and progress are not always the same thing. Anyone can sprint for a short distance. The challenge is sustaining effort long enough to reach a destination that matters.
I’ve often viewed running as training for life. The discipline required to prepare for a race is not built during the event itself. It is built through consistent effort day after day, week after week, long before anyone sees the results.
Organizational change works the same way.
“Most people see the milestones. What they don’t see are the countless conversations, adjustments, follow-ups, and small decisions that happen between those milestones.”
Those moments are where change either gains momentum or quietly begins to fade. A single conversation, a clarified expectation, an employee who finally feels heard: none of it makes headlines. Together, it creates the conditions for change that lasts.
What the Documents Confirmed
What began as a discussion about evaluations ultimately became something much larger. The conversations revealed a need for greater clarity around roles, expectations, responsibilities, and purpose.
The documents confirmed it. When I reviewed all forty-eight of our support staff position descriptions, minimum qualifications were present in every one of them. Not one of them identified decision-making authority.
What Was Missing
Our job descriptions told people which credentials they needed to hold. None of them told people what they were allowed to decide.
Clarity about credentials is not the same as clarity about authority. You can hire people who meet every qualification and still leave them unable to act.
That process became the foundation of what we now call the Workforce Clarity Initiative. It is designed to flow into each of the College’s employee groups, and we are now moving into our Cabinet-member positions. More importantly, those conversations revealed a workforce that wanted to contribute to the solution if given the opportunity.
Looking back, I understand those conversations differently than I did at the time. They were not a step we took before the trust-building could begin. They were the trust-building.
The Role HR Is Uniquely Positioned to Play
That experience reinforced something I have come to believe about the role of Human Resources.
Leaders provide vision. Consultants offer expertise and frameworks. But someone inside the organization must carry the work forward once the meeting ends and the presentation is over. Someone must maintain momentum, keep asking questions, and connect people back to the purpose behind the effort. Someone must remain committed to the long game.
In many organizations, that responsibility falls to Human Resources.
Not Ownership — Stewardship
Not because HR should own every initiative, but because HR is uniquely positioned to serve as the bridge between people, process, and purpose. Much of that work happens behind the scenes. It rarely attracts attention and often receives little recognition.
And that’s okay.
Servant leadership teaches us that meaningful leadership is not always about being at the front of the room. Sometimes it is about creating the conditions for others to succeed. Sometimes it is about listening when others are speaking. Sometimes it is about staying focused on the work long after the excitement of a new initiative has passed.
“Change is rarely sustained by the people who announce it. It is sustained by the people who continue showing up for it every day.”
Like distance running, there is never really a finish line. The habits that prepare you for one race are the same habits that prepare you for the next. Stop training, and progress begins to disappear. The same is true for organizations.
Trust requires continual investment.
Clarity requires continual attention.
Growth requires continual commitment.
The work is never finished. And perhaps that is exactly why it matters.