Heart at Work with Trina Sunday

57. Change Makers - Why Are We So Afraid to Be One?

• Trina Sunday • Episode 57

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 38:32

When was the last time you called yourself a change maker, and meant it?

I’ve just come back from time at the United Nations and on the ground in Cambodia, and it left me sitting with one question. Why are we so hesitant to call ourselves change makers, especially when our work already shapes people’s lives every day?

In this episode, I share what I witnessed in Cambodia. Real people doing real work in complex conditions. Not waiting for permission or chasing the perfect timing. Just showing up and staying with it. I talk about what that means for HR and business leaders in Australia, and why so many of our workplace solutions are still missing the point.

If you’ve ever felt stuck between people and performance, or questioned whether you’re making a difference, this conversation will challenge you. I’ll walk you through practical ways to rethink leadership, capability, culture and what real change looks like in your organisation.

What’s one practical step you could take this week to start? I’d love to hear your reflections. Come and connect with me on LinkedIn

SHOW NOTES: https://trinasunday.com/get-inspired/

Trina Sunday is a human-first leadership strategist, HR advisor and creator of the HEART Work™ model, helping HR leaders and People & Culture professionals build workplaces where people and performance thrive side by side. With more than 25 years of experience across HR, organisational development and leadership advisory in Australia, Asia and global leadership communities, she works with HR leaders and executive teams to strengthen leadership capability, shape workplace culture and drive human-first organisational transformation. Through the Heart at Work with Trina Sunday podcast, leadership programs and advisory work, Trina is passionate about empowering HR professionals to move beyond compliance and lead the future of HR with courage, clarity and influence.

Get Inspired 

If you work in HR or leadership, you are already shaping people’s lives

Let me ask you something.

When was the last time you actually called yourself a change maker? Not quietly hoped you were making a difference, but actually said it out loud?

Because if you work in HR or leadership, you are already shaping how people experience work and life. And yet most of us would never claim that label. We say we’re busy, we say we’re operational, we say we’re doing our job.

But I’ve just come off time at the United Nations and a week in Cambodia surrounded by people changing lives every day, and it hit me. They’re not waiting, they’ve just decided to act.

So what are we waiting for?


Welcome to Heart at Work with me, Trina Sunday.

This space is for HR leaders who care deeply about performance and equally deeply about people. For more than 25 years, I’ve been asking one persistent question. What are the real conditions for happiness at work? Because when humans come first, something deeper shifts. How people show up, how leaders decide and how work feels.

Here we explore what it really takes to lead with courage, compassion and clarity. And we pull up a chair to the conversations HR leaders don’t always get to have. There’s heart here, but there’s also depth. If you’re ready to build workplaces where people and performance thrive side by side, you’re in the right place.

Let’s get to the heart of it.


I want to talk about change makers after attending CSW 70

I want to talk about change makers, and I want to start with a question that’s been sitting with me since Cambodia and, if I’m honest, since New York as well after attending CSW 70 at the United Nations.

Why are we so afraid to call ourselves change makers?

Not care, not want to help, not want to make things better, but actually say it out loud. Actually claim it. Actually step into the space where we might be seen as someone trying to make positive change happen in our organisations, in our communities, in our world.

Because I’ve just come off the back of two very different but connected experiences. One was time at the United Nations for the Commission on the Status of Women, where you’re surrounded by policy, diplomacy, rights, systems, language and the weight of global issues. And then the other was Cambodia, where all of that becomes real very quickly.

Cambodia has a way of cutting through the fluff. It’s one of those places that every time I return, it reminds me of what matters. It reminds me what real service looks like. It reminds me what it means to keep showing up when the conditions are not ideal, when the economy is shaky, when the systems are fragile, when you’re often on the receiving end of decisions made by bigger, richer, more powerful players elsewhere.

Sound a bit like our organisations sometimes.


Cambodia right now is under pressure from all sides

Before I talk about the people and the organisations I spent time with in Cambodia, I think it’s really important to understand the context they’re operating in, because context matters. And the last week has blown my mind.

Cambodia right now is under pressure from all sides. You’ve got increasing oil prices globally, and Cambodia is on the receiving end of that without a lot of leverage to negotiate better deals or even reliable supply. You’ve got India dropping significant rice into the global market, which has had the effect of bottoming out rice exports from Cambodia. And then there’s the conflict on the Thai border.

I want to be clear that it does not seem to me that it is impacting safety in Cambodia itself. It feels and looks, and even our own government has said, it’s absolutely okay to visit. In fact, I would argue it’s probably more important than ever to visit because economically the country is suffering and tourism matters. Supply chains are impacted, products are not moving across the border and it’s really impacting the economy.

And then there’s an issue that’s really shaped how people outside Cambodia might be seeing the country right now, the scam compounds and the fallout from the Prince Group case.


Cambodian authorities arrested Cheng Zi following transnational money laundering investigation

I think it’s important to talk about this properly because I have heard some really crazy narratives about this. And I think the lazy version of the story is that Cambodia is full of scammers. But that is not only unfair, it completely misses what has actually happened and what is actually happening in Cambodia.

So in January 2026, Cambodian authorities arrested Cheng Zi. He is the Chinese-born founder of Prince Holding Group and was extradited to China after a joint transnational crime investigation. And that came after major US and UK action in October last year when prosecutors and sanctions authorities alleged that the Prince Group was at the centre of a huge forced labour scam and money laundering network operating in Cambodia and across the region.


The human consequences behind the scam compounds

This is where it connects directly back to what I was hearing at the United Nations. Because this isn’t just financial crime. These operations are tied to what’s often referred to as pig butchering scams. But behind that language are very real human consequences. Trafficked individuals, people coerced and forced into compounds, people having their freedom taken from them and being made to participate in scams targeting victims globally.

So when we talk about this, we are not just talking about money, we’re talking about human collateral.

And the allegations involve shell companies, real estate, cryptocurrency and billions of dollars globally. The regional fallout has been enormous. Taiwan seized significant assets and later indicted dozens of people linked to the network. Singaporean authorities seized large amounts of assets, something like 150 million Singapore dollars, tied to the laundering operations. And in Cambodia, Prince Bank was ordered into liquidation after the arrest and extradition in January.


The impact lands in Cambodia

But this is the part I really want people to understand. The impact of all of this lands in Cambodia in really practical ways. It lands as people worrying about whether their money is safe. It lands as mistrust in banks and financial institutions. It lands as stalled developments and frozen investments. And it lands as economic pressure on everyday people who had nothing to do with any of it. And it lands as reputational damage to a country that is so much more than this story.

So when people reduce this to “Cambodia’s dodgy”, they completely miss the point. It’s ignorance 101.

Because the reality is Cambodia has also been used by actors with more money, more power, more reach and more global capability than the average Cambodian person or business will ever have.

And sitting in the UN, listening to conversations about systems, justice, exploitation and structural inequity, and then being on the ground in Cambodia, you can feel the gap between those conversations and the lived reality.

And yet, and this is the part that stays with me every single time, despite all of that, the people doing the work on the ground in Cambodia are not stepping back, they’re stepping forward.


One of the highlights of the week was spending time with Cambodian Children’s Fund

One of the highlights of the week was spending time again with Cambodian Children’s Fund. And every single time I’m with the team, I am reminded that this is what holistic change actually looks like.

For those who don’t know, Cambodian Children’s Fund, where I used to work, works with children and families in communities around Steung Meanchey in Phnom Penh, which is the area historically associated with a very large rubbish dump. These are families who have experienced extreme poverty, limited access to education, incredibly constrained life choices and very real vulnerability.

What strikes me about CCF is that they understand that education is the pathway out of poverty, but they also understand that education on its own is not enough. Because if a family has mouths to feed, a child may need to leave school to work. If someone gets sick, healthcare costs can financially cripple a family because there’s not the kind of safety net there that we have in Australia. If housing is unstable, safety is compromised. And if there is no support around the family unit, a child’s chances of thriving narrow really quickly.


What CCF has built is not just a school pathway, it’s an ecosystem

So what CCF has built is not just a school pathway, it’s an ecosystem. There’s food and nutritional support, there’s healthcare support through the medical centre, there are leadership programmes and community leadership opportunities, and there are living arrangements that are thoughtful and progressive.

One of the models that always stays with me, and that I love, is the girls to granny concept. There are no orphanages in a traditional sense here. Instead there are supported, community-oriented villages where young women can live safely in close-knit environments with older women, grannies, who might otherwise be isolated but instead serve as the matriarchal presence. They provide wisdom, oversight, stability, maturity and care. And in return they get cared for.

It’s not charity in the way that lots of people imagine. It’s dignity, structure, community. It’s Khmer culture, and I love this.

The opportunities that CCF provides are not something that you can buy your way into. In many ways, these children are getting access to opportunities that rich kids just can’t buy.

I’ve sponsored children in Cambodia and through CCF for more than a decade, and now some of those young people are starting university. Just let that land. You’ve got young people who were born into extreme poverty, with so little access, who are now stepping into higher education and very different futures.

This isn’t a slogan. It’s not a marketing campaign. This is changing lives.


Australian organisations still trying to solve human problems with one intervention at a time

This is the organisational reflection I have, though. I think a lot of Australian organisations are still trying to solve human problems with one intervention at a time.

We love a standalone initiative. We love a shiny solution. We love to say that we launched a wellbeing programme or rolled out a policy or ran a workshop.

But people do not live single-issue lives.

And this is one of the biggest lessons from CCF. If we want people to thrive, we need to ask, what are the real conditions required for that success? It’s like my unrelenting question, what are the real conditions required for happiness?

If performance is off, is it capability? Is it workload? Is it leadership? Is it burnout? Is it financial stress? Is it inflexible work design? Is it a caring burden? Is it unsafe behaviour in the team?

If you only ever solve one piece and ignore the system around it, you’re not really changing anything.


The challenge for HR and business leaders

So for HR and business leaders in Australia, the challenge is stop asking what initiative should we launch, and start asking what is the lived experience of our people and what conditions do they actually need to do well here.

That’s change making. It’s not glamorous, it’s not elusive. It’s human-centred design applied to real life. And it’s the long game.

Because CCF did not transform lives with one programme in a year. They stayed with the work. They invested over time, more than two decades now. They built structures that support the whole person, the whole family, not just one outcome.

I think a lot of us in organisations need to hear that. We want transformation on quarterly timeframes. We want culture change in six months. We want capability uplift because we ran a workshop. But real change takes commitment, it takes architecture, it takes patience.


One practical question for leaders listening to this is where in your organisation are problems

So one practical question for leaders listening to this is, where in your organisation are you trying to solve systemic human problems with a one-off response?

Maybe that’s where you start.


Impact Hub Phnom Penh and the power of practical innovation

Another important conversation I had this week was with Melanie Mossad from Impact Hub Phnom Penh. And if Cambodian Children’s Fund shows us one kind of change making, Impact Hub shows us another.

Impact Hub is an ecosystem. It’s a space that supports entrepreneurs, innovators and small businesses who are trying to build something meaningful and useful in Cambodia. These are people not just chasing profit, but trying to solve problems, create livelihoods, build more sustainable models and contribute to the future of the country.

What struck me in that conversation was the grounded nature of it all. These young founders and entrepreneurs are often building in a context where resourcefulness is essential. Sustainability is not a branding exercise. And circular thinking is not just language for a conference panel.

Waste reduction, reuse, social innovation, environmental responsibility and community impact are being worked through in practical ways.


What that made me notice about Australia

When you spend time in that environment and then come back to Australia, it’s really hard not to notice how wasteful we’ve become, not just materially, but imaginatively.

We waste people’s potential. We waste energy through bureaucracy. We waste opportunity by over-controlling things. We waste goodwill by making it hard for people to bring their whole selves and ideas into work.

And I keep thinking about the Sustainable Development Goals because at the UN it’s explicit. But in a place like Cambodia, you can see how closely many people’s efforts are tied to those ideas, whether or not they’re naming them every five minutes.

In Australia, we barely talk about the Sustainable Development Goals.


How narrowly we still define contribution

The practical reflection here for Australian leaders is around how narrowly we still define contribution. We often expect employees to show up as one-dimensional beings. Their role, their KPI, their output, their usefulness to our organisation.

But what if our people are also entrepreneurs, creators, volunteers, carers, community builders, emerging founders or mentors or artists?

What if the side hustle is not a threat to commitment, but a source of energy, innovation and growth?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, we are still in Australia having some ridiculous debates about whether someone who wants to work four days a week is truly committed. We question side hustles. We make people get approval for secondary employment. We act as though if someone’s not selling their soul to our organisation, they must not be serious.

It’s such a narrow and outdated frame.

Because if we are genuinely interested in helping people build lives that fulfil them, not just jobs that consume them, we would get much more curious about what lights them up.

Yes, there’s practicalities. I’m not naive about conflicts of interest or capacity or clear boundaries. But too often the answer is no before we’ve even engaged in the question or had the conversation.

What I see through Impact Hub is that when people are supported to experiment, to build, to imagine and to create, they grow.

So the question for business and HR leaders in Australia is, are we designing workplaces around trust and possibility or around control and fear?

Because if people cannot build a life that feels meaningful while working with you, eventually they’re going to start to look elsewhere, not because they’re disloyal, but because they’re human.


Why I care so deeply about people being happy

That’s the heart work for me.

I do not know why we are not more invested in our people being happy. Happy, engaged people create more productive, more innovative, more sustainable organisations. The evidence is there. Follow the science.

So if you want to be a change maker as a leader, one very practical place to start is to look at where your organisation is still punishing aliveness.

Where are you making it hard for people to pursue what gives them energy? Where are you defaulting to suspicion instead of curiosity?

That’s not a small issue. That’s culture.


Building HR capability in Cambodia through partnership, not saviourism

I also spent time with Ingsa Peep from Optimal P. And this is another part of my heart work coming together.

In Cambodia, we’re partnering to help build HR capability in the Kingdom of Wonder. And I am deeply energised by this because it speaks to everything I care about. Leadership, people development, practical capability, uplifting HR and doing it in a way that’s respectful and collaborative.

But the context matters here too.

Cambodia is a very young country. Demographically, around 65% of the population is under 25 years of age. That means enormous potential. But it also means there’s a shortage of mentors, of seasoned leaders, of organisational infrastructure and of capability development pathways that many of us take for granted in more mature economies.


This is not a deficit story

But here’s where I want to be really careful about this, because this is not a deficit story. This is not a “poor Cambodia, they need saving” story. Absolutely not.

There are incredibly bright, capable, resilient and well-educated people in Cambodia doing amazing things. Many have studied abroad. The university system has strengthened significantly over time. And there is talent everywhere.

So the opportunity is not to sweep in as the expert saviour. The opportunity is to partner, to exchange, to learn from each other and to build with humility.

That’s why when I talk about the Cambodia Leadership Experience that I do, I’m always really clear. You’re not going there to save anybody. You’re not coming in as some sort of white saviour with all the answers. You’re going to learn, to grow, to share and, yes, to contribute. But if you do it well, you will be changed by the experience too, I guarantee it.

I think that matters, because service that only ever sees other people as recipients and never as teachers is not really service, it’s ego.


The practical lesson for Australian leaders

So what does that mean for HR and business leaders in Australia?

I think one of the biggest practical lessons is this. Stop treating capability gaps as personal failures and start treating them as system design questions.

If your people are struggling, what have you actually equipped them with? If your emerging leaders are floundering, what mentoring, exposure and development support have you created? If your HR team is expected to be more strategic, more commercial, more data literate, more influential, what investment have you made to help the people and culture team become that?

Too often in Australian workplaces we use language like skill shortage and capability gap in ways that subtly blame the people. But often what’s really missing is structured development, scaffolding, coaching, trust and opportunity.

This is why the work I’m doing with Optimal P matters to me. It’s about helping build the next generation of HR capability in Cambodia, yes, but it is also a mirror back to us, because I see people there stepping up with less and I can’t help but think, what are we doing with more?

We have more infrastructure, more money, more access, more education, more systems, more tools, and yet we still leave people underdeveloped and then complain that they’re not strategic enough.

So if you want a very practical change maker question as a leader, try this: where in my organisation am I expecting people to perform at a level that I’ve not properly enabled them to reach?

That’s the real question.

Once you ask it honestly, your role changes as a leader. You stop judging from a distance and you start building conditions for growth.


Many Australian organisations say they want innovation but punish discomfort with being first

Another powerful part of being in Cambodia last week is my ongoing involvement with the Australia Awards Scholarship process.

Each year, being on that assessment panel is such a privilege because you get to read applications from Cambodians who are doing the most remarkable work in their fields and communities. These are not people vaguely talking about making a difference one day. These are people who have already shown depth of commitment. They have led initiatives, built networks, created traction and influenced change in their context, and they are now seeking the opportunity to deepen that through further study in Australia so they can return and contribute even more strongly.

I find it so incredibly inspiring. Every time I sit on that panel I think, where are our platforms in Australia for recognising change makers like this? Where are we actively identifying and elevating the people in our own communities and organisations who are already doing the deep work?

Because in Australia, I think tall poppy syndrome gets in the way. We can be quite uncomfortable with people stepping forward and saying, I care deeply about making positive change happen.

We often reward polish, confidence and performance language, but not necessarily service, contribution and courage in the same visible way.


What organisations choose to recognise matters

The practical organisational reflection here is around what we choose to recognise and amplify.

If all your recognition systems reward billables, revenue, volume, output or visibility to senior leaders, then don’t be surprised when people optimise for those things.

But if you want a culture of change makers, then you need to make that visible too.

Who in your organisation is improving the lives of others, even quietly? Who is mentoring? Who is building capability? Who is creating inclusion? Who is fixing something that’s needed fixing for years? Who’s advocating for better systems? Who is taking service seriously?

Are those people being celebrated, developed and given a platform, or are they just quietly doing awesome work while everyone else around them gets the airtime?

This isn’t fluff. Recognition shapes culture.

So the one practical question for leaders is, what behaviours and contributions does my organisation currently make visible, and what does that teach people to value?

Because if change making is invisible, it’ll remain elusive. But if it’s visible, named and celebrated, it becomes normal.


New Cambodian Artists and the discomfort of going first

I spent time as well in Cambodia on the ground with New Cambodian Artists. These dancers mean a lot to me. I was on the board of NCA back in the very beginning, and they were the first all-female contemporary dance company in Cambodia.

Think about that for a moment. The first.

Which sounds inspiring, and it is. But it’s also hard, really hard.

Tackling taboo topics, challenging systemic structures when you’re the first, there is no roadmap, there are no examples to follow. There’s no neat precedent. You are breaking cultural ground. You are telling stories in ways that others have not done before or even tried to tell. You’re experimenting very publicly and you are carrying the discomfort of being misunderstood.

I think this is one of the reasons we resist sometimes calling ourselves change makers. Because deep down we know that change often requires someone to go first. Someone to say the thing. Someone to try the new way. Someone to challenge the existing norm. Someone to back an idea before there’s evidence. Someone to create a path that others can walk later.

That is vulnerable work.


Why innovation and discomfort come together

So the reflection here is very practical. Many Australian organisations say that they want innovation. So many say that it’s probably a value. They say they want fresh thinking, courage and new ideas, but then they punish the discomfort that comes with being first.

We say we want people to challenge the status quo, but then label them difficult when they do. We say we value experimentation, but become deeply risk averse the minute something is not guaranteed. And we say we want diversity of thought, but only if it arrives politely and does not disrupt too much.

You can’t have innovation without discomfort.

You can’t ask people to be change makers and then create cultures where going first is unsafe.

So ask yourself, where in my organisation do we say we want change, but then behave in ways that make change costly?

That’s where your work is.

And again, it’s not elusive. It can be very practical. Do your meetings make it safe for dissent? Do you sponsor people with unconventional ideas? Do you reward people who challenge stale assumptions? Do you protect people when they take thoughtful risks? And do you create small experiments instead of demanding perfect certainty?

That’s what change-making leadership looks like in real time.


Some of the most powerful change making is often ordinary on the surface

One of the things I kept reflecting on this week was how easy it is to admire change makers when they’re somewhere else. At the UN, in Cambodia, in an NGO, a not-for-profit, in a human rights space, in a leadership immersion, in a community setting that feels obviously meaningful.

But when we come home and we come back to our inboxes, our meetings, our budgets, our workforce issues, our restructures, our policies, our day-to-day pressures, suddenly change making feels abstract again.

I don’t think it’s because change making is actually elusive. I think it’s because we’ve over-romanticised it. We’ve made it sound like it only counts when it’s super dramatic.

But the truth is some of the most powerful change making is often very ordinary on the surface. Backing someone in a meeting when they’ve been overlooked. Redesigning a role or job share so a parent can stay in the workforce. Creating a better pathway for a younger employee with potential. Making a workplace safer for someone who does not feel like they belong. Helping someone navigate grief, overwhelm, exhaustion or complexity with dignity. And questioning a policy that no longer reflects how people live now.

That’s change making too.


Every life is precious

I think we need to normalise that. Because at the heart of all of this for me is a very simple belief.

Every life is precious.

So I don’t get up every day trying to change the world. Well, I do, but I don’t say that into the mirror. That’s too big, right? It can be too abstract and it can be paralysing if you let it be.

But I do get up thinking, how can I help one person today? How can I be useful? How can I make a moment better for someone else? Be kind to someone who’s having a terrible day. Help a parent in the supermarket who’s completely overwhelmed because their kid will not stop screaming and life is just a lot. Support someone who’s carrying more than anyone realises. Make room for someone to be seen.

If we all did more of that, can you imagine the momentum? Honestly, if every one of us got up and tried to be kinder, better, more helpful, more awake to the people around us, what would that create?

This is why I think people in faith communities often understand something important here. People in philanthropy understand it. Frontline service workers, emergency responders, healthcare workers who are doing it for more than the money, they understand that there is reward in knowing that you helped save, improve or stabilise someone else’s life.

Those people are the angels that walk among us.

But again, why do we think they’re different from us? Why do we put them in a separate category? Why do we not allow ourselves to occupy some of that identity in our own lives?


Many HR leaders are still playing small in helping people become change makers

If you’re in HR, people and culture, organisational development or leadership, then I think this conversation matters even more because in theory, we should be some of the most active change makers in any organisation.

And yet I think many HR leaders are still playing small.

We are optimising processes instead of improving lives. We are refining workflow instead of challenging outdated assumptions. We are managing systems instead of always asking what those systems are doing to people.

Now, that does not mean ignoring compliance, risk or business reality. Of course not. I’m not advocating fantasy HR here. But I am advocating brave, practical, human-centred HR. It’s heart work.


What brave, practical, human-centred HR looks like

The kind that says, how do we support people to build meaningful lives, not just deliver labour? How do we stop punishing flexibility? How do we create room for side ventures, creativity, care and complexity? How do we build cultures where people are not expected to hand over their entire identity to the employer? How do we back people to grow, to experiment, to find joy, to stay engaged?

This is why I keep coming back to the idea that if we genuinely supported people to do the thing that lights them up, we would likely retain them for much longer, not lose them faster.

If someone wants to work four days a week so they can build something meaningful on the fifth day, maybe that’s not a threat, maybe that’s an opportunity. Maybe that person becomes more energised, more loyal, more capable and more interesting as a result.

I think HR and business leaders need to get more serious about creating the conditions for people flourishing, not just compliance with work.

That’s real change making, and it is very practical.


Not everyone can come to Cambodia, but everyone can stretch perspective

Not everyone can come on my Cambodia Leadership Experience. That’s a curated small-group experience, and seven of you get to join me. But that’s part of what makes it powerful. Those 10 days together are intense, relational, meaningful and bonding. You build deep connections because shared experiences do that. It fuses people together.

I know that happened with the group that travelled with me last year, and I know it’s going to happen with the next group that joins me in November.

But not everyone can do that, and I’m aware of that. So I don’t think the only path to becoming a change maker is getting on a plane and coming to Cambodia with me.

What I think we need to create are more micro-immersions in our own context.

How are you exposing yourself to a different lived experience? How are you stepping outside your usual circles? How are you creating relationships with people who see the world differently to you? How are you creating opportunities for your team to engage with the community, with discomfort, with diversity of thought and unfamiliar context?

Because if you stay inside the same bubble all the time, your perspective calcifies. And that is dangerous for leaders.

Cambodia is powerful because it stretches perspective. It’s not the only place, but it’s my place and it could be yours. There are many ways to stretch perspective if you’re intentional.

That too is change-maker work.


A very personal layer to all of this

There’s a really personal layer to all of this for me as a mum of a seven-year-old.

When I talk about going away to the UN, to Cambodia, to help women and girls, my daughter says, “But I’m a girl. What about me? Why do you have to leave me to do that?”

And honestly, it lands. It hurts. But it lands because, of course, she’s right to ask that. She’s seven.

The answer is not that we care less about what is here. The answer is that we have to do more elsewhere, in my opinion, in my humble opinion.

We have to show our children that service matters, that caring matters, that helping matters, that leadership is not just about status or success or getting ahead. It is also about contribution.

If our kids all grow up watching us do that, imagine what that would create. Imagine a generation who do not see change making as extraordinary, but as ordinary citizenship, ordinary leadership, ordinary humanity.

That’s what I want.


Why we resist calling ourselves change makers

I think part of what keeps us afraid to call ourselves change makers is imposter syndrome. Who am I to say I’m a change maker?

I think part of it’s tall poppy syndrome. Don’t get too big for your boots. Don’t make too much of yourself. Don’t act like you’re special.

But I think part of it is that we’re scared of the responsibility that comes with naming it. Because if you say that you want to make change, then on some level you’ve got to act.

And I think part of it is that we’ve made the concept too grand.


Being a change maker does not have to be dramatic

For me, I can call it really plainly. Being a change maker does not mean you need to launch a movement, save a country, start a charity, speak at the UN or build a foundation.

It might, but it doesn’t have to.

Sometimes it means making one thing better for one person in one team this week.

This is not small.

It’s how momentum begins.


The reflection coming out of Cambodia

So my reflection coming out of Cambodia is this. I was surrounded by phenomenal change makers this week.

At Cambodian Children’s Fund, building holistic systems around children and families so education can actually work.

At Impact Hub, backing entrepreneurs and small businesses who are building a more sustainable and resourceful future.

With Ingsa Peep at Optimal P, helping build HR capability in a young country through partnership, not saviourism.

Through the Australia Awards Scholarship process, witnessing people already making meaningful change in their communities and seeking to deepen their impact.

With New Cambodian Artists, seeing what it means to go first, to create, to tell stories differently and to carry the discomfort of innovation.

What all of those experiences reminded me is this. Change makers are not some rare species. They are people who decide to care, decide to act and decide to stay with the work.


If you could change one thing in your organisation, what would it be?

So if you’re listening to this, I want to ask you:

If you could change one thing in your organisation, your community or your sphere of influence, what would it be?

And what is one practical step that you could take this week?

Not someday.
Not when the timing’s perfect.
Not when you feel more confident.

This week.

Because you don’t need permission to be a change maker. You don’t need Cambodia. You don’t need the UN. You don’t need the title.

You just need to decide.

So really, why not you?


If this conversation stirred something in you

If this conversation has stirred something in you, if you’ve been feeling the pull to step out of the day to day, to reconnect with service, perspective, leadership and what really matters, that is exactly why I created the Cambodia Leadership Experience.

Not so you can come and save anybody, but so you can come and learn, grow, contribute and be changed by proximity to people doing extraordinary work in very real conditions.

Because sometimes we need to step out of our own environment to remember who we want to be in it.

So if you’re interested to learn more, you know where to find me.

I’m also bringing the People Unconference to Perth on 2 July this year. And within our extraordinary programme, we will be working with not-for-profits to add our knowledge, learnings and ideas to help drive positive change for their organisations and beneficiaries. This is an incredibly unique experience for people leaders and HR leaders, and I can’t wait to share more.

Register your interest at trinasunday.com.


Closing

Thanks for spending time with me.

If this conversation challenged you, clarified something or simply reminded you that you’re not the only one holding the tension between people and performance, then it’s done exactly what it was meant to.

This work isn’t easy, but it is necessary. HR has a new future and it leads with heart.

So if you found value here, subscribe so you don’t miss what’s next. Share this episode with someone who also believes that work can be better.

And if you want to go deeper, you can explore the HEART Work™ model, the programmes and the growing community of HR leaders at trinasunday.com because when HR leads with clarity, courage and compassion, it doesn’t just change workplaces, it changes lives.

Until next time, keep asking better questions, keep backing your voice and keep putting humanity at the centre of performance.

Let’s keep heart at work.