A few weeks ago, Parlons RH released its national barometer on AI applied to HR (in French), the first solid study on the subject conducted in France to my knowledge. Here is a brief overview with some good news, but also a few areas of concern.
In brief:
- 96% of HR professionals are familiar with AI and 83% use it individually, but only 37% of HR departments have integrated it into their processes, with use mainly focused on content creation.
- AI is well accepted as long as it improves individual efficiency without changing the underlying structures of work; more transformational uses remain marginal.
- Three typical profiles are emerging among HR professionals: Enthusiasts, Hesitators, and Deniers, illustrating a curious function that is hampered by a lack of overall strategy and structural barriers.
- The case of Moderna shows that strategic use of AI is possible when it is integrated into an organizational overhaul driven by strong alignment between HR and IT.
- The barometer reveals less a technological transition than a crisis of purpose for HR, which must move from a logic of optimization to a logic of transformation in order to truly leverage AI.
Preamble: what Parlons RH’s 2025 barometer says about AI
The first edition of the national barometer on AI applied to HR paints a contrasting but informative picture:
- 96% of HR professionals say they are at least “somewhat familiar” with AI.
- 83% already use AI tools on an individual basis, mainly to interact with chatbots (67%) or generate text content (62%).
- However, only 37% of HR departments have integrated at least one AI tool into their processes.
- Use remains focused on content creation: eight of the 12 most common uses involve writing job ads, questionnaires, or contract documents.
- Recruitment (62% of businesses) and training (47%) are the two areas most affected.
- Conversely, AI is not widely used in HR activities with high strategic value: 29% for performance analysis, 28% for HR analytics, and 34% in social relations.
- 76% of professionals believe that AI will profoundly transform their profession… but only 32% believe that it has already done so.
- Three typical profiles emerge: Enthusiasts (32%), Hesitators (56%) and Deniers (12%).
- Finally, 47% of HR departments have engaged in AI training, but mostly at a basic level (understanding, prompting, generic tools).
This overview reflects a strong but still highly fragmented dynamic. Beyond these figures, the barometer does not reveal any strategic intent, but rather a proliferation of individual initiatives, personal acculturation, and practices that touch on HR work at the margins without questioning its core.
AI is comfortable as long as it doesn’t challenge anything
One of the key findings of the survey is that AI is well received by HR as long as it is used to improve personal efficiency or for light automation. Content creation (job descriptions, messages, training materials) is the main use. AI makes it possible to work faster and produce more without affecting the organization of work or the skills required.
However, when we look at advanced uses (predictive analytics, process automation, dynamic skills management), the figures plummet. And for good reason: these uses require a complete overhaul of data, processes, the decision-making chain, and therefore the HR model itself.
AI is therefore fairly well accepted as long as it does not change anything fundamental.
There is a good reason why I insist on the need to quickly find truly transformational use cases.
Firstly, because these personal efficiency strategies, often referred to as “augmentation,” do not guarantee any collective operational gains (AI in the workplace: going beyond augmentation to actually transform).
Secondly, because AI has a cost, and I am seeing more and more businesses balk when they see the bill for “just” generating text and images. Behind the fairly symbolic example of Copilot ([FR]Copilot: the disappointments of generative AI integrated into Microsoft office software), there is a real question about the sector’s ability to deliver value commensurate with the price charged, which does not even cover its operating costs, making it an economically very fragile industry today (Generative AI: a bubble, a crash, or a turning point?).
An HR function that is technologically curious but structurally rigid
The barometer outlines three profiles of HR professionals: Enthusiasts, who explore and test; Hesitators, who are cautious and acculturated; and Deniers, who are reluctant or even skeptical. The good news is that only 12% of this population is openly reluctant.
However, this typology clearly illustrates the prevailing climate, which I do not believe is unique to HR: that of a function that is questioning itself but is reluctant to transform its practices in any profound way.
The obstacles identified are well known: inadequate data governance, lack of clear ROI, fear of losing control, fragmentation of tools and responsibilities.
But what this barometer reveals in dotted lines is the absence of an overall plan: AI is approached as a subject separate from work, not as a lever for rethinking its structure, organization, and processes.
Work design will have to wait.
The Moderna exception: HR-IT merger as a strategic project
It is interesting to draw parallels with a recent initiative by Moderna that has been widely commented on, and for good reason.
While Baromètre paints a picture of an HR function in the process of adopting AI, the Moderna case shows exactly the opposite (HR and IT merger: Moderna redesigns its organization for and with AI). By merging its HR and IT functions under the responsibility of its HR Director, the biotech business is fundamentally rethinking the design of work, even if some gray areas remain (HR/IT and the reality of working at Moderna: the unspoken truths of a reorganization).
At Moderna, AI is not just another tool, but the catalyst for a paradigm shift. More than 3,000 internal GPTs are being developed to meet business needs. Processes are being reviewed in terms of flow (Thinking of work as a flow: appealing, but is it realistic?) by asking what can be automated, augmented, or left to humans. Tools are designed to streamline work, not add complexity.
But this model cannot be exported as is. It requires strong strategic alignment, an advanced tech culture, and HR leadership that is mature enough to drive the transformation. However, it does have the merit of asking the right question: What if AI were an opportunity to rethink work rather than just tooling it?
An HR function in search of purpose
What the barometer tells us, essentially, is that this is less a technological transition than a crisis of purpose. AI is here, the tools are here, and sometimes the will is here too. But what for? Too often, the HR function adopts technologies without revisiting its fundamentals: what is its purpose? What value does it create? What experience does it want to provide for employees?
All of this seems to me to be in line with the latest APEC-ANDRH study on executives’ perceptions of HR (The impact of HR questioned by French executives).
AI could therefore be a powerful lever for improvement, freeing up time for connection, support, and work design, but this requires moving from a logic of optimization to a logic of transformation. This leap will not happen as long as HR continues to see itself as a support function rather than a driving force for change (Employee experience is not a support function but a business function…).
Bottom line
The 2025 Parlons RH barometer shows an HR function that is curious and acculturated, but still timid and fragmented. The Moderna case, on the other hand, shows that it is possible to give AI strategic scope by linking it to organizational redesign.
To build on this success, the HR function must move away from the instrumentalization of AI and see it as an opportunity to restore meaning, unity, and consistency to its actions. This is not a question of technology but, as is often the case, a question of vision.
Image credit: Image generated by artificial intelligence via ChatGPT (OpenAI).
Related articles:
HR and IT merger: Moderna redesigns its organization for and with AI
IT is becoming the HR department for machines, but who is taking care of the humans?
HR/IT and the reality of working at Moderna: the unspoken truths of a reorganization
Productive tensions or sterile tensions? A reading of the Deloitte Global Human Capital Trends 2025 report
Businesses are deterministic, generative AI is not, and that’s a real problem.
To take care of their mental health, employees prefer robots to their managers
