In an AI-driven workplace, HR systems may scale faster. Judgment will still decide outcomes.
In large organizations, influence rarely sits where org charts suggest it does. It sits in the systems that determine who gets hired, how performance is measured, and whether employees believe feedback will actually lead to change. For leaders working at scale, those systems quietly shape outcomes long before strategy documents do.
In this interview with StrongYes editor Kathakali Dutta, Microsoft’s Sunil Kamath reflects on a career spent working inside those operating systems of organizations. Beginning in software testing, moving through a management program at XLRI, and later taking on HR leadership roles across manufacturing and technology, he has operated at the intersection of organization design, talent decisions, and business outcomes.
Kamath speaks about what industrial relations taught him about listening, why internal equity must be treated as a design principle rather than a policy choice, and how the rise of AI will challenge roles that do not meaningfully influence decisions.
You began in software testing at Cognizant before moving into HR via XLRI. Was that shift driven by ambition, disillusionment, or a deeper realization about where power and influence truly sit inside organizations?
I saw management studies as an opportunity to move closer to business, strategy, and the customer, and to create impact at scale. Over time, I realized that the HR function has some of the strongest levers to influence organizational outcomes, particularly through organization design, talent decisions, and building high-performing teams.
For me, this was a natural transition towards working on systems that shape how organizations operate and how decisions get made, rather than being confined to a single functional or technical role.
Your work consistently reflects systems thinking dashboards, grade harmonization, evaluation models, and large-scale surveys. Is that instinct rooted in your engineering training, or did ITC’s institutional discipline shape you into that kind of leader?
I believe that every experience contributes in some way, and there are common principles that apply across disciplines. Engineering gave me a strong foundation in systems thinking and first-principles problem solving.
My experience at ITC helped me apply that thinking in complex, real-world contexts. Working at scale, across operations and leadership teams, taught me how to translate strategic intent into execution and how to scale solutions responsibly in large organizations.
When you launched ITC’s first pan-organization engagement survey covering 6,500 employees, what was the most uncomfortable insight it surfaced?
One of the most uncomfortable insights was the underlying skepticism about whether employee feedback would actually lead to change. People were less focused on what the survey would reveal and more on what leadership would do after it.
That experience reinforced that engagement is shaped far more by action than by measurement. While surveys help establish a baseline, it is consistent follow-through over time that builds trust. In fact, surveys without visible action can create more disengagement than not running one at all.
Moving from a conglomerate like ITC to Microsoft’s AI-driven ecosystem is not just a company change; it’s a structural shift in how value is created. What assumptions about the people function did you have to unlearn?
I’ve been fortunate to work in organizations with strong missions and large-scale impact. While there are similarities in terms of governance and people processes, I did have to unlearn certain ways of working.
In technology, especially in the age of AI, business and operating models evolve very quickly. This requires HR to stay agile and focused on outcomes, rather than becoming overly attached to existing systems. I also had to adapt to different HR operating models, moving from FMCG environments that value breadth to technology organizations that prioritize depth, scalability, and consistency of employee experience across regions.
You’ve led large-scale compensation redesign and role evaluation exercises. In an era of pay transparency and aggressive external hiring premiums, how do you protect internal equity without compromising competitiveness?
Internal equity needs to be treated as a core design principle, particularly in large organizations. This starts with building market-benchmarked, skill-based role architectures that link pay to the value created by a role.
At the same time, organizations need to retain flexibility. Certain critical or niche skills genuinely require differentiated compensation and ring-fencing of critical talent to remain competitive. The balance lies in maintaining consistency in the underlying framework, while allowing targeted exceptions where the business context clearly demands it.
Industrial relations rarely gets the spotlight that “strategic HR” does. Having handled high-stakes union negotiations and organization design, do you believe corporate India underestimates where its real people risk lies?
My experience in industrial relations has been a game changer. It taught me to pause, listen carefully, and think through long-term implications before moving to solutions. It has also trained me to pay attention not just to what people say, but also to what they choose not to say.
Often, people risks build quietly over time and become visible only once they start affecting operations or trust. IR gave me a more holistic lens on organizations and helped me better understand how underlying tensions surface if they are not addressed early.
As AI reshapes Microsoft’s business model, which part of HR is most vulnerable to irrelevance transactional operations, traditional L&D, or layers of managerial oversight?
Transactional work will change the fastest, as AI reduces drudgery and frees up capacity. Traditional learning models will also need to evolve, moving away from standalone programs toward building hyper personalization of learning pathways.
At the same time, managerial roles will need to shift from resource management and orchestration to adding value through judgment, coaching, and domain expertise. In an AI-enabled environment, roles that do not meaningfully influence decisions and outcomes will naturally be questioned.
As AI increasingly handles drafting, analysis, and decision-support, what becomes the true differentiator for human professionals?
As AI increasingly handles drafting, analysis, and decision support, the true differentiator for human professionals will lie in a few enduring capabilities. Curiosity will continue to matter, because while AI may generate answers, the ability to ask the right questions and frame problems in the right way remains distinctly human. Equally important is learning how to learn. In an environment where roles and skills are constantly evolving and often span multiple disciplines, individuals who can continuously learn and adapt will be far more effective over time. Finally, accountability will remain a uniquely human responsibility. AI can support decision making, but taking decisions with courage and owning the outcomes and consequences will continue to set people apart.
If you were advising a young HR professional today, would you recommend they master industrial relations and negotiation first, or data science and AI? Which foundation will compound better over a 20-year career?
I don’t see this as an either-or choice. Early in a career, building a strong understanding of talent, organizations, and different operating contexts matters most. That foundation makes it much easier to adopt new tools and technologies as roles evolve. Over time, the ability to combine sound judgment with data and AI is what creates long-term compounding value.
Across industries and operating models, the tools around work are changing faster than the institutions that govern them. AI can accelerate analysis, automate processes, and surface insights at scale. What it cannot replace is ownership of decisions and the courage to act on them.
For Kamath, the future of the people function will not be defined by how quickly it adopts technology, but by how clearly it connects talent decisions to business outcomes and how consistently it builds trust through action. In environments where information is abundant and automation is rising, the differentiator for leaders will be the same as it has always been: the ability to exercise judgment, take accountability, and follow through. The systems may evolve. The expectations around speed and scale will certainly change. But organizations will still be shaped by the quality of decisions made inside them and by the people willing to stand behind those decisions.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this interview are solely those of the interviewee and do not represent the views of any organization they are currently or previously associated with.
