USA 
United Kingdom
If all the world’s human resources staff disappeared tomorrow, would anyone care? Asked the Irish Times in a recent article.
According to daily’s comments section, it seems not. HR managers are “incompetent”, “useless”, “hideous”, “two-faced snakes” better thought of as “human remains” or “human wastage” they say.
Oof!
A little on the harsh side. It was in response to a question about whether HR execs are even necessary in an age of AI advancement.
Time then for a robust defence of the industry from within.
But recent comments from Johnny Taylor, president and CEO of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), on a recent trip to London, didn’t suggest he was ready to strip to the waist and take on all-comers.
“We’ve got a lot of work to do [as] a profession in terms of becoming reliable sources of strategy to our CEOs,” he said.
For Taylor, it seems the issue is not whether HR leaders are getting enough airtime in the C-suite, but whether the arguments they make are persuasive.
“For too long, HR heads had told chief executives they needed to, say, behave more empathetically to stop employees from jumping ship, and frankly, the CEO has often said, ‘I don’t know that I believe that.’”
His remarks reflect deeper concerns that HR has relied on gestures and sloganeering without also providing the evidence executives demand, pointing to the widespread promotion of hybrid working as a prime example.
He says there was “not enough long-term evidence to show if it’s better for performance than five days in the office.”
Sabbaticals fall into the same category: “bosses were unsure if sabbatical leave delivered ‘tangible benefits’”, he believes.
Engagement and diversity in the spotlight
Taylor’s most striking comments came on two of HR’s signature themes - engagement and diversity. “Frankly, we have not made the case that engagement actually is good for business or bad for business,” he said.
He is equally forthright on the profession’s diversity claims. “We say companies that are more diverse do better. We have no real basis for that, we absolutely don’t.”
That observation cuts pretty deep, because it calls into question one of the most frequently repeated arguments for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives - that it delivers measurable financial returns.
And it is particularly tricky in the context of the Trump administration’s divisive assault on DEI initiatives in both the public and private sector.
Why HR still struggles to reach Deskless Employees
Frontline employees often have the greatest need for HR support—but the least access to it. The reason is simple: most HR systems were designed for desk-based employees.
If you're investing in HR digital transformation, it's essential to ensure that every employee—whether office-based, hybrid, or deskless—has equal access to HR services, information, and support.
This guide explores the key considerations for building a consistent, accessible, and connected HR service experience for your entire workforce.
You'll learn how to:
✅ Deliver consistent HR support across every location
✅ Reduce repetitive HR requests
✅ Improve self-service adoption
✅ Connect email, mobile, AI and employee portals
✅ Create a better employee experience for frontline workers
The wider context of DEI
Taylor’s stance has already shaped SHRM DEI policy. In the wake of the 2023 US Supreme Court affirmative action ruling, the organisation surprised many of its own members by announcing it was ditching the ‘equity’ from its own DEI policy.
It’s demonstrates how legal, political and social pressures intersect with HR priorities. But more than that, it demonstrates Taylor’s willingness to take positions that unsettle parts of his own membership base.
His willingness to call out the lack of evidence around DEI, engagement, sabbaticals, and hybrid working places him at odds with much of the profession’s established rhetoric.
But, isn’t that his role? To spark dialogue around the function of HR, its role in business strategy and its future direction in a changing workplace? Otherwise, thinking stagnates and it quickly becomes irrelevant.
Is he right? Is there a credibility gap between the profession’s ambitions and what it needs to achieve authenticity in the boardroom?
Let us know in the comments…
