The HRBP Dilemma.
Research highlights HRBP skill discrepancies.
Welcome to FullStack HR, and an extra welcome to the 39 people who have signed up since last week. If you haven’t yet subscribed, join the 7200+ smart, curious HR (or CEA) folks by subscribing here:
Happy Monday!
I meant to post this Friday, but work got in the way. So here we are on a Monday.
This post won't be so much about AI as about the HRBP role or the role of HR as a whole. A week ago, I came across a study by Agneta Häll from my alma mater, the University of Gothenburg. It examined the implementation of the HR Business Partner model in Scandinavian workplaces.
Häll's research focused on a global company with strong Nordic roots, examining how this American-born concept translates into Scandinavian work culture.
It's an interesting read, especially since the paper discusses issues that still seem relevant to how we operate our HR departments.
(At least for now, until CEA replaces us in HR.)
But enough of my rambling - what does the study say?
(And before anything else - thanks to Claude for summarizing the study. But you should really read the full study - it’s not hard to read and it’s not that long.)
The study employed a case study approach, utilizing semi-structured interviews and shadowing of HR practitioners and line managers. Through thematic analysis, viewed through the lens of paradox theory, researchers uncovered significant tensions in implementing the HRBP role.
Key findings revealed a marked disparity between the ideal HRBP role as described in company documents and the actual work performed by HRBPs. Many HR practitioners struggled to meet the competency requirements of the role, particularly in areas of business acumen and strategic thinking. Furthermore, the study highlighted a misalignment between the HRBP model and the Scandinavian work context, which traditionally emphasizes collaboration and delegated responsibility.
Interestingly, line managers often expected more operational HR support rather than the strategic partnership envisioned by the HRBP model. This mismatch in expectations created additional challenges for HRBPs trying to fulfill their designated roles.
Based on these findings, the study suggests that the HRBP model needs to be better contextualized to fit local organizational cultures before implementation.
The researchers propose a modified "HR team partner" approach, featuring varied HR positions working collaboratively rather than relying on a single HRBP role.
They also recommend more support and training for HRBPs to develop necessary business and strategic competencies, as well as closer cooperation within HR functions to provide comprehensive support.
Having spent most of my career in Scandinavian organizations, it's hard not to recognize the findings here.
I think it's interesting to highlight the competency gap as well. As the study points out, many HR professionals are ill-equipped to act as business strategists. Working in that capacity with senior business leaders requires a certain skill set and maturity. And do we practice this enough? It's easy to fall back on the things we were taught in school, which were concrete. Labor law, salary reviews, organizational charts, and compliance are easy to grasp and can be viewed as strategic. But if we constantly fall back on that vs. taking a broader look at what makes a company successful, where we make our money and strive for efficiency - are we really being strategic then?
I'm also a strong believer in the contextualization that Häll talks about. We can't simply import HR models without considering our cultural nuances – our strong unions, flat hierarchies, and collaborative spirit.
Häll's suggestion of a team-based approach to the HRBP role is one I've been advocating for since I first became an HRBP. It aligns well with our collective mindset and could bridge individual HRBPs' competency gaps while creating more touchpoints with the organization.
While working at Spotify, we were almost a tiny task force working together with our part of the organization, including me as HRBP, two TA partners, and two HR generalists. This allowed us to help the organization achieve their desired business outcomes more effectively - and work more strategically! Instead of having an impersonal CoE, the organization met the same people who could work with both practical and tangible questions as well as more long-term strategic issues.
Lastly, this study should prompt us to be more critical in adopting global HR trends.
I've written about this before, for example, agile HR, which was one of these trends a couple of years back. As far as I know, almost all organizations that implemented it back when it was trendy have since abandoned it.
Instead of implementing wholesale, we need to adapt these models to our context.
In the end, effective HR isn't about rigidly following a prescribed model – it's about finding what works for our specific organizational and cultural context.
Häll's research is a timely reminder of this crucial fact, and we should listen to her.
There’s a free webinar about the study on the 26th of September. Register here.