We see AI as both efficiency and distance.
We know that objectivity is often an illusion.
We keep human judgment in our own hands.

Summary

This blog explores how AI in HR processes can increase our efficiency, but also reduce our closeness. How do we preserve humanity when systems take over more and more from us?

We call it efficiency, but do we perhaps mainly mean distance? More and more organizations are integrating AI into their HR processes—from recruitment and performance reviews to exit interviews. It sounds logical, modern, forward-looking. But somewhere it rubs. What does it mean to entrust human care and judgment to a system without a body, without a voice, without shame? What exactly are we handing over? And what do we prefer to keep out of sight?

AI is often presented as neutral and objective, but in reality it is a mirror of the values, assumptions, and blind spots of the people and organizations that design and use it. In that mirror we see not only data, but also our own preferences, biases, and insecurities reflected back—often without realizing it.

The psychodynamics behind technology

The psychodynamics of technology are rarely discussed in boardrooms. AI is not merely a tool; it is a new carrier of our unconscious dynamics. In Tavistock terms: the organization projects its unresolved tensions onto its structures, and technology becomes a carrier of those projections.

Carl Jung would say: the unconscious always seeks a new form. What we as humans would rather avoid—uncertainty, bias, ambivalence—finds its way into the algorithm. Not because AI is malicious, but because we deposit our own discomforts into it.

The paradox is clear: the more we automate in order to be objective, the more we conceal what actually wants to be heard. The desire to be fair and efficient strips processes of their humanity—and with it the holding environment in which real encounter can take place.

A mini-case: where data and experience meet

An international tech organization introduced an AI-driven performance review system. Managers gave scores, AI formulated the feedback. “Efficient, consistent, fair,” the internal message stated. But in the hallways, distance grew. Employees no longer felt seen. Feedback became something “the system” said, not something a person told them.

One leader chose a different approach. She did not use the AI output as an endpoint, but as a mirror. She asked herself: what do I see or not see reflected in this text? Where does my feeling diverge from the outcome? Instead of adopting the judgment, she entered into conversation with the employee about the difference between data and experience.

There, in that difference, something new emerged: an encounter. The employee did feel seen. Not despite the technology, but because the leader did not outsource her judgment, but took responsibility for it.

This shows that leadership is not about perfectly applying systems, but about being present where the system falls short. And being willing to put words to that.

Systemic effects of AI in organizations

Systemically, AI changes not only processes, but also relationships. As decisions are increasingly made by systems, the locus of responsibility shifts. Who still feels ownership of a decision when it comes “from the system”? And what does that do to the sense of trust, both among employees and leaders?

When AI makes decisions that impact people, there is a risk that human relationships become more functional and distant. Not because people want that, but because the system shapes the form of contact. This can lead to:

• Loss of relational depth: conversations become more transactional and less personal.
• Displacement of responsibility: decisions are attributed to technology, causing ownership to fade.
• Reinforcement of existing inequalities: biases in data are reproduced unnoticed.

The system then works not only within the organization, but on the organization—it changes the way people relate to one another.

Psychological mechanisms: distance and reassurance

From a psychological perspective, AI offers leaders and HR professionals a form of reassurance. The system gives the illusion of objectivity and makes difficult conversations “safer” by reducing personal charge. Yet it is precisely that charge that can be essential for meaningful interaction.

Delegating difficult decisions to technology can also function as a defense mechanism. If the message is not well received, responsibility can be shifted: “That’s simply what the system says.” This protects the sender, but can leave the receiver feeling that real connection or dialogue is no longer possible.

Leadership and the choice for presence

The question, then, is not only what AI can do, but what we want to do with it. AI can be a powerful tool for efficiency, but leadership requires more than efficiency. It requires presence, courage, and the ability not to avoid discomfort.

Presence means:

• Engaging in conversation yourself, even when it feels tense.
• Seeing technology as a tool, not as a replacement for judgment or empathy.
• Making explicit which values guide decisions.

In a time when systems take over more and more from us, choosing closeness can be an act of leadership.

A reflective invitation

Which parts of yourself do you entrust to technology?

And what happens to your leadership when you outsource your judgment, your timing, your intuition?

Perhaps this time does not call for better algorithms, but for more presence—especially in the places where it becomes uncomfortable. AI can do much, but it cannot bring the warmth, nuance, and courage that make human contact valuable. That remains our domain, and perhaps that is our most important responsibility.

Rene de Baaij