HR Business Partner Research

HR Business Partner Research
Executive Summary
2013. november
1
Acknowledgement
Our research was supported by several contributors and
supporters. We would like to express our gratitude for their
contribution here as well!
Thanks to the HR professionals who supported us in research preparation with their
inspiring suggestions: Mária Janka, Eszter Kéri, Béla Marina, Gergely Paládi-Kovács, Ildikó
Ráczné Szőke , Judit Sáfár, Lilla Sáfrány, Kornélia Vass
Thanks to the following companies for supporting our research financially or with
providing workshop venues: Borsodi Sörgyár, Budapest Bank, ELMÜ, GSK Bio, ING Bank,
KPMG, MOL, Magyar Telekom, MKB, Richter, Sanofi, T-Systems
Thanks to Tímea Ficsor, Péter Galambos, Judit Győri, Zsuzsanna Lehel, Lili Lenkei, Szabina
Mezei, Klaudia Suhajda for their enthusiastic and intensive support during research
interviews and workshops.
Thanks to Anikó Balogh and Alina Láng for their indispensable and careful contribution in
preparing the research summary.
Thanks to the participating companies and individuals on the HR teams for their openness
and time!
Structure of the research summary
Research
framework
About the HR BP
role
Success criteria for
HR organizational
model
Successful HR BP
operation
Summary
• Aim, methodology
• Conceptual clarification
• Linguistic mess about the HR BP role
• About the Ulrich HR organizational model
• Concept of desired HR BP role
• Dilemmas related to the implementation of the HR BP role
• Different ways of implementing the HR BP role
• Administrative support
• One point of contact / two (multiple) points of contact
• Leadership development
• Implementation project
• HR BP metrics, evaluation
• HR BPs’ business and strategic contribution
• HR BP and manager cooperation
• HR BP competencies
• Career and development
• Stress related to HR BP role
• Summary, learning points
• References, professional literature
• Benchmark data
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
4
Research Team
Attila Bokor – research teamleader, OD Partner Kft.
Zsuzsanna Csenterics – researcher, Strategic HR Mentor Kft.
Edina Echter – researcher, OD Partner Kft.
Anikó Killeen-Kőrös– researcher, Simonyi és Tóth Kft.
Orsolya Virág – researcher, OD Partner Kft.
Characteristics of the team:
HR experience in national and regional companies
Research experience
Consultant experience
Personal interest, motivation
Research objective: explore the diversity of HR BP role
interpretations and search for a shared understanding
Questions we have searched the answers to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Is (and if yes how) the HRBP role more productive and effective than previous
models?
What are the similarities and differences in interpreting and adapting the HR
BP function/role among the participating companies?
What kind of development paths are there for evolving the HR BP role? Where
do we start from, and in which direction are we moving?
Is there any other, better way of increasing HR added value than following the
Ulrich model? Are there competing approaches in Hungary?
Do we have real choices? Can the model’s pitfalls be avoided?
What are the most important experiences and key learning points of HR
organization transformation projects?
How is it possible to accomplish successful cooperation between the whole
HR organization - Center of Excellence, Shared Service Center etc. – and HR
BP role?
Where do HR BPs come from and what kind of development is needed in
order to become successful in the role?
How can HR BPs and business managers cooperate efficiently?
How managers have to change with the introduction of the HRBP role? How
they can be supported in this change?
Structure and methodology
Methodology
Participants
March April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Research kick-off methodological
frames
Methodology-development
HR director interviews
44 companies
Online-questionnaire
152
individuals
Benchmark workshop
8 ws / 31
companies
Document collection
Analysis
About the methods
• HR director interviews: 1,5-2 hours, structured deep interviews
• Questionnaire: 21 questions for different HR role holders
• Benchmark workshops: interactive workshops, „2 - in - 1” function, along focus topics, calling forth
personal experiences besides professional ones. Structural elements are built on each other, we
had already used data from HR director interviews in constructing the workshops.
• Document collection: asking for related company documentation
• Analysis and preparing research results paper: sequence of individual analytical work and research
team’s workshops, continuously including external feedback into the completed materials.
Research participants: 44 companies
BAT
Borsodi Sörgyár
CIB Bank
Citibank
Coca-Cola
Danone
Deloitte
DHL
Douwe Egberts
Egis
Electrolux
ELMŰ
E.ON Hungária
Ernst & Young
Erste Bank
GE Capital, Budapest Bank
GE Lighting
GSK Bio
ING Bank
Invitel
K&H Bank
KPMG
Magyar Telekom
Metro
MKB
MOL
Morgan Stanley
Nokia Siemens Network
Philip Morris
Raiffeisen Bank
Richter
Sanofi-Aventis
Sanoma
Siemens
Sykes
Syngenta
Telenor
Tetra Pak
T-Systems
Unicredit Bank
UPC
Visteon
Vodafone
Xerox
ABOUT THE HR BP ROLE
9
Linguistic mess about the HR BP role
Assumption:
„We can finish each other’s sentences”
Experience:
• There are different names for the same
content and things / roles under the same
name might be totally different.
• The above was a common phenomenon in
many aspects of the research.
Reasons:
Several reasons may exist for the above:
• Perception
• Interest, intention
• Context, organizational structure
• Habits, traditions
Consequences:
• Difficulties in the research – for example
many times Generalists were called and
considered Business Partners
• Difficulties in benchmarking and clear-cut
comparisons
What to do with that?
1. We defined the concepts in our
research paper as we have used
them.
2. Although it seems more time at first
glance, it is worth to ask beyond
when benchmarking.
Let’s start at the source: the Ulrich model
The Ulrich organizational model’s objective is to strengthen HR’s value-add and
business integration.
• Standardizing transactional HR activities, leveraging IT solutions and economies of scale for
efficiency.
• Developing and strengthening business partner role related to transformational HR activities.
• Involving managers and employees in HR activities.
The model is popular, most of the large multinational companies have already
implemented / are planning to implement it.
• The model builds on 3 „HR legs”: HR Business Partner, Center of Expertise and Shared Service
Centers. The 4th leg is managers.
• The model’s most popular element is the HR Business Partner role.
Besides popularity and results, the model has been criticized many times.
• The most important advantages are: cost-efficiency, ease of sharing best practices, development
of leadership culture.
• The greatest risks are the following: fragmentation of HR operation, widening distance from the
managers, intensification of inner HR co-operational problems and shortfalls against expected
outcomes. However, these difficulties are typically the results of prolonged implementation
projects with unrealistic resource plans and many compromises.
What are the characteristics of the desired
HR BP role?
Based on the relevant literature, an HR Business Partner
• is mainly the top management’s counterpart.
• fills a kind of internal consultant, „challenger” role who has relevant part in
implementing an „outside in” approach.
• works toward strengthening the organization’s human capital instead of supporting
managers.
• is mainly involved in activities around organizational design and development, talent
portfolio development, leadership development and change management.
The desired HR Business Partner role as described by HR
Directors in our research:
• fits with the picture described by the literature, and
• compared with the classical HR Generalist role has more
• strategic focus,
• business approach,
• internal consultant role and knowledge.
• It also requires knowledge and skills that go beyond the traditional professional
competency set.
Significant differences exist between the
desired and the real HR BP role
Desires, expectations and real practice go their separate ways
• According to HR directors’ expectations, operational manager support is the most
important and HR BPs have to do administration work as well.
• HR BP’s actual working hours are full with operational and administrative activities
(employee support as well!) therefore they have minimal time for strategic
business consultancy.
• HR employees perceive that managers’ expectation is more operational leadership
support than business/strategic consultation.
Further dilemmas related to the role’s interpretation and
implementation
• HR BP role (and lots of other connected HR roles and activities) is used by the
organizations disturbingly ambiguously and diversely.
• Description of the role has an unreasonable individual focus, little attention is paid
to the whole HR context and the changing role of managers.
• Implementation of HR BP role is unreasonably HR „home affair” –managers are
rarely involved into its creation and defining expected business results and benefit.
Clear (Ulrich type) HR BP role is very rare, transitional
situation/role is typical in most of the cases
No generalist
Nincs
generalista
7%
%
0%
Mainly generalist
Alapvetően
generalista
14%
10%
Generalist + HR
HR BP
BP
Generalista
18%
20%
30%
HR
Generalist
HR
BPBP+
+ Generalista
34%
40%
50%
ClearHR
HRBP
BP
Tiszta
27%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
• Different roles can be described with different objectives, success
criteria, competencies and frames of cooperation.
• Passage between the roles is motivating because of development.
However it forecasts ambiguities and uncertainty.
• It is difficult to make standardized interpretations and suggestions
related to HR BP role because of the diversity.
Ways of implementing the HR BP role
Very different practices in relation to the HR BP role
• Expected and real working hours ratio related to certain activities is between 0-50%.
• The number of managers who are supported by the HR BP is between 3-70.
Comparing different practices, the following basic models can be identified
• Some organizations operate in Professional model – doesn’t have Generalist or HR BP.
• Generalist BP, who fills the BP part of the role within informal frames and from personal power.
• “Mini HR Director” (MHRD) BP, who is responsible for transactional and transformational tasks.
Behind it is an HR organizational model which provides well developed HR Full Service.
• Ulrich BP who fills in an independent, internal consultant role, as a part of the Ulrich model’s
three legs.
Evolution versus revolution?
• Most of the organizations follow a path of evolution, where HR BP role is built on the Generalist
role. In these models operationally supporting managers is as important as the consulting role.
• Implementing the Ulrich model – and a clear HR BP role as a part- is a totally separate way, and
means a radical change comparing to the above mentioned evolution-based development.
• Each model provides advantages and disadvantages. However, the change and development is
rarely driven by managers’ need – the main motivation force is HR’s drive for self-development.
• Numerical satisfaction indices show a higher effectiveness of the Ulrich model in most questions.
However HR Directors in the Mini HR Director BP organizations describe and experience their
model as very successful.
HR BP role appears in different organizational
configurations with different contents
Most of the examined organizations are on
a path of evolution, where the HR BP role is
developed from and built on the Generalist
role.
„Mini HRD” BP
Generalist BP
Generalist
Implementing the Ulrich model – and a clear HR
BP role as a part- is a totally separate way, which
means a radical change comparing to the
evolution-based development.
Ulrich
HR BP
SUCCESS CRITERIA FOR THE HR
ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL
17
Success criteria in HR organizational models’
operation
Administration
Single point of
contact /
multiple points
of contact
Successful HR
BP operation
Success
criteria
Leadership
Metrics and
evaluation
Development
Introduction
project
Administration
Generally about administration
• Appearance of administrational expectations in HR BP job description is a big trap (HR director expectation is still 8%)
• Presently HR BPs who have admin support on their own HR team can be the most satisfied since they have the most
control over the system.
• Admin tasks can be distributed efficiently, there are a number of functioning examples. However, this needs particular
awareness and clear intention from the HRBP - shouldn’t even take over admin from manager or delegate it well within
HR.
• „The devil lies in details”... Conflicts appear at the SSC level, where the need for locally tailored solutions and global
simplification intentions meet.
About the SSC
• Mixed experiences exist about the „outsourcing admin into the SSC” solution - some of the companies have got it to
work, some have already reorganized and stopped.
• At companies where it works, it took years of awareness and hard work to get it off the ground - everyone should be
prepared for this.
• Having the SSC based in Hungary does not necessarily grant rapid success.
• Having an SSC means many players in the process and therefore new, extra check points- conscious attention and
resources are needed.
• Cost differences between doing admin in the SSC or in the local HR team can’t yet be measured in Hungary. Most
companies are still in the introduction phase and full profit is not planned to be captured at the local level anyway (aim
is on global optimum).
• The SSC also has to have employees with solid professional background as well as good business knowledge to provide
high level service to the customers.
About IT support systems
• There are partly good solutions, but the „perfectly integrated system” doesn’t exist yet.
• Global IT systems replace local, well working IT tools in many place.
• The data that comes out will only be as good as the data that we feed into the system – data input and maintenance is
19
energy demanding and needs a well structured process.
One point of contact / Multiple points of
contact
The dilemma of one point of contact or multiple points of contact is one of the determining elements of HR organization’s structure.
The number of points of contacts on the evolution path can be described by a U shape – at the beginning there are multiple points of
contacts, then HR typically moves to one point of contact, and then back to multiple again.
• At the beginning, multiple points of contacts exist in the professional expert model.
• On the evolutional path, one point of contact appears with the development of the Generalist role - a Generalist with great
professional qualification provides both quality service and a control point towards HR and the manager.
• As both the HR organization and manager is maturing in their roles, more contacts can be re-established.
• The Ulrich model works unequivocally with multiple points of contact.
Practical implementation of both one point of contact and multiple points of contact shows a difference from the described intentions.
• Operation is shaped by personal competencies, ambitions and relations. (They keep only one contact or open others.)
• Having one point of contact is valuable in the Generalist and “Mini HR Director” BP structure – it provides a better service for
managers and client organizations.
• However, working within the one point of contact model is burdensome at the same time for the HR BPs/managers.
Working within a well functioning multiple points of contact model is inevitable for the Ulrich BR role’s efficient implementation.
• The Ulrich Model brings in the multiple points of contact model again.
• It is difficult to switch from one point of contact, one point of contact companies seldom choose this direction consciously.
• Establishing more contacts in a Manager’s support system can help in switching to the Ulrich model – the switch is safer since it
has proven to be operational.
• With a well established specialist background and above a ceratin size it is better not to maintain a strict one point of contact
model. It seems to be more effective to establish more contact points between managers and specialists. On the toher side, this
requires conscious internal coordination within HR.
Working efficiently with multiple points of contact has several organizational, operational and psychological criteria. Renewing the
contract/mutual expectations within HR as well as between HR and managers is essential.
20
Leadership development
There were only a few examples for conscious leadership development accompanying the introduction
of the new HR model at the participating organizations.
• Expectations towards managers from HR and executives are continuous cooperation, openness
and supportive affiliation.
Targeted leadership development happens through HR BP’s personal support.
• Continuously provided by coaching where HR BP’s preparedness is appropriate.
Conscious effort in leadership development can be mostly found at companies introducing the Ulrich
model.
• Managers get trainings in order to be able to do people management tasks and continuous
coaching is also provided to support implementation of these skills.
Main focuses for leadership development
• Recruitment, HR systems/processes, coaching, strengthening leadership competencies. Selection
of leadership development focuses is dependent on the existing leadership culture, and
managers’ leadership maturity.
Implementing the HR BP model requires significant changes in manager’s approach and operation
• The HR BPs can’t be left be alone with the preparation and support of this development.
Introduction project conclusions
Generally about projects that aim to transform HR organization and operation
• When HR directors/managers talked about „introduction projects”, that didn’t always mean Ulrich model’s
implementation by definition. More likely it meant a transformation process from an earlier model to the present
system/operation.
• It was typical that motives of self development and of change appeared everywhere and HR executives always
filled a significant role in it.
• Little energy and time were dedicated for HR employees’ and managers’ structured development (beyond
trainings for using new tools).
• HR transformation – especially to Ulrich – brings a more intense inner focus. The danger is that less attention is
paid for the client/business and their needs. There are only a few exceptions where HR transformation is
approached from the business needs.
About projects related to Ulrich model introduction
• In most the cases not every organizational aspect was ready, and not all the processes were redefined when
launching the new model – this has caused a lot of tension.
• In some companies the local HR director is extensively involved in creating the new concept, while in others the
local HR director is only expected to provide data and execute the decisions made regionally or globally.
• Two sides of „Simplification” :
• From top down, the centralization and simplification efforts neglect important local needs and differences.
• From the bottom up: local operations stick to old, well-tried practices, they don’t want to change, and optimize on a higher
level.
• During the implementation, there is an extreme focus on the „new” roles (SSCs and on CoEs), and much less
attention is given to the equally important redefinition of the HR BP role.
Metrics and evaluation
HR BP performance appraisal and evaluation are based on manager satisfaction surveys in most of the
organizations.
HR and managers don’t usually make a formal mutual agreement (for example SLA) in advance on what/how
should be evaluated in the HR BP’s operation. Involving managers (if at all) in HRBP performance evaluation
is informal.
The HR organization’s successfulness, efficiency and goal reaching competence are measured by traditional
HR KPI-s. Few examples exist in evaluating HR BP’s efficiency.
Literature offers a wide range of measurement techniques.
• There is an opportunity to define or choose HR BP metrics that fit best with organizational culture, for example 360 degree
feedback, HR programs’ impact, supported business unit’s successfulness, development of human capital, etc.
In the applied model’s introduction phase measuring HR BP’s operation is not mature enough to allow
implementation of the final, formalized evaluation. In this phase, measurement should be focused on
successful model implementation and delivering early wins. There are many possibilities for
improvement/development in this area.
SUCCESSFUL HR BP OPERATION
24
Themes related to success in the BP role
Creating
business
value
Stress
management
Cooperation with
managers
Successful
BP
Career,
development
Competencies
A range of examples were identified
regarding strategic business contribution
As a member of senior
management team,
participating in business
meetings: presentation of
individual aspects,
challenging
Leadership development:
their integration,
development of OD and
People Management
awareness, competencies
Business development:
supporting the start and
development of business
activities
Supporting change
management and
organization transformation
with OD approach
Talent and career
management process
development or program
transformation
Identifying innovation
possibilities and
developments in HR related
processes and activities
These activities appear with a diverse ratio in the HR BP’s work in the
different models.
Most of the examples are one-off and project based. This is good news
on one hand (involvement in project based business initiatives) and bad
news as well (only special, occasional contribution).
Cooperation between HR BPs and managers
None of the organizational models can in itself guarantee the BP’s success, personal development is
unavoidable
• Relationship between manager and HR BP is shaped through everyday experience, it changes dynamically – there are no
universal guarantees or recipe for success.
• Credibility should be built from manager to manager, but it is easy to stuck with a „difficult” leader.
• Credibility is also based on personal contribution: managers buy the HR BP, not HR values and/or points of views.
Implementing HR BP role means a two-sided development : both HR’s and manager’s role change
• Manager will be more self- efficient in People management tasks while HR BP develops in representing the people agenda and
creating and delivering transformational value.
Balance and partnership (both needed for effective relationships) may be compromised in a
number of ways during the change process
•It is difficult to find the good ratio of trust, closeness, business orientation, alliance and independence, especially in a way that
strengthens both parties rather than weakening one or both of them.
The biggest difficulty in creating a partnership and having real impact is how to demonstrate HR’s
contribution and added value in business terms.
A set of norms for co-operation can be defined to support partnership. These norms are
independent of the organizational model HR chooses to adapt.
Based on the survey results, Ulrich BPs are the most likely to achieve partnership, balanced
cooperation and the consultant role.
HR BP competencies
While examining competencies needed for successful HR BP operation, differences among the
desired role, expectations and reality have emerged.
• Based on the HR Director interviews, the ideal HR BP profile is in line with the international literature. This was true
independent of the given company’s HR organizational model (Generalist, “Mini HR Director” BP or Ulrich BP).
• However, competencies of the HRBP profiles in the different models could have been differentiated along questions about
successful / unsuccessful role fulfilment.
• Important competencies in each model also differ based on role incumbents answers to the questionnaire. However, these
competencies are not totally in line with the competency profiles based on HR director interviews.
Competency profiles of the evolutional model show an unequivocal development from Generalist
towards Mini HR Director BP role.
• The basic difference lies in the role definition: Generalist BP works with a „service” attitude while the MHRD BP works with
a „consultant” identity.
• Based on the interviews the other big difference is the appearance of “stable/strong personality” as a requirement for the
MHRD BP. This phenomenon can be the consequence of the increased level of confrontation between MHRD BP and
manager, and is also required to manage the team which in this model (either directly or indirectly) most BPs have.
The smallest difference between ideal and expected competency profiles can be found in the
Ulrich HR BP role, where the similarity with literature is the highest as well.
• The role builds on some of the elements of the evolutionary profiles. However, competencies of getting things done
through others are getting more important, whilst operational or direct implementation competencies are less important.
• The role itself is more task- than relationship-oriented compared to the evolutional model. This shift is reflected in the
required skills as well.
• Competencies related to successful operation in a virtual team or through geographical and cultural distances have
appeared, together with skills that are necessary for co-operation with a new client group - regional executives.
• Compared to the international profile it was surprising that experience as a vital factor and competencies for process
consultancy have not been mentioned.
HR BP competencies – how to change roles
In the evolutional model:
• Even though the important competencies resonate in the evolutional model, the stretch of the MHRD role appears –
caused by the predominance of operative problem solving compared to developmental themes. Compared to the
Generalist, in everyday life the MHRD BP leans more on his/her problem solving skills than organizational development or
coaching competencies. Assertivity and conflict handling also become important for the MHRD – probably because
confrontation from a supporter role is difficult, not natural for both sides.
• The solution to difficulties on the evolutional path lies in resolving resource issues and creating and keeping clear
contracts with managers.
From MHRD BP to Ulrich BP:
• In the Ulrich model HR professional knowledge moves to the bottom of the “important competencies” list, while the
need for change management skills become more predominant. HR professional knowledge not being that important is
one of the biggest identity problems caused by the change of the HR operating model, whilst the need for change
management can be caused by the weak implementation process of the new organizational model.
• On the personal level, the difficulty of implementing the Ulrich model comes from the fact that it requires a different
personality and professional identity than the evolutional model. Therefore role definition, identity questions and value
choice should come before competency development when someone switches from the evolutional to the revolutional
model.
To be successful in the Ulrich BP role:
• Experience is needed - in good and bad times. This gives seniority, life- and professional experience, and credibility that
the BP can work from. (This need is verified by international researches and our HR Director interviews as well.)
• The most important development area for the Ulrich BP is around initiating and supporting organization development
projects with a long-term impact. They will need to rely on their consultancy and influencing skills, as well as a
combination of professional, business and external knowledge. Ulrich BP research participants have the most insufficiency
in the areas of consultancy and facilitation skills. A warning sign is that these competencies do not even seem to be
important for them.
• As in the previous points, development opportunities lie in defining the value proposition and activities related to
delivering it as well as in the acceptance of the new role and identity. These can be followed by competency
development in the above mentioned areas.
HR BP career
The HR BP role is thought to be an attractive career among research participants.
• Based on the survey results, becoming an HR BP is mostly attractive for those who already work in the Ulrich
model.
Based on the research results and on the international experiences, it is suggested to create an HR BP team from
individuals with mixed backgrounds.
• Ideally organizations should recruit employees from the external market and from business areas as well as
“growing their own”.
• However, currently internal development is the most significant source for many organizations because the
external market can’t provide appropriate applicants, and HR is not seen as an attractive career move for
business candidates.
There are different career opportunities and experiences in each model
• In the evolutional model continuous career growth experience and promotions can be provided for those who
aim to become a BP.
• It is more difficult to provide this career development experience in the Ulrich model, where horizontal carrier
steps through rotation between the different “legs” or business areas are more significant.
Experiential learning and on the job tools are an important part of HR BP’s development
• These can ensure the extension of HR professional knowledge, grounding and deepening business understanding
and the development of organizational development skills.
Business awareness as a critical HR BP competency
• Developing business awareness development has its relevance in all the three models. However spending time
with the client/customer has special significance in the Ulrich model.
Stress in HR BP role
HR BPs have strong sense of stress and fatigue during work.
• According to the research results, this can be caused by many factors: lack of resources, process
organizing problems, unclear goals and HR BP role definition, managers’ attitude, co-operation
problems within the HR organization, etc.
“Mini HR Director” BPs are under the most stress.
• In addition to the previously mentioned factors they have lots of operational and administrative
tasks as well beyond accomplishing the HR BP role objectives.
Stress factors according to their origins:
• personal (e.g. HR BP competencies),
• relational (e.g. co-operation with managers),
• and structural (e.g. IT conditions, complicated processes with lots of control points).
Literature offers a diverse set of interventions for stress and fatigue management:
• prevention: role clarification, development of HR processes and IT systems. etc.,
• handling: letting it go, conscious dialogue, development;
• regeneration: free time, sport.
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS
32
Brief summary of the results
HR BP role is the most popular solution for HR’s business and strategy integration.
This role is significantly more operational and administrative than targeted.
• This the real, expressed expectation from both HR and managers.
• It is difficult to resolve this without radically rethinking the whole HR operation and HR – manager cooperation.
• Efficient and operational administration requires continuous development and attention.
• For HR BPs it can be also difficult to give up this activity because of the sense of success and control which
administrative tasks provide.
At least 3 different HR BP roles exist in practice
• Generalist BP, who fills the BP part of the role within informal frames and from personal power.
• “Mini HR Director” BP, who is responsible for transactional and transformational tasks. Behind it is an HR
organizational model which provides well developed HR Full Service.
• Ulrich BP who fills in an independent, internal consultant role, as a part of the Ulrich model’s three legs.
Critical factors for each model
• Leadership development – Administration- One point of contact / Multiple points of contact – Metrics/evaluation
– Recruitment and development of HR BP – Implementation project – Personal operation of HR BP
Beyond the model itself the personality and capabilities of the HRBP also play a critical role in success:
• HR BP has to build up his/her personal authenticity individually from manager to manager in each model.
• Different models require HR BPs with different competencies and role approaches!
• The preferred way of development for BPs is rather on-the-job and external experience sharing.
The basic dilemma: supporting leaders
and/or increasing Human Capital
Is it possible to have it all?
Is it ok to want it all?
Is it rational from a business aspect?
???
Development of Human Capital
Ulrich BP
„Mini HR
Director” BP
Generalist BP
Levels of leadership support
This dilemma
appears at both the
organizational as
well as at the
personal HR BP
level.
Development history of HR identity and
competence
Support, customer
orientation
HR professionalism
Development with time
Partnership, business
development
Is it one person in one role who should integrate these values?
Is the harmonic integration of these values possible?
Solution for the dilemma – multilevel BP role?
The transformation activities in the Ulrich model can be described by the following
3 dimensions
• HR Partner - HR professional support with high added value: solving unique, difficult situations and
executive coaching as a part of the manager’s people management skills development.
• Business Partner - proactive, challenging and supportive role related to strategy implementation and
reaching actual business goal : organizational transformation, leadership development, talent
management.
• Strategic Partner - business development, bringing activities into the strategy definition process,
organizational planning, development of core competencies.
These three HR partner roles can be integrated at both the organizational and at
the individual level
• In multinational organizations Strategic Partner role is filled by regional HR, while Business Partners
and HR Partners operate in local level.
• One HR BP might also fill all the three roles according to the actual organizational and manager’s
needs.
The defining question is: what is needed in the given management levels?
• What comes from the given organizational and business situation?
• What is the manager capable of, prepared for and open to do?
• What is the manager authorised for? (Strategic Partner role might have little relevance at the local
management level if strategy creation is not delegated there.)
Possible global model for multilevel HR
support
37
8 rules of HR Business Partnership – in any
model!
Define Business Partnership together with the business as a partner!
Keep objectives, frames and contract clear for each stakeholder!
Consider the whole model not only the role!
Provide resources and time as well as expectations in order to be able to deliver added
value!
Appoint the right person into the Business Partner role who has the competencies and
experiences needed to fulfill the model’s and the role’s expectations!
Business Partnership is not working without managers being partners!
The way of implementation is critical in building credibility!
Change requires letting go!