The HR function is under a lot of pressure, and many people are questioning its role in businesses that are themselves undergoing change under the presumed impact of AI. But before wondering what will become of it, we need to think about the role we want to assign to it. Should it be considered a support function, a lever for transformation, the guardian of culture, or the architect of work? This is the question I attempted to answer last week (What is the purpose of HR?).
Once this role has been clarified, the question remains as to how it translates into the organization, and this organic translation is not self-evident.
Some businesses are content to rebrand their HR function with new, more modern titles, sometimes to mask a continuity of practices, sometimes because this rebranding reflects a change that is already underway. Others choose to merge the function with related disciplines, whether technology, operations, or employee experience. Still others massively outsource activities deemed transactional. All of these runways exist, but their relevance always depends on the specific context.
It is therefore not a question of saying what the “HR of the future” should be in absolute terms, but rather of examining the logic that can guide businesses in their choices.
In short:
- Redefining the role of HR is essential before any transformation: support function, lever for transformation, guardian of culture, or architect of work—each position involves a specific organization.
- Several transformation models coexist depending on the context: HR-IT merger (as at Moderna), People Ops approach (at Bolt), integration into operations, partial or total outsourcing, or even the emergence of the role of Chief of Work.
- Success depends on hybrid skills, clear governance, and a shared vision of work.
- The employee experience requires a collective approach that goes beyond HR, involving IT, operations, real estate, and communications; it illustrates the shift from a process-centered function to a role of global orchestration.
- Transformation must be gradual and rooted in the reality of work: diagnosis, targeted experimentation, co-construction with business lines, and the adoption of mixed indicators are the conditions for organic and sustainable change.
The temptation to merge HR and IT
With the rise of artificial intelligence, many companies are realizing that success depends not only on technological investments but also on the ability to align technology and talent. This is what led Moderna to merge its HR and IT functions (HR and IT merger: Moderna redesigns its organization for and with AI and Why Moderna merged HR and IT to better ‘architect the flow of work’).
The idea is appealing: instead of trying to get two separate worlds to collaborate, why not bring them together under one roof and force them to invent together how work will be designed tomorrow? But experts remain divided (Should Your Company Merge Its CHRO and CTO Roles?). Keith Ferrazzi believes that merging the organizational chart is not enough and that the real challenge is to invent a form of cross-functional cooperation between peers, which he calls “teamship”, while Peter Cappelli insists that this model only works if the person in charge has genuine dual skills, which remains rare. Finally, Kalifa Oliver points out that what is inevitable is not the merger itself, but the growing influence of technology on HR and the resulting need for gradual integration.
The example of Cisco mentioned in the same article illustrates this nuance well: the company did not merge HR and IT, but created an “AI Control Hub”, a cross-functional coalition bringing together HR, IT, finance, legal, and operations to oversee the use of AI and align decisions on common principles. We can effectively conclude that merger is just one option among many, often the least realistic, but that the need for collaboration is very real. However, the success of this model requires credible, “bicultural” leadership, governance capable of resisting the temptation to prioritize technology at the expense of people, and a roadmap that sets mixed objectives in terms of tool adoption and employee experience. Otherwise, there is a risk of creating a super-function that is impossible to manage, where responsibilities pile up without consistency and where IT logic ends up dictating the pace. This model is therefore relevant in organizations that are already digitally mature, where AI is a key strategic lever and where the corporate culture truly promotes cross-functionality.
Another advantage I see in this approach is rebalancing resources between HR, which is always understaffed, and IT, which has an increasingly bloated workforce. If the fact that we often end up with one HR representative for every 100 people and one IT representative for every 30 doesn’t bother you, know that it bothers me (Human capital? Less well endowed than technological capital).
The rise of People Ops
Other companies, such as Bolt, have chosen a different path by simply eliminating the HR function and replacing it with a “People Ops” approach (Why Bolt eliminated traditional HR and reset with a new People Ops approach). This is an interesting phenomenon because People Ops is generally a subset of HR, but in this case, it has become the core of their business.
Here, the rebranding seems to go beyond the cosmetic and reflects a desire to move from a logic of compliance and processes to a logic of service and product. The goal is to remove friction, give managers more authority in their day-to-day work, and treat the function as an internal product that is continuously improved based on data, employee feedback, and business needs (What if we thought of HR or IT as a product?).
In my opinion, this model works when the organization is already service-oriented and has the skills to manage rapid iteration, design, and data analysis. Conversely, it is likely to fail when the culture remains focused on processes and compliance, or when People Ops is limited to optimizing the existing situation without influencing culture and leadership. The risk is that the function will be reduced to that of an efficient but depoliticized operator, unable to influence structural decisions. To be relevant, this model therefore requires a clear link with business strategy so that the function does not merely improve the quality of HR services, but becomes a lever for organizational transformation. At this point, it can be a transitional step that allows practices to be modernized without immediately disrupting the entire structure.
When HR gets closer to operations
Another development is to bring the HR function closer to operations, not only in its “people ops” version, but by integrating it into real operations, those that drive production, logistics, or services. I have already defended this idea, having implemented it myself: if the ultimate goal of HR is to improve all aspects of work, it makes sense for it to be directly involved with those who organize and manage this work on a daily basis (What is the purpose of HR?).
The success of this model relies on a detailed understanding of how work really happens, beyond what is prescribed, and on HR’s ability to understand operations in order to help streamline practices and remove friction. But in return, it requires operations to accept the employee experience as a legitimate and structuring constraint. Contrary to what one might fear, this is not a loss of power or a “subjugation” of HR, especially since in my case it was actually a takeover of Ops by HR. It is more of a double adaptation: the HR function is anchored in operational realities and operations are reinventing themselves under the constraint of a work experience worthy of the name (Is it heresy to put “people” and “operations” in the same sentence?). It is precisely in this constant synchronization that the difficulty lies, because if the balance is broken, one or the other logic can take over, hence the importance of entrusting the management of the whole to someone who truly has a dual sensibility. But when it works, the benefits are clear: the HR function ceases to be perceived as a distant and bureaucratic support function and becomes a direct contributor to performance. This model is particularly relevant in highly operational companies, whether they are industrial, distribution, or service-based.
Towards a more distributed, even outsourced HR function
At the other end of the spectrum, some imagine an increasingly distributed, even outsourced HR function. Nicolas Bourgeois and Gilles Verrier, in their book Les RH en 2030 (HR in 2030), explain that the function is becoming so heterogeneous that it is likely that some companies will do without an HR department as such. Julien Martino goes even further in a post on LinkedIn, stating that the internal HR function is doomed to disappear: all its components, including those that are local, can be outsourced. Payroll and legal services are already often outsourced; tomorrow, this could include recruitment, training, and even managerial support.
I believe this approach can work if we clearly segment what is core to the strategy and what can be treated as a commodity, put in place robust mechanisms for managing service providers, and retain an internal capacity for arbitration. But there are real risks: the employee experience may suffer, dependence on external partners may become excessive, and hidden coordination costs may wipe out the gains. This model is relevant for companies that want to focus their resources on strategy and delegate everything that can be standardized, provided they already have a familiar culture of outsourcing, as is the case in finance or IT.
Employee experience and the emergence of the Chief of Work
The employee experience is often presented as a new frontier for HR. Some companies are creating Chief Employee Experience Officer positions, while others are entrusting this role to existing HR staff. But the employee experience is not strictly an HR domain: it also depends on IT, which designs the tools; operations, which structures daily work; real estate, which designs the spaces; and even internal communications (2023 Employee Experience Barometer: the employee experience confronted with its contradictions and Employee experience is useless (if it is not linked to the business)). It perfectly illustrates the fact that the HR function cannot, on its own, take charge of a cross-functional issue. The employee experience forces HR to collaborate, share its legitimacy, and accept that its role is evolving from guardian of processes to conductor of a collective project (HR and Operations: the only viable duo for driving employee experience).
Even more radical is the emergence of the role of Chief of Work (Do we need a chief of work?). Here, it is no longer just a question of modernizing the HR function, but of going beyond it. The Chief of Work is not only interested in people but in work in all its dimensions: organization, technology, management, and experience. This role is still marginal, but it reflects a fundamental trend: the HR function may not be destined to grow stronger but to dissolve into a broader responsibility focused on the design and fluidity of work.
Business discourse as a condition of legitimacy
Beyond structures, what gives weight to the HR function is the stance it adopts. The example of Emirates is quite interesting in this regard (Emirates Group: “We need to have the courage to challenge old ways of working to meet the needs of a changing workforce”). Its HR Director emphasizes the need to have the courage to challenge old ways of working in order to meet the needs of a changing workforce. Above all, she adopts a resolutely business-oriented approach: the HR function is not there to protect processes, but to serve the strategy, support performance, and accompany the transformation of the economic model. This business-oriented approach is a prerequisite for HR to be able to experiment with new structural configurations. Without this legitimacy, any attempt at merger, rebranding, or outsourcing risks being perceived as artificial.
How to transform the function organically
It is easy to announce a merger, rebranding, or outsourcing, but if you want to avoid the effects of publicity, the transformation must be organic, i.e., rooted in the reality of the work and the maturity of the organization. This first requires an accurate diagnosis, mapping HR activities according to their strategic and operational value, and identifying technological or organizational friction points that slow down the flow of work. It then requires small-scale experimentation, such as setting up HR-IT or HR-Ops pairs in limited areas, in order to learn as you go and adjust the structure gradually. It also requires co-construction with managers and business lines, because a transformation decided upon by a small group is doomed to failure.
But success also depends on the development of hybrid skills: training HR in data, digital technology, and employee experience, and encouraging cross-functional career paths to foster lasting mutual understanding. Finally, management must be based on mixed indicators that measure technological adoption, improved employee experience, and productivity gains. And to maintain the benefits of this “multiculturalism,” clear governance is needed, bringing together several functions and regularly arbitrating priorities.
Bottom line
What all these examples show, from Moderna to Bolt, Cisco to Emirates, is that there is no single model. Merging HR and IT, switching to People Ops, bringing HR and operations closer together, outsourcing extensively, or distributing the function: each of these options may be relevant, but none is universal.
What I believe is that the key factor is not organizational charts but the ability of functions to collaborate. The future belongs less to merging than to co-construction, less to rebranding than to integrating approaches. The companies that will succeed are those that align their technological and human priorities, have the courage to question inherited models, and know how to build an HR function that is not just following a trend, but is organically adapted to their culture, constraints, and strategy.
To answer your questions…
HR can be seen as a support function, a driver of transformation, a guardian of culture, or an architect of work. The challenge is not to define a single model, but to clarify its mission in line with each company’s strategy. Mergers, rebranding, outsourcing, or consolidation with other functions are only relevant if they are part of a clear and shared vision, thus avoiding vague or purely cosmetic positioning.
The HR-IT merger seeks to align technology and talent, as at Moderna. It can accelerate the adoption of AI but requires leadership that is skilled in both human and digital aspects, which remains rare. Others, such as Cisco, favor cross-functional coalitions. In all cases, balanced governance is needed, otherwise IT logic risks overshadowing the human aspect.
Inspired by Bolt, this model treats HR as an internal service that is continuously improved through data and employee feedback. It aims to reduce friction and empower managers. But it fails if the culture remains dominated by control and compliance. To be strategic, it must be directly linked to the company’s business priorities.
This model anchors HR in the reality of work and transforms it into a direct contributor to performance. It streamlines practices and integrates the employee experience as a legitimate constraint. But the balance remains fragile: too much influence on one side reduces effectiveness. It is particularly suited to industrial, service, and distribution companies.
Certains prévoient une disparition progressive de la DRH interne, remplacée par des prestataires pour le recrutement, la formation ou l’accompagnement managérial. Ce modèle libère des ressources stratégiques mais comporte des risques : dépendance accrue, expérience affaiblie, coûts cachés. Il reste pertinent si l’entreprise distingue clairement le stratégique de l’opérationnel et pilote rigoureusement ses partenaires.
In this series
| What is the purpose of HR? |
| After the role, the place: how the HR function can evolve organically |
| Three concrete scenarios for the evolution of the HR function |
Image credit: Image generated by artificial intelligence via ChatGPT (OpenAI)
Related articles:
HR and IT merger: Moderna redesigns its organization for and with AI
What is the purpose of HR?
HR/IT and the reality of working at Moderna: the unspoken truths of a reorganization
People are everywhere in the workplace, but HR is nowhere when it comes to work
IT is becoming the HR department for machines, but who is taking care of the humans?
What if we thought of HR or IT as a product?
