Diversity, equity and inclusion is entering a more consequential phase of its evolution.

The environment around it has undoubtedly changed. Public discourse is more contested, organisational scrutiny is greater, and assumptions that might once have gone largely unchallenged are increasingly being questioned. For some, this represents an unwelcome backlash. For others, a long-overdue correction.

I am not convinced either interpretation, on its own, is particularly helpful.

Having worked in this field for many years, I remain firmly committed to the fundamental proposition that people should have a fair opportunity to contribute, progress and succeed at work. But commitment to that principle should not require unquestioning loyalty to every practice, convention or orthodoxy that has developed around DEI.

If DEI is to remain credible, relevant and effective, it must become more rigorous, more discerning and more comfortable with scrutiny. The next stage cannot simply be about demonstrating commitment. It must be about demonstrating consequence.

“People rarely experience workplaces through a single dimension of themselves.”

There is an important distinction between organisational activity and organisational change. Visibility can create momentum and commitments can signal intent, but neither tells us whether the underlying conditions of a workplace have materially changed.

The more demanding questions are different.

Which factors are structural, behavioural or contextual? Where has action produced meaningful improvement? Where has progress remained stubbornly static? And are we prepared to reconsider our assumptions when the evidence does not support them?

Changing course, not retreat

Changing course should not automatically be interpreted as retreat. Equally, persistence should not automatically be mistaken for conviction. Sometimes the responsible response is to acknowledge that an approach has not delivered what was intended and think again.

That is not the abandonment of DEI. It is organisational maturity.

Fairness, not false simplicity.

I increasingly find myself returning to the concept of fairness.

Organisations are made up of people whose experiences are shaped by multiple factors: background, identity, education, socioeconomic circumstances, geography, caring responsibilities, health, opportunity and personal choices. People rarely experience workplaces through a single dimension of themselves.

Yet there is a risk that DEI, in attempting to understand inequality, can impose an artificial simplicity on that complexity. Categories are valuable for identifying patterns and disparities, but they are analytical tools; they are not complete descriptions of human beings.

We should be capable of recognising patterns of disadvantage without assuming uniformity of experience. We should be able to pursue greater equity without suggesting every disparity has a single explanation. And we should improve opportunity without creating a narrative in which fairness becomes a competition between groups.

For me, equity is not about engineering predetermined or identical outcomes. Nor is fairness synonymous with treating everybody identically regardless of circumstance.

It is about understanding where irrelevant barriers distort opportunity and being sufficiently sophisticated to address them. That requires judgement rather than ideology.

Inclusion should become less exceptional

The ultimate success of DEI should not be measured by how prominent the DEI function becomes. Arguably, it should be measured by how deeply its principles become embedded in the ordinary architecture of an organisation.

Culture is shaped through thousands of accumulated decisions: who receives consequential opportunities, whose potential is recognised, who receives candid timely feedback, who has access to influential relationships, whose contribution is visible.

These are not peripheral questions of inclusion. They are questions of leadership and organisational effectiveness. This is why inclusion increasingly needs to be understood as an organisational capability rather than a specialist intervention.

DEI professionals have an important role in interpreting evidence, identifying patterns, exposing blind spots and providing constructive challenge. But specialists cannot manufacture an inclusive culture on behalf of an organisation. Ultimately, leaders do that.

Intellectual diversity matters too

Perhaps one of the more difficult challenges facing the profession is how it responds to disagreement.

Not every challenge to DEI is well founded. Some criticism is ideological, poorly informed or deliberately provocative. But it would be equally problematic to assume that every uncomfortable question represents hostility to inclusion.

There are legitimate debates about fairness, proportionality, evidence, language and unintended consequences. A mature profession should not be threatened by those conversations.

If we believe diversity of perspective strengthens organisations, we should be prepared to apply that principle to our own thinking. That means distinguishing evidence from assertion, listening carefully enough to understand the substance beneath disagreement and occasionally accepting that someone asking a difficult question may have identified something we have overlooked. There is a difference between defending the purpose of DEI and defending every manifestation of it. We should be confident enough to know the difference.

The next chapter

For me, this is where the real test of organisational maturity begins. Ambition matters, but ambition without substance, evidence and a clear understanding of impacted has limited value.

What problem was the organisation seeking to address? How well did it understand the underlying causes? What evidence informed its response? What changed as a consequence? Was that change sustained? And what did the organisation learn when reality proved more complicated than anticipated?

DEI will continue to evolve. Terminology will change. Political and social attitudes will shift. Some established approaches will endure; others will rightly disappear. The profession itself will need to become more evidence-led, commercially literate and organisationally sophisticated.

I see that as an opportunity.

Because beneath the terminology sits a much more enduring proposition: talent should not be unnecessarily constrained by barriers unrelated to capability, and organisations are stronger when people can contribute fully and fairly.

The landscape for investment has changed considerably in the past few years. With challenging market conditions, increased costs, consolidation, acquisition, the pace of exit has decreased. This has understandably changed the focus for private equity (PE) firms.

Whilst the role of Chief People Officer (CPO) was always seen as valuable, it was not viewed through the same strategic lens that it now is, and private equity certainly didn’t have it at the top of their list when looking at C-suite appointments to prioritise and interrogate.

At Eton Bridge, we are seeing increasingly that private equity is looking for people leaders that will contribute to building value and revenue and seeing this role as a pivotal value creator that sits alongside the CFO and CTO in the hierarchy. This has inevitably changed the profile of appointees and made for some interesting new trends in CPO hiring within PE-backed businesses.

Our recent CPO Pathways report shows a role that is gaining strategic importance and as a result, the profile and experience of the people being appointed is also changing.

Private Equity CPO Appointments Up

Perhaps the most interesting trend uncovered by our report looking into nearly 15,000 global CPO appointments between 2023 and 2025, was that 40% of all CPO appointments happened in PE backed businesses – up from a third two years ago. The highest proportion of PE hires were found in the UK, US, France and Germany, where PE-backed organisations are driving strong demand for senior people leaders.

At Eton Bridge, we’re seeing this shift first-hand, as we’re increasingly working in partnership with both the fund and its portfolio companies to identify the right people capability for the business. PE firms are seeing the role as a key strategic driver for their portfolio businesses and a commercial lever it is essential to have in place.

Shifting Expectations

As a result of a more tumultuous and lengthy investment process, focus from PE firms has shifted from quick growth to building a business that can deliver growth but also has the resilience to respond to market changes, including the ability to adapt dynamically, or change direction when required. It’s this change in focus where the CPO role comes into its own: it’s no longer merely a culture builder but a commercial lever and vital tool for equipping workforces in an ever changing landscape.

Once viewed primarily as the executive responsible for supporting recruitment and culture during periods of expansion, today’s CPO is expected to help reshape organisations for greater productivity, lead workforce transformation, build leadership capability and ensure businesses have the talent needed to deliver their investment roadmap.

Transformation, productivity, execution and resilience are increasingly CPO remit

PE firms are increasingly feeling they need someone who knows what the end of the roadmap looks like – who has been in a business which has undergone lots of M&A, integrated AI and navigated change. They’re looking for broader perspectives and someone who has experienced the pain points this comes with, understands the size the business needs to reach and ultimately can prepare them for exit. For many businesses and their PE funders this means looking outside the organisation.

Our report reflects this shift, and shows that well over two-thirds of (71%) of hires between 2023 – 2025 were appointed from outside the business, rather than as a result of internal promotion.

Same Sector Experience

Though these new CPOs might not be from within the same organisation, they do tend to have directly transferable background, with more than four in five (82%) of appointments now coming from the same sector – suggesting organisations are prioritising highly specific experience.

The CPOs who are most valuable are able to drive value creation not just support team growth.”

Many modern day PE valuation creation plans are now looking for growth through acquisition. Integrating 450 new team members is a very different proposition to recruiting them and that sort of scaling up requires a different skillset to HRs who have been focused on recruitment and payroll.

Bringing teams together, often across continents and making a cohesive business requires a CPO with experience in bigger businesses, and ideally exposure to acquisitions and mergers – hence why external hires are proving so popular.

How AI is changing the skills PE firms expect from people leaders

As with most roles, AI has also had an impact on the CPO role. Not only do CPOs need to be involved with reshaping workforces according to changed capacity and demand, they also need to redesign jobs, manage change and ensure organisations are adopting AI effectively.

Where organisations are trying to navigate how AI and people compliment each other and often looking at removing certain roles and replacing them with AI, CPOs will need to begin considering who the business’s future leaders are and how best to create an effective talent pipeline.

This is where external experience can prove beneficial. Leaders who have worked in large organisations with substantial AI investment can bring valuable experience and new approaches to HR into smaller, PE-backed businesses. They are often better equipped to navigate the workforce implications of AI, understanding which roles may be replaced or enhanced by technology, how people can be reskilled or redeployed, and where AI could fundamentally reshape parts of a business.

From HR leader to value creation partner

The changing role of the CPO reflects a wider change in what PE firms need from the leadership teams in the businesses in their portfolio. People strategy can no longer sit separately from the commercial strategy of the business. Decisions around organisational structure, leadership, talent and workforce costs can have a direct impact on growth, profitability and ultimately exit value.

For PE firms, this means the strongest CPOs are increasingly those who can demonstrate how their work is contributing to the wider business. That could mean restructuring an organisation following an acquisition, improving productivity, removing unnecessary layers, building a stronger leadership team or making sure the business has the right skills to deliver its growth plans.

The result is a CPO who looks increasingly different from the traditional HR leader.”

There is also a different pace to working in a PE-backed business. CPOs are often working against a defined growth plan and a clear investment timeline, which means there is less time to spend on long-term HR programmes that don’t have a clear business outcome. They need to be comfortable making decisions quickly, managing change and working with the CEO and CFO to deliver against the wider plan – which means working to instate KPIs, and focusing on data driven metrics and margins.

The result is a CPO who looks increasingly different from the traditional HR leader. They are expected to understand the numbers, challenge the CEO, influence the board and work alongside the wider leadership team to deliver the investment case.

Essentially, today’s CPO is expected to speak the language of investors and CFOs. Success in this role is now often measured through productivity, operational performance and readiness for exit – not just engagement scores or culture metrics.

AI, tough market conditions and an ever changing workforce requirement mean the CPOs who are most valuable are able to drive value creation not just support team growth.

Amidst the challenges of rapid change, there is opportunity for firms and their potential CPOs. Those prioritising sector knowledge, commercial acumen and the ability to deliver effective change against this tumultuous backdrop are most likely to succeed.

The UK statistics for young NEETs get quoted often enough that most HR leaders can recite them without needing a source. Young people not in education, employment or training are a growing share of a generation, a share seemingly lost to any kind of rewarding future. That is not the point I want to make here.

This is not a social policy story HR gets to watch from the sidelines. It is a workforce planning problem, and most organisations are not treating it as one. Worse, in a lot of cases organisations are actively making it worse through decisions that have nothing to do with youth unemployment policy and everything to do with how they think about entry-level hiring.

Capability sits beneath strategy, not beside it

I keep coming back to Kodak and Blockbuster when I talk about this, not just because I am of an era where those are names that really mean something to me – when I was young, I assumed that all cameras and film were made by Kodak – but because the lesson generalises further than most people want it to. Neither company failed because it lacked a strategy. Both failed because the workforce capability underneath the strategy was not there when it mattered, and nobody had been tracking that gap early enough to close it.

• Register now for The HR World’s webinar on this subject: The Lost Generation – the challenge and opportunity for HR: 19 August, Free and online.

A growing NEET population is a leading indicator of exactly that kind of gap. It shows up years before it becomes a hiring problem, and by the time it becomes a hiring problem it is too late to do much about it through recruitment alone. Workforce planning is supposed to be the discipline that catches this sort of thing early. Mostly, it doesn’t, because people aren’t actually looking terribly far ahead.

Forecasting is the wrong tool here

Most of what gets written on this subject treats it as a forecasting exercise. Bigger number this year than last year, projected to keep growing, here is what that means for GDP or benefits spending in a decade. That framing is fine for economists. It is not much use to a workforce planning function that needs to decide what to do next.

“Stop treating this as a corporate social responsibility topic that sits next to workforce planning rather than inside it. This is talent supply chain risk.”

The job here is judgement under uncertainty, not prediction. Nobody can forecast precisely how many entry-level roles a business will need in five years, or exactly which skills will matter by then. What can be decided now, with the information available, is whether an organisation is building any pipeline of its own or simply assuming the external market will keep supplying what it needs. Those are two different postures, and only one of them is a plan.

None of this happens through a single lens. It sits alongside apprenticeships, graduate schemes, entry-level headcount, an ageing senior workforce, and the way AI is reshaping what work looks like at every level. Pulling those threads together into a single coherent view of where the risk actually sits is synthesis, and synthesis is the fundamental art of workforce planning. Not forecasting, not modelling, but synthesis. Treat any one of these threads in isolation and it will always be somebody else’s problem. Bring them together and it becomes something a planning function can can interpret for an organisation to actually act on.

The changing shape of the organisation

The traditional workforce shape is a pyramid: wide at the entry level, narrowing as it rises to the lofty peak of seniority. Now picture what happens when organisations keep cutting the base while leaving the middle and top largely intact. The pyramid stops being a pyramid. It turns into a diamond, and eventually a diamond standing on its edge. That is what is happening. The lower reaches of the pyramid are presumed to be fair game for AI and automation in general to step in and replace what used to be entry level workers.

But a diamond balanced on its point is not a stable shape. It is a succession faux pas waiting to happen. There is no broad base feeding people up through the organisation, no volume of early career talent to select from and develop, and no depth to fall back on when senior people leave. Organisations that keep hollowing out the entry level are quietly reshaping themselves into something that is likely to fall over, and most of them have not noticed the shape they are becoming; or, which is worse, they’re doing so consciously without having considered the longer-term consequences. 

Have we got this wrong?

I think the continued move against early career hiring, the steady reduction in entry-level roles that so many organisations have been quietly making, is a mistake. Not a minor one either.

Some of this is being driven by AI, as I have said. Entry-level roles are disproportionately exposed to that change, because a lot of what used to sit at the bottom of the ladder was exactly the kind of structured, repeatable work that automation handles well. So organisations cut there first, because it is the easiest place to cut and the impact is least visible in the short term. That fits the prevailing narrative that AI must reduce costs and investors are expecting instant results.

There is a sharper irony sitting underneath this. The young people being kept out of the market are, in most cases, going to be better at working with these technologies than the experienced staff currently being retained and having their own work augmented by AI. I say this as someone well into their seventh decade who prides themselves on remaining broadly current with technological development but only fractionally competent compared to their own grandchild. So organisations are choosing to keep the cohort less fluent in new tools and locking out the cohort that would be inherently more fluent in them. That trade only looks sensible in the short term, because the experienced staff being retained will not be there forever. One day they walk out the door, or they get carried out. Either way, the organisation loses the capability it chose to keep and for which it never built a replacement.

The problem is that entry-level roles are also where new capability used to come from more generally. Organisations are removing the first rung of the ladder without asking what replaces it, and in a lot of cases the honest answer is nothing does. That is not a hypothetical risk sitting somewhere in the future. It is a decision being made right now, in budget conversations that have nothing to do with workforce strategy on paper, and everything to do with it in practice.

In any case, we’re now seeing two very clear developments that don’t fit the prevailing narrative about an AI-driven jobs catastrophe: AI changes the composition of remaining work rather than simply cutting headcount; and it’s not exactly creating the tsunami of job losses everyone expected.

What to actually do before the year ends

If you’re thinking about next year’s plan rather than next decade’s economy, then consider this:

• Put early career capability into workforce risk as a named line item, not an assumption buried under “external hiring will cover it.” If it is not written down as a risk, it won’t be managed as one.
• Make the build versus buy decision on purpose. Structured entry programmes and apprenticeships are a deliberate choice to build capability internally. Continuing to assume the external market will supply what is needed is also a choice, it just rarely gets made consciously.
• Look honestly at where AI is removing entry-level roles inside your own organisation and ask whether that was an intentional decision or something that happened by default because it was the easiest place to find savings

Finally, stop treating this as a corporate social responsibility topic that sits next to workforce planning rather than inside it. This is talent supply chain risk. It deserves the same seriousness as any other supply chain the business depends on.

None of this requires a grand strategic reset. It requires organisations to notice that they are already making a choice about early career talent, whether they mean to or not, and that the next few months of planning is where their course either gets corrected or locked in for another year. The trend is one visible symptom of a much larger decision most organisations have not consciously made, and nothing I’ve seen about current hiring practice suggests it is about to reverse on its own.

Most of the noise about youth unemployment focuses on the young people. Far less attention goes to what it does to employers. That is a mistake because Britain’s NEET crisis is not only a youth problem – it is quietly building a seniority cliff.

• Register now for The HR World’s webinar on this subject: The Lost Generation – the challenge and opportunity for HR: 19 August, Free and online.

Every organisation runs on a pipeline. Today’s trainee becomes tomorrow’s productive. Today’s junior becomes tomorrow’s manager. Today’s apprentice becomes the specialist you cannot operate without. Yet across the economy, businesses are growing reluctant to hire inexperienced young people. The safer bet is always someone who already has the skills and the track record.

I understand the caution. The young person with potential but no experience loses out to the older worker who can hit the ground running. The decision is understandable. The consequences, however, are a time bomb…

By the time a business notices the gap in its management or technical expertise, the damage is already done.”

When thousands of employers make the same safe choice, the entry-level opportunities disappear – and so does the supply of experienced people five and ten years from now. You can buy in experience for a while but, eventually, every business has to grow its own.

This is where Milburn’s review and the AI conversation collide. If employers stop hiring juniors now because software can handle the routine entry-level work, they are not just creating a youth unemployment problem for today. They are hollowing out their own senior expertise for 2030 and beyond. The managers, technical specialists and team leaders every organisation will depend on in a decade are the very people we are declining to take a chance on now.

You cannot fast-forward judgement. It is built over years of solved problems, near-misses and hard-won experience. Close the door at the entry point and we do not just lose a generation of juniors – we lose the seniors they would have become.

This is not a distant worry. The decisions that create that gap are being made in recruitment rounds this year.

Nowhere is this sharper than in technical and skilled industries, where experienced staff are heading for retirement and there simply are not enough younger people coming through to replace them. By the time a business notices the gap in its management or technical expertise, the damage is already done. The conversation about skills shortages almost always starts too late.

At Apprenticeship Central we spend our days helping employers turn willingness into opportunity, and the hesitation we meet is almost never about enthusiasm. It is about risk. Employers genuinely want to help, then find ten reasons why this particular young person, this particular month, is not quite the right fit.

But the smartest act anyway. I have watched employers move their most experienced technicians onto part-time hours purely to keep them in the building – and bring apprentices in alongside them, deliberately, to capture that expertise before it walks out the door for good. That is what taking the cliff seriously looks like.

The organisations still investing in young talent are not being charitable. They are protecting their own future capability. The ones playing it safe are quietly mortgaging theirs.

So the question every employer should be asking is not whether they can afford to recruit and develop young people. It is whether they can afford not to.

The UK government’s move to introduce day one paternity leave is, on the surface, a positive step as any progress in this space matters. For too long, access to paternity leave has been limited, and removing the qualifying period means that change is happening. But when you look a little closer, the reality is more complicated.

While paternity leave may now be a day one right, statutory pay is not. Fathers still need to have worked for their employer for 26 weeks to be eligible for it. And given that low pay is one of the biggest reasons fathers don’t take paternity leave in the first place, it raises an important question: how much difference will this change really make?

The gap between policy and reality

The UK already has one of the least generous paternity offers in Europe. Statutory pay sits at just over £194.32 a week, which is well below the national living wage. For many families, that just isn’t affordable.

Imagine bringing your baby home for the first time. You’re adjusting to broken sleep, figuring out feeding, and getting to know this new person who has completely changed your world. Now imagine having to choose between being there for those early days or earning enough to cover the bills – that is a reality many fathers face. 

And it doesn’t have to be this way. In countries like Spain, Norway and Denmark, fathers have access to longer periods of well-paid leave, recognising that supporting both parents early on benefits families, workplaces and the wider economy.

In practice, the recent change may benefit a relatively small group of dads, those who start a new job while their partner is pregnant and can afford to take unpaid leave. 

Why those early weeks matter

It’s easy to see paternity leave as a ‘nice to have’, but the early weeks after a child is born are anything but. This is the point where patterns start to form. Who does the majority of the childcare, who carries the financial responsibility, and how that balance plays out over time.

When dads are only able to take a short period of leave, or none at all, those roles can settle quickly. One parent becomes the default caregiver, the other returns to work. That dynamic can impact everything from career progression to future earning potential.

Those early days are full of moments that matter more than you expect. Learning how to settle your baby in the middle of the night or building the confidence to head out on your own for the first time. Without that time, many fathers can feel like they haven’t had the space to find their footing. That affects how connected they feel to their child and to family life.

taking time out to support your family is not something that will be held against you.”

It also has an impact on mental health, even if it is not always talked about. Becoming a parent is a huge adjustment for both people. Around one in five mothers and one in ten fathers experience symptoms of postnatal depression in the first year, and one contributing factor can be a lack of bonding in those early weeks.

When one parent returns to work very quickly, the other is often left to manage alone which adds pressure. At the same time, the parent who goes back can feel increasingly disconnected from what is happening at home. 

We often talk about the motherhood penalty, but paternity leave is part of that conversation too. If we want to create more equal workplaces, we need to start with what happens at home in those early days.

What employers can do now

While policy evolves, employers have an important role to play.

Many organisations are already going beyond the statutory minimum, offering enhanced paternity leave and pay. These policies make a real difference, not just to individual families but to workplace culture. They send a clear message that caregiving is valued, and that taking time out to support your family is not something that will be held against you.

Even where enhanced policies aren’t in place, there are still ways to support employees. Open conversations, flexible working, and visible encouragement from leaders can all help create an environment where fathers feel more able to take the leave that is available to them.

A moment to build on

The introduction of day one paternity leave rights is a step forward. But on its own, it is unlikely to lead the kind of change many people are hoping for.

If we want to see more fathers taking leave, more equal parenting, and better outcomes for families, we need to go further. That means looking again at pay, at duration, and at how policies work in practice.

There is already momentum behind this. Campaigns like Equal Parenting Week, taking place from 27 April, are helping to raise awareness and push for progress. Initiatives such as the Push for Paternity Leave walk, happening across multiple UK cities, are also bringing people together to call for change.

The direction is encouraging. But there is still more to do to make sure that paternity leave works in a way that reflects the realities of modern family life. Ultimately, this is not just about policy. It’s about giving parents the time and support they need at one of the most important moments in their lives and making sure that support is something they can actually afford to use.

Elliott Rae will participate in the panel: ‘Building a manifesto: What does it mean to employ parents and carers in 2026 and beyond?’ at HR Technologies UK on Thursday 30 April 11:10 – 12:50 in the Keynote Theatre 2.

HR Technologies UK 2026 will take place from 29-30 April at the Excel, London.

A few months ago, the National Forum for Health and Wellbeing at Work launched their AI Report on the potential benefits and obstacles of AI in the workplace. Surprisingly, it found that many believed it could enable them to do more of the ‘important things’ at work, relieving them of the more mundane aspects of their job. There were concerns, of course, over their job security, but not as worrying or serious as I had anticipated. I suspect this is because we don’t know about the extent of AI’s capabilities in the long term.

The worry is that technology goes even further in undermining the in-person aspects of HR.”

So, will AI alleviate the more routine or mundane task of HR professionals and senior HR leaders over the coming years? I think, if implemented appropriately, it certainly has the potential to deliver ‘more for less’, enabling HR managers and leaders to concentrate on more strategic issues (eg talent retention and attraction, workplace culture and wellbeing, real engagement, future proofing training in an AI world, etc.). The potential downside of this is that AI just increases our reliance on technology, to the extent that the world of HR becomes a virtual world where our face-to-face relationships decline as we try to free our time and efforts. We already see how online training apps in the health and wellbeing arena have created a relationship gap between employee and HR training providers. The worry, therefore, is that technology goes even further in undermining the in-person aspects of HR, as it confronts the challenges of engaging with employees with the fast moving AI world, job security, mental wellbeing, engagement, gender issues, and the like. 

HR has a real opportunity in the AI era to help organisations engage their staff for the next decade of more rapid and substantial change in the workplace. This means greater engagement in understanding and integrating AI, and future technologies, in our everyday lives without resisting change. Giving employees ownership in technological change, engaging with them closely, is critical here, which plays nicely into HR’s major contribution in this context. 

The challenge of initiating change

Change is rarely easy in organisations, as Machiavelli wrote in his book The Prince: “It should be borne in mind that there is nothing more difficult to arrange, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through than initiating change. The innovator makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new.”

Senior HR leaders can be helped as early adopters of AI, so they can concentrate more on future-proofing AI and other strategic issues in the future, Leading by example, engaging staff in decision making and supporting those who are threatened is the job of HR leaders in a never fast-moving workplace. As the old euphemism goes “change is here to stay” so HR leaders have a significant role to play. Or, as Mark Twain once wrote: “If you always do what you always did – you’ll always get what you always got”.

I’ve always hated the career ladder metaphor. Often the main beneficiaries of a career ladder structure are those that fit the profile expectations of career progression. In this post pandemic, post Black Lives Matter, post MeToo, post Trump and especially Post AI – the career ladder is dead. Long live career uncertainty.  

​In the corporate vocab of the 20th century, the ‘career ladder’ was a comforting beast. It promised a predictable ascent: climb the rungs, be rewarded for effort and connections, wait your turn, and retire with a pension. That beast has been on life support for decades – especially if we view it through an Equity lens. Now, AI is preparing to pull the plug. For Human Resources often the most risk-averse species this presents a terrifying dilemma. They can continue to pantomime the rituals of old of promotion and progress – where do you see yourself in five years time – career ladder stuff. Or they can embrace a controversial truth: in the new world of work, progress is uncertain, the corporation is no longer a family. We now work in a dynamic ecosystem, uncertainty is the norm, the ladders are disappearing and AI is the new climate. 

 From my work on ‘Industry 5.0’ I would argue we are witnessing the end of the ‘job’ as a fixed bundle of duties – but now we’re moving into an even more flexible way of working. In this new landscape, relying on technical (in its broadest sense) competence alone is a fast track to obsolescence. AI has a massive impact on work – but to focus on Generative AI specifically, it really is unbundling jobs and job roles. This shift is also driven by the rapid commodification of white-collar skills. In my book Futureproof Your Career, in this world I say the goal is not to outrun the machine, but to build a relationship with it. We are moving towards Industry 5.0 an era not of replacement, but of Human-AI symbiosis.

The future of career management, then, is not about climbing a ladder, but navigating crisscross pathways.”

​Here lies the rub for HR. For years, the function has been an administrative shock-absorber, protecting the status quo of career progression – skills needed + skills in. I think this transactional approach misses the critical human element of how we workers make career changes. To survive now, HR must become an engine of ‘career resilience’. I remember last year – 2025 a very disappointed CPO of a global energy company. He was saying when he welcomed a cohort of new graduates saying in his welcome speech: “one of you may become our future CEO” but instead of thrilled faces of GenZers he met with a sea of faces that said – yeah we don’t buy into that career ladder thinking. 

The honest conversation to have with a recruit in 2026 is not, “We see a path to Director,” but rather, “We will help you build the human capabilities needed to activate your success and we respect that you need to have wellbeing in your work-life.” My research says this shift is about emphasis on empathy, ethical judgment, and complex problem-solving. As we know – these are skills that the algorithm cannot replicate.

 This is where the argument becomes thorny. If HR merely uses AI to optimise hiring and promotion based on historical data, it automates jobs and not careers. The future of career management, then, is not about climbing a ladder, but navigating crisscross pathways. It’s all about shifting patterns where (my research shows) agility and adaptive skill under uncertainty matters. 

​For HR, the mandate is clear but demanding. Stop nurturing the illusion of stability. Instead, build an infrastructure of psychological safety where workers feel secure enough to experiment, fail, and relearn in order to progress in the matrix. Embrace the uncertainty too. You do not futureproof a career by hiding from change, but by building a relationship with it. Honestly speaking the ladder is gone. The safety net is gone. HR’s job is enable people manage themselves in this matrix/maze/crisscross career pathways – and to ensure the footing is fair.

For decades, the talent strategy Genesis has been recruitment. When capability gaps appear organisations recruit. When performance lags, the assumption is that the ‘right people’ aren’t in place. When the business changes direction, the reflex is to go back to the market in search of new skills.

But it’s starting to feel like that logic needs a reset.

What if the most effective talent strategies don’t start with a job requisition – but with a much deeper understanding of the people already inside the organisation?

This question is becoming increasingly hard for senior HR leaders to ignore. Not because it’s intellectually interesting, but because the operating environment has shifted. Hiring budgets are tighter. Productivity increases are being demanded. Headcount growth is constrained. And HR is under growing pressure to justify talent decisions with evidence, not narrative.

Ironically, HR functions are sitting on more data about their people than ever before – yet many still struggle to access it, connect it, or turn it into insight that genuinely informs decisions.

When HR Has Data – But Loses Sight of the Human Story

Most HR teams are not short of information. Applicant tracking systems hold years of hiring history. HRIS platforms contain job, tenure and movement data. Performance systems record appraisals. Engagement surveys capture sentiment. Learning platforms log development activity. Exit interviews explain why people leave.

The issue isn’t data volume. It’s data fragmentation.

These data sources rarely talk to each other. And even when they do, few teams have the analytical frameworks or confidence to extract insight that goes beyond reporting what already happened.

This isn’t a critique of HR capability. It simply reflects how HR technology and operating models evolved over the last twenty years. But in 2026, those limitations are no longer benign. They’re becoming real liabilities.

It’s No Biggie: Other Functions Made This Shift Years Ago and HR Is Simply Catching Up

There is a reassuring perspective here. Other business functions have already navigated this transition. Marketing no longer operates on disconnected customer data. Finance doesn’t allocate capital without integrated forecasting and modelling. Supply chain relies on real-time data and predictive insight to manage risk. Customer service analyses every interaction to improve experience.

HR, by contrast, has been slower to unify its data and embed analytics into everyday decision-making. As a result, some of the most expensive and strategically consequential decisions organisations make – people decisions – are still too often driven by intuition and incomplete information. 

That gap now matters more than ever: when hiring was cheap and growth unconstrained, inefficiency could be absorbed. When talent markets were buoyant, attrition felt like a nuisance rather than a risk. Mobility, engagement and role fit mattered less – because talent was treated as replaceable.

The reality of 2026 is that none of those conditions apply anymore.

Why Hiring First Is No Longer a Sustainable Strategy

When HR lacks a joined-up understanding of its workforce, hiring becomes a blunt instrument. Organisations recruit externally without knowing whether capability already exists internally. They assess candidates without understanding which traits truly predict success in a specific role context. They repeat hiring patterns that generate churn, mis-fit or burnout – because outcomes are never connected back to long-term performance, mobility and retention data.

Graduate recruitment assesses potential through CVs and assessment centres. Succession planning relies heavily on managerial opinion. Leadership development builds capability that is rarely tracked or redeployed. Redeployment decisions are made without real insight into who can adapt, who can grow, and who is at risk against new role demands. HR isn’t short of processes – it’s short of corroborating evidence.

Without a unified, data-driven view of capability, hiring becomes the default response to uncertainty rather than the final lever in a well-understood talent strategy.

The most effective organisations we’re seeing today are starting to invert this logic. They begin by deeply, continuously and predictively understanding their workforce – and only then deciding where hiring, redeployment or development is genuinely required.

The Role of Integrated Talent Analytics

This is where HR has the opportunity to move from a reporting function to vital strategic infrastructure. By bringing together data across the talent lifecycle – recruitment, performance, engagement, learning, mobility and attrition – into analytical frameworks designed to answer real workforce questions.

It’s about seeing patterns across systems and enabling different conversations: which hiring profiles correlate with long-term performance; where internal mobility is failing silently; where burnout or attrition risk is emerging; where leadership potential actually shows up; and which gaps reflect true skill shortages versus misalignment between people, roles and work.

This level of insight allows HR to act earlier, intervene more precisely and align talent decisions directly to business outcomes.

The Journey from Cost Centre to Growth Enabler

One of the most persistent frustrations for senior HR leaders is being viewed as a cost centre rather than a value creator. That perception won’t change through narrative alone – it can only changes through evidence.

When HR can demonstrate how talent decisions affect productivity, risk, retention and performance, the conversation shifts. Talent investment starts to look like capital investment. Workforce planning becomes predictive. Hiring becomes a strategic lever – not a default response.

This isn’t about making HR more technically literate. It’s about equipping HR with the same analytical discipline other functions already rely on, while preserving the human judgement and ethical context that make people decisions nuanced.

AI Is Raising the Stakes – and the Opportunity

AI makes this inflection point even more critical. Not because it will replace HR, but because it will expose what HR truly understands about its people. AI won’t fix poor data – it will amplify it. Shallow, siloed or biased inputs will simply produce faster, more seemingly confident wrong decisions.

But when AI is applied to a strong foundation of integrated talent data, grounded in human science and behavioural insight, it becomes a powerful multiplier. It can surface patterns humans miss, predict risk earlier and support fairer, more objective decisions.

HR Transformation that’s a Natural Evolution – Not a Leap of Faith

For many HR leaders, embracing Talent Analytics can feel daunting. Concerns around capability, data quality and change are real. But this isn’t about a big-bang transformation.        

See it as a journey: some organisations start with hiring or mobility analytics. Others focus on attrition, burnout or leadership readiness. Many begin with targeted diagnostics before scaling data integration. The important point is this: there are now mature, proven providers like Cognisess who can support HR at every stage of their journey.

Why 2026 Will Be a Turning Point

The pressures facing HR aren’t going to ease. Organisations want fewer mis-hires, higher productivity, stronger leadership pipelines and better use of internal talent – whilst controlling cost and risk.

These outcomes won’t come from incremental improvement or better storytelling. They require a step change in how HR understands and manages its most valuable asset: its talent data.

2026 won’t be the year human judgement disappears. It will be the year it is finally augmented with clarity, confidence and evidence. And yes, the best talent strategies will still hire – but the smart work will have started way before the job is ever posted.

Colin Minto has 20+ years’ experience as a HR Leader in Talent Acquisition and HR Tech within some of the UKs biggest employers. He is currently is Chief of Staff at Cognisess – a pioneer in Talent Analytics and AI who work with some of the world’s biggest employers. From this unique perspective, Colin has observed that 2026 will be the year that separates out those organisations that manage talent from those that truly understand it.          

For years, workplace security has been treated as a back-office issue – keycards, PIN codes and sign-in sheets quietly doing their job in the background. Yet these familiar tools have long influenced how we manage people, time and trust. They’ve also created hidden challenges for HR teams responsible for fairness, compliance and employee experience.

It’s time to view security differently – not as a barrier, but as a partner that helps HR protect people and strengthen workplace culture. Artificial intelligence (AI) and biometrics are transforming human capital management. While some worry that this feels like “Big Brother,” I see it as “Little Brother” – a supportive guardian that ensures people are who they say they are, safeguards sensitive data and promotes fairness across the workforce. This isn’t just about new technology; it’s about building a culture of trust.

More problems than solutions

Many HR teams still rely on keycards and PIN codes to track attendance, manage access and process payroll. But these outdated systems often create more problems than they solve. When cards are lost, shared or “buddy punched,” businesses lose both money and trust. Time fraud alone costs organisations up to 7% of payroll each year – funds that could otherwise support wellbeing initiatives, development programmes or culture-building activities. Beyond the financial hit, outdated methods expose organisations to risk. A cloned keycard or shared password can compromise not only data but employee safety. For HR, that risk strikes at the core of its mission: protecting people.

No one can borrow time or access privileges, and everyone is recognised for their actual contribution.

Biometric technology, such as facial recognition or fingerprint scanning, links identity directly to the individual, making it nearly impossible for someone to misrepresent themselves. For HR, this creates a foundation of fairness and accuracy. No one can borrow time or access privileges, and everyone is recognised for their actual contribution. Payroll accuracy improves, compliance is simplified and administration is reduced. In this way, security becomes an enabler – helping HR ensure consistency and fairness for all.

Of course, trust remains essential. Employees need to understand how their personal data is used and protected. Biometric systems don’t store images; they store encrypted mathematical patterns that can’t be reverse-engineered into photos. Combined with transparent communication and clear consent processes, biometrics becomes a tool for protection, not surveillance. When HR leads open conversations about how and why the technology is used, scepticism turns into confidence. People feel reassured that their information is safe and that fairness is the goal.

AI at the edge

AI is taking biometrics and HR technology even further. At the hardware level, ‘AI at the edge’ allows devices to process data locally, so systems continue to operate securely even if connectivity is lost. On the software side, AI can analyse large volumes of HCM data to uncover insights in real time. Imagine asking your HR system natural-language questions like “Which departments have the highest overtime?” or “Where are we seeing attendance anomalies?” and getting clear, immediate answers. This reduces administrative burden and frees HR leaders to focus on engagement, development and culture – the work that truly drives organisational success.

At its best, AI-powered biometrics help HR achieve its most fundamental goals: ensuring fairness, maintaining compliance and protecting people. It supports data security regulations, ensures payroll accuracy and strengthens workplace safety – all while reinforcing trust as a shared responsibility between employer and employee. That’s what I mean by ‘Little Brother’. It’s not about control; it’s about care. It gives HR the tools to build workplaces where security and trust go hand in hand.

The future of HR belongs to those who embrace this balance – where people feel protected, processes are fair and technology quietly supports the best of human potential.

The Responsible AI Summit, which I’ve attended since 2023, has grown from a small gathering of less than 100 people into a global event. What started out as a fringe notion for turning AI ethics into business language is now coming together as a full-blown Responsible AI (RAI) profession.

For HR leaders, trying to define clearly what skills and qualifications are needed could feel like an annoying burden. But I’m seeing RAI professionals as important allies for HR leaders, providing ammunition for why the whole gamut of policies and practices that support people are not ‘woke nonsense’ but actually vital for business success.

This year some companies that had embraced Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) principles are facing significant pressure to scale back these initiatives. We’re seeing some organisations quietly remove ESG from their communications – Currys recently scrapped their Board level ESG Committee – whilst others are scaling back DEI programs in response to the US administration’s changed remit.

If you are concerned that this is a retrograde step, seek out RAI professionals to collaborate with. They can provide the necessary data and assurance to demonstrate why these initiatives are not just ‘feel-good’ exercises, but critical to identifying and reducing risks associated with AI use.

Expertise on tap

By cultivating a strong RAI function the HR department will also benefit from having expertise on tap as you increasingly rely on AI tools to save your team time, reduce human bias in hiring, and improve the overall candidate experience. Your RAI professional can help evaluate and ensure that your AI-powered recruitment tools, for example, are genuinely fair and transparent, rather than reinforcing existing biases. This strengthens the integrity of your HR processes and boosts employee trust in the organisation’s commitment to fairness. This is a pragmatic, business-critical approach.

But who are these RAI folk? It’s a melting pot of backgrounds – from law to computer science, social sciences to data science. This diversity is a major strength, bringing different perspectives to the complex challenges of ethical AI implementation. However, it also means there are no clear career paths or standardised training yet. It’s a bit like data protection was 20 years ago. As a profession, RAI is still finding its formal structure and boundaries. This means RAI professionals needs you help because most organisations lack consensus on where RAI functions should sit, what authority they should hold, and how they should interact with development teams. This creates inconsistent implementation and makes accountability difficult to establish.

Formal certifications emerging

The good news is that we are starting to see the development of formal certifications to address these gaps. Bodies like the IAPP and IEEE have created certifications for AI governance and AI ethics. These programmes aim to provide a more structured pathway into the profession by offering training on everything from ethical frameworks to regulatory compliance. Some of these certifications are designed to align with global regulations, including the EU AI Act and the UK’s approach to AI governance.

If you are recruiting people into AI governance-related roles, look for people who can combine technical literacy with strong analytical skills, and the ability to build consensus and influence organisational culture. An RAI professional isn’t just a gatekeeper; they need to be an orchestrator who brings together experts from different departments to ensure AI is used responsibly. You can help them by establishing a clear mandate and a direct reporting line to senior leadership, giving them the authority they need to drive change.

Grow your own

And there aren’t enough people with these skills so you may need to ‘grow your own’ by cultivating talent in-house. Avoid only looking to compliance or IT and instead give opportunities to employees with diverse backgrounds from data science, project management or customer-facing roles, who possess strong skills in influencing colleagues. A critical step is to provide them with structured training programmes and invest in educational pathways that develop both technical and ethical competencies. By allowing employees to take on RAI duties in hybrid roles, you can build a resilient in-house capability and empower individuals to become the orchestrators who bridge the gap between technical teams and ethical principles.

I am certain that, for the UK to become a global leader in AI, we must cultivate a robust RAI professional community. And HR is at the heart of this. By investing in educational pathways and talent pipelines, you’ll be building the human infrastructure that ensures AI development is not only innovative but also aligned with our societal values.