AI was supposed to elevate HR. What if it does the opposite?

The pitch goes something like this: AI will handle repetitive tasks, analyze mountains of data, and provide personalized experiences at scale, which then gives HR the space to become more strategic.

It’s a compelling idea; it’s also far from guaranteed.

That’s according to Stacia Garr, a researcher and thought leader on talent management, leadership, and HR technology, who argues that the assumption rests on conditions that simply don’t exist in many organizations.

“The predominant narrative has been that we’re going to get AI in and that’s going to free HR leaders up to do more strategic work,” Garr says. “That makes a lot of underlying assumptions.”

Those assumptions, she said, include the idea that HR budgets will remain stable, that business leaders actually want HR to take on a more strategic role, and that HR teams already can step into that position. Garr suggests that none of those factors can be taken for granted and that many organizations still view HR primarily as a service function designed to deliver efficiency rather than strategic input.

“Just the premise that everyone's saying, ‘Oh, we just put in AI and HR will be more strategic,’ I think it's just flawed,” she said.

In that context, introducing AI does not automatically elevate HR. It can just as easily reinforce the status quo by enabling the same work to be delivered faster and at lower cost.

Efficiency doesn’t equal influence

That distinction becomes more important as AI begins to shape how work itself is organized.

Lydia Wu, Senior Director and Industry Analyst of AI in HR at Gartner, sees the same tension playing out across organizations, though from a different vantage point. Working with HR leaders globally, she describes the current moment as something of a catch-22: adoption is widespread, but impact remains uneven.

“About 95% of HR teams have AI initiatives underway, but only 18% are achieving significant transformational value,” Wu said, highlighting a gap between activity and outcome that many organizations are still trying to close.

Read more: AI success hinges on heavy data and governance investment

Part of the issue, she explains, is where the focus has been placed. Many teams are concentrating on making existing processes faster, rather than questioning whether those processes should exist in their current form at all.

Influence, Garr argues, depends not on how efficiently HR teams execute tasks, but on whether they’re involved in decisions about how work is changing in the first place. When those decisions are led by IT or business units, HR risks being sidelined.

“If most of that transition is being left to IT or to the business, then HR’s influence is going to necessarily wane,” Garr says.

That dynamic can leave HR in a reactive position, stepping in after changes have already been made to align processes, manage workforce implications, and address inconsistencies. It’s a familiar role, but one that limits the function’s ability to shape strategy at a deeper level.

At the same time, both Garr and Wu point out that this trajectory is not inevitable.

In organizations where HR actively participates in redesigning workflows and defining how roles evolve, influence can grow rather than shrink. The difference lies in whether HR is helping to shape the system of work or adapting to it after the fact.

AI is changing the system of work, not just the speed

That idea of redesigning work rather than accelerating it is central to Wu’s view of where HR professionals should be directing their focus.

“If we were to just throw AI on top of existing work and basically ask HR leaders to do their work as is today with AI automating things faster and faster, there could be a risk of HR functions becoming obsolete,” she said. “But the future of HR really lies in their ability to redesign their own work in AI transformations.

Read more: Agentic AI exposes data gap

So far, most organizations have leaned toward the former. According to Gartner data, a majority (54%) of AI-related changes in HR are still focused on workflow augmentation, with far fewer aimed at reengineering work or creating entirely new services.

Wu argues that HR leaders already have many of the tools required to shift that approach.

“CHROs already have the set of tools they need to thrive with AI. It's just a matter of reframing it and reframing their existing tool for a new environment,” she said.

A strategic role isn’t given

Both Garr and Wu agree that AI creates the possibility for HR to become more influential, but it doesn’t guarantee it.

Garr emphasizes the importance of clarity. HR leaders need to define the purpose of the function within their organization, determine which responsibilities still belong within it, and align their structure and processes to that purpose. Without that foundation, even the most advanced technology will struggle to deliver meaningful impact.

She also points to the importance of building strong data foundations, such as integrating systems, improving data quality, and establishing governance, as a prerequisite for any AI-enabled strategy.

Wu adds that as long as organizations rely on people, there will be a need for leaders who can guide how those people operate within increasingly complex, technology-driven environments.

In simple terms, what is changing is not the necessity of HR, but the nature of its contribution.

“They have to seize the opportunity,” Garr says. “The opportunity will not just manifest.”