In 2013, Frey and Osborne predicted that 47% of jobs in the US could be automated within a decade or two. Their methodology became the blueprint for a raft of copycat studies that sought to refine and update the research. Notable further studies were done by the OECD (2016), who looked directly at the automatability of tasks instead of whole occupations. This was further developed by the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2019). These studies resulted in much lower estimates: the OECD suggested 10% of jobs in the UK would be automated while the ONS put the figure at 7.4%.

The meteoric rise of generative AI after the release of ChatGPT in November 2022 has led to further interest and more attempts to quantify the effects of this technology on jobs. Since Frey and Osborne published in 2013, many of their cited bottlenecks to automation have been overcome. They mentioned the Turing test (a computer’s ability to fool someone into believing it is human) as evidence of social intelligence being a bottleneck to automation. With the advent of generative AI, this threshold was passed without much fanfare. Other bottlenecks included creative tasks such as “poems, musical compositions, scientific theories, cooking recipes and jokes”, which again, could be done with ease using generative AI.

What does recent research say about the impact on the HR profession?

The UK Department for Education sought to show the occupations, sectors and areas within the UK labour market that are expected to be most impacted by AI. In particular, the impact of generative AI tools that use large language models (LLMs).

The 2023 report made clear that the estimates showed the relative exposure of UK jobs to AI as opposed to the absolute impact of AI. It did not distinguish whether a job would be augmented (aided) or substituted (in other words, replaced or automated) by AI. The relative exposure is presented as an 'AI occupational exposure' score.

HR administrative occupations are in the top 20 occupations with the greatest exposure to all AI applications. These are joined by HR managers and directors, as well as vocational and industrial trainers, in the top 20 list for exposure to LLMs.

This is most evident in Figure 1 where all ‘HR’ occupations are in the top right of exposure among both measures of AI occupational exposure.

Figure 1: HR roles are highly exposed to all types of AI including LLMs

Figure 1: HR roles are highly exposed to all types of AI including LLMs

These occupational exposure scores for each job role are based on the abilities required to perform them. Each of these abilities themselves have their own AI occupational exposure index. The Occupational Information Network (O*NET) also ranks the importance of each of these abilities within each job.

Putting the two together, we see two clusters which lead to the high AI occupational exposure index for HR managers, for example (Figure 2). These are high importance, medium exposed abilities and medium importance, highly exposed abilities as defined in Table 1.

Figure 2: HR managers ranked importance of abilities and their exposure to AI

Figure 2: HR managers ranked importance of abilities and their exposure to AI

Table 1: Importance and exposure to AI of selected abilities required among HR managers

High importance and medium exposure Medium importance and high exposure
 Oral expression  Information ordering
 Oral comprehension  Memorisation
 Written expression  Speed of closure
 Written comprehension  Flexibility of closure
 Speech recognition  Category flexibility
 Speech clarity  
 Deductive reasoning  
 Problem sensitivity  
 Inductive reasoning  

These abilities can be abstract concepts to grasp. Another paper used more specific tasks as examples.

LLMs: ‘Automation’ vs augmentation

The World Economic Forum (WEF), in partnership with Accenture, adopted a task-based approach to assess the exposure of each occupation to LLMs. The paper analysed 19,265 tasks available in the O*NET database, assessing the potential exposure of each task to LLM adoption. They classified the tasks as:

  • high potential for automation (substituting the task so that it would be performed by LLMs, not people)
  • high potential for augmentation (where people will continue to perform the tasks, but LLMs would increase human productivity)
  • low potential for either automation or augmentation (tasks will have no significant impact from LLMs), or
  • as unaffected (non-language tasks).

The resulting chart (Figure 3) shows the impact of LLMs on the HR function, with roles most likely to be affected by automation and augmentation at the top, and those least likely to be affected at the bottom. As with many other professional roles, there is considerable likelihood of both automation and augmentation.

The research found that tasks with the highest potential for automation by LLMs tend to be routine and repetitive – 41% of the time spent by HR assistants and 45% of the time spent by payroll and timekeeping clerks is spent on these tasks. Those working as training and development specialists have the highest potential for augmentation (68%) in their roles as it requires abstract reasoning and problem-solving skills. Tasks with lower potential for exposure require a high degree of personal interaction and collaboration, this takes over half (62%) of the time spent by an HR manager, for example.

Figure 3: Automation and augmentation impact of LLMs on the HR function

Overall, the existing evidence suggests roles within the HR function are susceptible to both automation (substitution) and augmentation to varying degrees due to generative AI. But compared to many other professional roles, the HR function is more likely to be impacted, due to the rise of generative AI tools that use LLMs (such as ChatGPT).

There will be further research into the impact of AI in the months and years to come as it becomes embedded in our daily lives. The CIPD will also continue to investigate the subject of AI and the implications for the people profession, and publish further content in the near future.

About the author

James Cockett, Labour Market Economist, CIPD

James joined CIPD in October 2022 as a Labour Market Economist. He is a quantitative analyst with experience in a variety of topics on the world of work including low pay, equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI), flexible working, social mobility, wellbeing, and education and skills. 
 
James uses both publicly available data, and CIPD surveys to gain insights, with a keen interest in data visualisation. Prior to joining CIPD, James was previously an Economist for the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) where he worked within the policy team undertaking labour market research and evaluations of employment programmes to support people into work. He has also led the design and analysis of several workforce surveys and has presented to several government departments and key stakeholders. James has also worked as a Consultant undertaking evaluations in the area of social policy for public sector clients.

More on this topic

Podcast

HR People Pod

Listen to our new fortnightly podcast providing expert insights from HR leaders on the topical issues impacting the world of work

Listen now
Tools
AI in the workplace quiz

Test your knowledge of AI in the workplace with our quiz

Bitesize research
Factors influencing ChatGPT adoption in the workplace

What are the barriers to the adoption of generative AI tools at work and how can they be overcome?

For Members

More thought leadership

Thought leadership
Briefing | HR implications of Budget 2025

A summary of the key developments from Ireland’s Budget 2025, focusing on the measures most relevant to the people profession

Thought leadership
Critical role of HR business partnering in HR operating models

How can people teams balance line managers’ need for operational people management support while growing their team’s strategic influence through the HRBP role?

Thought leadership
What makes an effective HR operating model transformation?

We look at how investing in digital technologies, HR skills and culture drive success in restructured people functions

Thought leadership
How are organisations transforming their HR operating models?

We look at the main focus areas and share practical examples from organisations who are optimising their HR operating model