Contributor guide

What we publish

A short, edited story from an HR practitioner at any career level, connected to a profile and a few thoughtful peer responses. We look for a specific moment or practical lesson, not generic thought leadership.

We celebrate practitioners through substance: the story should make the author worth knowing by showing how they think and what they learned.

The three formats

Field Note · 300 to 600 words

One practical lesson from real work. Shape: Situation → Action → Observation → Lesson → Question for peers.

Tell us about one thing you changed in your HR work. What prompted it, what did you try, what happened, and what should another practitioner understand before trying it?

Turning Point · 500 to 900 words

An experience that changed how you practice HR. Shape: A moment → Earlier assumption → New understanding → Changed behavior → Unresolved tension.

Describe one experience that changed how you practice HR. Stay close to what you experienced and learned; you do not need to disclose someone else's private story.

What We Tried · 500 to 900 words

An experiment, its constraints, and its honest outcome. Shape: Context → Hypothesis → Actions → Evidence → Limits → Next iteration.

What problem were you trying to solve? What did you change? How did you judge the result? What else could explain it? What would you adjust next time?

Lengths are guides, not rules. Occasional formats (Two Views, What Happened Next and short profiles) follow when there is enough to say.

What editors look for

Each piece is scored 0 to 2 on eight dimensions. We generally publish at 13 of 16 with no zero on firsthand basis, reader value, or rights and privacy readiness. It is an internal quality tool, not a certification.

1. Specificity. A recognizable situation, not a general topic.
2. Firsthand basis. You did, observed or decided this yourself.
3. Reader value. Another practitioner can use or question it.
4. Contextual honesty. Constraints, limits and mixed outcomes are visible.
5. Narrative clarity. A reader can follow what happened and why.
6. Contributor voice. It sounds like a person, not a brochure.
7. Rights & privacy readiness. No one else’s private story is exposed; permissions are clear.
8. Discussion potential. It ends with a question worth answering.

What we decline or send back

• “Five trends transforming HR” without original experience.
• An inflated profile with no concrete event.
• Success claims with unsupported metrics.
• A vendor pitch disguised as a practitioner story.
• Anecdotes that expose someone else’s private experience, or shame an identifiable colleague.
• Polished prose with nothing a reader could not get from a generic AI answer.

From experience to published story

1. Choose a path: five answers, a draft, or a short interview request.
2. Minimal intake: name, contact, role context, idea, and permissions. No phone number, résumé or company revenue.
3. Editorial triage: received → reviewing → accepted / needs context / declined. We aim to reply within 10 working days.
4. Develop the story: we preserve your voice, ask for missing context, separate results from interpretation and remove identifying details.
5. Approve the exact package: title, body, byline, photo, bio, employer reference, quotes and any excerpt.
6. Publish and support: a stable URL, an author page and optional share text. No obligation to promote.
7. Follow-through (optional): answer a few responses in an agreed window; later, an update or another story.

How bylines are labelled

• By [you]: you wrote or substantively authored and approved the text.
• As told to the editors: an editor shaped an approved account from your answers or an interview.
• Perspective: an argument or interpretation, distinct from a firsthand case.
• Illustrative example: fictional content used to demonstrate a format; never presented as a real member story.

Common questions