SHRM CEO Warns HR Is Facing 'Extinction' — and TA Is No Exception
The News
SHRM President and CEO Johnny Taylor delivered a blunt assessment of the HR profession at SHRM26 in Orlando on 23 June, telling attendees that HR faces "extinction" and has "lost the plot" on the future of work. Taylor cited a 2025 survey of 92 Fortune 500 CEOs in which only 10% said they valued HR, while 30% said the function delivered little to no value.
The numbers are backed by action: fintech firm Bolt laid off its entire HR team for "creating problems that didn't exist," and Uber cut 23% of its people team weeks before Taylor's speech. Meta left 6,000 roles unfilled as CEO Mark Zuckerberg described a "conflict between the cost of AI and that of people." Taylor's warning: if companies face a choice between funding AI infrastructure and funding people, HR must articulate the return on investment for each employee — or be cut.
Taylor proposed redefining the CHRO as a "Chief Work Officer" responsible for orchestrating work across humans, AI, and automation. The new remit requires HR professionals to become "decisive, analytical, business-first, solution-oriented" — and to own the full function of how work gets done, not just people-centric metrics like engagement scores.
Why It Matters
Taylor's speech is not just a provocation — it is a direct challenge to TA leaders. If the entire HR function is fighting for relevance, recruitment is especially vulnerable. TA sits at the intersection of spend and business impact, and in a world where CEOs are asking "what value does this function deliver?", the answer had better be framed in terms of revenue continuity, cost avoidance, and workforce productivity — not time-to-fill dashboards.
The "Chief Work Officer" concept is particularly relevant to TA. If your organisation starts asking who owns the full lifecycle of work — from forecasting need to sourcing to deployment — the answer cannot be fragmented across HR, procurement, and operations. TA leaders who can credibly claim that remit will be indispensable; those who cannot will be outsourced or automated.
Taking Action
All action is situated in your corporate context. These are starting points, not prescriptions — choose what fits.
Connect
Who to talk with in your enterprise
Your CHRO — discuss Taylor's speech directly. Ask whether your organisation's leadership shares the view that HR delivers little value, and if so, what evidence they're seeing. The conversation is uncomfortable but necessary — and it positions you as someone thinking about the function's survival, not just next quarter's hiring targets.
Your CFO — propose a joint exercise to calculate the enterprise ROI of your TA function. What did hiring outcomes contribute to revenue, margin, or operational capacity last quarter? If you cannot produce that number, Taylor's warning applies directly to you.
Your head of workforce planning or HR analytics — explore whether your organisation has the data infrastructure to forecast attrition, model skills gaps, and present workforce scenarios to the CEO. Taylor's "meteorologist" analogy only works if the weather data exists.
Inspect
What to take a closer look at
Review the last three board or executive presentations your TA function delivered. Did they lead with business outcomes or HR metrics? Count the number of slides focused on time-to-fill, cost-per-hire, or applicant volume versus slides addressing revenue impact, workforce productivity, or competitive positioning. If the ratio skews heavily toward HR metrics, Taylor's warning applies to your function. Specific tool to look at: your last board pack or quarterly business review deck — look specifically at the TA section and assess whether it would persuade a CEO who already doubts HR's value.
Reflect
What to think about more deeply
The most interesting question isn't 'will AI replace recruiters' — it's 'will the organisations that keep framing TA as a cost centre survive the next budget cycle?' Taylor's 10% statistic suggests the answer is already forming. What single change in how your function reports its impact would most dramatically shift executive perception from 'HR overhead' to 'strategic capability'?