In CIPD’s 2015 operating model research, Barry Fry, a former global director of organisation development, argues that models may need to compromise on some areas to maximise the overall value of the function and serve the business needs at the time. “It is a myth that there is a perfect structure. Every structure entails a series of compromises, for example the loss of standardisation for the benefit of localisation, or vice versa.”
For the people function to add value and impact, the HR structure needs to align to the wider organisation and business strategy. Taking an organisation design (OD) approach enables an effective review of the function and helps determine how to optimise the model so that it is fit for purpose. It is inevitable that there will be different ways to deliver on this, and no one right way, but taking an OD approach will help to ensure the people function is more effectively set up to deliver value to its stakeholders. Let’s consider how some organisations are tackling this in practice.
Understanding the drivers for the restructure
Establishing the current picture through data, insights and expert consultation will help identify opportunities for optimisation and diagnose current gaps in the model. For example, a thorough analysis may highlight where the people strategy lacks alignment to the organisational strategy or where the current HR model fails to deliver against growth plans.
In the first article of this series, we outline three main reasons for redesigning HR structures: in response to an internal or external factor, to better align with the organisation’s strategy and purpose, or to increase efficiency.
People professionals at the large organisations we spoke to had their finger on the pulse when it came to horizon scanning for key trends impacting their workforce and business. These trends included:
- changing employee expectations
- competition for talent in their sectors
- economic and market-specific challenges
- opportunities for business growth and technological advancement.
A key part of this was gaining input from the leadership and executive teams to explore the strategic areas that are driving change and how the people function needed to shift in response to this. The CIPD’s PESTLE analysis template can offer a way of exploring the external influences on your business and what’s driving the need for transformation.
On the other hand, medium-sized organisations were more likely to focus on the internal drivers and undertook basic planning exercises to identify capability gaps. This included what roles were needed to enable a future-fit people function, and how teams should be organised and interact with the wider business. Sally Hopper, Director of Human Resources at Hertfordshire County Council, used the CIPD Profession Map to inform and define HR roles that were needed within their new HR structure.
Developing your vision for the people function
Once the drivers are understood, use this to develop your vision for the people function. Here are the strategic shifts that some people functions identified to crystallise their vision and drive perceived value and impact:
- Becoming more strategic as a function: This included developing new roles and responsibilities (see Peabody, Homebase, Firstsource case studies)
- Mirroring the wider business strategy: For example, Peabody had a clear aim to improve their L&D offering in line with their corporate responsibility values
- Rebranding the team: Peabody rebranded their HR team to the People & Culture team to signal to the business what the function is responsible for
- Responding to external influences: NatWest Group focused on improving the digital employee experience in response to changing demographics and fierce competition for talent
- Consistent HR delivery globally: Tesco wanted to deploy a model that was internationally applicable and served their group businesses.
Medium-sized organisations mostly made smaller tweaks or variations to their existing structure. This included the reorganisation of teams, introduction of new roles (or making changes to existing roles), and decisions around whether to in-source or outsource HR activity. However, the larger case study organisations undertook significant shifts in their operating models, resulting in high levels of disruption to current operations and innovations which required a change in the organisational culture, and behaviours and skills of the people function.
Some common key decisions that people functions made when designing their future HR structure included:
1. Deciding what activities to centralise (or decentralise)
The decision to be more or less centralised as a function should fit the wider business structure (Ulrich, 2023). In practice this is normally a hybrid model, where activities that can be standardised are centralised, while those that need to respond to local needs are decentralised (see Figure 1 for pros and cons). Organisation size, geographical spread or the need for localisation are some factors that influence this decision.
“It’s important to avoid overlaps and gaps in service delivery,” said Natalie Sheils, Founder and CEO of Talenaut and former Chief People Officer at Mosaic Group. That includes making sure there are no overlaps or gaps in roles, responsibilities and accountabilities within the structure. Sheils added: “Regular feedback loops between centralised and decentralised teams can drive continuous improvement and alignment with business needs.”
Figure 1: Pros and cons of centralised, decentralised and hybrid functions
Model |
Pros |
Cons |
Centralised HR maintains control and coordination of functions at a central location |
Better alignment with overall business objectives and standardise processes across the organisation.
Drive efficiency through reduced duplication and simplified processes
|
Lack of localisation. Not adapting to local market or business needs |
Decentralised teams embed decision-making and control at a local level, within business units or geographies |
Swiftly respond to local needs to provide tailored and flexible HR support.
Closer collaboration with local business or department leaders.
|
Can be inconsistent, duplicating efforts at organisation level. Less standardised approach to implementing HR processes and technology. |
A hybrid model balances centralised strategic functions with decentralised operational capabilities
|
A more balanced mix of global consistency and local adaptability |
Requires more management and collaboration between teams |