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.
They also need desperately at this point to put the “H” back into HR.
This is such a timely reminder for me.
Lévis
Strong words. Very.
I have always held that HR has to be the ones to know ‘people’ best. Like finance is said to know money, and technical knows engineering.
Fact remains, HR slipped into the comfort of towing the line, all in the name of ‘needing to know business’ ( heard that one, right?).
The option was and is for HR to broaden its vistas, and be the voice and vision of people (in the larger context)… Not mere representatives of employees .. But of people inside and outside organisations… and using this to make/keep businesses sustainable (business is for society and not the other way around).
This makes HR a calling .., and gives weight to the much-mouthed words .. ‘We are a people company’, ‘people are our most important asset’ etc.
Specialist HR has the opportunity to become this …and not get ensnared in the comfort of generic operational aspects which any common-sense generalist can easily do.
I’m afraid you are right. However the reality for HR is by far more complicated than what is described here. In order to influence, HR must have deep business knowledge. But, people’s people naturally sway away from hard core numbers, money, marketing decision etc. These will influence the people management of an organization. Unless HR is close to where decisions and data is being analyzed, and made, there is no way to influence and to carry out employee’s needs. While HR tried to build a bridge between the business and it’s people , I find that lack of interest and understanding of business acumen has prevented HR business partners from succeeding. At the same time, business managers only pay lip service to HR and to people. In reality, peoples’ needs and interest are being pushed aside at at the first financial or other business challange. The reason in my mind is that money is always the king. This is the bottom line. People come only later, much later.
Pazit
In today’s reality, the issue is “deal with me or deal with a union”.
CEO’s get that.
Then the work of HR lobbying starts, based on priorities of the doable.
allon
Your post brings up three potential relationships between line management and HR:
1: Me, the expert: Where HR operates from its self-given ascendant as a “people” expert, leaving the rest of the organization with its ascendant “technical expertise”
2: Me, the loyal lieutenant: Where HR operates from a conscious or unconscious collusion with the business agenda, its relevance being measured by its loyalty to profitability. (It seems to be this form of relationship you are referring to).
3: Me, the loyal opposition: Where HR operates from authentically confronting the thinking of management out of its loyalty to the answers to two questions: “What else?” and “Who else?”
Lévis
I find it very interesting and many times describing accuratly the organizational reality
תודה
Very interesting. Not sure how I missed this post in 2014. No matter. The HR field definitely took a wrong turn somewhere along the way. I first ran into it in late 80’s and early 90’s when I saw first-hand how bloodthirsty HR leaders had become. I think they were trying to prove themselves: “See, we can cut headcount too.”