One thing that stood out early on was the tone in the room.
When we ran a quick poll, the vast majority of attendees – predominantly senior HR leaders – described themselves as somewhat or very enthusiastic about AI. There was very little nervousness, which I thought was interesting given the wider narrative we’re seeing.
So this didn’t feel like a room full of people asking “how do we stop this?”
It felt much more like: “how do we make sense of it – and make good decisions?”
A few themes that came through
Rather than trying to cover everything, I’ll pull out a few points that felt particularly relevant.
The first is that, while AI feels new, the underlying dynamic isn’t.
Luke talked about previous waves of technology change – things like the introduction of spreadsheets – and how, at the time, they would have felt just as disruptive. Certain roles reduced, others expanded, and entirely new ones emerged in response.
The difference now is the pace. What might previously have played out over decades is happening in a much shorter window, which naturally makes it feel more uncertain.
The second theme, and probably the most useful from an HR perspective, is the idea that AI is far more likely to reshape work than remove it entirely.
When you actually break most roles down, they’re made up of a collection of tasks – some routine, some more judgement-based, some more relational. AI will inevitably take on some of those tasks, particularly at the more transactional end, but that doesn’t neatly translate to whole roles disappearing.
That shift – from thinking about jobs to thinking about work – came up repeatedly.
And the third theme, which I think most of us will recognise from experience, is that the real complexity sits with people, not technology.
The tools themselves are advancing quickly, and in some cases are surprisingly easy to adopt. What’s harder is what happens around them – how people interpret the change, how they see their own value, and how confident they feel in what comes next.
The tension in the narrative
One of the more honest parts of the discussion was around the mixed messages we’re all seeing.
On the one hand, there are very real examples of organisations talking about headcount reduction linked to AI. Those stories travel quickly and understandably shape how people feel.
On the other, there are equally strong examples of organisations using AI to open up new capability, improve service, and create different types of roles.
Both are true, and most organisations will probably land somewhere in the middle.
What came through quite strongly is that, in the absence of a clear internal narrative, people will default to the external one – which is often more negative.
That’s where HR has a particularly important role, not in over-selling the positives, but in being clear and consistent about what AI is actually being used for within the organisation, and what that means in practical terms.
The questions that came up
The Q&A towards the end was probably the most telling part of the session, as it reflected what people are grappling with in real time.
One question was whether AI “agents” should sit on organisational charts.
Luke’s view (which I tend to agree with) is that personifying AI in that way risks sending the wrong signal. These are tools, not employees, and framing them otherwise can unintentionally reinforce the idea that people are being replaced rather than supported.
Another question focused on employee sentiment, particularly in areas where roles are more transactional and therefore more exposed to change.
That tension came through clearly. Even with positive positioning around reducing workload or freeing up time, it’s difficult to counter a steady flow of external headlines about job losses. It can feel like every step forward internally is quickly challenged by something people have seen elsewhere.
The response wasn’t about finding a perfectly polished message, but about being able to explain, simply and honestly, where AI is adding value and what work will actually look like as a result. Without that clarity, it’s hard for people to see where they fit.
There was also an interesting question about whether the term “AI” itself is part of the challenge – whether it creates more concern than something framed as automation or system improvement.
There’s probably something in that. But equally, people tend to judge based on what they experience day to day, not just the label. If the impact isn’t clear, changing the language won’t solve it.
A final reflection
What I took away from the session – and from the level of engagement in the room – is that HR isn’t approaching this with fear.
If anything, there’s a level of curiosity and cautious optimism, alongside a recognition that the situation is still evolving and, in many areas, unclear.
The more interesting question isn’t whether AI will change work – it already is.
It’s how deliberately organisations choose to respond, and how well they bring their people with them as it happens.
And that, more than anything, still feels like an HR conversation.
If you would like to learn more about this event, or view the recorded session, get in touch.
