Chances are, you’re already using AI in HR. But have you thought about whether you should be responsible for AI across your whole organisation?
I recently recorded a podcast with Andy Doyle from the global market research giant Kantar. He told me that his full title is Chief People and Agent Officer. Yes, he’s not just responsible for HR but AI too.
It immediately tells you something important about where work is heading. This is not just about people anymore, and it is not just about technology either. It is about how people and AI agents work together. It is about how decisions get made, how trust is built and how leaders lead in a very different kind of environment.
What struck me most is that this is not a one-off example. We are starting to see the same pattern emerge elsewhere.
For example, Moderna has brought its technology and HR functions together. That is a significant signal that organisations are beginning to recognise that the people agenda and the technology agenda are no longer separate conversations.
For years, technology has largely sat with IT. IT has selected it, implemented it and governed it, and everyone else has received training on how to use it.
However, AI does not behave like previous technologies. It changes the work itself. It reshapes workflows, alters decision-making, changes the skills people need and challenges what leadership looks like in practice.
That is why AI adoption is not primarily a technology issue. It is a human one.
The real challenge is not providing access to AI tools. The real challenge is helping people to use them well, with confidence, judgement and clarity.
People need to understand where AI can help and where it might introduce risk. They also need to know where human accountability must remain firmly in place.
This is fundamentally about behaviour. It is about how people respond, how they build trust and how they develop confidence.
It is also about how organisations define responsibility for AI adoption, embed transparency and manage risk without shutting down progress.
In addition, it is about upskilling a workforce that will have very mixed reactions to AI. Some people will be excited, some will be sceptical and some will feel anxious. Often, individuals will feel all three at the same time.
Supporting people through that complexity is not a technical task. It is a people task.
Perhaps most importantly, this shift requires us to rethink leadership. Managers are no longer just leading teams of people. Increasingly, they will be working alongside AI agents and automated systems.
That changes the nature of leadership quite significantly. Leaders will need to think differently about how they allocate work and make decisions. They will also need to create an environment where people feel confident rather than threatened.
One of the most important roles HR can play in this transition is to create safe-to-fail environments.
People build confidence by experimenting, trying things out, sharing what works and learning from what does not. Creating that kind of environment is critical if organisations want meaningful adoption rather than superficial usage.
This is why the Kantar example is so powerful. Andy’s role recognises that if AI agents are becoming part of the workforce, someone needs to take responsibility for how humans and agents work together.
For HR teams, this does not mean becoming technical experts. It does not mean learning to code or understanding every detail of AI architecture.
However, it does mean becoming familiar with AI. HR professionals need to feel comfortable enough to ask better questions, understand the human implications and support leaders through the changes that AI will bring.
There is also an important mindset shift here. HR should not feel intimidated by it. If HR steps back because AI feels too technical, the future of work will take shape without the function that is supposed to understand people. That would be a significant missed opportunity.
We therefore have a choice. We can wait for AI to happen to us, or we can actively shape how organisations introduce AI and how people experience it.
This does not mean that HR owns all decisions relating to AI. IT, legal, risk and data functions all have essential roles to play.
However, HR should take clear ownership of the human side of adoption. This includes bringing people along, building confidence and shaping behaviours. It also means ensuring that AI enhances rather than diminishes the experience of work.
Ultimately, this is why it makes sense for AI agents to sit close to HR.
The opportunity is not just about efficiency. It is about improving work itself. It is about removing unnecessary friction, supporting better decision-making and enabling people to focus on the parts of their roles that genuinely add value.
When I see a title like Chief People and Agent Officer, I do not see something unusual. I see a reflection of where the profession is heading. The people agenda and the agent agenda are becoming one and the same.
HR needs to be at the centre of that shift, not because it has all the answers, but because it is best placed to ask the most important question: How do we make this work for humans?
That is why AI agents should belong in HR.
