Should HR Manage AI-Agents?
As AI and AI-agents replace human workers, what should be the role of HR? Should they play a role in managing AI virtual workers?
As robots, physical and virtual, are increasingly powered by AI, and replacing human workers, what should be the role of HR? And as the use of generative AI is morphing into AI agents, the impact on the human workforce is potentially even greater.
This question arose several months ago in a LinkedIn post by Richard Rosenow, who wrote about a janitorial robot vacuuming the carpet in a Las Vegas casino—ironically, at the HR Technology Conference (image above).
Richard wrote:
[W]whose budget does this robot fall under? My bet is IT or Ops and I don't think this little guy is under HR's purview despite taking over a job. Are they part of the workforce?
We carried on a short discussion in the comments section. From my point of view, it would appear that HR should play no role whatsoever in the relationship between the employer and the robot.
I replied:
Doesn’t HR stand for Human Resources? Yes, the robots are taking over human worker jobs, but so does any kind of automation, like manufacturing systems. And HR does not assume overview over those systems as a result, right?
Do AI Agents Go Beyond Past Waves of Automation?
Richard responded, basically, that this time it’s different.
Frank, [I] totally agree with you historically and with this example of the cleaning robot, I agree too. But I don't think automations of jobs from previous waves of automations are the playbook we're seeing now.
I think HR (and workers) need to grapple with the relationship and ownership around “work” and what it means to be human at work. As RPA hit the scene computers took on a lot of menial repeatable work, but most work was done still by humans, just now using technology (scaling the human, but still human controlled).
With the advent of agents though, work has started to separate from a "workforce" in a big way and then HR needs to be part of that conversation and figure out how to help workers through that.
Total workforce planning comes to mind and how to make sense of the portfolio of humans and robots that can accomplish work. I don't think WFP has ever had a perfect home, but I'd like to see HR step in to own that space of work beyond the workforce.
I concluded with the observation that, even with human workers, the HR organization does not manage the work. That is the responsibility of the operations group, whether it be manufacturing in a factory, clinical staff in a hospital, or operations in any other industry. So, there is even less of a case to be made for AI-agents coming under the HR organization. But there certainly should be a role for HR to facilitate the transition of human workers that are being replaced by AI, whether the transition be within the company or in outplacement.
I wrote:
Richard…I appreciate the thoughtful conversation. I certainly agree that when a human is replaced by technology, HR should be "part of that conversation," to "figure out how to help workers through that transition." But that is much less than the robot now being "under HR's purview," as you originally wrote. Most HR organizations don't have the background, skills, and experience to plan and schedule robots.
Even with a human workforce, in factories and healthcare organizations, you don't see HR doing the detailed planning and scheduling of factory workers or healthcare professionals. That is something that is done by Operations. Yes, HR should be involved in longer term planning of staffing and skills development, in partnership with operations. But HR does not "own" the human resources.
Even more so when it comes to robots, whether it is factory robots or janitorial robots. The acquisition, ongoing support, and scheduling of robots is the responsibility of manufacturing or facilities management. The only role for HR that I can see is, as you mention, where human workers are being replaced, to help those workers transition to other opportunities within the business or to help them with outplacement.
So, What Is the Impact of AI on HR Professionals?
As I see it, HR organizations are getting squeezed on two sides.
First, AI, especially agentic AI, is assisting and in some cases taking over HR administrative activities. This should provide a productivity boost in HR groups—or looking at it from the negative side, reducing the need for HR staff, especially at lower skill levels.
Second, the use of AI throughout the organizations means fewer human workers generally. This means less work for the HR organization. More on this below.
All business functions should be able to reduce staff headcounts based on productivity improvements (point 1 above). But, unlike most organizational units, HR staffing is also driven by the number of corporate employees. Companies that have a greater number of employees require a greater number of HR professionals. This can be expressed by what we call a staffing ratio—in this case the number of corporate employees to the number of HR staff members. There are industry benchmarks for this ratio. It might be 50:1, 100:1, or some other ratio. Assuming the ratio of corporate employees to HR staff members holds steady, then a 20% cut in corporate headcount should mean a 20% cut in HR professionals.
If AI agents truly replace human workers across the entire company, there will be fewer humans to hire, onboard, train, retain, and develop. There will be less work flowing through hire-to-retire processes.
It is no surprise then that HR leaders might be looking for a role to play in managing “AI workers.”
As with many applications of AI, it is not yet clear how this is going to play out. But right now, I can’t see “AI workers” coming under the HR department. The only role I see for HR is to help transition human workers replaced by AI into other roles, or outside the company.
What do you think?
Like this post? Browse my past posts.
I see it a bit similar to 3rd party workers. As much as we wrung our hands over the years as to whether these workers should be owned by HR, ultimately they are still managed by procurement *but* a good HR team understands who they are, what they are doing, how they fit in and are included in some traditional processes.
So I would say that HR first needs to understand the work to be delivered by the business and then how both agents and 3rd parties are (can be/will be) accomplishing this work and what this means for the human workforce (finding ways to grow skills and capability for work not being accomplished by AI/3rd party).
I'm sure you've seen the CES statement from Jensen saying IT will be HR for these agents. I think this is a great conversation because it's going to be quite messy. I think there are several conversations that need to happen with first principles vs. just trying to evolve current roles. These topics include governance, risk, culture, compliance but most importantly this conversation is about work. What work happens where and who is responsible for the results (and missteps). I think we have a lot to learn here before we have a good sense of what the supporting and amplifying roles inside an organization need to be. I do think both the ratios and the nature of the HR role will evolve based on this, but as a second order change. First order has to be getting better clarity on where, how and what agents should and should not be doing.