28th October 2026

HR in the age of AI: Technology can speed up work, but it cannot replace leadership [conference report]

Artificial intelligence can reduce the time needed to complete many tasks, but it cannot, on its own, solve the problem of employee engagement, replace leadership or guarantee a positive candidate experience. These were among the issues discussed at a Pro Progressio conference held at the Bydgoszcz Trade Fair and Exhibition Centre.

The discussion of HR in the age of AI focused on three key challenges:

• Productivity versus overload: why time saved with AI does not always translate into greater efficiency.

• Technology and HR processes: why implementing new tools should start with an assessment of organisational needs.

• Automation versus relationships: which recruitment tasks can be delegated to AI, and where human contact remains essential.

The conference “Recruitment, Education, Development and Technology – HR in the AI Era”, was opened by Edyta Wiwatowska, President of the Bydgoszcz Industrial and Technological Park, the event’s strategic partner and co-organiser, and Wiktor Doktór, CEO of Pro Progressio.

A point made at the opening recurred throughout the discussions: technology should improve the way work is done, but its ultimate purpose is to support people and the quality of collaboration within organisations. Introducing new tools does not automatically make an organisation more productive. If the time saved is immediately absorbed by additional tasks, while employees receive too little support in adapting to change, technology may add to their workload rather than reduce it.

AI can save time – but that time rarely stays free

At a panel on the future of Learning & Development (L&D), moderated by Michał Krauze, Dr Anita Kubanek, Kamila Izdebska and Maciej Rocki noted that growing demand for AI training is accompanied by a need for skills that help people navigate change, including critical thinking, communication, problem-solving and resilience.

Access to knowledge is becoming easier, but that does not necessarily mean people can apply it in practice. Training that allows employees to practise specific behaviours is therefore gaining importance, as is the involvement of managers who can connect employee development with business needs.

The panellists also highlighted the risk of the so-called productivity paradox. AI tools make it possible to complete tasks faster, but the time saved is often immediately filled with further responsibilities. As more tasks are handled in parallel, employees may become fatigued, find it harder to concentrate and struggle to assess the quality of their own work. Adopting AI therefore calls for thoughtful work design, not simply higher expectations of productivity.

Cezary Chałupa of Multilango illustrated this challenge with examples of AI in education. The key, he argued, is to distinguish between tasks that can be handed over to technology and those in which technology should support, rather than replace, human effort.

One example was the use of skills maps to identify development needs more precisely. In the case of Johnson & Johnson, information on training, projects and recruitment was brought together to identify skills gaps. Rather than giving employees a general catalogue of courses, the organisation highlighted specific areas for development. According to Cezary Chałupa, following the first round, 20% of employees initiated their own development activities.

This represents a shift in how L&D can work. Technology can help organisations identify needs more accurately and tailor development initiatives, but people remain responsible for setting objectives and making use of the results.

HR that frees up time for people

In a conversation with Wiktor Doktór, Monika Smulewicz, CEO of HR We Go, explored the relationship between technology, work organisation and employee needs. She observed that leaders increasingly spend their time not only delivering business strategies and targets, but also resolving team issues, responding to emotions and supporting employees through uncertainty. The development of AI adds another layer to this challenge, as people worry about changes to how they work and about their role within the organisation.

In this environment, leaders need self-awareness and the ability to understand people. As Smulewicz noted, employees do not leave their personal experiences and problems at the office door. Their well-being, relationships with colleagues and responses to change all affect how teams function. A manager’s role is therefore not limited to delivering results. It also involves recognising when a team needs support, a conversation or a different way of organising its work.

This perspective also has direct implications for the adoption of technology. Smulewicz argued that organisations should begin not by choosing a system, but by understanding the problem they need to solve. A company asking for a new tool may, in fact, be struggling with poor collaboration, tensions between colleagues or a lack of insight into team morale. In such cases, a technological solution may fail to address the underlying need.

As she put it: Clients today don’t come looking for a box. They come looking for a solution to their problem.

That does not mean technology should give way to people in every area. On the contrary, digitising repetitive processes can free up time for work that depends on direct human contact. Smulewicz cited HR administration as an example: employees may have to use separate tools to submit holiday requests, manage documents, record working hours and handle other employment-related matters. Fragmented systems can make routine tasks harder to manage and add to HR teams’ administrative workload.

The HR process digitisation solution developed by Monika Smulewicz grew out of these experiences. It is designed to bring multiple employee-related processes together in one place, allowing staff to handle routine matters themselves when they do not require an individual conversation with a manager or HR specialist. The solution has evolved in response both to problems she encountered in her earlier professional experience and to feedback from clients.

According to Smulewicz, HR teams using the solution report a tangible benefit: more time to speak with managers and employees. That distinction matters. The aim of automation is not to reduce human contact, but to remove tasks that do not require human involvement. This gives HR more scope to support teams and contribute to the wider business.

The case for reclaiming time also came up in the panel The Modern HR Toolkit, moderated by Mateusz Bazydło, with Magdalena Kolasa and Marek Kijaczko. The discussion highlighted the need to start with a clear diagnosis: where is the organisation losing time and money, what does it want to change, and is it ready to implement a new solution? Only then should it choose the technology.

Without this groundwork, new tools may simply replicate existing tasks, complicate workflows or go unused. Technology cannot fix a poorly designed process, and installing a system does not guarantee the expected benefits.

Tools change. Leadership responsibilities remain

In a fireside chat, Marcin Piaskowski and Piotr Macieja discussed the development of senior leaders. One issue was the gap between acquiring knowledge and putting it into practice. Taking part in a development programme does not, in itself, guarantee a change in behaviour. Progress also requires reflection, a willingness to question one’s own assumptions and a more considered approach to decision-making.

Wojciech Parteka, meanwhile, highlighted that although technology is changing the working environment, the core responsibilities of a leader remain the same: setting goals, delegating tasks, monitoring results and motivating the team. In digital and hybrid working environments, trust and autonomy become particularly important. Employees should be assessed on their results, not on the number of hours they spend in front of a computer.

Parteka also argued that leadership skills should be developed before someone moves into a management role. Organisations need capable managers as well as strong specialists, and should not automatically expect the two groups to follow the same career path.

Time saved in recruitment should benefit candidates

The conference closed with a presentation by Karolina Lis of Hays on candidate experience as recruitment becomes increasingly automated.

AI is now used not only by employers drafting job adverts and screening applications, but also by candidates preparing their CVs. As a result, a CV’s formal match with a job description does not always reveal a candidate’s actual capabilities. When successive stages of recruitment take place without direct human contact, the process may be technically efficient yet give recruiters too little insight into the person behind the application.

Lis noted that automation can streamline repetitive tasks, such as confirming interviews and coordinating calendars, and assist with document analysis. Assessing skills, conducting in-depth conversations, making hiring decisions and providing individual feedback should, however, remain in human hands. Candidates should also be told how the organisation uses AI and who is accountable for the final decision.

The key point is simple: time saved through technology should not be treated merely as an opportunity to increase recruitment volumes. It can instead be invested in improving the quality of the process – above all, by giving candidates more meaningful conversations and feedback that reflects the time and effort they have put into applying.

– Not everything that can be automated should be automated – Karolina Lis concluded.

That message brought the conference’s themes together. Using AI in HR is about more than choosing a system or reducing the time needed to complete an individual task. It requires organisations to decide what is genuinely worth automating, prepare people for change and use new capabilities to improve the quality of work, decisions and relationships.

The conference was organised by Pro Progressio. The strategic partner and co-organiser was the Bydgoszcz Industrial and Technological Park. The partners were Bolt for Business, Bydgoski Klaster Informatyczny (Bydgoszcz IT Cluster), Bydgoskie Centrum Targowo – Wystawiennicze (Bydgoszcz Trade Fair and Exhibition Centre), and the City of Bydgoszcz. The FOCUS ON Business was media partner.