In an effort to remain relevant in an economy that steadily devalues human capital, HR adopted the language—and posture—of the so-called “business partner.” In hindsight, both the idea and its execution proved to be a strategic misstep.
The promise of HR business partnership was elevation: a seat at the table, closer alignment with business goals, greater influence. The price, however, was steep. HR quietly relinquished its core mandate—representing the human resource in decision-making—in exchange for becoming the enforcer of “alignment.”
This shift absolved HR of protecting, challenging, and advocating for employees. In effect, HR was co-opted, defanged, and stripped of the credibility required to perform its true role.
Imagine a CFO who misleads the board because he sees himself as the CEO’s “partner.” While such behavior exists, it is not the creed of the finance profession. In HR, however, business partnership institutionalized the abandonment of people in favor of numbers. Skilled HR professionals were gradually replaced by technocrats whose primary expertise was compliance—and sycophancy.
As this partnership model matured, its emptiness became obvious. HR communication devolved into slogans and “wow-wow-ism”—fun initiatives designed to mask deeper dysfunction. The tone became eerily reminiscent of old Soviet propaganda: praising the system while ignoring the breadlines.
Unsurprisingly, HR became one of the most mistrusted functions in the organization.
What followed, eg in Israel, was inevitable. Massive unionization surged across finance, telecom, high tech, insurance—and even large taxi companies. These unions did not emerge by chance; they filled a vacuum. Where HR was perceived as hollow or complicit, unions offered something the workforce craved: representation.
The result? HR was pushed into its weakest position yet—isolated as the CEO’s supposed business partner, while unions became the authentic voice of employees.
CEOs don’t need HR partners who only speak the language of alignment. They need leaders who can talk numbers, sales, marketing—and people. When HR fails to do this, others will.
I’ve long advised clients that it is far better to work with a strong, people-oriented HR leader than to negotiate with a union steward. Few listened. Some learned the hard way.
I first wrote a version of this article in 2014. Today, HR is even more digitalized, sprinkled with remnants of business partnership rhetoric. The unions may be quieter—but they’ve been replaced by something just as corrosive: alienation, transactional work relationships, escalating demands for remote work, and industrial-scale buck-passing enabled by technology and indifference.
The question is no longer whether HR needs to change.
It’s whether HR still remembers who it exists to serve.
