Part 5.

Is AI a solution

or a problem?

AI: help, hindrance, or hype?

On the subject of AI, there are two distinct angles which colour all the responses. On one hand there’s the everyday, task-enhancing view of AI: that many of us are using AI or machine learning tools already^[1], and that they tend to make life easier and offer a boost to productivity. Then there’s the existential view: AI products are being developed which could have a huge impact on jobs and privacy, to mention just two.

HR departments sit at the heart of this. It’s clear that HR leaders are reaping the benefits of rapid technological advances to provide ever more value to their organisations. At the same time, HR is also well-placed to look at the broader ethical concerns which surround AI. More than one panellist agreed that HR does have a pastoral responsibility to help employees navigate this change, whether that be through advice, training and development, or through listening and dealing with wellbeing concerns.

^[1] “When it comes to day-to-day use of AI, 5% of UK adults reported using AI a lot and 45%
a little” Source, The Office for National Statistics, link

No one felt that AI would make their challenges substantially worse: the dissenting voices emphasised that AI would solve some challenges, but create others along the way. But all were in agreement that these tools - and the concerns which come with them - are here already and here to stay.

Overall, the tone is cautiously welcoming, although it’s interesting to see that those answering with an unqualified “solve” tended to focus on the time-saving, routine help that AI tools could provide.

There were many specific examples. In the field of healthcare, we talked about a more joined-up clinical experience, with digitisation and instant retrieval of clinical data. In heavy industry, the idea that it could find efficiencies in the manufacturing process. In market research, the possibilities and (just as importantly) the ethical considerations around using synthetic panels.

The possibilities of AI instantly tap into the technological journey we’re on: faster, more detailed, more accurate, more insightful. Just as numerous are the human concerns and considerations. As we capture more data and use it in more complex ways, we need to be aware of its governance and control.

As a younger generation - for whom using these tools is second nature - populates the workplace, we need to ensure that older cohorts don’t feel concerned or threatened by fundamental changes. As we allow AI to take on a bigger role in the recruitment process, we need to preserve the human interactions which sit at the heart of an employee’s time at a company.

It’s clear from what we’ve covered already that everyone can see the benefits of using these technologies, but those benefits have tended to focus on what the tech could enable HR to achieve as a result of having more time and resource capacity.

In other words, many see AI not as a game-changing technology in and of itself, but as a labour-saving device. If it can take the grind out of certain tasks, HR teams can dedicate more time to high value work.

Others talked about the effectiveness of AI in delivering personalised and tailored training programmes: content adjusted and tweaked dynamically based on the user’s progress. Some even talked about using AI to identify skills gaps within the organisation by analysing performance data and predicting training needs in an proactive and ongoing way.

There’s a lot of optimism about AI’s potential to address skills shortages. And yes, all of our interviewees come from large businesses with the financial heft to be able to implement these sorts of programmes.

What is not in doubt is that AI tools are everywhere: open source and free services like ChatGPT, Otter, Caffe, or Pictory are already part of our daily lives, whether we use them ourselves or not. As they improve, the investment needed for businesses will drop and the barriers will disappear.

The general feeling is that organisations (and, in particular, HR teams) need to be ready, for both the good and the potentially divisive.

Automation vs. the human touch.

The answers here were extremely nuanced and split almost evenly across the two possibilities we presented (and two more which the panel created themselves).

No one debated the fact that self-service tech has had a profound effect on some of the classic interactions HR is called upon to deal with. Many cited examples like exit interviews, policy discussions, sick leave, or rewards as areas where HR needs to intervene far less often.

These examples can all be managed with existing tech. Responses are captured, logged, and made available instantly, and can be accessed anywhere through virtually any device.

As one person said, “It’s about doing things how and when you want to do them”. The quality of the technology - user journeys crafted to high commercial standards - encourages usage, minimises dropout, and maximises data quality.

But almost everyone referred to HR’s responsibility to be human. This goes all the way back to those wellbeing discussions right at the beginning of this paper: even if interactions need to be digital, it is up to HR to show employees that there’s a human link in the chain.

There may be people who are entirely comfortable to have these conversations with a chatbot or a survey. Many, though, will need the reassurance of a conversation. That may be generational, or because of a neurodiverse trait, or simply because they’re uncomfortable in entering their problem, whatever it might be, into a database.

“Tea and sympathy”, the light-hearted euphemism for the classic HR chat, can still be the right prescription. A human can soften difficult news, contextualise challenging feedback, or help to build a relationship. If a machine learning system can do that, it’s not yet widely available.