HR Business Partner Research

Executive Summary

2013. november

1

Acknowledgement

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!

Our research was supported by several contributors and supporters. We would like to express our gratitude for their

contribution here as well!

Structure of the research summary

• Aim, methodology

• Conceptual clarification

Research framework

• 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

About the HR BP role

• Administrative support

• One point of contact / two (multiple) points of contact

• Leadership development

• Implementation project

• HR BP metrics, evaluation

Success criteria for HR organizational

model

• HR BPs’ business and strategic contribution

• HR BP and manager cooperation

• HR BP competencies

• Career and development

• Stress related to HR BP role

Successful HR BP operation

• Summary, learning points

• References, professional literature

• Benchmark data Summary

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

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.

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

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

Richter

Sanofi-Aventis

Sanoma

Siemens

Sykes

Syngenta

Telenor

Tetra Pak

T-Systems

Unicredit Bank

UPC

Visteon

Vodafone

Xerox

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

ABOUT THE HR BP ROLE

9

Linguistic mess about the HR BP role

Assumption:

„We can finish each other’s sentences”

Consequences:

• Difficulties in the research – for example

many times Generalists were called and

considered Business Partners

• Difficulties in benchmarking and clear-cut

comparisons

Reasons:

Several reasons may exist for the above:

• Perception

• Interest, intention

• Context, organizational structure

• Habits, traditions

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.

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.

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

7% 14% 18% 34% 27%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

%

Nincs generalista Alapvetően generalista Generalista + HR BP HR BP + Generalista Tiszta HR BPNo generalist Generalist + HR BP HR BP+ Generalist Clear HR BP

• 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.

Mainly generalist

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

Generalist

Generalist BP

„Mini HRD” BP

Ulrich HR BP

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.

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.

SUCCESS CRITERIA FOR THE HR ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL

17

Success criteria

Administration

Single point of contact /

multiple points of contact

Leadership

Development

Introduction project

Metrics and evaluation

Successful HR BP operation

Success criteria in HR organizational models’ operation

Administration

19

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 energy demanding and needs a well structured process.

One point of contact / Multiple points of contact

20

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.

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

Successful BP

Creating business

value

Coopera-tion with managers

Compe-tencies

Career, develop-

ment

Stress mana-

gement

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?

Levels of leadership support

Dev

elo

pm

en

t o

f H

um

an C

apit

al

Generalist BP

„Mini HR Director” BP

Ulrich BP ???

This dilemma appears at both the

organizational as well as at the

personal HR BP level.

Development history of HR identity and competence

Partnership, business development

Support, customer orientation

HR professionalism

Is it one person in one role who should integrate these values? Is the harmonic integration of these values possible?

Deve

lop

me

nt w

ith tim

e

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.)

37

Possible global model for multilevel HR support

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!