The Myth vs Make of an HRBP

The problem with HR (at the senior level) today is that it always hunts for solutions using emotions, rather than data and conjectures. LinkedIn is the best example, where a purebred HR practitioner will throw in dollops of emotional humbug as a solution for every workplace issue raised by a fellow practitioner. Let this statement annoy those who disagree, for the objective in my head is to ensure that the young breed of HR practitioners must learn and practice what works, what helps and what eases the process and addresses the problem, rather than the narrative. Sad that HR is neither taught Yung and Freud, or almost no one has heard about Adler, Bandura or Ulrich.

The concept of a class of HR practitioners who would practice strategy at the lowest level of hierarchy at the workplace wasn’t what was conceived of the role; that is tactic, instead of strategy as known to a management expert. So, what are the myths and what makes an HRBP? I will explain from a realistic plus orientation of practice rather than mere theory.

The HR Business Practitioner should be practicing business, and not HR? To a certain extent, true. Before we progress, let us understand that technological aid to the HR practice led to doing away with certain roles, which focussed on documentation, physically aiding workers in accessing benefits and thus, being a friend at work in the truest sense of the word. As businesses grew complex, the pliant turned into a shrew, tasked to monitor, observe for errors and misalignments, helping diffuse personal conflicts and hunting for ways to cut clutter and costs across factories and cubicles. Reengineering the role with a focus to go back this time in aiding the business rather than the employee, the concept of an HRBP was to understand the business objectives along with the Business Heads and find ways to narrow gaps among employees on completing tasks, remaining constantly motivated to produce beyond the average, work longer than the clock and keep cheering the colleague into being as much subservient as possibly one could be. This arm of strategy aimed at creating flagbearers of the org objective, who through rewards and entrapments, became known for the ‘culture’ the management wanted everyone else to exhibit. For the employee was no longer loyal and couth, and hence it is best that all strategy it aimed at serving business as the objective end. Sad, no HR protested and partnered with the employee at this idea! Hence, the myth of being a strategic partner to the business remained a myth. A word for the founder of this idea; the idea wasn’t to desert the employee for business, but build an additional role for strategic depth of HR beyond a generalist who would continue to keep employees warm, happy and welcome!

An additional role of HRBP

The problems in business are equivalent to playing football in a field with 10 players and a goalkeeper. While the Compliance Head (be it HR or Finance) is the goalkeeper and guardian, it actually cannot play along with, as it is the guardian of the post, beyond which lies the hoards of success and growth wrapped in policies, culture, rules and regulations. The 10 players are to steal from the other goalpost, and only play a marginal role in protecting their own bars (and of which their understanding is limited), and which can lead to the big steal by the competition. Where is the HRBP here? The HRBP is the coach, actually outside the field, as it is neither armed to defend the goalpost, nor allowed to be a part of the team on the field, for the Business Head or the Captain decides the business tactics to be deployed for the steal. Very few CXOs would have heard or imagined the story this way before, is my humble guess. Where in the ground is the CHRO? Well, they are all silent observers of the game, as should be, and only to discuss the course and path during strategic meets using detailed monologues.

Here some might argue that the HRBP is a part of the game, I can only seek examples from those who disagree. For the business is run by the Business Head, where the HRBP does not dare disagree with the Head, for his or her job exists at the pleasure of the Head. Plus, very little understanding of the business makes one practically humbled by perhaps every member of the team, unless you read what lies ahead.

The coach typically is older than the Captain, older than most of the other players. This work design ensures that respect and command are ensured by natural order. If the coach has been a former player, the respect is higher. The team listens and adheres to the strategic insights the coach delivers to the team about its own gaps, opposition gaps and natural gaps to be created to slip through and win the game. I am equally aware that at times, a senior will be protested by the Business Head, as the Captain always wants to think that their tactical intelligence won the game and not the Coach’s strategy, they must be allowed this hallucination, for it helps the greater purpose. This is also why a senior in an HRBP succeeds, as they seek stability of purpose unlike a young player, who might even be conspiring behind to topple the Captain and become a hero of sorts. What we though observe is a stark oddity in the composition of the JD of an HRBP, with business experienced profiles being ruled out with an utmost ’no’, while the core to succeed and engineer a strategic edge requires business thinking. Speaking of which I must add that the fancy of further having someone from the same industry is not only a grave mistake, it is a sure strategy to fail miserably. While we remind ourselves that ‘same’ and ‘similar’ are differences, let me explain this a bit through some plain explanation. A bit of deflection can sometimes be rewarding, both the concentration and learning, as it required by our TA practitioners.

Whenever a position goes vacant, it is a chance to fill it with someone better. Same but different. Who can be this someone better? Someone who has seen the problem from a different perspective or as a different team or with a completely different ownership of the issue. Just as all crimes or murders don’t happen the same way. Or freekicks. Or penalties, to remain within the subject. Every game will not have the same goalkeeper at the other end, hence one set of practice will not succeed every time. Every opposition is studying your moves and patterns to know the gaps your org has. Simple!

If faced with a similar issue, the org knowledge will anyway be useful to counter a problem emerging in the same pattern and consequence; the problem will be when the problem is a problem with no established knowledge to protect it. Like Visa and MasterCard thrown out of the game by UPI because they never hired a technologist in a Business role (or thought of hiring someone like me who can think a bit ahead!). This is why you must use diversity principles to hire by being truly diverse. And not just play gender balancing at the workplace in the name of DEI. Another eye-popping example is the computational method for de novo protein design called as the SEWING method, inspired by the humble sewing machine processes and now being applied to protein folding challenges in AI.

HIRE DIVERSE. Diverse meaning diversity of experience, age, location, values and skills.

What powers empower an HRBP? It is not that the coach must be toothless, or as the CHRO wants it to be! ( I can give you many examples, but in private) The Coach is empowered with the data of each player, including the ones benched, for in its bench must lie all sorts of capabilities to deploy if the plunder is severe, or push in sharper weapons if the opposition is super resolved. The coach determines who is the captain and what format the game is to be played in the strategic sense, based on data, current capabilities and strengths. The coach must hunt amongst the crowd for the next best talent to hire and pass on to the TA for onboarding, showcase to the CHRO ways to empower and organise the team, observe gaps and mistakes for training after the game without demotivating and PIPs, and finally craft policies along with the CHRO is loosening the strings for rewards and accolades deserved for broadbasing facilities to motivate the entire team. The CHRO is to negotiate with the management for all of it, highlighting what could be missed if left unattended. Show me an HRBP armed with such detailed data on each employee within the business. This is the first leak in the making of a true HRBP. While the most talented without fail without data, even the average can find solutions if they are aware of the causes and its spread to prevent further decay.

The gap in the make

The absence of a structured approach towards HR data is the first point of building reliability as far as People data is concerned. What I mean by this is breaking down and storing People data across the 4 key categories;

Demographic: All generic and geographic data about the employee as an individual.

Talent: All skill and learning data through qualification or practice about the individual.

Experience: Detailed experience data on tasks and functions practiced with time and variety.

Psychometric: Beliefs, fears and motivations to design fitment and resistances to culture.

Data classified across these four categories are important to the coach to decide the effectiveness of a player as a ‘piece de resistance’ for situations and fitments into role-critical responsibilities, be it across defences or aggressive forwards. Fitment to a role has been now ignored for a long-time, as the rush to hire by skill has been overtaken due to a burst of technology hiring, where the strategy only works at certain skill levels for volume hiring.

The process flow should be as such’ the TA must have a bagful of talent with HR Ops ensuring the data availability of all such profiles data-documented for all 4 categories, to ensure the HRBP is empowered to bring in swift and agile changes to the workplace at the prospect of a change or replacement required to further the captain’s purpose. The way to know the answer to this while empowering is to ask the Captain to rate their teams during performance season with a single, simple question; If you had only one team member, would X be the person? Ask the Captain to rate the team member on a Likert Scale and you have the answer to fitment, be it culturally or skill-wise. There is much to describe the operating parameters of the role, but perhaps leave it aside for a discussion perhaps.

All of this is otherwise a myth because it is tightly screwed under the lid of policy. Loosen the lid, my CHRO! Nothing is written in stone any more.