Larry McAlisterTHE POWER TO TRANSFORMStart a conversation

AI Decision Review for HR leaders

Turn one AI decision into a brief leaders can act on.

The AI Decision Review is a conversation and advisory engagement with me, Larry McAlister. Bring one AI or HR technology decision. We’ll connect the business outcome to what must change in the work, who owns it, and what the evidence supports.

You do not need a completed brief or access to a tool to start. The HR leader closest to the work brings the context; the CHRO, CPO, or executive sponsor owns the decision.

Discuss an AI decision with Larry See a fictional sample brief

From Larry McAlister, author of The Power to Transform and a three-time head of HR.

Two roles. One decision.

Brings the working context
A senior leader in People, HR transformation, talent, or HR technology. I help them challenge the assumptions and shape the recommendation.
Owns the decision
The CHRO, CPO, or executive sponsor who can challenge the recommendation and commit the organization.
What they use
A concise working brief showing the outcome, evidence, unknowns, accountable owner, and next move.

When to use it

Use it before the decision becomes expensive.

Bring a decision the organization needs to make. Involve Finance, IT, Operations, Legal, or another operating owner when their authority or evidence is needed.

If your challenge is a broader talent or workforce decision, we can discuss the right advisory scope.

How it works

Connect the decision to the work.

The Golden Thread starts with the business outcome, then connects it to the everyday work and conditions required to deliver it.

  1. Name the outcome

    Start with the business result—not the tool, vendor, or activity.

  2. Look at the work

    Identify what must change in everyday work, behavior, and decisions.

  3. Test ownership and evidence

    Make the accountable owner visible and separate what is reported from what the evidence supports.

  4. Frame the next decision

    Turn the finding, unknowns, next move, and executive ask into one usable brief.

Evidence keeps the conversation honest. A plan can establish intent. It does not, by itself, establish changed behavior, accountable ownership, adoption, or business impact.

What we agree before working together

We agree the decision to examine, the people involved, the information we can use, and the useful output. Any document review, stakeholder conversations, or deeper analysis must be part of that agreed scope. A working brief distinguishes reported information from evidence examined and makes unknowns visible. It is not a certification or a guarantee of results; accountable leaders retain the decision.

Fictional sample

See the level of clarity you can take into the room.

This example shows the shape of the output, not a customer result or advice about a real organization.

A useful brief does not manufacture certainty. Missing evidence stays missing. An unnamed owner remains an issue to resolve.

A fictional executive brief

Illustrative scenario only

Decision
Whether to expand an AI copilot from a 200-person HR test to the full function.
Intended outcome
Improve the speed and quality of routine employee support.
Provisional finding
Based on the information described here, hold the scale decision. Usage has been reported; better work quality and service have not yet been established.
Evidence on hand
Login and use reports from the test group.
Known unknowns
Answer quality, time saved, employee impact, and manager confidence.
Accountable owner
Not yet named.
Next move
Name an evidence-plan owner and propose a four-week review of answer quality, service time, and employee experience. The period is illustrative and needs the sponsor’s agreement.
Review date
Not yet agreed. Set it when the sponsor approves the owner and evidence plan.
Proposed decision gate
  • Continue toward expansion: the owner is named and the sponsor accepts evidence against quality, service, and employee-impact criteria agreed before the review.
  • Change the approach: results are mixed or work practices need adjustment; revise the test and review again.
  • Stop or pause: material risks remain unresolved, required quality is not met, or no accountable owner can be assigned.
Executive ask
Agree the owner, evidence criteria, review date, and decision conditions before considering expansion.

Experience behind the questions

I’ve had to connect the strategy to the work.

At NetApp, I led global talent and helped build Thrive: a connected approach to performance conversations, coaching, learning, and career opportunities. That experience shapes the questions I bring to an AI decision.

The NetApp story shows why technology choices need an operating context and people who can use them. It is historical implementation evidence, not a promised result for your organization.

Read the NetApp implementation story (opens in a new tab)

Fuel50 · 2021

More about Larry’s experience

Work with Larry

Start with the decision in front of you.

You can bring thin evidence, unclear ownership, or a difficult tradeoff. We can start there. You do not need to finish the review before asking for help.

Discuss an AI decision with Larry

This public website has no assessment form and does not store decision details. Share only a short, non-confidential outline by email. Read the privacy note.

Interested in the optional guided tool?

The guided tool is not public, and you do not need it to work with me. You can ask about a future test. Any invitation will explain participation and information handling; a request alone does not grant access.

Ask about testing the guided tool