Changing the language we use about the workforce, reveals attitudes, for better or for worse. We examine the implications.
FT journalist Isabel Berwick, reports in her recent newsletter – “Sort out your people before you spend big on AI” – that the most far-sighted organisations are beginning to use the term Human Infrastructure as opposed to Human Resources. It’s a subtle recalibration of language that, at Threshold, we’re encouraging.
Buzz phrases
To the cynic, it may just seem like another example of the corporate world’s zeal for new buzz phrases, of which HR is particularly susceptible.
After all, those of us who entered the workplace in the 1980s, were probably hired by a Personnel Manager. If you were hired in the 1990s, you likely dealt with Human Resources. And then post-dot-com-boom, the Chief People Officer was involved.
An ex-Finance Director once told me that you can tell how much your department is valued, by how often it changes its name. Finance, he argued, never had to justify its existence. He was hired into Finance, worked all his career in Finance, and retired from Finance.
But we caution against siding with the cynic here. If the shift in language from ‘Human Resources’ to ‘Human Infrastructure’ signifies a more profound shift beneath the surface, it should be welcomed.
Shift in language matters
Much has been written about the expected boost from AI’s failure to materialise. There is a strong case to be made that underinvestment in human infrastructure explains a large part of it. It seems that CEOs can’t escape the adage. “You can only achieve as much as your people want you to achieve.” And this is why that shift in language matters.
The drive to capitalise on the potential of AI before one’s competitors, has been the only show in town, since the pandemic. Our state-of-the-nation analysis with YouGov “Stop and Reverse Quiet Quitting” (2025) shows that this focus on AI too often coincides with an under investment in the employee experience.
For our research, we interviewed a large panel of experienced Chief People Officers. One from a leading tech firm put it
“Since the pandemic the focus is almost entirely on outputs, deliverables and things that lead directly to profit. CEOs are much more concerned about delivering success in the near term than creating a nice place to work.”
Or as another Chief People Officer, who asked to be off-the-record, put it:
“Our people are smart, that’s why we hire them. When they hear talk of productivity gains and technology, they know that comes mostly from cost reduction. And they know that the salary bill is the big cost that everyone always has in their sights.
Cost means you, in other words. We’re deluded if we think that employees genuinely feel the same enthusiasm, when gushingly introduced to their new digital colleague.
Quiet quitting
The most striking finding from this research was that, in the typical large organization, a third of the workforce are essentially in “quiet quitting” mode – not disengaged enough to leave but not motivated enough to give their best effort. And the larger the organization, the more severe the problem becomes.
While those at the very top of the organisations may have become excited about the possibilities of AI, for the majority it has been a source of anxiety. Gartner’s “The Impact of AI on Jobs” research indicates that a considerable percentage of employees view AI as a threat to their job security. The report revealed that around 60% of workers felt that AI would change their job in ways for which they might not be prepared.
Psychological safety
Honesty, mutual respect and a shared framework of reality are prerequisites for psychological safety. And repeated studies show unambiguously that, without psychological safety, organizations under perform.
If you neglect your essential infrastructure, no new technology can perform to its potential. Space-age trains won’t run on tracks that are brittle and degraded.
The subtle shift in language matters, and it coincides with a shift in mindset. Resources are used up, finite, depleted, and replaceable. Infrastructure, on the other hand, is something to be invested in; cared for; and maintained. Infrastructure is essential. It supports you and looks after you.
If you do not care for your infrastructure, you will pay the price. Technology that accompanies neglected human infrastructure is a house built on sand.
And here’s the point, unlike investment in hard infrastructure, investment in human infrastructure pays off quickly. And it can make a significant difference without major capital outlay.
Investment in learning
Our research was able to identify just five simple line-manager behaviours that account for over 36% of the variance in motivation between employees. All are readily doable, but this will only happen with at least some investment in the capability of, and support for, those line managers.
Thankfully, we are already beginning to see green shoots. Organisations are beginning to reinvest in their people. We are seeing greater investment in learning. What’s more we are seeing greater emphasis on bespoke tailored experiences, as opposed to those large-scale algorithmic platforms, that are low cost but according to the evidence have little impact.
We’re seeing greater investment in in-person learning experiences, as organisations recognise the benefits of bonding and interpersonal connection. We’re seeing an increased emphasis on, what were called, ‘soft skills’ – and are increasingly seen as ‘power skills’: Communication, emotional intelligence and creating psychological safety.
These are the foundations of human infrastructure. Without these essentials, we’re running on brittle tracks. The evidence increasingly shows that the best technology alone will not lead to success. The winners will be those organizations who operate on a vital and resilient human infrastructure.
To find out how we can help leaders in your organisation to be more impactful, influential and persuasive visit www.threshold.co.uk
