• Replies 17 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 5780 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

Will HR and IT functions merge to reshape the role of the profession?

Steve Bridger

It's a bit of a provocative question, but not a hypothetical one.

In May, the huge biotech company Moderna merged its technology and HR departments under one executive, creating the new role of Chief People and Digital Technology Officer. 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). We have discussed how the use of AI in recruiting is already rapidly accelerating that integration. AI in the workplace 

Is this a new trend - a fad that will blow over - or something that more organisations may adopt in the near future? 

This was another topic of discussion in this week's HR People Pod.

As the guests commented - this isn't about sticking two functions together to create a Frankenstein department - and HR will not be fixing employee laptops anytime soon - but the tywo functions already work closely - innovating, creating dashboards, etc. 

In few years ago a friend (who will remain nameless) rather harshly referred to the "cold hands of HR and IT". Can the two functions really merge together in err, warm embrace?

  • 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 ;-)

  • Will HR and IT functions merge to reshape the role of the profession? It’s a growing discussion as organisations experiment with closer integration of people strategy and technology, especially with the rise of AI and data-driven tools that support both employees and business decisions. While full mergers may not be the norm, many companies are already blending HR and IT to improve efficiency and create better employee experiences. You can read more here:https://betterme.world/articles/corporate-wellness-software/ .This shift is likely to keep growing as workplaces become more tech-driven.

  • I don’t think HR and IT will fully merge, but I do see much closer collaboration becoming common. As AI becomes part of hiring, performance management, and employee services, the line between people strategy and technology strategy will continue to blur. The functions may stay separate, but they’ll likely become more interconnected than ever

  • I don’t think HR and IT necessarily need to merge, but I do think the boundary between them needs to become much clearer.

    IT will usually own the systems, security, integration and technical governance. HR should not try to become a technical function. But HR does need to own the people impact: job design, capability, trust, employee relations risk, manager behaviour, consultation, adoption and the ethical use of people data.

    The danger for HR is waiting until a system has already been selected and then being asked to “manage the people side” afterwards. By that point, many of the important decisions have already been made.

    A useful model may be:

    1. IT owns infrastructure and security.
    2. HR owns workforce impact, role design and employee trust.
    3. Legal/DPO owns privacy, compliance and contractual risk.
    4. Leaders own business use cases and accountability.
    5. Managers own day-to-day implementation and communication.

    So I would not frame it as HR merging with IT. I would frame it as HR needing enough digital and AI literacy to be an equal governance partner rather than a late-stage implementation function.

  • Peter’s point about HR being an equal governance partner resonates with me. I’ve long believed in wirearchy: work drawing on connected expertise, trust and shared responsibility across organisational boundaries. Jon Husband’s concept gives us a useful way to discuss that alongside formal reporting lines.

    AI makes the question more immediate. A task might involve a colleague in another team, a specialist and an agent. Who can delegate it, whose judgement determines whether it is good enough, and who carries the checking and recovery burden?

    These are questions we’re exploring through Agent Control’s experimental Digital Labour Exchange: defining a task’s purpose, budget, permissions, acceptance criteria and accountable owner as it moves between capabilities. That is an experiment in organising and verifying work, not evidence that an AI worker is equivalent to an employee.

    For HR, I think the opportunity is to help shape those rules before the technology fixes them by default. That includes recognising contributions across teams, protecting opportunities to learn, and deciding what happens to any capacity released.

    A network still needs boundaries and a way to challenge decisions. Otherwise we risk replacing a visible hierarchy with invisible power.

    Could workforce planning describe both the hierarchy of responsibility and the network through which work actually gets done?