Nae Hakala works as an HR business partner here at Xenium and consults with organizations navigating complex people challenges. Over the course of her career, she’s worked across retail, nonprofit organizations, public education, and consulting environments, often in settings where resources are constrained, expectations are high, and people decisions carry real consequences. Those experiences have shaped an approach to leadership grounded less in abstraction and more in judgment, context, and respect for how people actually experience work.
That perspective didn’t emerge from theory but developed through repeated exposure to environments where leadership couldn’t rely on authority alone and where outcomes depended on trust, participation, and clarity. When Nae talks about leadership, she rarely begins with frameworks or models. Instead, she starts with practice, shaped by the realities of managing people in systems that don’t allow for simple answers.
Learning leadership before HR
Nae’s first meaningful leadership role came as a student station manager at the University of Idaho, where she oversaw more than 75 volunteer DJs at a college radio station. The position carried real responsibility, including FCC compliance, scheduling coordination, and accountability for programming quality. At the same time, the people she managed weren’t employees in the traditional sense. They were volunteers, creatives, and artists who showed up because they wanted to be there.
“I had to uphold FCC regulations,” she recalled, “but it’s also like, this is an artist, this is a creative person. Authority wasn’t really a possibility.”
That constraint forced a different leadership approach. Without the leverage of compensation or hierarchy, success depended on inclusion and shared ownership. “We really had to focus on empowering people, bringing them into the conversation, and supporting their agency and creativity while giving them some structure,” she said.
The experience clarified a tension that would follow her throughout her career: structure matters, but control doesn’t. Systems still need standards and boundaries, but those structures must support rather than suppress the people operating within them. “It’s helpful to have somebody wrangle things into some structure we can all follow,” she said, “but then it’s exciting to see where people can take it if you let them.”
That early lesson would become foundational. It shaped how she thinks about leadership not as enforcement, but as design: creating conditions where people can contribute meaningfully while still moving in a shared direction.
Leadership development doesn’t start with a title
Nae’s belief that leadership is built through participation rather than position traces back to her early curiosity about career paths. “When I was an emerging HR professional, I just wanted to hear people’s career journeys,” she said. “Those personal stories were really impactful for me in understanding what it’s actually like to be an HR practitioner.”
That curiosity translated into a simple but consistent message she now shares with mentees. “I tell all of my mentees: get involved. It will keep you there,” she said. Whether in school or in the workplace, participation creates connection, and connection fosters commitment.
“The more things you do that connect you to your coworkers or your environment, the more community you build,” she said. “And building community is extremely important for the human experience.”
This belief carries directly into how she approaches engagement at work. In her view, engagement can’t be manufactured through slogans, perks, or incentives alone. Rather, it develops when people feel embedded in the system and connected to one another. When people see themselves as part of something larger than their individual role, they’re more likely to invest energy and care into the work.
That insight is particularly relevant in organizations struggling with disengagement or turnover. Instead of focusing solely on motivation strategies, Nae emphasizes connection and involvement as the foundation for sustained commitment.
Retail as an apprenticeship in empathy
Before formally entering HR, Nae spent years in customer-facing roles in retail and hospitality, including positions at Aveda and Elephants Delicatessen. These environments are fast-paced and emotionally charged. Employees are expected to perform under pressure while interacting with people who may be stressed, distracted, or having a difficult day.
This retail work required constant prioritization: moving quickly while still acknowledging the person in front of you. “It’s super fast-paced,” she said, “so it’s balancing the fact that we’re getting things done at an accelerated rate, but I am going to see the human in this experience.”
That balance became central to how she later approached HR work. In many ways, retail served as an apprenticeship in empathy. It taught her how to remain present, read context quickly, and respond in ways that preserved dignity without sacrificing efficiency.
Those years also introduced her to organizational psychology in a formative way. Corporate HR teams visiting retail locations exposed her to concepts like Myers-Briggs, which reframed how she thought about leadership development. “That blew my mind,” she said. “There’s a formula. You don’t have to be born with leadership skills. You can grow and develop them.”
That realization drew her toward HR and toward a transformational leadership style rooted in understanding how people learn, react, and interact. “If you understand how people exist in a social setting,” she said, “you can speak to them in a way that makes sense for them.”
Human dignity in the most difficult moments
Among the many responsibilities HR leaders carry, Nae identifies reductions in force as the most painful. Particularly in nonprofit environments, where grant funding can disappear quickly, layoffs are sometimes unavoidable.
“That’s the worst part of my job,” she said.
While the decision itself may be necessary, she believes the way it’s handled makes a meaningful difference. “A lot of times those conversations are very cold,” she said. “Here’s your final check, and that’s it.”
But Nae is intentional about approaching those moments differently. Even when exits are difficult or imperfect, she takes time to acknowledge what people have contributed. “It’s not like they didn’t work for you,” she said. “They did a lot of work for you. They spent so many hours there.”
That acknowledgment isn’t about softening the reality of the decision. It’s about preserving dignity during a moment that can otherwise feel dehumanizing. At the same time, Nae holds a pragmatic truth alongside that compassion. “If the organization doesn’t succeed, none of us have a job,” she said.
Leadership, in her view, requires holding both realities at once. It means making hard decisions while remaining grounded in respect, transparency, and care for the people affected.
Recruiting at speed without sacrificing respect
During her time building recruiting infrastructure at Elephants, Nae worked in an industry defined by high turnover and continuous hiring demand. Speed and volume were unavoidable, but she refused to compromise communication.
“I read that the number one complaint candidates have is that they never hear back,” she said. “And if they had just heard a kind message, it would give them closure.”
That insight reshaped her recruiting philosophy. She established personal rules she still follows today. “If you’ve applied, I’m always going to get back to you,” she said. “If I’ve talked to you, I’m going to call you. And if you’ve come in person, I owe you feedback.”
Those practices required more effort, but the return was long-term trust. “Those people come back,” she said. “They know I really saw them and considered them.”
In a competitive labor market, that trust became a strategic advantage. Candidates remembered how they were treated, even when the answer was no. For Nae, recruiting was not only about filling roles but about shaping the organization’s reputation and reinforcing its values.
Technology without discernment creates risk
Nae doesn’t reject technology or automation outright, but she’s cautious about delegating judgment to systems that lack context. “It’s just a robot,” she said. “It doesn’t know anything more than what you tell it to know.”
Her concern is that automated systems often reinforce existing patterns rather than interrogate them. “If all the successful people in a role look the same, AI just perpetuates that,” she said. “It doesn’t stop and ask, ‘What if we added more voices?’”
When decisions become too automated, organizations risk losing nuance and excluding capable candidates whose experiences don’t fit a narrow profile. For Nae, transparency and explanation are essential. “Honesty builds trust,” she said. “That is leadership right there.”
Trust, in Nae’s view, is the result of clear communication and thoughtful decision-making.
Equity work as a discipline, not a declaration
At Portland Public Schools, Nae’s role focused on cultivating a workforce that more closely reflected the student population. The work involved looking at how policies and structures were created and how different people experience them in practice.
“That role was humbling,” she said. “It really taught me about my own culture and how it interacts with societal structures.”
Growth in that space wasn’t always comfortable. “It doesn’t feel good sometimes,” she said, “but discomfort is okay. This is how I grow.”
That experience shaped how she thinks about equity today: not as a label or initiative, but as an ongoing discipline. Equity work, in her view, requires continuous learning, self-examination, and a willingness to acknowledge imbalance without defensiveness.
Consulting as partnership, not prescription
As a consultant, Nae sees her role less as an answer-giver and more as a guide. “I guarantee that you as a leader have the answers,” she said. “Let me coach you to them.”
Her job, as she describes it, is to explain options, outline risks, and support leaders in making informed decisions. Even when she might choose a different path herself, she respects leadership autonomy. “I’m still going to support them,” she said, “because they care enough about their organization to make a good judgment.”
This approach is especially important in nonprofit environments, where urgency often dominates decision-making. She encourages leaders to think beyond the immediate moment. “If we make this choice right now,” she asks, “how is it going to feel in six months? In a year?”
Strong foundations, she believes, reduce future crises by creating consistency and clarity.
Performance follows support
When asked how leaders can balance results with a human-centered culture, Nae points to evidence rather than ideology. “When you have happy, supported employees, they will perform for you,” she said. “You don’t even need to drive the results.”
Her operating assumption is simple. “Everyone’s always doing their best,” she said.
Approaching leadership from that belief changes conversations, decisions, and outcomes. Human-centered leadership, in her view, isn’t only the right thing to do, but it’s also a practical strategy for building resilient, high-performing organizations. Ultimately, it must be rooted in judgment, respect, and a clear understanding of how people actually experience work.
Brandon Laws is a workplace culture and leadership enthusiast, host of the Transform Your Workplace podcast, and VP of Marketing and Product at Xenium HR.