Two-thirds of debate participants thought HR was not ready for AI. The People Space heard about the challenges and opportunities, from data quality issues to bias concerns, to learn how HR can adopt AI effectively with a careful, human-first approach
As artificial intelligence (AI) rapidly transforms industries the question of whether HR is ready to adopt AI effectively has sparked considerable debate among industry leaders. At a debate held by UCL School of Management six experts weighed in on whether the HR function is truly prepared to integrate AI into its processes in a way that delivers value, enhances decision-making and manages risks. The discussion revealed a divided perspective, with clear optimism on one side and significant caution on the other.
Here’s how the debate unfolded:
Team ‘Yes’: "AI is already here, and it’s making a difference"
Glen McCracken, head of data, analytics and automation at ION, said that HR’s adoption of AI is no longer theoretical, it’s already happening at scale. Backing this up Grantley Morgan, future of work research lead at EY, pointed out that 76% of organisations are using AI in some capacity compared to just 22% last year. He emphasised that “the genie is out of the bottle,” and organisations are already seeing knowledge gains of up to 55% by integrating AI into HR processes.
While there are challenges HR cannot afford to stay on the sidelines, agreed Team Yes. "Your organisations are doing it and there’s demand for it," Morgan said. He urged HR leaders to recognise the fallacy of choice; staying passive isn’t an option when so many organisations are moving forward with AI adoption. “Don’t let fear keep you on the sidelines,” he said.
Rebecca Foden, global early careers transformation leader at JoinTalent, was even more bullish, pointing out that AI is already simplifying recruitment processes in many companies. “We already use AI in student and job applications,” she noted, citing HMRC as an example, where entry level customer service applicants can now apply for jobs and receive an offer without speaking to a human.
Morgan urged HR professionals to start small and in low-risk areas before rolling out AI across the board. “Go to the team that is most overworked and see where they think AI can help them,” he suggested.
Their collective view was clear: AI is not a distant future. It’s here, and HR needs to be at the centre of AI adoption to ensure it's used responsibly and effectively.
Team ‘N’o: "HR isn’t ready – there are too many gaps in data and understanding"
On the opposing side Gishan Nissanka, global head of people intelligence at Worldline, argued that HR’s current infrastructure is not prepared for the responsible adoption of AI. “We’re still using spreadsheets in HR and often have to correct even those,” he said.
Wilson Wong, futurist and director at WongOnWork, pointed to the lack of data quality and inadequate workforce readiness as major stumbling blocks. AI systems rely on accurate, diverse data, yet HR often doesn’t have the right foundations in place. Wong suggested that while AI can be powerful, HR lacks the clear use cases to demonstrate its effectiveness at an organisational level. “We’re still in the hype stage of adoption,” he warned, adding: “Do you want to be managed by incorrect algorithms?”
Wong highlighted the risks of hidden disabilities being overlooked by AI. "During COVID people didn’t have the data on hidden disabilities and they had to gain it rapidly," he said. This was echoed by Tania Martin, founder of PegSquared and who is neurodivergent. She questioned whether AI is equipped to handle the nuances of diversity, equity and inclusion, noting that when she asked AI to give her a picture of neurodiversity it served up photos of people with Down’s Syndrome.
A complex landscape: caution meets optimism
Despite the division both sides agreed that AI can’t be ignored but readiness is key. Wong summarised the sentiment from the ‘no’ camp: “AI is here and will be good but right now we’re not ready.” The panellists acknowledged that while AI can reduce bias in theory there is still significant work to be done to ensure data quality and human oversight are prioritised. As Nissanka said of generative AI (like ChatGPT) it is effective at an individual level – acting like an expert alongside you – but there are still questions at organisational level.
Team ‘yes’, on the other hand, expressed their belief that HR’s AI journey is inevitable, with organisations already seeing the benefits, particularly in recruitment and administrative tasks. The fallacy of choice – believing HR can wait to adopt AI – was raised repeatedly by the Yes team. Their message: start now but start carefully.
Conclusion: So is HR ready?
The debate highlighted a nuanced view of AI in HR. While optimism about the technology’s potential is undeniable the readiness of HR functions to adopt AI responsibly remains a challenge. As organisations continue to explore AI's possibilities the consensus from the debate is that HR should focus on low-risk, high-value areas and build from there. Starting small and scaling up based on real-world feedback was a strategy both sides could agree on.
One thing is certain: AI is already reshaping HR and those who don’t engage with it risk being left behind