I read a Bloomberg piece this week about AI giving HR an existential crisis.
The headline is hyperbolic, but the examples underneath it are more interesting.
MS International moved roughly 100 software developers under HR. Cognizant is bringing engineers into the function. Dropbox is reworking recruiting around simulations and workforce planning.
Software developers reporting into HR sounds strange (especially if you've ever budgeted headcount in HR) until you think about the work ahead.
If HR is going to help decide what people should do with AI and how the two work together, we cannot limit our role to buying software. We will need HRBPs who can map a messy workflow, build or test a better version, and tell whether it helped.
That does not mean technical skill replaces HR judgment. I have spent enough time building AI-assisted HR workflows to see how easily a clean output can hide a bad assumption.
A hiring, performance, or workforce recommendation still needs someone who can see the evidence, spot what is missing, and own the decision. An approval button at the end is not enough.
I think HR should get pulled closer to the actual design of work. That is a harder job than administering the old processes, and a more valuable one.