Backlash against human resources business partner model as managers question results
A backlash against the much-feted human resources (HR) business partner model appears to have begun after research revealed that more than half of managers were unconvinced by the structure.
Only 47% of the managers polled by research firm Roffey Park said that business partnering was in any way successful in their organisation. One in four said the model was ineffective, while the rest were undecided on the merits of the increasingly popular system.
The business partner model has been hailed as the way forward for the profession since HR academic Dave Ulrich first wrote about it in 1997.
It was supposed to modernise the function, making it more valuable to chief executives, and is now the most common structure, according to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). Almost half of the 479 managers polled had business partners in their organisation.
However, those critical of the model said all too often it had only involved a change in title, and had not resulted in strategic thinking, with comments such as: "Too much reliance on the intranet", and "Greater conflict within HR" in the survey.
Angela Baron, organisation and resourcing adviser at the CIPD, said she was unsurprised by the results. "A lot of people have latched on to the business partner title, but not changed anything," she told Personnel Today. "Others remain unconvinced that it is the right way forward for people management."
Gabriele Arend, HR director at beauty products manufacturer Elizabeth Arden, said she disagreed with any model splitting HR professionals into recruiting, training and employee relations experts.
Her company is moving towards a more traditional structure, where HR staff are trained to develop a generalist knowledge. "This encourages a trust relationship between staff and their HR partner, but also allows department heads to discuss their issues with one HR partner rather than three," she said.
What is an HR business partner?
HR academic Dave Ulrich launched the business partner model with his 1997 book Human Resource Champions: the Next Agenda for Adding Value and Delivering Results.
It set out a future where basic administrative HR was taken care of by low-cost, shared-service centres, while a small team of 'business partners' were given higher-paid jobs concentrating on people strategies. In the middle were teams of specialists.
The CIPD website definition states: "Business partnering makes HR accountable to the business, and expects HR to add real value. This is a shift away from traditional HR functions where purpose, priorities and successes were defined within HR."
COMMENTS
This article's title suggests that the Business Partner Model is flawed and a backlash against it is underway.
The content of the article actually suggests (at least to me..) that the BPM isn't actually being used in many places, that what has happened is mostly a change of title, not a change of substance.
The implied criticism of those HR practitioners/managers who have only changed their titles, not their function, IS still valid.
This article would be more impactful, useful and credible if it made these distinctions clearer and had instead a title along the lines of "Poor implementation of HR business partner model causes backlash from managers".
Personally, a properly implemented approach to BPM can and does add huge value, as I'm sure many readers are very much aware of.
Martin Schmalenbach
I was very disappointed at the Article Backlash against human resources business partner model. It is loaded with emotive and negative words.
Business partnering is a challenge to the HR function to align itself with the business it is supporting. It will not fit every business but for many it will make significant changes. HR depts which are centralised and out of touch with the needs of the business may well be recommended to consider BP model to help challenge them internally and support the HR function to change!
BP is about challenge and support not only to the business but back into HR. I have worked in several BP roles and a significant part of my job is aligning HR dept with business needs.
I have seen many organisations and BPs where nothing has changed when BP has been introduced by name only. This is useless and misses the point. If you are to develop a small cadre of BPs they need to be highly skilled in internal consultancy skills, relationship management and most importantly in the business! BPs who are HR experts only will not work. You need people who have worked in the business area, can relate to senior management engage in technical debates and support on the forward thinking HR. I could not be a BP in my own sector (international development) if I did not have credibility in international development (13 years in project and policy management).
Rather than damming BP because it is not understood or misapplied I really think Personnel Today should provide well informed articles challenging BP but also putting it into context. It is a highly specialised job which has been undermined by poor implementation and people just changing role names with no attempt to re skill.
BP has made a significant difference in Christian Aid's ability to respond to complex international issues from a UK HR Base. I am happy to discuss this further.
Jane Clark
Comment on this Article in HR Space (Sign-in required)RELATED ARTICLES
- Survival focus puts strategic ambitions on back burner for HR
- US practices: overhyped and over here – and over the hill
- Dave Ulrich's model defence
- Need to know: share prices
- Where did the business partner model go wrong?
- Change management is human resources' biggest challenge
- Human resources directors admit business partner is failing
ALERTS
RELATED RESOURCES
XpertHR - Online HR Intelligence
