"AI is not an IT project": Frieda van Belle on workforce transformation, AI governance, and the role of HR

Before AI became a boardroom priority, Frieda van Belle was already helping organizations navigate digital transformation.

A former partner at SparkOptimus and now an independent consultant, executive educator, and founder of Fysje Consulting, Frieda has spent her career helping leadership teams turn emerging technologies into practical business outcomes. Today, much of her work focuses on AI adoption, organizational transformation, and helping leaders understand both the opportunities and challenges that come with rapidly evolving technologies.

In this conversation, Frieda shares why AI is unlike previous technology waves, why HR leaders need a seat at the AI governance table, and how organizations can move beyond experimentation toward meaningful workforce transformation.

‍

You've worked on digital transformation for years. What makes AI different from previous technology waves?

Three things are very different.

One is that generative AI is a tool you can apply in very different locations. It can affect your client proposition, how you work, how you innovate processes and even how you redesign your organization. It is literally touching every aspect of doing business, from proposition through to operations.

The second thing is that AI applies to the whole organization and it's changing very fast. Under the EU AI Act, organisations have to ensure a sufficient level of AI literacy among staff who work with AI — and since most people now do, that reaches across much of the organisation, from the work floor to the management team. The rules are still settling, but the direction is clear: AI literacy is becoming a baseline expectation. 

That's quite a task for HR. And all of this is happening in a shifting landscape where every three months, tools can do different things. What you taught six months ago might already be outdated. Keeping learning relevant and up to date is becoming a full-time challenge.

Finally, there are broader questions around sovereignty, regulation, and governance. Many AI providers are American. Organizations are increasingly asking questions about where data sits, who can access it, and what their dependencies are.

‍

Do you think organizations are underestimating or overestimating AI's impact on jobs?

I think many people already sense this could have a massive impact.

When I speak to people privately, almost everybody sees the potential for significant changes in what organizations look like and how many people are working in certain roles.

The WEF estimates nearly 40% of today's skill sets will be transformed by 2030. McKinsey estimates 14% of employees globally might potentially need to change careers by 2030.  When I speak to leaders privately, many sense role and headcount changes of a similar order over three to five years. Transformed, not just eliminated, but still huge.

We're talking about process innovation where AI agents could do most of the work, and humans remain in the loop. The magnitude may even be underestimated.

Innovation has always been aimed at making life easier. We might simply have become very good at it. The challenge is that we haven't really figured out the societal implications yet.

That's one of the reasons why discussions around AI often feel uncomfortable. People aren't just thinking about productivity gains. They're wondering what it means for jobs, careers, and how society is organized.

We're automating knowledge work at a scale and depth we haven't seen before.

‍

Where do you see organizations today in terms of AI adoption?

The biggest challenge I see is governance.

There is an HR challenge around education and learning, but there is also a governance challenge around designing for an unknown future.

Many organizations are excited about AI agents because they're easier to understand than AI as a broad collection of tools. An agent feels like a micro-FTE that can do a task.

But then the governance questions start.

How do we know which AI is doing what? What data is it using? Where is generated data stored? Who controls it?

Organizations need a management layer for this.

Above that, there are also questions about AI providers. Which providers are we comfortable with? What is our plan B if a provider becomes unavailable? How dependent do we want to be?

These are business continuity and security questions, not just technology questions.

‍

What role should HR play in this transformation?

HR should absolutely be at the table.

What I often see is that AI governance discussions involve IT, data, and cybersecurity teams, but not HR.

HR is then expected to deal with the consequences through learning and development.

I think that's too limited.

Many of the important questions are HR questions.

How do you educate people? How do you assess AI literacy? How do humans interact with AI? Do you need some form of certification or "driving licence" before people can use certain AI processes?

Those are not technical questions. They're people questions.

Why isn't HR more involved?

One challenge is that many HR teams are already extremely busy.

Secondly, HR departments work with sensitive, personal data: it is also hard for those departments to be frontrunners in AI adoption. If you don't have an AI-frontrunner department yourself, it's often difficult to participate as an equal partner in the discussions around AI implementation.

HR has to build knowledge and develop informed opinions.

That doesn't mean becoming technical experts, but it does mean understanding the landscape well enough to contribute meaningfully.

HR can take a leading role in disseminating information and acting as an AI ambassador within the organization.

‍

What skills are becoming more important?

Every year, there seems to be a new list of future skills.

Two years ago, everybody was talking about prompt engineering. Today, chatbots are increasingly handling that themselves.

In the short term, people need to understand how AI can help them perform their specific roles.

That's why generic training often has a limited impact.

Training has to be linked to real use cases.

Support teams need different training from sales teams. Managers need different training from specialists.

The more specific the training is to daily work, the more valuable it becomes.

But formal training alone isn't enough.

Organizations also need to create opportunities for people to keep practicing and sharing. A lot of companies skip that part.

Simple things like informal sessions where colleagues share useful applications can have a huge impact.

Which human skills do you think will become more important?

I actually think it's very difficult to predict.

People often say empathy, but I'm not sure that's the whole story.

The two skills I feel most strongly about are continuous learning and constructive discussion.

People need to accept that they will have to keep learning.

At the same time, I think we've become very opinion-driven. We need more genuine curiosity and more willingness to have open discussions about what kind of future we want to create.

The questions AI raises are not only technical or organizational. They're societal.

‍

Where should HR leaders start?

Start with yourself and your own department.

Make sure you're part of the AI developments.

Spend fifteen minutes a day learning about AI. Experiment. Stay informed.

At a broader level, start having the discussion about what this means for your organization and for society.

If there is a non-zero chance that significant job changes happen over the next three to five years, then we should be talking openly about how to facilitate that transition.

Organizations can't solve all of those questions on their own, but they can help drive the conversation.

I think HR has an important role to play in making sure that conversation happens.