In  my experience of 'IT' in a couple of large companies, our local Authority and our National Park where I once volunteered for, is that the IT departments are entirely self focused on producing systems that work for themselves and not the end user. Their view is consistently that its not their fault that users are finding systems complex, difficult to use, don't work properly, don't do what you want them to do etc., etc., they invariably claim it is the fault of the user!

I can't see them sitting side by side very easily with HR.

I'm currently working with a company that has 3500 staff and over 600 queries per week to its shared service centre, because their current HR system is no longer 'fit for purpose'. People can't find the information they want or need easily or quickly, so they ask instead. (File, file, file, file, file, policy)

Whilst I don't think IT and HR departments should merge, I do think it raises some very interesting questions about what are you using and why -
"how is it enhancing your employee experience?" is a very valid question to ask of the HR Tech that supports people.
If it answer is, "it's not enhancing employee experience" or
"it's dragging backwards" (I actually saw a system that has .net in it's title!)

Then maybe it is time for a serious rethink.

In reply to Deborah:

That really resonates with me. I’ve seen the same pattern in a few different organizations — IT tends to build systems that make sense to them, but not necessarily to the people who have to use them every day. When users struggle, the default response is often “training issue” or “user error,” instead of questioning whether the system itself is intuitive or fit for purpose.

I also agree with your point about IT and HR not sitting side by side easily. HR usually tries to think in terms of people and processes, while IT is more about systems and control. Unless there’s a real culture shift toward user-centered design and collaboration, I can’t see those two functions naturally aligning without friction. paygonline

I don't at all believe they should merge. I think HR and Marketing might ^_^

As AI accelerates change, knowledge-based and white-collar organisations especially face significant role and task displacement from "Digital Workforce Transformation" (DWT). This will drive deeper IT and HR integration with DWT as a shared priority with mounting pressure to deliver speed-to-value on AI investments. The technology’s impact on how work gets done is profound, arguably greater than anything seen in generations. The real question for HR isn’t whether transformation will happen, but whether they will lead as a strategic partner in shaping it or have the future of work dictated to them.

I work in a 'many hats' kind of business, with HR being my main function, but also manage the IT side of things, mostly managing/monitoring the external supplier we outsource IT to.

The only reason i can see HR & IT working together, would be HR providing input and insight into the design and roll out of systems created and implemented by IT, which affect HR and personnel generally.

This would be collaboration based on projects, not a merging of departments.

Fundamentally, the two functions are entirely different, an IT professional could not run a grievance from start to finish, a HR professional could not fix IT issues etc, there is no link.

I actually think AI will 'hit a wall' its argued to be entirely unsustainable, the water and power required to sustain what has already been created is immense, which is leading to some betting against it (literally). I think it can be great if used correctly, but we need to give great consideration to how it used going forward, as it will ultimately work against us all in some capacity.

I remember when you first posted this Steve, thinking that you were provoking an interesting debate, but that obviously the two departments had little in common. I have to admit, my thinking has shifted.

If we don't get involved in the 'how' of work, the uncalculated drift to AI has the tantalising cost advantages and speed to recommend it (alongside all the risks and negatives identified above). We have to get involved, to ensure that the cost benefits are properly assessed, that technology enhances rather than replaces human thinking, and that we take a long-term view when we design our resources. I'm still an HR Director (rather than a People Director, and maybe I need to instigate that change), and while that's a different question it defines the people in our organisations as human resources. To strategically evaluate and deploy our resources effectively, we can't divorce the people from the technology. That genie is out of the lamp and doing its own thing. Instead we need to realistically measure the impact, identify and manage the risks and ensure that our staff teams understand the power of the tools they are using at pace.

So my answer now would be that at a strategic level, I see real value in an organisation bringing its people and its technology together. However operationally, while I'm sure each team would get added value from a close working relationship with the other, I cannot see the skillsets required ultimately being similar enough to combine. My solution would be an overall directorate that combines, with aligned-but-separate specialists.

This move reflected a broader push within the organisation to redesign work around human-AI collaboration (including the deployment of over 3,000 custom GPT agents to assist in - for example - performance management and benefits queries).

I've not been shy about the fact that I have *opinions* about artificial "intelligence" and the use of generative systems on all kinds of levels.

However, I'll not re-hash these here. Instead, I'll point to experience of seeing HR clustered not under IT but under Finance or under Operations, and note that, in every single case, the responsible Director came from the discipline that *wasn't* HR. HR was always, without exception, seen as something that a director could "pick up" or which they could mostly leave to the subordinate experts and didn't need to be experts in themselves, so long as they were experts in finance or operations.

If you merge IT and HR then, even with the best and most rational of intentions, what you really mean is that IT will be in charge of HR and, consequently, machines will be prioritised over people.

This is exactly why the CIPD in particular has spent literal decades fighting to see more representation of HR at Board level. It is why the creation of the CPO, CHRO or HRD as Board-level or C-Suite roles was seen as so strategically important to the profession. Letting IT and HR merge relegates HR, once more, to a discipline that is seen as lesser, easier... something any reasonably intelligent business leader can be expected to have learned by osmosis.

I'm sure I don't need to point out the inherent misogyny in this, as well.

Depends on the sector and org size but many organizations are transforming and the shifts are happening rapidly. The key question from the above isn't, "Who reports to who?" so much as it is, "Will HR be a strategic leader in the digital transformation of their organization's workforce?". Employee interaction with technology (AI enabled or not, and again, depending on the sector), is increasingly being viewed as an employee experience making employee engagement with tech a shared priority between the People and Technology functions.

To a point made above, HR in many organizations have delivered the level of value to merit the "seat at the table". The question moving forward is about the value HR will continue to deliver for its organization in the midst of rapidly shifting working and technology paradigms- the impact of empowering value creation while prioritizing the humans who are at the center of it all. Those who seek to co-create this strategy will force-multiply their impact and protect/empower the people. Those who pit themselves against progress or prioritize maintaining HR's status quo, will wonder how they lost their seat. The driver behind the question in the OP isn't about reporting lines, its about HR's willingness to embrace an increasingly critical and expanded role in the future of strategic organizational leadership.

In reply to Robert:

I'm curious. Is this a ChatGPT response?

HR has had many homes in the past and my guess would be some companies will merge and many others won't or won't even have HR. It's such a broad church out in the world I don't think a one size fits all.

I've always taken an OD approach to my people work and I also focus a lot on guiding clients through change often tech enabled change. I've worked in tech teams, as their people management change lead and I've worked closely with tech (and many other functions) when it comes to change projects. Where I sit functionally is more about the org design, the signals it sends and what makes sense for the organisation. It's the geography but perhaps the bringing together of HR and tech is more about the past history -perhaps they were too far apart and not working collaboratively together in service of the organisation and the needs. Moving them into one joint function could be a powerful signal to indicate the future direction of travel.

Like any change project though, structure and where it sits is only one part of the equation. Regardess of where it sits HR needs to be more involved and not be afraid to lead the technical conversation (AI is part of that) rather than be behind the curve.

In reply to Sharon:

Fueled only by my brain on 4 shots of espresso and a lot of conversation on this topic in my "day job" :)

In reply to Robert:

Awesome to hear it. Your first answer looked very ChatGPt, your second much more like you, which was the reason for my cheeky reply Robert. I guess it goes to show what AI can do. It's both a powerful tool and will also have many unintended consequences. Interesting times.

btw, 4 shots, that's hardcore ;-)