Posts

Posted on

Technology: Being ahead of the curve

My recent posts have been about best-practice vs. best-fit and especially their application within HR. Technology was one of the areas where I was clear that a best-practice approach suffices. I am not going to change my view on that. However, would like to argue that specifically in technology, one should look outside of what is happening in HR to what is happening in real-world technology. And that for the first time, HR could be ahead of the curve? – what do I mean by that?
When you think about HR technology, there are a few visible trends that all HR technology firms are going:

  • automation
  • going digital
  • analytics

I believe there is no doubt that this seems to be the future. And I have to say that I am not against that future. I just believe that we should be more differentiated around it. The current view (and I am happy to have a conversation around that) is that in these three topics, you see the future of HR technology. Probably right – question though is, if this is also the future of HR?
Ahead of the curve?
Before going further into that topic, let’s have a look outside of HR. Let’s have a look into consumer technology – in the end, all of above HR technology trends are based on consumer technology trends.
Automation: In HR technology, the trend is really towards more automation and integration. Get things done in the background and without human intervention as much as possible. We have seen similar trends in consumer technology a few years back. We went to all integrated systems and software – there was an App for everything on your iPhone or Galaxy. However, if you look into consumer tech now, you see that the trend is fading – actually reversing. People are going back to non-integrated technology in certain areas. If you think about photography for example, the hype in the recent years was to have it all on your phone and within apps. All integrated end-to-end. However, this is clearly changing with the current trend to separate cameras. Back to specialized products in hardware rather than all in software, back to distinct products and hardware specialization. Sometimes even to analog photography.
Going digital: Going digital seems to be the only idea, the only way to go down for all of HR – probably for all of a company if you see the trends and measures in technology. And again, consumer technology led the way to this path. Probably, there is no real way out of this – and probably there should not be a way out. However, a bit more differentiation should be applied. And again, consumer technology leads the way. What was the most significant product on this years globally biggest Consumer Electronics Show (CES)? – it was an analog audio device – actually a record player. A vinyl record player – and it was most favored around the younger generations.
Analytics: HR analytics, workforce analytics will bring us the insights to lead and manage the organization of the future. Predictive analytics are the solution of all of our issues – if you have a look into the HR technology trends and marketing, this is what you read. And again, this is based on consumer electronics. Many of the analytics products in the HR space are based on consumer editions like amazon or Netflix have developed and are using. The same algorithms used in these consumer based technology is driving HR technology. Now, interestingly, there are some consumer companies that believe to be ahead of the curve and are using something new: human curated playlists or recommendations. Apple is one of these – and the claim and believe is (which was so far not proven to be wrong) that there are specific topics, where the human analytics and understanding is superior to technology. And the success of this seems to prove them right.
Now, these are just a few examples that I currently see in play. You can argue any of these, but you cannot deny the fundamental shift in consumer behavior and technology. It is of course, not a shift back to the ancient time – but it is a balancing act from “all digital” to “digital where it is good, but analog where it is still superior”. I believe that this is the right move to do in consumer tech – and also I believe this is the right thing to do in HR tech. We are currently not on the road to the balance, but to all digital in HR tech. Let’s be for one time in HR ahead of the change curve and go now to the balance rather than needing to invest and roll back in a few years from now. Our workforce seems not only to be ready for the balance, but demands it (younger people buy vinyl, prefer curated playlists and buy themselves discrete products rather than all integrated tech). In my next blog I will play out what this exactly means for HR. But until then – any thoughts from the audience?

Posted on

HR Innovation: best practice vs. best fit for HR

As laid out in my earlier post, there is an academic conversation going on about what is the right thing to do best-practice or best-fit. I have argued that both have their places and their positives and negatives. But how to think about it in the HR function specifically?
There are functions that are prone for best-practices – and these are functions that are highly regulated or live in a very stable and not changing context across organisations and geographies. These functions can most of the time just adopt a best-practice and will be successful with it. However, it won’t provide them any strategic advantage as other companies are using it as well – and it seems to be imitable.
When you think about the HR function though, there are two key differences to what I have stated above:

  • The HR function does not have a stable environment. On one hand regulations, labor laws and unions require different practices in different geographies. But in addition, not one workforce is like the other. You have big differences in the workforce mix like demographics, geographies, blue vs. white collar, research vs. production orientation, etc.
  • If you take HR seriously and if you take the resource-based view of the firm seriously (and there is no believe that we should not), HR and its practices are the key drivers and influencers of the workforce and all its attributes – and this is the key differentiator, the key competitive advantage. So why would you even think about adopting best practices and make your workforce more similar to the one of a different company? You would loose your competitive advantage. – of course you can argue that a poorly performing workforce does not have a competitive advantage and copying a competition’s practices will bring you into the same spot like them – but what do you really win by that? You are still always a step behind and won’t perform in close range.

This statement clearly makes the case for best-fit. However, best-fit is expensive and also makes mistakes as you are constantly trying something new – and you can’t always win. So does HR need to be that expensive? And does that really add value? – it does not. You have to go one level deeper and have to differentiate. The fact is that your workforce is the competitive advantage – not your HR organization as a whole. But your HR organization is the key driver of that competitive advantage – so how does that work together?
When we dissect HR in its parts, then it is a combination of people, organization, technology, process, and policy. Let’s leave the people out at this point and focus on the other four. Where does the core competitive driver sit and how does it drive the competitive advantage?
Policy is at the heart and centre of the HR practice – the policy says what is done and how its done. It truly defines the HR work and the core of it – and therefore is the core driver of the competitive advantage. You should stay away from best-practices in all people influencing areas (administration vs. talent). Use proven policies in the areas of payroll or workforce administration. You do not drive workforce effectiveness through these but just efficiency. However, if efficiency is your key advantage, don’t copy here.
Process is to be seen very similar like policy. However, the influence on the competitive advantage is much lower. Still, how you operate key talent processes like talent acquisition, performance management, succession planning or learning drives your competitive advantage. And if you focus on efficiency mainly, don’t underestimate the administrative processes of payroll and workforce administration. But usually these don’t bring much return.
Organisation brings policies, processes and people together. Organisation is basically the key example where a 50:50 cooperation between best-practices and best-fit are the best. There are proven organisational concepts out there that work in general for most companies as they are sufficiently holistic. However, the detailed application to your firm, the detailed design and implementation needs to follow your very own company context.
Technology – last but not least. Technology is the oiling machinery that brings it all into execution. If you are not a high-tech company that needs to be differentiated in that field to show your abilities, there is no reason for being different, for not going with best practices. Differentiation through technology is very expensive, can easily go into a dead-end and does rarely pay off. The influence of technology (as long as we talk about current technology) to the workforce is minimal. It is a pure enabler and needs to enable the policies and processes.
This is now my guide to best-practice vs. best-fit. As you can see, it should be differentiated and both best-practice and best-fit have its place and reason for being in HR. Let me know your thoughts on twitter, Linkedin or Facebook.

Posted on

HR innovation: Best-practice vs. best-fit

I have written a few posts about HR Innovation – and what is not innovation. One topic that automatically comes up when talking about innovation is best-practices. Do we need to reinvent the wheel? Can’t we just take what works in a different company? – It has proven success, we can ask the same consultants that did it for company A to do it for us? Like this we won’t fail and we won’t need to experiment. And it is also much cheaper to get it like this.
Who hasn’t heard this? And what did you say then? – how can you disprove that a working, functioning practice (in a different company) does not work for you? – it is hard.
However, in academia for a long time, there is a controversy around best-practices. You have supporters of it as well as empirical evidence that this works. But you also have opponents to best-practices. And they also have statistical, empirical evidence. It is the old game of “you can never validate a theory, just not falsify it”. The opponents prefer a different model which is called best-fit. Before discussing further – what is the difference?
Best-practice
Best-practice means that a common, proven practice from a different company or a different organization can be copied and implemented in your own organization or company and it will work and produce similar positive results like in the other company or organization you are copying it from.
Best-fit
The best-fit model on the other hand says that not any model that works in a different company or organization will work in your own. But that it is more effective to implement practices that are linked to the contextual environment (and that can be various variables) of your company or organization.
In academia these models are on opposing sides and both claim to be the right ones. However, academia and business are not the same. So what does that mean now for HR innovation and for utilising one or the other? Well, the truth is like every so often in the middle – or at least somewhere there. There are common best-practices that can really be utilised across a wide range of companies or organisations and there are best practices that won’t work. The reasons for this sit within the specific best-practice: High-level best-practices like recognising that employee performance is directly influenced by the degree of involvement and ability are true almost anywhere. However, a working Performance Management System (consisting of process, technology, policy, application) will for sure work in one company as a best-practice, but copying it will fail for the majority of companies/ organisations. The level of the best-practice is important. Best-fit on the other hand will always work – as it is best-fit.
So why not then always use best-fit? – also an easy answer: It is expensive as you are constantly re-inventing the wheel and it is not always bringing the same fruits (meaning success) than the best-practice in the other company.
The question then is when to and when not to use best-practice and when to and when not to use best-fit. And the answer might be very different from function to function, but I will provide my professional and research based view for the HR function in my next post.
 

Posted on

Poll: What are the key HR Shared Services contact methods

Today, I am posting a different update than usual, am trying something new. I would like to hear you today first! This is an invitation for all of you and I hope you tell me your view. On what? – read on…
The story of HR Shared Services is a long one by now and we all made many different experiences and tried many different things. I believe that today we are in a pretty settled market (at least when we talk multi-national companies). And so I would like to ask for your feedback to a short poll (just two questions, promise) regarding today’s and tomorrow’s key contact methods for employees to get in touch with HR. You can find the poll here (SurveyMonkey-Poll). I am planning to leave it open for a while and provide all feedback in one of my next blogs – would be very happy if some of you provide me with their view.
Thanks, I am curious what to read and find out!

Posted on

How to and how not to innovate in HR

In my recent post I have made the case for innovation in HR. I believe that there is not much to argue about – other than of course discussing and aligning the conflicting investment wishes of all the different functions within a company. Therefore, the case alone is insufficient. Also the how and how not to is important to get the funds needed to finance any innovation. It needs to be clear what the ROI is.
Many organisations and especially HR functions have become much better in ROI and business case calculations – however, they are most of the time only seeing half of the game. Most HR business cases focus on the HR function only or are FTE and cost focused: How much costs can we save? How many FTEs can we ramp down? – As I have laid out earlier in one of my posts, the real business case and the real ROI of HR is not in that case. It is the wider workforce and organization effectiveness case. HR and HR’s costs are only a very small percentage of the costs and size of the whole organization – there is mostly not much to gain from anymore after years and years of downsizing and efficiency measures. The real case, the real size of the prize can be gained in HR’s original playing field: the wider workforce. This is what HR needs to claim, to influence and to calculate!  And this is in turn where the innovation needs to go. All innovation needs to have workforce effectiveness or efficiency in mind. Nothing else.
But stop here – how can this be measured, how can HR focus on that? – well, in order to be in such a position, a few house cleaning activities have to be executed. Of course all back-office processes have to run smooth and efficient. No one will listen to HR if they have their own house not in order. So the minimum entry fee is having payroll and personnel data administration in order. But that by itself is not yet sufficient – the infrastructure to innovate needs to be ready, too. A state-of-the-art HR technology (and on purpose I write HR tech as this is so much more than just your latest workday or success factors) which enables self-services, analytics, shared services, etc. is the necessary backbone needed. HR needs to be enabled before it can innovate – and is able to measure on innovation.
One of the issues I see though in today’s HR is the focus and dependence of HR on technology. In my previous post I have discussed the lack of innovation in both HR research and practice – probably some of the readers have thought “wait, what about all that new tech?” – and I will answer “Yes, there is a lot of innovation going on in HR tech”. But, the question is what is this about and what does it enable? And does it really have a positive ROI? The focus today more than ever is on HR tech for innovation – but I am not sure if this can be called innovation. If you have a look at a sample definition of innovation (check here or here), innovation is not only about “something new” or “technology”, but it is about “combining new ideas, processes or technology to create new value”. And this is what we have to do, where the focus should be. What is it, that new technology can be used for? Where is the workforce impact of new technology – the positive one of course!
Technology is not innovation or a case by itself – it should always be not more than an enabler. So implementing new technology is not what I call innovation. The combination of technology, process and new ideas is what brings innovation, what brings (monetary) value.

Posted on

Innovative HR

Innovation is in today’s economy the only possible way of constant and lasting success. This is true for any company, any business as it is true for any business function – also for HR. When talking about HR and innovation, there are mostly two lenses that are taken. Either it is discussed HR’s role in business innovation or HR innovations to drive business performance. Both is important without any doubt. Today, I want to focus on HR innovations.
HR as a function is long grown and today is comprised of a multitude of responsibilities and tasks. This has led to a very diverse function and overworked HR colleagues, not leaving much time or thinking space for innovation. In addition, legal or regulatory requirements and needs are holding HR innovation down. The level of regulatory requirements and the diversity of them (every country has its own set) is the highest for HR – much higher than for example in Finance – but to that aspect more in my next post.
Innovation for HR is a need, a requirement – not a nice to have. HR practices do make a big difference in core business metrics and aspects. Just looking at employee engagement or organisational commitment (both very strong drivers of employee performance and organisational effectiveness) puts innovative HR concepts and practices in the spotlight (see here). Still, you don’t see it very often. True innovation in HR is rare. HR is a conservative function in the companies that I have seen – and this also means that new things are first of all doubted before adopted once everyone has adopted them. Just thinking about the Ulrich Model and its adoption rate: Ulrich has published his first ideas about how HR needs to change in the mid 1990ies. Today we are almost in 2016 and still there are companies out there that have not yet transformed itself from a more traditional model.
But not only HR as a function is conservative – HR’s customers, at least the ones in the higher management, are still not understanding how an agile and modern HR organisation can transform their whole business and how organisational effectiveness drives business performance. Therefore, this main stakeholder group is not really interested in HR innovation – they are rather interested in HR cost cutting. Even when searching the web of science, not many (and especially new) articles on HR innovation can be found. It is an underdeveloped topic.
Making the case for HR innovation
Making the case for innovation in HR is not very difficult. Apart from core traditionalists, it is clearly understood which role HR should play in today’s business. Apart from payroll and personnel data administration (which are important, yes – and also, where you can innovate but it does not bring you much in ROI) there is a wide field of possible innovation areas: Performance Management, Succession Planning, Learning,  Compensation, Organisation Management, Change Management, etc. the value adding processes of HR. All of these value adding processes have a correlational relationship to employee satisfaction and/ or organization effectiveness. And these in turn to business success – first of all top-line. Just having a look at the resource-based view of the firm (link), which is still the basis of most of today’s strategies – especially in HR – shows the link to performance and lasting competitive advantage. So if you want top-line growth, invest in HR innovation – in innovation of the value adding processes of HR. How to do that and how not to do that will be the topic of my next post.

Posted on

The end of Engagement surveys?

Not a long time ago, Employee Engagement Surveys were a new thing and each and every company explored it. Today, I don’t know many companies that not at least every 2-3 years run an engagement survey through their organization. And some of these organizations are actually doing something with the results – although still not all.
Some companies use the results to understand the pulse of the company, to understand what employees feel and think – and subsequently are starting initiatives to improve things. Other companies use the results also for performance management and leadership development. Both ideas and actions are not wrong, but I suggest that they are outdated – no longer valid in the way they work currently. Why?
We live in a constantly faster spinning economy, but not only the economy is spinning faster – also employees are. The young generations that just have or about to enter the workforce require a different speed, faster action taking and overall handling to keep and motivate them. Engagement surveys of the past were excellent to measure engagement, motivation, retention, satisfaction, etc. at a specific point in time. In other words, they were an excellent reactive tool. But what they are lacking is pro-activeness and ongoing information and pulse measurement. I believe that because of the changing workforce and economy such pro-activeness and such real-time understanding of workforce needs, feelings, satisfaction and ideas is key to stay successful.
Engagement surveys as we know them today are not capable of delivering against these requirements. They are too slow, too big, too heavy, to expensive…But, there is a solution. A change in tool, scope, approach is necessary as this solution is not delivering on a 100% employee scope – but it delivers on real-time assessments and feedback, ready to be immediately actioned into results. The new class of online feedback apps. Check out CultureAmp or tinypulse or cultureIQ…and many more
I believe that this is the engagement app of the future and the days of the heavy, expensive, reactive Employee Engagement Surveys are counted. Of course, these new tools need to be run different and you can no longer set up projects that deliver on engagement surveys every 2 years. Standing engagement teams are necessary, but these should be an important part of a company’s HR function anyway.
The real-time feedback that these new feedback apps enable supports HR work in many ways:
  • a real-time understanding of engagement helps you understand the health of your workforce – every day
  • feedback requests can be focused in areas where attrition is high to better understand the underlying reasons and act on them – before everyone leaves
  • real-time engagement scores can be used in manager performance and coaching sessions and are more reliable and accurate than the 2-year engagement survey cycle new HR processes, tools, organization structures, etc. can be piloted and assessed fast and without adding any complexity
  • training success on leadership can be measured focused and in a proper time-frame from the training course or coaching session a leader had
  • And many more
The Engagement Survey is dead – long live the engagement app.
Posted on

Ask what HR can do for you!

Don’t get me wrong – I am bought into Ulrich and his idea on Strategic HR. Who is not these days? – It is for the last 20 years the dominant HR organizational model. And it was a big success – but it also brought some headache to HR and its customers (Senior Management, Line Managers and Employees). This headache has multiple reasons, but one I would like to spend some time on now.
Ulrich and his idea of HR is grounded in the SHRM research – maybe not explicitly, but at least implicitly. And this research direction mainly claims that HR strategy and business strategy have to be in line to be successful (in short). Nothing wrong with that – however, it got translated into reality in a way that is at least questionable: HR has to be strategic, all of HR admin work goes to Shared Services including the direct customer (employee) contact, the operational HR on-site support for managers is removed. The result was in many cases a cheaper HR than before – but also a more effective? I doubt that! In fact, one who has been forgotten in this whole space of strategic HR was the customer – and with him, effectiveness: Senior Leadership got a strategic HR Business Partner – have they asked for it? …and lost operational support – have they approved this? Line Managers have lost most of on-site HR support and were moved into utilization of self-services – did they want this? And last but not least, all employees have lost f2f, individual contact to an HR representative, replaced by self-services and an 0800 number – are they happy with that?
For many cases I have seen myself or discussed with my consulting colleagues, the above asked questions can be answered with “no”. Very often, the customer of HR was left out in planning an HR transformation and in designing the future support and interaction between customers and HR. If these transformations were good, they at least had proper Change Management to support Senior Leadership, Line Managers and Employees on their journey. But I have only very rarely seen a proper upfront customer engagement and inclusion of customers.
HR is a support function, HR is a service function – and what we learn in services theory (for example from sales & marketing) is that you are most successful if you put your customer at the heart and center of your services strategy. Not new news – but why is HR not doing it then? Because it is very difficult in action. Integrating customers in upfront discussion of the why and how of an HR transformation is difficult as not many want to be involved, see the need or even understand what is going on. And the remaining ones that see an opportunity in being involved, often have views and wishes that are contrary to what HR wants to achieve with a transformation, making it difficult to respect these wishes. I am not arguing that however, believe that it is a necessity to deeper involve customers in the transformation of HR. How to?
Well, if you ask your customers how they would like their HR support to be or what they want to change, you probably won’t get very far with the answers. In fact, most will tell you that f2f support is the only way of interaction, that they do not need any strategic support, but HR to manage their people, etc. – who of you has not listened to such a story? What needs to be done is a full involvement of key individuals from all customer groups (however you slice and dice it inside your organization). These individuals need to understand the picture that HR wants to paint in terms of roles & responsibilities, technology support, and very important, understanding the concept of a modern leader (Line Manager), as well as what HR believes where they can add more value than today. Once you have achieved a proper understanding of that you can start the governance and structure based need discussions with your customers – and they should follow your ultimate thought of reasoning, but still have in mind what they need each day, week, month, year from HR to successfully enable their business and career. And this information is key in order to tailor your HR function towards what is needed and not towards what other companies did or some consultants tell you. No one except the business and employee representatives (and by that I do not mean the works council) know what they really need and HR needs to support this in the best possible fashion. Of course, this is a difficult and sometimes painful process to follow – but in my view it is the only way to be successful.
To support this customer focus and enable HR functions to respect it very early in their process, NEW HR is built on customer centricity first. Read my white paper on NEW HR to find out how.

Posted on

The 5 generational workforce – the next big challenge for HR

A few years back we talked about the Generation Y and how it affects companies and their the workforces back then a big hype was created around a 4 generational workforce and that Generation Y is the first truly global generation with similar expectations, behaviours and skills. Actual studies of the Generation Y (once in they were in the workforce) have found out that this what not 100% true or right. They were not the same around the world. There was still a big difference between Generation Y in the US and Europe for example or between Europe and Asia for example. But one thing was true: They were very different from the generations before with very demanding habits and very different needs and expectations. This was something HR functions had to deal with in many ways: preparing the leaders of the company for this new generation, preparing policies, compensation packages, but most importantly, becoming better in communicating the reasoning of the company. Why does the company exist, why is the product or service good, what is it good for – and what does the company give back to society? Tough times for HR and leaders – and tougher times are coming!
The reasons for this big difference between the generations before and Generation Y are manifold and can be found in education, society, politics, etc. – and for a big part in technology. Generation Y was growing up with technology, with the internet. They were the first ones to be connected – and to expect this in professional life. Times are changing and a new generation is on the horizon: Generation Z – today’s teens will make up 36 percent of the global workforce in 2020. And this generation did not only grow up with technology as part of their lives – this generation spent their entire life “living” technology and social media. And they cannot imagine life without using technology and social media for everything everyday. This again raises the bar for HR functions and their workplace policies. But more importantly, it raises the bar for leadership and organization design.
We are at the beginning of the age of the 5 generational workforce: Generation Z, Generation Y or Millenials, Generation X, Baby Boomers and Traditionalists. And the differences between these generations can’t be any bigger. And this will also surface in the workforce and daily company life. An organization has to find answers to these differences: How do you lead and develop these different generations? How do you build multi-generational teams? How do you build effect organizations that are based on the strength of all of these generations? How do you ensure that every generation understands the others and also respect the other generations? How do you enable Line Managers to lead multi-generational teams? How do you upgrade ways of working to the age of Generation Z and still ensure that Traditionalists (most probably there won’t be too many of them anymore in the organization) and Baby Boomers can follow and be successful and productive in this new way of working? and more…
These are all questions that each and everyone responsible for people and for an organization should ask themselves – every day. And of you look at the questions in more detail, it should be HR to help answer these questions, to enable Line Managers. This is the new challenge for HR, starting yesterday. Is your HR ready for this? Many HR Organizations I have seen are not. To get ready for this as well as start answering the questions, start thinking about NEW HR and what really matters for HR from a task, responsibility and capability perspective. To learn more about NEW HR, check out this white paper.

Posted on

The Capability Gap

Last weekend, I attended the yearly post-doc seminar of my Ph.D.-advisor. Many of his old students attended as well and we had some very lively and interesting conversations and discussions at the intersection of people, society, and HR. We talked about Intercultural Trust (Link), Organization Effectiveness, the Future of Work, as well as how to enable innovation within companies. Very interesting topics – and all have one thing (at least for me) in common: They all need the HR function as enabler, supporter, promoter and guide. I have said it already in one of my earlier posts – I believe (and am strongly encouraged by the academic discourse) that for a company to be successful in the next decade, it needs a strong, self-confident, enabled HR department which understands the business, business- as well as mega-trends, talent and talent needs, organization and organization needs. An HR function that has talent & organization performance at the heart and center.
After our academic meeting, I met an old friend of mine who is in the HR business for more than 30 years now, being an HR Interim Manager for almost 15 years. So he sees and acts in many different organization’s HR functions. And this mainly as an interim manager rather than a consultant. He really sees both, organizations and HR functions from the inside and lives within this world for a dedicated period of time as an (HR) Line Manager. I have very engaged and lively updated him on the conversations I had earlier that weekend and for a minute or so, we were both very happy to (a) have such a fantastic future ahead of HR and (b) be part of that. But very soon, we got to one important question: Is HR, are the HR functions that we have seen, worked in, consulted ready for this future? And this is something we then got concerned about.
The first question was about the organizational structure and governance of today’s HR functions. These are mainly following the Ulrich Model. But, very often in Germany, this needs to be looked at closer. We both agreed that in many of the organizations we have seen, the “Personalreferenten-Modell” just got a minor update in centralizing the administrative services, CoEs got somehow created and the current “Referenten” (Generalists in essence) were renamed to HR Business Partners and told to be strategic now. This is not what Ulrich had in mind and of course not, what his model is about. But we both believe, and there is sufficient empirical evidence that a more traditional HR model is not ready for the realities to come. But even if a state-of-the-art Ulrich model got introduced, this does not necessarily mean that the HR function is ready to tackle the challenges and opportunities to come. First and foremost, the Ulrich model itself is already around 20 years old (with minor updates/ additions over the years) – and having it operate across the globe in many different companies, has surfaced some shortcomings. In addition, there are some systemic issues within the model (see here) that make it a bit hard to work. And last, but not least, the realities have changed and will change even more and faster since Ulrich has shaped his model of HR.  A look to NEW HR (in press) is something I recommend.
But besides this organizational and structural capability gap, there is an HR professionals capability gap. A recent empirical study on the capabilities of german HR professionals has surfaced that only a minority got the right training, got a chance to acquire the necessary skills and competencies necessary to operate within a modern HR environment (see here). HR professionals in Germany (for example) were mostly still socialized and trained in a more traditional HR model with a more traditional approach and understanding of what HR is about. Capabilities necessary for the Ulrich model are often too little or absent. This is even more dramatic than the structural shortcomings. Organizational shortcomings can be compensated by highly motivated and capable professionals – professionals that lack certain key skills and competencies can not be compensated by a superior organization. However, this is nothing to blame HR professionals – even if they wanted to or even if HR leadership identified this capability gap, today, there are only very little possibilities (except a specialized, in-house program with professional instructors or going abroad) to acquire these competencies anyway.
In any case, both are highly important homework to be done as soon as possible. The mega-trends, business trends, future of work, changes in society and workforce are not waiting. They are already here or approaching fast. I encourage all HR professionals to perform a readiness check of their HR structure, governance and capabilities to see if they are ready for tomorrow. – and if you identify gaps, act now.