When Ryan Breslow returned as CEO of Bolt, the fintech company he cofounded, he didn’t just cut costs. He cut an entire department. “We got rid of our HR team,” he told attendees at Fortune’s Workforce Innovation Summit this week. The statement wasn’t a quiet aside—it was a declaration. In an era where AI is reshaping every corner of business, Breslow believes the traditional human resources function is not just outdated. It’s actively harmful.
But here’s the twist: He’s not anti-people. He’s arguing the opposite. For Breslow, the real key to thriving in the AI age isn’t more HR bureaucracy—it’s better people management. And that, he says, starts with leaders, not departments.
Why This Matters Right Now
This isn’t just a story about one startup’s radical move. It’s a signal. As companies race to adopt AI, the role of human management is being redefined. If a CEO can eliminate HR entirely and claim it made things better, what does that mean for the millions of HR professionals worldwide? And more importantly, what does it mean for how we think about leadership, culture, and employee experience in a world where machines do more of the work?
The stakes are high. Bolt’s valuation collapsed from $11 billion to roughly $300 million. Breslow’s drastic move was part of a survival strategy. But his argument—that HR was “creating problems that didn’t exist”—raises uncomfortable questions for every organization.
How the Decision to Scrap HR Unfolded
Breslow’s return to the CEO role last year was a rescue mission. The fintech firm he’d cofounded in 2014 had seen its valuation plummet. Thousands of employees were let go. But among the cuts, one decision stood out: the entire HR department was eliminated.
According to Breslow, the move wasn’t just about saving money. It was philosophical. He told the summit that HR was “creating problems that didn’t exist.” Instead of solving employee issues, he argued, the department was inventing them—adding layers of process, policy, and friction that distracted from real work.
In place of HR, Breslow created a “people-ops” function. The difference? People-ops focuses on enabling managers to manage directly, rather than acting as a middle layer. It’s a model that emphasizes coaching, accountability, and direct communication over compliance and paperwork.
Who Is Affected and What Officials Are Saying
The immediate impact was felt by Bolt’s remaining employees. Without HR, who handles payroll, benefits, complaints, or culture? Breslow’s answer: managers. He believes that in the AI age, the best people management happens at the team level, not through a centralized department.
“The CEO is the chief people officer,” Breslow has said. This philosophy places the burden of employee experience squarely on leadership. It’s a high-risk, high-reward approach. Supporters say it cuts bureaucracy and empowers managers. Critics warn it could lead to inconsistency, burnout, and a lack of employee protection.
At the Fortune summit, Breslow’s comments sparked debate. Some attendees nodded in agreement, seeing HR as a cost center that stifles agility. Others expressed concern about the loss of expertise in areas like compliance, diversity, and conflict resolution.
What We Know So Far — and What Remains Unclear
What we know: Bolt eliminated its HR department. Breslow replaced it with a people-ops model. He believes this approach is better suited to the AI era, where speed and direct management matter more than process.
What remains unclear: How is this working in practice? Are employees happier? Is turnover lower? Has the company faced any legal or compliance issues? Breslow’s claims are bold, but without data, they remain anecdotal. The long-term effects of this experiment are still unknown.
Also unclear is whether this model can scale. Bolt, after its massive layoffs, is a much smaller company. What works for a lean startup may not work for a global enterprise with thousands of employees.
Risks, Concerns, and the Balanced View
Breslow’s approach is not without risks. Critics point out that HR departments exist for a reason: they provide expertise in employment law, benefits administration, conflict resolution, and diversity initiatives. Removing that layer could expose the company to legal risks, employee dissatisfaction, and cultural drift.
There’s also the question of power dynamics. Without HR as a neutral party, employees may feel less safe raising concerns. Managers, already stretched thin, may struggle to handle complex people issues.
On the other hand, proponents of the people-ops model argue that traditional HR has become a bureaucratic bottleneck. They say it often prioritizes compliance over culture, and process over performance. In the AI age, where agility is critical, stripping away that layer can free up leaders to focus on what matters: developing their teams.
The balanced view? Breslow’s move is a radical experiment. It may work for a specific company at a specific moment. But it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. The real lesson may be about rethinking the role of HR, not eliminating it entirely.
Why Similar Trends Are Growing
Breslow is not alone in questioning HR’s value. Across the tech industry, there’s a growing sentiment that traditional HR functions are ill-suited for the fast-paced, AI-driven world. Companies like Netflix and Spotify have long championed “freedom and responsibility” over rigid HR policies.
The rise of AI is accelerating this trend. As machines take over administrative tasks, the human role in management is shifting from process enforcement to coaching and strategy. Leaders who can directly manage, inspire, and develop their teams are becoming more valuable than ever.
This doesn’t mean HR is dead. But it does mean the function must evolve. The question is no longer whether HR is needed, but what form it should take in an AI-first world.
- Bolt’s valuation fell from $11 billion to ~$300 million before Breslow’s return.
- Thousands of employees were laid off alongside the HR department.
- Breslow replaced HR with a “people-ops” model focused on direct management.
“We got rid of our HR team. They were creating problems that didn’t exist.” — Ryan Breslow, CEO of Bolt, at Fortune’s Workforce Innovation Summit
What Readers, Users, or Investors Should Know Now
For leaders watching this story, the takeaway isn’t to immediately fire your HR team. It’s to ask hard questions: Is your HR function adding value or creating friction? Are your managers equipped to handle people issues directly? In the AI age, the best people management may not come from a department—it may come from a culture of direct, accountable leadership.
For employees, this trend means the relationship with your manager will become even more critical. Without HR as a buffer, your experience at work will depend more on your direct leader’s ability to coach, support, and advocate for you.
For investors, Breslow’s move is a bet on agility over stability. It’s a high-risk strategy that could either unlock massive efficiency or create new vulnerabilities. Watch for data on employee satisfaction, turnover, and legal outcomes at Bolt in the coming months.
What Could Happen Next
If Breslow’s experiment succeeds, we may see more startups—and even larger companies—adopt similar models. The people-ops approach could become a new standard for AI-era organizations. If it fails, it will serve as a cautionary tale about the dangers of cutting too deep.
Either way, the debate over HR’s future is just beginning. As AI continues to reshape work, the question of how to manage humans will only grow more urgent. Breslow’s bold move ensures that Bolt will be at the center of that conversation.
Our Take: Why This Story Matters Beyond One Incident
Ryan Breslow’s decision to scrap HR is more than a cost-cutting measure. It’s a philosophical statement about the future of work. In the AI age, he argues, the most valuable skill for leaders is not process management—it’s people management. The ability to coach, inspire, and hold people accountable directly is what will separate thriving companies from struggling ones.
Whether you agree with his methods or not, Breslow is forcing a necessary conversation. The HR function, as we know it, was built for an industrial era. The AI era demands something different. The question is: what exactly?
This story matters because it challenges assumptions. It asks us to rethink what management means when machines can handle the paperwork. And it reminds us that, in the end, the most important resource in any company is still human—and how we manage that resource will define the next decade of business.
FAQs
Why did Bolt CEO Ryan Breslow scrap the HR department?
Breslow said HR was “creating problems that didn’t exist.” He believes the department added unnecessary bureaucracy and friction, distracting from real work. He replaced it with a “people-ops” model focused on direct management by leaders.
What is the difference between HR and people-ops?
Traditional HR focuses on compliance, policy, and administration. People-ops emphasizes coaching, accountability, and direct manager-employee relationships. The goal is to enable leaders to manage people effectively without a middle layer.
Is eliminating HR a good idea for most companies?
Not necessarily. Breslow’s approach is a radical experiment that may work for a lean startup but could be risky for larger organizations. HR provides critical expertise in law, benefits, and conflict resolution. The lesson may be to rethink HR’s role, not eliminate it.
How does people management change in the AI age?
As AI automates administrative tasks, the human role in management shifts from process enforcement to coaching and strategy. Leaders who can directly inspire, develop, and hold teams accountable become more valuable. The focus moves from compliance to culture and performance.
