Get clear
on the bigger problems
you are trying
to solve
In our latest Up-Close interview, we speak with Ross Seychell, former Chief People Officer at Personio and Wise, and former VP, People at King.
To start us off, can you please give us a sense of your journey and then how that journey has shaped who you are as a People leader?
Of course. I was recently discussing with someone that this year, I'll have been in the HR world for about 25 years, which feels like a lengthy journey. I don't know where the years went, but I began my career while at university, essentially as a working student in the learning and talent development space. The driving force for me, then and now, has been helping to unlock potential in others. This motivation has evolved in different sizes and shapes throughout my career progression. Initially, I had plans to be a language teacher or something similar. However, during my university years, as I engaged in this work, I decided that I'd like to move into another industry. I began my career in consulting after completing full-time studies. In the earlier stages of my career, I was thoughtful about where I could learn the most, focusing on skilled organisations and more international businesses where I could learn from amazing people. I spent some time in the telecom and media sectors, working with T-Mobile and Virgin. Later, I transitioned to Tesco, which presented a significant challenge due to its cultural differences from where I had been for the first ten years of my career. Although I enjoyed my time there, I felt the desire to be in a more scrappy type environment. The second part of my career has been marked by a deep enjoyment of working in hypergrowth scaling businesses. I've been deliberate about the sectors I choose, and in the world of HR and people, you can work in various areas and industries. Moving from digital banking to international money transfer to gaming, and most recently to HR, which felt like a fitting place to conclude my executive career — being in HR and leading an HR platform business.
With your experience across both established businesses and scale up businesses, what have you taken away from those experiences to make you the leader that you are today and how have those learnings shaped your approach to the People function?
One is around having a big picture and being able to articulate that so getting clear on the bigger problems you're trying to solve. I was lucky to learn in large organisations how to build inspiration and motivation for thousands or tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people. Then, taking that into a more start-up, scale-up environment, where vision and inspiration are crucial, but you're also building and adapting on the fly. So, it's an individual learning process. Through many mistakes, I've discovered how to balance both sides of this dichotomy because you need both aspects in all environments. In start-ups and scale-ups, it's about lifting yourself up, looking ahead as far as you need to, and then working side by side with teams as you build them. The second key lesson for me as a leader has been about vulnerability and authenticity. In larger organisations, I was fortunate to work with people who were open, vulnerable, and shared their learnings, mistakes, and their whole selves. However, this openness was more prevalent in what I would describe as a corporate or professional environment where a certain image and profile were accepted. Shifting into the world of start-ups and scale-ups, I've learned to be more authentic over the years, embracing my whole self and sharing as much as I feel comfortable. Being vulnerable with my team, the company at large, as well as with my peer group and boss, has allowed us to emulate that behaviour and foster a more supportive environment. These are a couple of things I've learned along the way that have shaped me as a leader.
Picking up on your last comment around vulnerability, do you think that is more of a dichotomy between big and small business or is it more of a timing element as in recent years, it has become something a bit more prevalent?
I think there's still a shift occurring, and you can see how leadership has evolved over the last few years. The level of transparency expected within organisations has changed, and this applies not only to startups and scale-ups but also to large organisations. Transparency is now more anticipated. The traditional top-down communication hierarchy, where questioning your boss was discouraged, has shifted away in many environments, though some still adhere to it, particularly in more traditional sectors. So, there is a timing element, and I believe this will persist for organisations aiming to attract the best talent. Emerging professionals, whether entering more traditional or professional services environments, have different expectations now. In an environment where there isn't always a playbook, where you're building and running simultaneously, and decisions are made in the open, visibility is heightened. Especially in the past few years, decisions have been made with limited information due to circumstances like the pandemic and economic changes. In smaller businesses, there's potentially less room to hide, if that's the right way to perceive it. In contrast, larger businesses may have a different cadence and pace, offering more room to manoeuvre. In a smaller hypergrowth setting, the pace remains fast, necessitating quick movement.
Generally speaking, what do you think makes a great Chief People Officer?
I'd say the first pillar is your level of commercial reality. I emphasise this first because it's not the most important, but it's surprising how some of my peers and mentees struggle with it. I find that some may not know enough about their organisation, how things work—whether it's the product or service offered, the company's strategic outlook, marketing plan, financials, or even the product roadmap. Chief People Officers who are more progressive and impactful tend to have a stronger commercial understanding of their business. Secondly, it's about leading with real empathy. Sometimes, Chief People Officers who lean too far into commercial reality can forget that they are dealing with people, not just job titles. It's challenging, especially when making decisions at the top of the organisational hierarchy. Leading with empathy doesn't always mean showing sympathy or catering to employees' needs, but rather being open and understanding of what's happening around you. This involves embracing vulnerability. The third aspect is the external world—bringing real thought leadership and insights about industry trends, networking, and upskilling. For example, understanding the impact of AI on the organisation and incorporating that knowledge into strategic planning at both team and executive levels. Lastly, the fourth pillar revolves around the external piece, specifically the relationship with the board and investors. Successful Chief People Officers understand their stakeholders, which may vary in different places. They are often involved in running remuneration committees, contributing to board nominations, and addressing broader organisational effectiveness. This includes strategy planning, goal setting, communication, and, of course, people-related topics. Board members and investors, particularly in public businesses, are increasingly aware of the importance of an engaged and productive workforce and a strong employer brand. These are the aspects that I believe define the best Chief People Officers.
“I do feel like we're in a step-change moment or a kind of Faraday moment of automation, looking at how we use tooling more effectively, not just with Gen AI but more holistically.”
In the last 10 or 15 years, what do you think the biggest changes have been in terms of the role of the People leader?
If I think back 10 or 15 years ago, it was much more about running the HR team at whatever level, and perhaps coaching the CEO, founders, or executive team members to drive the right decisions in their organisations. Probably focusing on keeping the company free from potential future risks related to people topics, with a more legally slanted focus on Employee Relations at a high level. I believe these topics are still very important, but they have become table stakes – something that needs to be done, a baseline expectation. Additionally, when running an organisation, there's a need to consider automation, tooling, technology architecture, and how data is utilised. All of these aspects have grown more significant over the years. The other part is that I notice more progressive founders, CEOs, and new chairpersons are seeking specific attributes when hiring for such roles. This, I believe, is a key difference. The table stakes involve things you just can't get wrong in any role—you must keep up with hiring plans, ensure effective onboarding, and accurately process payroll. Failure in these areas can lead to dissatisfaction within the organisation. Once these foundational aspects are in place, the other components can be addressed.
“The table stakes involve things you just can't get wrong in any role—you must keep up with hiring plans, ensure effective onboarding, and accurately process payroll”
Where do you expect the biggest changes to happen within the function and which areas do you feel are going to be subject to the most change in the next five years or so?
I do feel like we're in a step-change moment or a kind of Faraday moment of automation, looking at how we use tooling more effectively, not just with Gen AI but more holistically. I think this has sparked the topic again of how you really look at people operations, not just as a separate entity, but as part of the entire unit teams for people experience. So, holistically, that's one part. The second one is the people experience and people as a product, which I think is emerging and will be more realised. At the moment, that approach of looking at people like a product and applying the same logic of how to best develop that experience is more of a nice concept but will continue to develop. Some of this will come with technology and automation, while other aspects may involve rethinking how work is done and where the focus is set. Thirdly, there is definitely a shift in how talent acquisition works. I see more organisations trying to achieve a better balance between the central and decentralised approach. Over the last year, talent acquisition has become a focal point for organisations, and the trend is shifting towards sustainability. Teams and leaders within the business are taking more ownership, reducing the reliance on large talent acquisition teams within HR. Automation and tooling are playing a significant role in this transformation. Lastly, I want to mention reward topics. It's always been a bit of a black box unless you're privy to the inner workings of reward philosophy and frameworks for your company—where does the data come from? There has been more openness, but upcoming legislation in a couple of years will drive pay transparency. By mid-2026, there will be specific requirements across Europe, including the UK, to showcase how reward decisions are made, including pay benchmarks and salary bands. This legislation is also going to address issues like gender pay and other aspects of pay disparity related to various backgrounds or protected characteristics. So I think the whole reward topic is expected to become more open-sourced, and companies will need to lean into this change. If approached merely as a checkbox, I think it will raise questions and concerns within organisations so this transformation is something we'll likely see unfold in the years ahead.
What is your view on the post COVID hybrid working debate? Obviously, some companies are going fully remote while others are pushing for more time in the office, so what are your thoughts on this topic?
When we developed our principles or framework at Personio, we said, "this has to connect very firmly back into the culture of the organisation and the type of company we're trying to build." Because then when you explain it to someone, whether it's one-on-one or en masse, then it's easy to say, "this is why and here's why we value x and this decision we're making." The worry sometimes is that some people point to other organisations and say, "they're doing that, therefore we should as well." That's one thing. The second is people managers, and I've been there as well. Sometimes there are some people managers that think, "I can see someone on my team, I feel more comfortable that they're contributing or they're having an impact." Personally, that is not my view. If you set the right goals and objectives, it shouldn't matter because then you should be able to see the outputs for that person. My view is I think it should be the best of both worlds. Unless you're a fully remote company and you've built your company that way and you've actually got all the systems, processes, rhythms, and culture to support that. I've seen some companies try to force it, and it's not working because they don't have it setup that way. So you still have some people who are yearning for that time together, but for me, I think the best approach is where you have the best of both worlds for those that can. Obviously, some are unable to as I’ve talked to people who lead teams in retailing or manufacturing and they have to be at work every day. Finding flexibility for them, I think, is important so that it doesn't feel like if you're a knowledge worker or you're in a certain industry, you get the benefit. And then within a company, you have to then define what does “the best of both” mean for you. I think it's good to take reference from lots of people and benchmark, but then make your own decision based on the culture you want to create. The last thing I'll say is we're going to keep seeing this as a trend and a topic and it’s going to be around for a long, long time. So I always counsel colleagues, or even in our own organisation that this isn't one and done. We'll come back to it and we shouldn't say this is what we're like forever. We should say that actually over the next year, as the company grows, we're going to expand into different geographies, and we might decide at certain points that are different working models, right? But we'll always talk about it, gather feedback, and in the end, someone has to make a decision or people have to make a decision. So that would be my thoughts on it.
How do you keep up to date with the latest tools, tech, trends etc.? Do you have any resources, networks, podcasts that you tap into?
I think the biggest one that I found helpful for me is my own network. I was involved in setting up a group of Chief People Officers and People VPs about three and a half years ago through the pandemic. We've expanded, and we have about 300 people as part of it now. It's like an invitation-only group, ensuring we have the right level and scope of individuals. We organise events, provide resources, sponsor initiatives, and focus on specific themes as a group. The main aspect is that we have a network where we actively share insights, benchmarks, and ask questions. This has been really useful for me to gain insight into what's happening and trends that are emerging. As for other resources, I generally try to find HR-specific materials that are exceptional. I subscribe to Harvard Business Review, which covers a great number of people and culture-related topics. It also includes a lot of general business content, which I find important for staying commercially aware and understanding broader trends. Another valuable resource is a mail group called Human Times. You can sign up online, select your region and receive mailshots whenever you want. It's a great way to stay informed about legislation changes, company updates, emerging trends, and articles from various sources. These are the main ones I've been using in real-time for the past couple of years. Additionally, asking people in your network if they're reading something useful is another approach. I've generally found that when focusing on a specific topic in the companies I've worked with, there's often a recommended read. For example, when resetting our behaviours within Personio before I left, we focused on a behaviour related to character challenge. I revisited "Radical Candor" and had Ken Scott come in as part of the launch. So, opportunistically exploring relevant topics and seeking recommendations from others have been part of my varied sources.
What are the KPIs that you feel have mattered most in the businesses that you have been in?
For me, it depends on the company, what stage it's at, and what's important to them. Some of that information is derived from people metrics and data, allowing me to understand, "Okay, this is an area we need to focus on," or it could be about identifying what's key. In the last year, for instance, in a hyper-growth setting, what has been crucial for me is focusing on our attraction and hiring metrics. Specifically, looking at the quality of applications to ensure that we are reaching the right people. To do this, we look at the number of applications that get through to the second stage and through the initial screening. We look at our top of the funnel and based on where the applications have come from set a benchmark that we want to achieve in terms of good quality applications. This allows us to look at things like our employer brand or our performance marketing outreach. The other thing that I think is worth looking at is how long it takes for your candidates to go through the funnel. If you're in a high-growth environment, your hiring is key. You want to make sure you've got loyalty but also speed. These numbers allow you to ask yourself if you are maximising sourcing, referrals and events as much as you are your inbound funnel. So that hiring piece is key. I think the second one would be around overall engagement and of course that can be measured really differently. I like my engagement index to capture intention to stay, pride, advocacy and these sorts of metrics that can be helpful in spotting early trends. Finally, you definitely need to track overall attrition but specifically I like to break it into unwanted and voluntary and what percentage of leavers are we moving through the organisation that aren’t working out? Alongside that – although it depends on the business - I'd be looking at organisational efficiencies. So perhaps revenue per headcount to see are we optimised as an organisation, and are we seeing the results that we need to? Then I'd also look at what's important in the business. For example at Personio, we were a high-growth business so we'd look at the performance of our revenue-generating teams, and we'd look at things like quota attainment for those teams as well, to see if they were productive and deliver the required results based on our benchmarks. As you can see, there's so much that you can measure. I think that what I've learned over time to ensure that it doesn't become white noise is looking at your people experience journey from attraction hire to alumni, so leavers of the organisation, and pick four or five for the year. Then you can keep an eye on them and report on them and share insights with your leadership team.
What do you think is the biggest misconception about the People Function, or what do people often misunderstand about the function?
I believe there is still a big misconception that the function only attracts those people whose values are driven by care and kindness. Obviously, if you don’t have these attributes then you probably shouldn’t be coming into the function because at the end of the day you are dealing with people and people have emotions, but this is not the exclusive requirement for thriving in HR. In fact, the people within the HR function exhibit a diverse range of skills and backgrounds. Building a well-rounded team might involve individuals with highly analytical capabilities or those with a technology and engineering background. Depending on the organisational model, HR could comprise a substantial percentage of sales and business development professionals, including Business Partners. In this context, qualities like fairness, commercial acumen, intelligence, and adeptness in managing complex relationships and team dynamics become vital. Contrary to the misconception that HR is primarily focused on hiring, compensating, and, if necessary, terminating employees, the profession offers a more nuanced and multifaceted perspective. The richness of the HR profession lies in the diversity of roles that collectively contribute to the success of the team.
“Contrary to the misconception that HR is primarily focused on hiring, compensating, and, if necessary, terminating employees, the profession offers a more nuanced and multifaceted perspective.”
In terms of diversity and inclusion, do you believe that there is still a real focus on it for companies or do you believe it has become embedded? Do you think it still requires a very intentional approach and how do we measure that? Overall, what are your thoughts on the progress that has or has not been made in this space?
For me, it's an evergreen topic, and it should never fade away. It should be something that you're always fine-tuning. Without having a set agenda or priorities, many companies may find themselves falling into the category of "we feel that we need to do something on this." They initiate efforts, but momentum is lacking due to insufficient buy-in, resources, or support. Some organisations are still in that phase, but many are making significant strides. However, I'm unsure if I'm witnessing the expected progress on topics that should be evolving rapidly, especially in organisations, and particularly in the public sector, where accountability is crucial. Examining the percentage of females or non-white individuals in executive roles or on boards of public companies reveals that the numbers aren't advancing as swiftly as they should be given the normal pace of progress. Increased accountability is necessary, as this crucial topic is sometimes perceived as peripheral. Businesses acknowledge that a more diverse workforce fosters diverse thinking, positively impacting the top and bottom lines. Yet, in the hierarchy of decisions and priorities, diversity often gets bogged down. Having been in such situations, I've questioned its importance compared to other pressing matters. Unfortunately, in the last couple of years, as organisations prioritise layoffs and operational efficiency, this topic tends to fall off the radar. It's imperative for all of us to ensure it has a prominent place at the executive team table, emphasising clear goals and objectives. Even if you don't have an immediate view on its criticality, acknowledging its importance and outlining a few achievable goals is essential. Some goals may be slow burners, such as increasing the percentage of females in engineering, requiring grassroots efforts, including educational initiatives in schools, promoting coding as a viable career option for those who might not naturally consider it initially or as a second career choice. I'm aware of ongoing work in these areas as well.
In a scale up environment specifically, do you think that diversity and inclusion is top of mind or do you think it often ends up on the back burner because there are other priorities and many other things going on?
It depends on the culture of the business and if there's a significant voice or voices driving it. This doesn't always have to be the most senior individuals; at Wise, when I joined, a substantial cohort of people from various teams and levels in the company passionately advocated for a business stance on Diversity and Inclusion. We subsequently articulated this stance, devised plans, and took tangible actions. In more scaled organisations, systematic programs and committees for different groups are common, but change can be slower, especially in larger entities. In the startup and scale-up world, which generally attracts a younger demographic, there is a pronounced voice on this topic. Younger individuals entering the workforce often seek a company with a mission and purpose they can believe in. Unlike when I started, where the focus was on stability, learning opportunities, and compensation, today's workforce places greater importance on understanding the company's purpose. They want to align with the company's goals if they are dedicating 40 hours or more per week. Startups, scale-ups, and the tech industry, in general, exhibit a more prevalent emphasis on these aspects. Additionally, there is a noticeable skew in different departments, with some being more female-focused or catering to newer profiles and backgrounds.
What would be your advice or words of wisdom to individuals entering into the People function in a relatively unstable time?
I think, firstly, cast your net wide. When entering a new organisation or stepping up in a company, take the time to learn not only about the company's current status, growth areas, and challenges but also understand the key topics that matter to people within the business. This holds true for both those entering and leaving the company. Even if you are already part of the organisation, gaining a refreshed perspective is beneficial. Secondly, establish a clear set of priorities that you genuinely want to focus on. It's common to see leaders with well-intentioned priorities that end up on the back burner due to unforeseen issues. Having a realistic set of goals that directly contribute to the company's growth allows you to articulate the purpose behind your actions. The third point is to build your external network and emphasise the external aspect. While internal networking is essential for understanding stakeholders, the external piece often gets neglected. It's easy to become absorbed internally, and I've found that consciously engaging with external networks is crucial. Attend forums, join groups, and connect with professionals from similar companies. People are generally more open to networking now, and it can provide valuable insights, acting as a sounding board. Lastly, and perhaps a bit pessimistic, the job can be isolating as it involves managing various relationships and topics. It's essential to have someone or a network of individuals you can talk to about your experiences, helping to maintain your well-being and balance. Dealing with emotions and people is integral to our role, and having an outlet for discussions is highly beneficial.
