October 12, 2025 • 32 mins
It promised to make things more efficient, objective, and data-driven, but instead turned a human-centric discipline into an automated, impersonal system with new ethical and privacy concerns.
To help us explore how people and technology work together, we’re joined by Dr Justine Ferrer, a Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management in the Deakin Business School.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/justineferrer
In this episode, Justine joins us to discuss the evolving role of human resources in the age of technology, exploring the impact of automation and AI on HR practices, the balance between efficiency and the human touch, and the ethical implications of data privacy and surveillance in the workplace.
We also look at the skills needed for future HR professionals, and the potential for AI to enhance rather than replace human roles in HR.
00:00 The Impact of Technology on Human Resources
02:57 The Shift Towards Strategic HR Management
06:00 Balancing Automation and Human Touch
08:47 Surveillance and Employee Trust
11:53 Data Privacy and Security Challenges
14:48 The Role of Small Businesses in HR Tech
17:57 AI, Bias, and the Future of Hiring
20:55 Skills for the Future of HR
23:43 The Ethical Framework for AI in HR
26:50 The Future of Human Resources
If you like what you hear, please follow the show, leave a review, or let us know what else to look into at https://www.ruinedbytheinternet.com/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to Ruined by the Internet.
I'm Gareth King. Today we're asking, has the
Internet ruined human resources?It promised to make things more
efficient, objective and data driven, but instead turn a human
centric discipline into an automated, impersonal system
with new ethical and privacy concerns.
To help us explore how people and technology work together,
we're joined by Doctor Justine Ferrer, a senior lecturer in
(00:23):
Human Resource Management in theDeacon Business School.
Justine, thank you so much for joining us and welcome to the
show. Thank you for having me.
I'm, I'm very excited about being here and having this
discussion with you today, Gareth.
Yeah, me too. But before we begin, can you
tell us a little bit about the work that you do and the journey
(00:44):
that's LED you to this point? Wow, the work that I do as I'm
an academic, I work at Deakin University in the Deakin
Business School. I am a senior lecturer in human
resource management. I have been in this space for
quite a while and I think my passion is around HR and the
profession, particularly the dark side elements.
(01:04):
And and as our discussion today will entail, some of that is
considered the technology and that's got its own little dark
side that has implications for for HR and and for the workplace
generally. Yeah.
Look, I'm sure we will go into those implications for HR in the
workplace as we know, you know, it's in the name.
(01:24):
Human resources is obviously a traditionally human centric
field. But as we look at the increased
adoption of various forms of HR tech, what would you say is
proving to be the most difficultabout maintaining that human
touch? Really great question and a
really hard question to to answer because there is argument
that you know, HR is losing its human side because of technology
(01:45):
and because of focuses on efficiencies and productivity as
a opposed to looking after the well being of the employees in
the workplace. And if we go back historically
to traditional models of HR, it was about looking after that
well being. But HR has seen a massive shift
and with that shift it's become more strategic and with more
strategic focus, it's focusing on productivity and greater
(02:08):
efficiencies. However, when we think about HR,
it's has two notable parts of it.
There is the process part. Now HR is all about looking
after how the workplace functions, how employees
function, so making sure people are are coming to work, that
they're getting paid, that they have the right training and, and
safety demands met and so on andso forth.
So there's a process part of that, but there's also the human
(02:30):
side of that, which as much as, as we talk about technology and,
and dehumanising human resource management, there is this
massive part of HR that is inherently human.
And I'm not sure that that can be lost just yet.
It sounds like as well that the function of HRS expanded and
(02:51):
grown quite a lot over time and you just mentioned there that
there has been that shift towards a more strategic
approach overall. Can you just give us a top line
rundown of what that shift has looked like?
It depends who you ask to be honest.
So what what we're seeing is andyou and you look at RE, which is
a strange human resource institute and even coming out of
(03:11):
the US and and the UK, they're talking about the importance of
HR having a strategic role on boards and making a strategic
contribution. So we're thinking of CEOs that
they're making decisions that are impacting on the whole of
the organisation, including the human resource, so including the
people. So the argument is from a
(03:31):
strategic perspective that HR should be involved in that
conversation because ultimately it's the employees who are going
to deliver on those organisational goals and those
the objectives that they're setting.
So HR strategy inherently shouldbe linked to the business
strategy. So HR, when we're talking about
HR being more strategic, it's HRunderstanding what the business
(03:53):
strategy is and then being able to link their own strategy, the
people strategy, to ensure that the employees are delivering on
what the organisation needs for them to deliver on.
In that case, have those variousforms of HR tech that have been
implemented so far, are they actually freeing up human
resources staff to be more strategic and more human?
(04:14):
Or do they somewhat shift those previous administrative burdens
because obviously they would need some kind of management and
oversight from the person, right?
Yeah, absolutely. So I was talking to a colleague
recently and she was talking about the impacts of AIM on her
current workforce. And she was saying that people
are scared that they're going tobe replaced.
(04:37):
You know, that this move towardsautomation in, in different
ways, whether it's through AI orthrough other types of
automation, people are going to lose their jobs.
And, and she's saying that or trying to encourage them to
think about, well, how well should you use your time?
How could you better use that inorder to do something that's
more productive? There is a case at Coles recent,
(04:59):
recently, a couple of years ago where they introduced ASAP
SuccessFactors, which is a wholeintegrated workplace system with
lots of data and, and things like that.
And, and it automated quite a lot of their HR process.
But what they were able to do inthat was then reallocate people
to to do things that were more meaningful to them.
(05:22):
So it wasn't about, we've got this, you're going to be
replaced. It was about giving them the
opportunity to say, all right, well, what can you do that's
more meaningful to the to the business?
How can you better spend your time?
And I think that that that sentiment, I guess that that
wider sentiment actually comes up regarding AI in a lot of
(05:43):
different things. You know, there is obviously so
much unknown and uncertainty around it.
Now. From one side, you've got people
thinking this is my replacement.And then the other side, you
know, which I'm sure we'll get to, is people thinking, this is
my augmentation. This is going to make me a super
version of myself. So there's, you know, it's going
to be super interesting to see how that all shakes out.
But you mentioned something there around, you know, the data
(06:06):
and, and inputs from various members of staff across various
parts of their performance and Iguess their role within the
business, etcetera. Obviously, people have a little
bit wary of being treated as data.
Is there a risk that the employees will feel like they're
just being reduced to a series of data points and metrics
(06:26):
rather than the human beings that they are?
And does something like that potentially get worse by
necessity, simply because the larger an organisation gets, the
harder the task of managing all the staff is?
Yeah, So absolutely the dehumanisation and the
reductionism that comes with people thinking they've just
(06:47):
been reduced to a number and andthe consequential impacts of
that for employee well being a substantial you know, it, it
it's, but I think it's a more ofa cultural discussion as an
organisation as to why we're doing this, why we need to do
this, why this is important and where those touch points are for
human engagement and human interaction.
(07:10):
And, and we see this a lot, Gareth, now with working from
home, where, where are those, where are those emotional touch
points that you have with someone where we just can sort
of gas bag and, and say whatever, it's the same in this
translation or the use of metro tricks to drive a lot of our
decision making and, and a lot of what happens in organisation.
(07:32):
And you're right, data has become a commodity now and
substantially more and more we're seeing it.
I was reading a study recently about applicants applying for
jobs and, and they were faced with automation the entire way
through. They didn't actually engage with
a person, a human until the very, very end.
And it's like, well, what is theconsequence for that, for
(07:53):
building your employer brand, for your how you feel about the
organisation? So there is, there is a big
story around that. And I don't think we've really
started to unpack what that looks like.
But there definitely is that reductionism that people being
reduced to a number and and alsothe idea that humans are complex
(08:16):
individuals and can they be reduced to a number or should
they be reduced to a number is also the big question there.
Yeah, absolutely. And I think that part of
everything that you've you've explained there in my mind, I
can put a lot of it back to the kind of unknown.
And you said something there around managing your employer
brand. If the impression that you're
(08:37):
giving is your, you've automatedeverything and you've got all
these applicants applying for a role or an interest in your
company being faced with these automated systems that don't
treat them like that human, regardless if you're doing it
out of necessity, like that almost doesn't really matter to
that person on the outside. They only know what they're
faced with. So yeah, they're it'll be really
(08:58):
interesting to see how that all falls out around how people
manage their employer brand. But you, you also mentioned
there around work from home. One thing that I've seen and,
and read a little bit of recently was the implementation
of surveillance tools from, you know, organisations of various
types, whether they're kind of keystroke loggers or you know, I
(09:19):
was reading something earlier today around some company
activated some software that recorded through the microphones
their their Staffs computers while they're at home working
from home. So there's obviously all these,
you know, in my mind, quite dodgy things going on and I can
only guess that that adds to that cynicism and that distrust
amongst workers who feel like they're being monitored due to
(09:40):
these various tech solutions. That said, if that perceptions
out there, what are the implications of that for
workplace culture? How would that be addressed?
You know, the more tools to try and spend more time working on
culture feels like is what's breaking that cultural
perception in the 1st. Place Well, well, yeah, I think
(10:01):
with surveillance and when we talk about surveillance tools,
we automatically go to the negative surveillance, you know
that I'm sneaking around as an employer and I'm checking up on
you. Now we know through COVID there
was a substantial increase in organisations accessing those
surveillance tools that they were using online.
But we also surveil people in with cameras in the workplace.
(10:24):
We can also surveil them by require them to do drug tests,
you know, So there's a whole range of different surveillance
that we do in organisations. And you know, it's often sold to
us as surveillance as care or isit surveillance as coercion,
right. You know, so this is where it,
it, it becomes quite interestingto me to be honest, because this
(10:47):
is how it's sold to someone is how it's implicated into the
culture. Yeah, that's, that's really
interesting what you said. There's surveillance as care.
I can imagine you could sell that a lot easier if it was,
say, cameras looking over the open plan office type thing, you
know, versus telling someone that you're going to be logging
their keystrokes and microphone in the privacy of their own
(11:10):
home, you know? And there's also surveillance
with health monitoring where they want you to wear a device
to check, Oh, really? So your, your, your blood
pressure's not going up. I know that.
I think that there was, and I'm not 100% sure on this example,
there was a factory in China where they were using some
surveillance technology to sort of check people's using facial
(11:32):
recognition to see if that wouldcome extra and then being able
to take them off the line and, and, and replace them with
someone else. So they were using it for good.
But were they though? Because then you go on the other
extreme for those people in a call centre and they have to log
every time they go to the bathroom and, and how many
minutes you, you've got like 3 1/2 minutes to go to the
(11:52):
bathroom. And you can't only have so many
bathroom breaks. So it's it's problematic.
Yeah, look, you know, we've all heard stories around, you know,
Amazon, how they're managing their warehouse stuff.
That's just one, one example offthe top of my head.
And that sounds absolutely not surveillance as care.
That's why surveillance as as crushing of the soul.
But we've we've also looked at the amount of data that is being
(12:18):
collected potentially on on people within and outside the
workplace. What are the biggest challenges
and risks that human resources departments face when collecting
and analysing so much of this data?
The probably the biggest one is privacy and you know, that's not
just AHL problem, that's an organisational wide problem and
just ensuring that the, the employee data we're talking
(12:40):
about data is, is safe and, and it's protected by the firewalls
and whatever that whatever the organisation has to protect it.
However, we do know that there can be breaches and those
breaches may be unintentional orthey may be intentional or it
might be a third party breach. So it's it's about then the
(13:00):
organisation being on top of andensuring that they've got the
systems in place to protect the data.
Me personally, I've, I've been in a couple of those breaches so
far, like, you know, whereas various things have been hacked
and it's like, oh, your licence is gone.
I was like, oh, awesome. But with, with those concerns
around privacy, how do you, I mean, how do organisations
(13:22):
beyond saying that they, it's stored well and you know, you
see that little padlock in the in the browser thing when you're
handing over your stuff, like how do they manage it securely
enough to build the trust from employees and beyond?
I think it comes back to communication and, and that
cultural piece to say that we have invested X or we have
(13:44):
invested in this company to do this and their reputation
exceeds them in this particular space.
Or we have the big banks, they, they hire those hackers and they
set up the, whoever hacks, it gets $20,000, you know, and, and
it goes out to the hackers to hack a particular system, you
know, so they're, they're actively doing things.
(14:06):
And I know some companies are hiring hackers to have in their,
in their company to be hacking everything so that they, they
can identify where some of thosepitfalls are and where those
sort of back entries might be orwhether be able to sort of get
in. But it does come down to
communication. Let's go back to some of the
(14:26):
reasons why HR is starting to implement various forms of
technology for efficiency and the scale of of what they're up
against. I often, you know, see this
digital deluge that HR departments currently face.
Most often from what I've seen, that refers to say you put a job
advert out in the world previously, I don't know, you
(14:48):
might have got 50 applicants, now you're getting 800.
And obviously that's just a ridiculous amount for somebody
to try and sort through themselves, which which makes
those tools such a necessity. If you've got these gigantic
corporates, right, let's say they're probably most likely to
be using these systems in the name of efficiency and, and
(15:11):
managing that scale. But when it comes to smaller
businesses, do they have an advantage to potentially being
behind the cutting edge when it comes to these tools?
And, you know, is there an advantage there in, in
maintaining some of that human face and touch?
I, I, I think it's a, almost a double edged sword, Gareth, for
(15:32):
small businesses, they can't afford to invest in the
technologies that the big companies are using.
So that that's one of the big things.
So their reliance will be on, ondifferent types of systems.
So they still have some data andthey'll still be collecting it,
but how they go about collectingit is is might be quite
different to a big organisation.However, as you say, it does
(15:53):
allow them to be more human, butthey have more hands on that
they have to be more involved in.
Now. I'm not sure if you know any,
any HR people that are working in a small firm where there's
like one or two of them now, I'msure they're wishing that they
had more automation because theydon't have enough time even to
(16:15):
be human because they're going jumping from one ship to the
next. They're going from a performance
review to a workplace dispute tosome other, like they're jumping
around. So for them, I think using tools
to streamline position descriptions or something like
that to take some of that menialstuff out of it for them.
So then they potentially have a little bit more time.
(16:36):
Yeah, yeah. And I think you've, you've kind
of outlaid a few things there, which a lot of the time when
people hear human resources liketheir, their mind goes to this
is kind of the gatekeeper of a job.
Do you know what I mean? But the role of HR departments
is so much wider than that, as you've kind of just touched on
(16:56):
right now. Can you just give us a bit of a
rundown of the wider world of HR, what it looks like
currently? Well, going back to an early
point I made about that process versus the human side.
Now when we talk about the process side that's around
payroll, that's around things toget, you want holiday pay.
It's it's in the system like getting all those systematic
(17:17):
things that can be automated, automated like there's a lot of
processes that we have to followif it's about policy
development. But then the human element is
the other part of it. And that's where we're having
conversations might be dealing with a dispute or workplace
investigation. It might be performed management
conversations. Now performance management is a
tricky one because some of it may be automated or using a tech
(17:40):
to you go in the system, you fill in your goals, that type of
thing. But then it's usually, I say
usually loosely, I'd like to think everyone does it.
There is a human discussion withthat.
There's human touch points wherewe sort of say, how is it
actually really going? And and that's critical to
ensure that the employees are finding meaning in what they're
(18:01):
doing. So I can go in and fill it, but
if no one's looking at it or no one cares, then how, how is that
meaningful for me? And that, you know, leads onto
all other things like low job satisfaction, low commitment,
engagement, productivity, and soon.
Yeah, look, it, it sounds like as you said earlier too, that
that human aspect still needs tobe so strong in everything
(18:23):
because humans as, as we all know, they're not machines like
the incredibly complicated beings with absolutely unique
sets of needs and wants. But while we are talking around
AI and and these new tools, thisis like quite a big, huge
discussion that with a lot of areas that this can go.
(18:43):
One of the things that I guess is out in the discourse is
around AI and bias in hiring andmanagement of teams and and
people. Some people say it helps
eliminate these biases, but others say introduces new even
harder to spot ones. What's your take on this?
Yeah. Well, just taking a step back to
(19:05):
algorithms and algorithmic bias just in the data, I think that's
a, a part of this discussion before AI even was part of the
bias discussion because it's notoperating in isolation.
Whether it's an algorithm or or whether it's an AI, someone's
inputting something. Yes, it has the ability to
(19:26):
address bias, but it depends what's going into it at the
start. Now we can't make assumptions
that the information and the positioning that's putting it at
the start is completely without bias because bias is going to
be, whether it's unconscious bias or not, it's going to be
inherent in in everything and aswell as errors.
(19:46):
So it has the ability to addressso many things, including bias.
However, from HR perspective, they just have to be wary and
questioning and checking becausethe biggest problem I think with
a lot of HR systems and particularly HR tech is a set
and forget mentality where it's like I said it, I do it here is
a process irrespective of what it is, and then I forget about
(20:09):
it. Well, it's like, well, knowing
actual fact is an evaluative part of that.
We have to go back, check is what's coming out, the writing.
Information, do we need to go back and check what's going in
or what we're saying or we're asking the AI to do for us?
So yes, is there new biases coming out potentially?
I I don't know, it's a scary thought.
You said something there around,you know, you've still got to
(20:32):
have someone go in and kind of mine through the data and find
the right outputs and and summarise what is presenting
what it's finding is that quite a big skill for people to learn
And does that present a new problem, which if there is that
learning curve to analysing thatstuff?
I mean, look, I don't know how complicated it is.
I struggle to look in Google Analytics.
That's that's how bad I am at it.
(20:53):
But if, if people are using these tools to process all this
data and then they've got to spend all this time looking at
it and and finding the conclusions that are reaching
and out putting something. Is there a risk that people
could become too reliant on techto solve all of these problems,
whether they're forced to or whether they choose to?
I think there is an potential that people will become too
(21:16):
reliant on it because if I don'tunderstand what's coming out of
it, then how do I know if what'scoming out is wrong or right or
correct or biassed or you know, So there is a certain level of
skill required just to understand the data.
And we're, we're seeing more sophisticated HR systems now
where all the data is in the back end and you can go in and
(21:38):
you can ask it. Tell me about the turnover
trends for the the next and it will spit out the data and give
you and answer the question. But then the problem becomes
couple problems. 1 is a data correct. 1 error in a line of
code can, can break it all and, and we don't know unless
someone's checking it. And two, how do I know what
(22:00):
questions to ask? So, so we, we hear a lot about,
you know, ChatGPT and, and all those generative AIS and, and
the importance of how, how we write prompts.
It's going, it's going to be thesame thing for this.
It's about what type of questions do we need to ask the
AI in order to draw out what we need from an organisational
perspective. But the other at the other end
(22:22):
of that or the other start of that is have we collected the
right data in the first place? Yeah.
But then be able to get the right information out of it.
So yes, there is an opportunity to become over reliant.
Secondly, the skills required are analytical skills.
And even when I talk to different people in in HR, HR
(22:43):
managers, they're looking for particular analytical skills for
new people coming in, people whocan analyse some data, who can
read it and can interpret it andmake then use it to make data
driven decisions. That makes total sense.
There's two things I want to explore from that What other new
skills do people in the field need to learn?
And then also, does it still come down to humans to predict
(23:06):
where and how those trends mightcontinue?
OK, the new skills, absolutely analytical skills that prompt
into engineering like that, getting the right prompts,
critical thinking skills, I think it's always been on the
cards pretty much for everyone, but for HR particularly to all
right, how can I, how can I lookat this in a different way, not
just take for granted what's being spit out.
(23:30):
So just a little bit of those broader type of skills.
We are seeing increasingly more sophisticated autonomous
programmes that can actually tell you like the trend or or
give you the actual answer. So I don't know if I answered
your second question quite right.
No, no, I think, I think that actually could lead us into
(23:50):
another question, which is around those tools as they get
more autonomous. When I've played this entire
scenario out in my own mind, thebest case scenario I can imagine
is everything's get so autonomous that it's just kind
of human to human conversations again, and all the
administrative data driven stuffis just running in the
background. Is there that that potential or
(24:12):
does that full autonomy over so much of it kind of tap into
everybody's worst fear around AI, which is kind of it's a
human replacer? It depends if who you're
reading, because that everyone'sgot a real different view on
this. Like I know Elon Musk has has
come out and said AI is going tobe fully developed and
autonomous in, in this particular year.
(24:33):
And then others are saying, well, we've pretty much hit the
the top of where we'll hit and we'll sort of stagnate for a
little bit at where we are. I get the point.
Are we being replaced by the machine?
And, and this is the the biggestquestion and I think for HR this
is absolutely significant because HR as a function in the
organisation was probably the first adopters to start
(24:54):
implementing different types of technology.
And then seeing the value of what AI can actually provide.
It's like, well, is it going to replace us?
Are we going to lose our jobs? It is scary to know when it's
going to where it can go. But one of those topics that
have just come up there is AI and HR decisions just in
(25:15):
general, as businesses face increasing scrutiny and calls
for regulation across this stuff, what procedures and
protocols either are they or might they potentially implement
to address this? I think they just have to have a
clear framework, maybe an ethical framework, I'm not sure,
just to say what what as an organisation we're going to
(25:36):
tolerate and what we won't, how we can use it and how we can't.
Until we get some national standards about how it's used or
how we can use it. It's really hard for
organisations to know what the general consensus is.
So I think then if we are talking regulation, something
I've seen lately is these current US legal cases around, I
(26:00):
think it was one guy has launched some and I, what do
they call it like a suit or, or something over there because he
got rejected by AI from, I don'tknow, let's say a couple of 100
rolls and he thinks it's shit. But it might be, it might not
be, but it doesn't matter. Do cases like this kind of set a
precedent? Who gets a final word in
something like that? And depending on the outcome of
(26:20):
that case, how could it potentially change how these
systems are used by all companies moving forward?
Well, that case is really interesting.
So he's suing work day work. Day.
That's the. One to say that work day has
discriminated against him because of his age and has
stopped him even getting throughto interview stage on on any of
it based on the algorithm or theAI that they've used.
(26:43):
And in reading the cases, it's really quite interesting in who
has that owners of responsibilities, the employing
organisation, or is it the company who has the technology,
who's selling the technology? And that's who he was.
He was suing the technology company to say that all the
organisations I went to that used your technology were
(27:05):
discriminating against me, I think.
I'm think that's what I read. No, that that sounds about right
from what I've taken from the case.
But that, you know, that brings back an interesting parallel.
What like if someone commits a crime through the Internet, you
know, who's to blame? Is it the person?
Is it the Internet service provider?
It's it's just kind of like where does the finger point at
the end of the day for the blame?
(27:26):
But you know a system like like that, surely the companies have
some control over what you know,selections and inputs that they
want it to philtre, right? But you would think so because
that's what we have been programmed to think in terms of.
All right, I'm I'm buying an offthe shelf or a bespoke programme
to help me with my recruitment as as a company.
(27:49):
I need to tell that programme what it is I want as a company,
what I'm looking for, what our parameters are.
I'm inputting that before the system actually does the work it
needs to do. Yeah, no, totally.
So I mean, it feels pretty open and shut to me, but I, I don't
know, I don't know how the the US legal system will, will shake
something like that out. But you mentioned there there's
(28:09):
still a person providing the inputs and I guess the framework
that can be built into that bespoke tool.
This, this is AI. Don't know, it could be a bit a
bit of a heavy question, but do you believe AI can eventually
make the human in human resources obsolete or does it
force the field to become even more human centric in the years
to come? Well, that is a very heavy
(28:31):
question. But my answer to that is that I
don't think the human will become obsolete.
I, I think it, there may be moreopportunity to automate and to
use tech for some of the processes.
But as I mentioned before, thereis still a huge part of HR that
is around people and, and it is around ensuring that you know
(28:53):
that the people have got the, the capacity and the
capabilities to do so. It might be around, even though
we can news tech for learning and development, but it might be
a career conversation or it might be, as I said, a
performance conversation, or it might be I'm negotiating an
enterprise agreement. You know, I'm working with the
unions. I, you know, so they're still
(29:14):
going to have to be a human partof what HR does.
I don't think that that's lost. And that that makes absolute
sense. And hopefully that efficiency
gain will lead to that kind of personal interaction, human
gain, which I guess is is what everybody really wants to avoid
feeling like you're just one of those data points that we
(29:36):
mentioned earlier. So the more humanisation.
Yeah, yeah, more humanisation. That's a, that's a great way to
describe what we want from humanresources.
But just to finish up, how do you see the future for human
resources professionals taking shape?
Do you think the field will become more human like we're
hypothesising now, or will it potentially end up more
(29:57):
technical as we move forward? Well, I, I would like to say it
would become more human in the sense that the thing with HR and
tech and HR tech, it's a real balancing act.
It's a balancing act between embracing technology and
preserving our human values. So HR has got this critical role
(30:19):
in, in being able to do this. So I think in an ideal world, if
HR can do that, well, embrace the tech, bring it along.
We use it, we automate processes, we we get everything
happening then will allow us to free our time as HR
practitioners to then be more human in the sense that I can be
(30:39):
more interactive and engage withthe workforce and whatever that
may mean. Do I think it's going to happen
in that ideal world? Maybe for some, but I think that
for some companies and maybe an over reliance on technology and
then say well, we don't need youor we can do something else for
you or we're going to find something else for you to do as
(31:00):
opposed to just here is an opportunity to rehumanise HR.
Yeah, fingers crossed that it does rehumours.
I really like that. I like the way you've summed
that up there. Unfortunately for anybody in HR,
it's like they're right in the firing line now from everybody,
whether that's external or internal.
So that was why I really was waskeen to hear the thoughts for
(31:23):
this conversation. Can I just add one more point
whilst I'm, I'm, I'm presenting this sort of almost sceptical
view of, of technology, I do think it has its place.
And the HR practitioners that I've been talking to, they're
excited by the opportunities that the technology is
providing. They're not scared of what comes
next. They're excited and ready to
(31:46):
embrace that next stage of of whatever it is, whatever the
workforce is going to look like.Interesting to hear that they're
almost at the coalface, and if they're feeling positive,
hopefully that will eventually become the feeling for everybody
else outside the world of human resources.
Thanks so much for for that. Justine, what's on the horizon
(32:06):
for you and where can people follow what you're up to?
They can follow me on LinkedIn, just Justine Farah and find me
there. I'm doing lots of things there,
as you'll see with some publications and the like.
Awesome. Justine, thank you so much.
Thanks Gareth, I appreciate it. For more info on what we've
discussed today, check out the show notes.
(32:26):
If you enjoyed this one, you cansubscribe to Ruined by the
Internet on your favourite podcast app and help spread the
word by sharing this episode or leaving a review.
I'm Gareth King, see you next time.
Welcome to Ruined by the Internet.
I'm Gareth King. Today we're asking, has the
Internet ruined human resources?It promised to make things more
efficient, objective and data driven, but instead turn a human
centric discipline into an automated, impersonal system
with new ethical and privacy concerns.
To help us explore how people and technology work together,
we're joined by Doctor Justine Ferrer, a senior lecturer in
(00:23):
Human Resource Management in theDeacon Business School.
Justine, thank you so much for joining us and welcome to the
show. Thank you for having me.
I'm, I'm very excited about being here and having this
discussion with you today, Gareth.
Yeah, me too. But before we begin, can you
tell us a little bit about the work that you do and the journey
(00:44):
that's LED you to this point? Wow, the work that I do as I'm
an academic, I work at Deakin University in the Deakin
Business School. I am a senior lecturer in human
resource management. I have been in this space for
quite a while and I think my passion is around HR and the
profession, particularly the dark side elements.
(01:04):
And and as our discussion today will entail, some of that is
considered the technology and that's got its own little dark
side that has implications for for HR and and for the workplace
generally. Yeah.
Look, I'm sure we will go into those implications for HR in the
workplace as we know, you know, it's in the name.
(01:24):
Human resources is obviously a traditionally human centric
field. But as we look at the increased
adoption of various forms of HR tech, what would you say is
proving to be the most difficultabout maintaining that human
touch? Really great question and a
really hard question to to answer because there is argument
that you know, HR is losing its human side because of technology
(01:45):
and because of focuses on efficiencies and productivity as
a opposed to looking after the well being of the employees in
the workplace. And if we go back historically
to traditional models of HR, it was about looking after that
well being. But HR has seen a massive shift
and with that shift it's become more strategic and with more
strategic focus, it's focusing on productivity and greater
(02:08):
efficiencies. However, when we think about HR,
it's has two notable parts of it.
There is the process part. Now HR is all about looking
after how the workplace functions, how employees
function, so making sure people are are coming to work, that
they're getting paid, that they have the right training and, and
safety demands met and so on andso forth.
So there's a process part of that, but there's also the human
(02:30):
side of that, which as much as, as we talk about technology and,
and dehumanising human resource management, there is this
massive part of HR that is inherently human.
And I'm not sure that that can be lost just yet.
It sounds like as well that the function of HRS expanded and
(02:51):
grown quite a lot over time and you just mentioned there that
there has been that shift towards a more strategic
approach overall. Can you just give us a top line
rundown of what that shift has looked like?
It depends who you ask to be honest.
So what what we're seeing is andyou and you look at RE, which is
a strange human resource institute and even coming out of
(03:11):
the US and and the UK, they're talking about the importance of
HR having a strategic role on boards and making a strategic
contribution. So we're thinking of CEOs that
they're making decisions that are impacting on the whole of
the organisation, including the human resource, so including the
people. So the argument is from a
(03:31):
strategic perspective that HR should be involved in that
conversation because ultimately it's the employees who are going
to deliver on those organisational goals and those
the objectives that they're setting.
So HR strategy inherently shouldbe linked to the business
strategy. So HR, when we're talking about
HR being more strategic, it's HRunderstanding what the business
(03:53):
strategy is and then being able to link their own strategy, the
people strategy, to ensure that the employees are delivering on
what the organisation needs for them to deliver on.
In that case, have those variousforms of HR tech that have been
implemented so far, are they actually freeing up human
resources staff to be more strategic and more human?
(04:14):
Or do they somewhat shift those previous administrative burdens
because obviously they would need some kind of management and
oversight from the person, right?
Yeah, absolutely. So I was talking to a colleague
recently and she was talking about the impacts of AIM on her
current workforce. And she was saying that people
are scared that they're going tobe replaced.
(04:37):
You know, that this move towardsautomation in, in different
ways, whether it's through AI orthrough other types of
automation, people are going to lose their jobs.
And, and she's saying that or trying to encourage them to
think about, well, how well should you use your time?
How could you better use that inorder to do something that's
more productive? There is a case at Coles recent,
(04:59):
recently, a couple of years ago where they introduced ASAP
SuccessFactors, which is a wholeintegrated workplace system with
lots of data and, and things like that.
And, and it automated quite a lot of their HR process.
But what they were able to do inthat was then reallocate people
to to do things that were more meaningful to them.
(05:22):
So it wasn't about, we've got this, you're going to be
replaced. It was about giving them the
opportunity to say, all right, well, what can you do that's
more meaningful to the to the business?
How can you better spend your time?
And I think that that that sentiment, I guess that that
wider sentiment actually comes up regarding AI in a lot of
(05:43):
different things. You know, there is obviously so
much unknown and uncertainty around it.
Now. From one side, you've got people
thinking this is my replacement.And then the other side, you
know, which I'm sure we'll get to, is people thinking, this is
my augmentation. This is going to make me a super
version of myself. So there's, you know, it's going
to be super interesting to see how that all shakes out.
But you mentioned something there around, you know, the data
(06:06):
and, and inputs from various members of staff across various
parts of their performance and Iguess their role within the
business, etcetera. Obviously, people have a little
bit wary of being treated as data.
Is there a risk that the employees will feel like they're
just being reduced to a series of data points and metrics
(06:26):
rather than the human beings that they are?
And does something like that potentially get worse by
necessity, simply because the larger an organisation gets, the
harder the task of managing all the staff is?
Yeah, So absolutely the dehumanisation and the
reductionism that comes with people thinking they've just
(06:47):
been reduced to a number and andthe consequential impacts of
that for employee well being a substantial you know, it, it
it's, but I think it's a more ofa cultural discussion as an
organisation as to why we're doing this, why we need to do
this, why this is important and where those touch points are for
human engagement and human interaction.
(07:10):
And, and we see this a lot, Gareth, now with working from
home, where, where are those, where are those emotional touch
points that you have with someone where we just can sort
of gas bag and, and say whatever, it's the same in this
translation or the use of metro tricks to drive a lot of our
decision making and, and a lot of what happens in organisation.
(07:32):
And you're right, data has become a commodity now and
substantially more and more we're seeing it.
I was reading a study recently about applicants applying for
jobs and, and they were faced with automation the entire way
through. They didn't actually engage with
a person, a human until the very, very end.
And it's like, well, what is theconsequence for that, for
(07:53):
building your employer brand, for your how you feel about the
organisation? So there is, there is a big
story around that. And I don't think we've really
started to unpack what that looks like.
But there definitely is that reductionism that people being
reduced to a number and and alsothe idea that humans are complex
(08:16):
individuals and can they be reduced to a number or should
they be reduced to a number is also the big question there.
Yeah, absolutely. And I think that part of
everything that you've you've explained there in my mind, I
can put a lot of it back to the kind of unknown.
And you said something there around managing your employer
brand. If the impression that you're
(08:37):
giving is your, you've automatedeverything and you've got all
these applicants applying for a role or an interest in your
company being faced with these automated systems that don't
treat them like that human, regardless if you're doing it
out of necessity, like that almost doesn't really matter to
that person on the outside. They only know what they're
faced with. So yeah, they're it'll be really
(08:58):
interesting to see how that all falls out around how people
manage their employer brand. But you, you also mentioned
there around work from home. One thing that I've seen and,
and read a little bit of recently was the implementation
of surveillance tools from, you know, organisations of various
types, whether they're kind of keystroke loggers or you know, I
(09:19):
was reading something earlier today around some company
activated some software that recorded through the microphones
their their Staffs computers while they're at home working
from home. So there's obviously all these,
you know, in my mind, quite dodgy things going on and I can
only guess that that adds to that cynicism and that distrust
amongst workers who feel like they're being monitored due to
(09:40):
these various tech solutions. That said, if that perceptions
out there, what are the implications of that for
workplace culture? How would that be addressed?
You know, the more tools to try and spend more time working on
culture feels like is what's breaking that cultural
perception in the 1st. Place Well, well, yeah, I think
(10:01):
with surveillance and when we talk about surveillance tools,
we automatically go to the negative surveillance, you know
that I'm sneaking around as an employer and I'm checking up on
you. Now we know through COVID there
was a substantial increase in organisations accessing those
surveillance tools that they were using online.
But we also surveil people in with cameras in the workplace.
(10:24):
We can also surveil them by require them to do drug tests,
you know, So there's a whole range of different surveillance
that we do in organisations. And you know, it's often sold to
us as surveillance as care or isit surveillance as coercion,
right. You know, so this is where it,
it, it becomes quite interestingto me to be honest, because this
(10:47):
is how it's sold to someone is how it's implicated into the
culture. Yeah, that's, that's really
interesting what you said. There's surveillance as care.
I can imagine you could sell that a lot easier if it was,
say, cameras looking over the open plan office type thing, you
know, versus telling someone that you're going to be logging
their keystrokes and microphone in the privacy of their own
(11:10):
home, you know? And there's also surveillance
with health monitoring where they want you to wear a device
to check, Oh, really? So your, your, your blood
pressure's not going up. I know that.
I think that there was, and I'm not 100% sure on this example,
there was a factory in China where they were using some
surveillance technology to sort of check people's using facial
(11:32):
recognition to see if that wouldcome extra and then being able
to take them off the line and, and, and replace them with
someone else. So they were using it for good.
But were they though? Because then you go on the other
extreme for those people in a call centre and they have to log
every time they go to the bathroom and, and how many
minutes you, you've got like 3 1/2 minutes to go to the
(11:52):
bathroom. And you can't only have so many
bathroom breaks. So it's it's problematic.
Yeah, look, you know, we've all heard stories around, you know,
Amazon, how they're managing their warehouse stuff.
That's just one, one example offthe top of my head.
And that sounds absolutely not surveillance as care.
That's why surveillance as as crushing of the soul.
But we've we've also looked at the amount of data that is being
(12:18):
collected potentially on on people within and outside the
workplace. What are the biggest challenges
and risks that human resources departments face when collecting
and analysing so much of this data?
The probably the biggest one is privacy and you know, that's not
just AHL problem, that's an organisational wide problem and
just ensuring that the, the employee data we're talking
(12:40):
about data is, is safe and, and it's protected by the firewalls
and whatever that whatever the organisation has to protect it.
However, we do know that there can be breaches and those
breaches may be unintentional orthey may be intentional or it
might be a third party breach. So it's it's about then the
(13:00):
organisation being on top of andensuring that they've got the
systems in place to protect the data.
Me personally, I've, I've been in a couple of those breaches so
far, like, you know, whereas various things have been hacked
and it's like, oh, your licence is gone.
I was like, oh, awesome. But with, with those concerns
around privacy, how do you, I mean, how do organisations
(13:22):
beyond saying that they, it's stored well and you know, you
see that little padlock in the in the browser thing when you're
handing over your stuff, like how do they manage it securely
enough to build the trust from employees and beyond?
I think it comes back to communication and, and that
cultural piece to say that we have invested X or we have
(13:44):
invested in this company to do this and their reputation
exceeds them in this particular space.
Or we have the big banks, they, they hire those hackers and they
set up the, whoever hacks, it gets $20,000, you know, and, and
it goes out to the hackers to hack a particular system, you
know, so they're, they're actively doing things.
(14:06):
And I know some companies are hiring hackers to have in their,
in their company to be hacking everything so that they, they
can identify where some of thosepitfalls are and where those
sort of back entries might be orwhether be able to sort of get
in. But it does come down to
communication. Let's go back to some of the
(14:26):
reasons why HR is starting to implement various forms of
technology for efficiency and the scale of of what they're up
against. I often, you know, see this
digital deluge that HR departments currently face.
Most often from what I've seen, that refers to say you put a job
advert out in the world previously, I don't know, you
(14:48):
might have got 50 applicants, now you're getting 800.
And obviously that's just a ridiculous amount for somebody
to try and sort through themselves, which which makes
those tools such a necessity. If you've got these gigantic
corporates, right, let's say they're probably most likely to
be using these systems in the name of efficiency and, and
(15:11):
managing that scale. But when it comes to smaller
businesses, do they have an advantage to potentially being
behind the cutting edge when it comes to these tools?
And, you know, is there an advantage there in, in
maintaining some of that human face and touch?
I, I, I think it's a, almost a double edged sword, Gareth, for
(15:32):
small businesses, they can't afford to invest in the
technologies that the big companies are using.
So that that's one of the big things.
So their reliance will be on, ondifferent types of systems.
So they still have some data andthey'll still be collecting it,
but how they go about collectingit is is might be quite
different to a big organisation.However, as you say, it does
(15:53):
allow them to be more human, butthey have more hands on that
they have to be more involved in.
Now. I'm not sure if you know any,
any HR people that are working in a small firm where there's
like one or two of them now, I'msure they're wishing that they
had more automation because theydon't have enough time even to
(16:15):
be human because they're going jumping from one ship to the
next. They're going from a performance
review to a workplace dispute tosome other, like they're jumping
around. So for them, I think using tools
to streamline position descriptions or something like
that to take some of that menialstuff out of it for them.
So then they potentially have a little bit more time.
(16:36):
Yeah, yeah. And I think you've, you've kind
of outlaid a few things there, which a lot of the time when
people hear human resources liketheir, their mind goes to this
is kind of the gatekeeper of a job.
Do you know what I mean? But the role of HR departments
is so much wider than that, as you've kind of just touched on
(16:56):
right now. Can you just give us a bit of a
rundown of the wider world of HR, what it looks like
currently? Well, going back to an early
point I made about that process versus the human side.
Now when we talk about the process side that's around
payroll, that's around things toget, you want holiday pay.
It's it's in the system like getting all those systematic
(17:17):
things that can be automated, automated like there's a lot of
processes that we have to followif it's about policy
development. But then the human element is
the other part of it. And that's where we're having
conversations might be dealing with a dispute or workplace
investigation. It might be performed management
conversations. Now performance management is a
tricky one because some of it may be automated or using a tech
(17:40):
to you go in the system, you fill in your goals, that type of
thing. But then it's usually, I say
usually loosely, I'd like to think everyone does it.
There is a human discussion withthat.
There's human touch points wherewe sort of say, how is it
actually really going? And and that's critical to
ensure that the employees are finding meaning in what they're
(18:01):
doing. So I can go in and fill it, but
if no one's looking at it or no one cares, then how, how is that
meaningful for me? And that, you know, leads onto
all other things like low job satisfaction, low commitment,
engagement, productivity, and soon.
Yeah, look, it, it sounds like as you said earlier too, that
that human aspect still needs tobe so strong in everything
(18:23):
because humans as, as we all know, they're not machines like
the incredibly complicated beings with absolutely unique
sets of needs and wants. But while we are talking around
AI and and these new tools, thisis like quite a big, huge
discussion that with a lot of areas that this can go.
(18:43):
One of the things that I guess is out in the discourse is
around AI and bias in hiring andmanagement of teams and and
people. Some people say it helps
eliminate these biases, but others say introduces new even
harder to spot ones. What's your take on this?
Yeah. Well, just taking a step back to
(19:05):
algorithms and algorithmic bias just in the data, I think that's
a, a part of this discussion before AI even was part of the
bias discussion because it's notoperating in isolation.
Whether it's an algorithm or or whether it's an AI, someone's
inputting something. Yes, it has the ability to
(19:26):
address bias, but it depends what's going into it at the
start. Now we can't make assumptions
that the information and the positioning that's putting it at
the start is completely without bias because bias is going to
be, whether it's unconscious bias or not, it's going to be
inherent in in everything and aswell as errors.
(19:46):
So it has the ability to addressso many things, including bias.
However, from HR perspective, they just have to be wary and
questioning and checking becausethe biggest problem I think with
a lot of HR systems and particularly HR tech is a set
and forget mentality where it's like I said it, I do it here is
a process irrespective of what it is, and then I forget about
(20:09):
it. Well, it's like, well, knowing
actual fact is an evaluative part of that.
We have to go back, check is what's coming out, the writing.
Information, do we need to go back and check what's going in
or what we're saying or we're asking the AI to do for us?
So yes, is there new biases coming out potentially?
I I don't know, it's a scary thought.
You said something there around,you know, you've still got to
(20:32):
have someone go in and kind of mine through the data and find
the right outputs and and summarise what is presenting
what it's finding is that quite a big skill for people to learn
And does that present a new problem, which if there is that
learning curve to analysing thatstuff?
I mean, look, I don't know how complicated it is.
I struggle to look in Google Analytics.
That's that's how bad I am at it.
(20:53):
But if, if people are using these tools to process all this
data and then they've got to spend all this time looking at
it and and finding the conclusions that are reaching
and out putting something. Is there a risk that people
could become too reliant on techto solve all of these problems,
whether they're forced to or whether they choose to?
I think there is an potential that people will become too
(21:16):
reliant on it because if I don'tunderstand what's coming out of
it, then how do I know if what'scoming out is wrong or right or
correct or biassed or you know, So there is a certain level of
skill required just to understand the data.
And we're, we're seeing more sophisticated HR systems now
where all the data is in the back end and you can go in and
(21:38):
you can ask it. Tell me about the turnover
trends for the the next and it will spit out the data and give
you and answer the question. But then the problem becomes
couple problems. 1 is a data correct. 1 error in a line of
code can, can break it all and, and we don't know unless
someone's checking it. And two, how do I know what
(22:00):
questions to ask? So, so we, we hear a lot about,
you know, ChatGPT and, and all those generative AIS and, and
the importance of how, how we write prompts.
It's going, it's going to be thesame thing for this.
It's about what type of questions do we need to ask the
AI in order to draw out what we need from an organisational
perspective. But the other at the other end
(22:22):
of that or the other start of that is have we collected the
right data in the first place? Yeah.
But then be able to get the right information out of it.
So yes, there is an opportunity to become over reliant.
Secondly, the skills required are analytical skills.
And even when I talk to different people in in HR, HR
(22:43):
managers, they're looking for particular analytical skills for
new people coming in, people whocan analyse some data, who can
read it and can interpret it andmake then use it to make data
driven decisions. That makes total sense.
There's two things I want to explore from that What other new
skills do people in the field need to learn?
And then also, does it still come down to humans to predict
(23:06):
where and how those trends mightcontinue?
OK, the new skills, absolutely analytical skills that prompt
into engineering like that, getting the right prompts,
critical thinking skills, I think it's always been on the
cards pretty much for everyone, but for HR particularly to all
right, how can I, how can I lookat this in a different way, not
just take for granted what's being spit out.
(23:30):
So just a little bit of those broader type of skills.
We are seeing increasingly more sophisticated autonomous
programmes that can actually tell you like the trend or or
give you the actual answer. So I don't know if I answered
your second question quite right.
No, no, I think, I think that actually could lead us into
(23:50):
another question, which is around those tools as they get
more autonomous. When I've played this entire
scenario out in my own mind, thebest case scenario I can imagine
is everything's get so autonomous that it's just kind
of human to human conversations again, and all the
administrative data driven stuffis just running in the
background. Is there that that potential or
(24:12):
does that full autonomy over so much of it kind of tap into
everybody's worst fear around AI, which is kind of it's a
human replacer? It depends if who you're
reading, because that everyone'sgot a real different view on
this. Like I know Elon Musk has has
come out and said AI is going tobe fully developed and
autonomous in, in this particular year.
(24:33):
And then others are saying, well, we've pretty much hit the
the top of where we'll hit and we'll sort of stagnate for a
little bit at where we are. I get the point.
Are we being replaced by the machine?
And, and this is the the biggestquestion and I think for HR this
is absolutely significant because HR as a function in the
organisation was probably the first adopters to start
(24:54):
implementing different types of technology.
And then seeing the value of what AI can actually provide.
It's like, well, is it going to replace us?
Are we going to lose our jobs? It is scary to know when it's
going to where it can go. But one of those topics that
have just come up there is AI and HR decisions just in
(25:15):
general, as businesses face increasing scrutiny and calls
for regulation across this stuff, what procedures and
protocols either are they or might they potentially implement
to address this? I think they just have to have a
clear framework, maybe an ethical framework, I'm not sure,
just to say what what as an organisation we're going to
(25:36):
tolerate and what we won't, how we can use it and how we can't.
Until we get some national standards about how it's used or
how we can use it. It's really hard for
organisations to know what the general consensus is.
So I think then if we are talking regulation, something
I've seen lately is these current US legal cases around, I
(26:00):
think it was one guy has launched some and I, what do
they call it like a suit or, or something over there because he
got rejected by AI from, I don'tknow, let's say a couple of 100
rolls and he thinks it's shit. But it might be, it might not
be, but it doesn't matter. Do cases like this kind of set a
precedent? Who gets a final word in
something like that? And depending on the outcome of
(26:20):
that case, how could it potentially change how these
systems are used by all companies moving forward?
Well, that case is really interesting.
So he's suing work day work. Day.
That's the. One to say that work day has
discriminated against him because of his age and has
stopped him even getting throughto interview stage on on any of
it based on the algorithm or theAI that they've used.
(26:43):
And in reading the cases, it's really quite interesting in who
has that owners of responsibilities, the employing
organisation, or is it the company who has the technology,
who's selling the technology? And that's who he was.
He was suing the technology company to say that all the
organisations I went to that used your technology were
(27:05):
discriminating against me, I think.
I'm think that's what I read. No, that that sounds about right
from what I've taken from the case.
But that, you know, that brings back an interesting parallel.
What like if someone commits a crime through the Internet, you
know, who's to blame? Is it the person?
Is it the Internet service provider?
It's it's just kind of like where does the finger point at
the end of the day for the blame?
(27:26):
But you know a system like like that, surely the companies have
some control over what you know,selections and inputs that they
want it to philtre, right? But you would think so because
that's what we have been programmed to think in terms of.
All right, I'm I'm buying an offthe shelf or a bespoke programme
to help me with my recruitment as as a company.
(27:49):
I need to tell that programme what it is I want as a company,
what I'm looking for, what our parameters are.
I'm inputting that before the system actually does the work it
needs to do. Yeah, no, totally.
So I mean, it feels pretty open and shut to me, but I, I don't
know, I don't know how the the US legal system will, will shake
something like that out. But you mentioned there there's
(28:09):
still a person providing the inputs and I guess the framework
that can be built into that bespoke tool.
This, this is AI. Don't know, it could be a bit a
bit of a heavy question, but do you believe AI can eventually
make the human in human resources obsolete or does it
force the field to become even more human centric in the years
to come? Well, that is a very heavy
(28:31):
question. But my answer to that is that I
don't think the human will become obsolete.
I, I think it, there may be moreopportunity to automate and to
use tech for some of the processes.
But as I mentioned before, thereis still a huge part of HR that
is around people and, and it is around ensuring that you know
(28:53):
that the people have got the, the capacity and the
capabilities to do so. It might be around, even though
we can news tech for learning and development, but it might be
a career conversation or it might be, as I said, a
performance conversation, or it might be I'm negotiating an
enterprise agreement. You know, I'm working with the
unions. I, you know, so they're still
(29:14):
going to have to be a human partof what HR does.
I don't think that that's lost. And that that makes absolute
sense. And hopefully that efficiency
gain will lead to that kind of personal interaction, human
gain, which I guess is is what everybody really wants to avoid
feeling like you're just one of those data points that we
(29:36):
mentioned earlier. So the more humanisation.
Yeah, yeah, more humanisation. That's a, that's a great way to
describe what we want from humanresources.
But just to finish up, how do you see the future for human
resources professionals taking shape?
Do you think the field will become more human like we're
hypothesising now, or will it potentially end up more
(29:57):
technical as we move forward? Well, I, I would like to say it
would become more human in the sense that the thing with HR and
tech and HR tech, it's a real balancing act.
It's a balancing act between embracing technology and
preserving our human values. So HR has got this critical role
(30:19):
in, in being able to do this. So I think in an ideal world, if
HR can do that, well, embrace the tech, bring it along.
We use it, we automate processes, we we get everything
happening then will allow us to free our time as HR
practitioners to then be more human in the sense that I can be
(30:39):
more interactive and engage withthe workforce and whatever that
may mean. Do I think it's going to happen
in that ideal world? Maybe for some, but I think that
for some companies and maybe an over reliance on technology and
then say well, we don't need youor we can do something else for
you or we're going to find something else for you to do as
(31:00):
opposed to just here is an opportunity to rehumanise HR.
Yeah, fingers crossed that it does rehumours.
I really like that. I like the way you've summed
that up there. Unfortunately for anybody in HR,
it's like they're right in the firing line now from everybody,
whether that's external or internal.
So that was why I really was waskeen to hear the thoughts for
(31:23):
this conversation. Can I just add one more point
whilst I'm, I'm, I'm presenting this sort of almost sceptical
view of, of technology, I do think it has its place.
And the HR practitioners that I've been talking to, they're
excited by the opportunities that the technology is
providing. They're not scared of what comes
next. They're excited and ready to
(31:46):
embrace that next stage of of whatever it is, whatever the
workforce is going to look like.Interesting to hear that they're
almost at the coalface, and if they're feeling positive,
hopefully that will eventually become the feeling for everybody
else outside the world of human resources.
Thanks so much for for that. Justine, what's on the horizon
(32:06):
for you and where can people follow what you're up to?
They can follow me on LinkedIn, just Justine Farah and find me
there. I'm doing lots of things there,
as you'll see with some publications and the like.
Awesome. Justine, thank you so much.
Thanks Gareth, I appreciate it. For more info on what we've
discussed today, check out the show notes.
(32:26):
If you enjoyed this one, you cansubscribe to Ruined by the
Internet on your favourite podcast app and help spread the
word by sharing this episode or leaving a review.
I'm Gareth King, see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.