AI will boost HR roles as regulators tighten rules

HR roles once expected to be cut by artificial intelligence are becoming more important, according to HR Recruit, which pointed to UK adoption data and growing regulatory scrutiny of AI-led hiring.

Jo Thompson, Divisional Director at HR Recruit, said predictions that AI would reduce HR headcount had not been borne out in the market. Instead, employers were finding that software could remove routine administrative work while leaving more sensitive hiring decisions to people.

The argument comes as the Information Commissioner's Office warned that many employers using AI in recruitment may be failing to meet legal requirements. In its recent report on AI in recruitment, the regulator said employers often believe AI is only supporting human decision-making when the tools are actually making the decisions themselves.

That finding has sharpened debate around automated screening in hiring. For several years, recruiters and employers have weighed whether AI would replace junior and administrative HR work, particularly in CV screening, candidate messaging and interview scheduling.

Thompson said the latest regulatory position reinforced the case for keeping people involved throughout the hiring process. "People talked a lot about AI cutting the need for HR headcount, but those cuts aren't happening," she said. "Now the regulator says a human has to stay in the decision anyway. This means companies that do well won't replace HR with software; they will take the time AI saves and put it into a better hire."

Official figures offer some support for that view. Office for National Statistics data showed that 23% of UK businesses were using AI by late September 2025, up from 9% two years earlier, while only 4% reported a fall in headcount as a result.

Those numbers suggest a gap between the speed of AI uptake and the scale of workforce reduction often forecast when businesses first began adopting the technology. In HR, that gap appears especially relevant because many tasks involve judgement, discretion and conversations that employers may be reluctant to leave entirely to software.

Retention rate

HR Recruit said its own results reflected that approach. The firm reported a 96.9% placement retention rate after six months, attributing the figure to manual review of applications and direct contact with candidates.

Thompson described a process built on personal assessment rather than automated scoring. "We don't screen people out with a score," she said. "I write to the candidates myself rather than send an automated sequence. I run the search and read the applications by hand. I phone the people a filter would have skipped, then I sit down with the client to work out what makes someone fit the team, not just the job specification. That's why our placements hold."

The wider labour market has also shown that AI is more often being used to remove repetitive work than to replace whole jobs. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development's Good Work Index 2025 found that 16% of employees had seen repetitive tasks taken on by AI, and 85% of those workers said it improved their performance.

That survey pointed to the strongest benefits where the technology handled routine work rather than decisions. The distinction is becoming more important as regulators examine whether software is moving from assistance into automated decision-making.

Legal pressure

The legal backdrop is also changing. In the UK, the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 introduced new obligations for employers using software to filter candidates, adding to concerns about transparency and accountability in recruitment processes.

In the EU, the AI Act has classified certain recruitment tools as high risk, although implementation of some obligations has been deferred. Together, those changes are likely to increase pressure on employers to show that a human remains meaningfully involved in hiring decisions.

Thompson said this shift should change how companies think about the economics of HR hiring. Rather than treating time saved by automation as a route to job cuts, employers can use that time to improve recruitment quality and the seniority of the people involved, she argued.

Candidate attitudes may also be part of that calculation. Thompson said her network had seen people withdraw from recruitment processes that relied on AI-led interviews, while others expected employers to disclose when automation was being used.

For recruiters, that creates a practical as well as a legal issue. Employers that use AI too aggressively may face questions not only from regulators but also from applicants who feel they are being assessed by systems they do not understand and cannot challenge.

Thompson framed the issue as one of judgement rather than efficiency alone. "AI can sort a CV at two in the morning, but it can't tell you why a strong candidate had an off day. The regulator has put a line under something experienced HR people have always known. If AI clears the admin and you keep the role, that salary doesn't disappear," she said. "It can fund a higher-calibre person who does the work a machine can't, such as the judgement calls and the difficult conversations."