This is not a failure of effort but a failure of understanding what collaboration actually demands, and how it’s built. In this article, we explore how organizations can build a collaborative culture and how HR can use play to foster sustainable collaboration.

Contents
What is a collaborative culture?
Coordination vs. cooperation vs. collaboration
Why collaboration is important for organizational culture
The barriers to creating a collaborative culture
Using “play” as an approach to develop a collaborative culture
How HR can use play-based interventions to build collaboration

What is a collaborative culture?

A collaborative culture is one where people work across roles, teams, and functions to create outcomes they could not achieve alone. At its core, it’s about interdependence. Collaboration is not an individual capability that you can just train your employees in. The organization builds it through its norms, incentives, leadership behaviors, and everyday ways of working.

A collaborative culture is more visible in how work actually gets done than in what organizations say. You see it in decision-making practices, rarely in isolation and often through shared input and constructive challenge.

Information flows across boundaries without excessive friction, and teams do not wait for perfect clarity before engaging others. They share ownership where needed and measure success not just by individual contribution, but by the quality of the outcome created together.

Collaboration becomes most visible under pressure. When timelines tighten or ambiguity increases, people lean into each other rather than retreat into their own domains. They surface disagreement early and handle it productively, and roles remain clear but not rigid.

People also step in where needed without overstepping. In these environments, collaboration becomes second nature and the default way of working. The organization reinforces it through its design, performance evaluation, and how leaders show up every day.

Coordination vs. cooperation vs. collaboration

Organizations may mistake collaboration for coordination and cooperation, but they’re not the same, and they don’t aim to achieve the same outcome. Put simply:

• Coordination: Staying out of each other’s way to drive efficiency.
• Cooperation: Helping each other when interests align.
• Collaboration: Co-creating outcomes through shared ownership and dependence.

As organizations move from coordination to collaboration, the way of working changes. People are asked to give up autonomy, share control, and rely on others under conditions of ambiguity and pressure.

Let’s take a look at a practical example of launching a new performance management approach. Peter, an HR Business Partner (HRBP), needs to roll out a new performance management approach to the business. To succeed, he needs input from Talent, L&D, HR Operations, and business leaders.

• Coordination: Peter defines the plan and assigns responsibilities, so Talent designs the framework, L&D builds the training, HR Operations updates the system, and business leaders are briefed. Each function plays its part, and Peter brings everything together for the rollout.
  → Work is aligned but largely siloed, and success depends on timelines and handoffs.

• Cooperation: Peter involves stakeholders for input along the way. Talent shares drafts for feedback, L&D adapts training based on business input, and HR Operations adjusts processes where needed.
  → There is active support and information sharing, but ownership remains within functions. The solution improves, but integration remains partial.

• Collaboration: Peter brings all stakeholders together from the outset. Together, they define what “good performance” means, co-create the approach, and iterate in real time. This helps them balance business needs, system constraints, and development goals.
  → The solution is co-created. Success depends on interdependence, shared ownership, and continuous adjustment.

Here’s an overview of coordination vs cooperation vs collaboration side by side:

Why collaboration is important for organizational culture

There are numerous benefits to greater collaboration within organizations. Many studies show a meaningful impact on individual and team performance, and higher levels of trust and organizational resilience. Embedding collaboration into culture helps organizations:

• Make faster decisions: Teams can bring the right expertise into the conversation earlier, reducing delays and rework.
• Integrate expertise more effectively: Business functions do not solve problems in isolation. They combine knowledge to create better solutions.
• Respond to complexity with more agility: When priorities shift, collaborative teams can adapt together instead of waiting for perfect clarity.
• Improve execution speed: Shared ownership helps teams move from planning to action more quickly.
• Improve the quality of outcomes: Collaboration turns interdependence from a source of friction into a driver of performance.

The barriers to creating a collaborative culture

When collaboration initiatives don’t stick, the instinct is to double down, more workshops, clearer frameworks, stronger messaging. But the issue is rarely about effort; mostly, it relates to structural failures that inhibit collaboration. There are three common barriers to collaboration that organizations experience:

• Barrier 1: “Teaching” people how to collaborate in a cognitive way. Organizations often assume people will collaborate better if they understand the right frameworks, tools, and models. But collaboration is shaped through daily practice. People build it by sharing ownership, making decisions together, handling tension, and relying on each other in real work.
• Barrier 2: Assuming people know that collaboration is good for everyone. Collaboration requires people to give something up: control, speed, recognition. Without a strong sense of shared intent, participation remains performative. Research published in Harvard Business Review has shown that collaboration, when unmanaged, becomes a burden rather than a benefit, with high performers experiencing it as a drain on time and autonomy. If the cost of collaboration is not made explicit and worthwhile, people will default to protecting their own outcomes.
• Barrier 3: Believing that collaboration develops naturally. Collaboration is a capability that develops through experience, yet organizations expect it to emerge in high-stakes environments without ever being practiced in low-risk ones. Very few opportunities exist for individuals to learn how to collaborate in low-stakes or simulated environments.

These three barriers are not insurmountable. Yet many traditional HR interventions struggle to address them effectively. Adopting team-based play as an approach offers a different path, enabling more collaborative teams and cultures by focusing on how collaboration is actually experienced, not just how it is described.

Using “play” as an approach to develop a collaborative culture

In an organizational setting, play is defined as a structured, goal-oriented activity that places employees in simulated, high-stakes situations where they must act interdependently. Far from being recreational, this intentional approach mirrors the cognitive and social pressures of real work, while removing the associated material risks. In practice, HR can use this approach in areas such as:

• Leadership development: Simulate situations where leaders must share control, make decisions with incomplete information, and manage disagreement.
• Team effectiveness and reset interventions: Help teams surface decision-making habits, trust issues, and unspoken working norms.
• Cross-functional collaboration: Create scenarios where teams combine expertise, negotiate trade-offs, and solve a shared business problem.
• Culture transformation initiatives: Let employees practice behaviors such as openness, shared ownership, and constructive challenge.
• Onboarding and integration: Help new employees experience how collaboration works in practice.

When a team of people who work together play together, it never ceases to amaze me. People cannot help but show up as themselves. In playing together, you’re essentially creating a controlled experiment to simulate how people work together. You remove the need for subject matter expertise, the usual power dynamics, and the narrow actions people can take.

Alex Suchman, CEO, Barometer XP

How play helps people practice collaboration

When done well, team-based play puts people in scenarios where they must navigate ambiguity and pressure together, without the career-limiting consequences that can exist in the daily work environment.

This is a significant shift from conventional collaboration interventions. Traditional workshops and frameworks aim to foster collaboration by using principles and reflection to define what effective collaboration looks like. However, they often stay conceptual. Participants may discuss collaboration, but they are not always put in situations where they need to rely on one another to succeed.

The concept of play should not be confused with icebreakers or superficial gamification. While these might boost engagement, they fail to recreate the structural conditions that either enable or impede collaboration. Such activities simulate participation but do not create true interdependence.

Play does just that. It directly dismantles the barriers to collaborative success by:

• Translating collaboration from an abstract idea into observable, daily behavior
• Making the inherent costs and trade-offs of collaboration visible and tangible
• Providing a low-risk environment for individuals to practice under realistic, high-pressure conditions.

In this way, play reflects the evolution of leadership development. Behavior change comes through experience, not instruction alone. People only internalize new ways of working when they are placed in situations where they need those behaviors to achieve the outcome.

The value of play lies in whether it transfers back to real work. To make that happen, HR must connect the activity to everyday work, use reflection to analyze what happened, and define the shifts needed to embed those insights into the culture.

“I also make it very, very clear upfront that we’re not playing for fun. In a work setting, fun is never the purpose. The purpose is always to get better in some way. We have several different tools and assessments to look at how people on a team experience their culture, what they see as strengths, and what they see as challenges. Then, you essentially have, in their own words, the purpose for why we’re doing this. You can say, ‘Hey, I recognize that you feel a really strong sense of solidarity and team identity, but there are also misunderstandings, communication challenges, and a lack of clarity about who does what and when things are supposed to happen. So, we’re going to work on that.’

Alex Suchman, CEO, Barometer XP

How HR can use play-based interventions to build collaboration

For HR, the key question is how to use play with intent. A meaningful HR intervention requires clear design, defined outcomes, and a direct connection to daily work. Here’s a six-step approach illustrated on a company example to put play into action at your organization:

1. Start with the friction, not the format

Resist the temptation to begin with the activity. Start with the breakdown:

• Where does collaboration actually fail?
• Between which roles, teams, or decision points?
• What tension are people navigating in their day-to-day work?

The closer the intervention mirrors real organizational friction, the more relevant and transferable the insight.

2. Design for interdependence

If participants can succeed independently, the intervention is teaching coordination and not collaboration. Design the experience so that no individual has everything they need to succeed. Distribute information unevenly. Assign roles that depend on each other. Ensure that progress requires combining perspectives.

3. Introduce productive constraints

Constraints are what make behavior visible. Time pressure, incomplete data, and role limitations force participants out of their default, “polite” behaviors and into real decision-making patterns.

4. Make interaction non-negotiable

Collaboration only emerges when interaction is structurally required. The outcome of the team-based play must depend on the quality of the interaction, not on individual performance.

5. Capture behavior through structured reflection

Insight emerges from reflection, not just from experience. It is important to ensure participants engage in a sense-making process to understand the behaviors they have just learned and how they relate to the work environment.

6. Bridge explicitly to the workplace

After the sense-making phase, play participants need to understand how to transfer these learnings to the workplace. For some, it could imply redesigning certain ways of working; for others, it could mean more explicit connection points and a shared understanding of the behaviors required to drive this success.

Final words

Team-based play is not the intervention itself. It is the mechanism through which HR can surface reality, create shared understanding, and enable more deliberate change.

Most organizations will continue to promote collaboration. Few will build the conditions where it can be sustainably embedded in their culture. 

The post Building a Collaborative Culture: Why & How HR Can Use Team-Based Play appeared first on AIHR.

These metrics were easy to collect, report, and scale. In a world where learning content was scarce and expensive to produce, they made sense, but today we know that those metrics are not enough to show value.

But that world has changed.

Artificial intelligence has dramatically reduced the time and effort required to create learning content. What once took weeks can now be done in minutes. Courses, simulations, guides, and microlearning modules can be produced faster than organizations can consume them. When content becomes abundant, activity ceases to be a meaningful signal of progress.

And yet, most learning programs still rely on training measurement that does not show whether learning leads to meaningful behavior change or business value. According to CIPD research, 30% of business leaders reviewing HR and L&D metrics cite that the figures don’t give them the full picture, and 22% say it’s not clear how the data connects to organizational priorities.

In this article, we explore the learning value measurement model adopted at AIHR. The model evaluates learning value from multiple stakeholder perspectives and builds on traditional frameworks, such as Bloom’s Taxonomy, Kirkpatrick, and the Phillips ROI model, to measure learning value in self-paced online learning environments.

Contents
Why traditional training measurement falls short 
A 5-layer training measurement model for measuring learning value
Why AIHR  focuses on learning value rather than learning impact

Why traditional training measurement falls short 

Most L&D teams are highly effective at training measurement when it comes to learning activity and consumption. Someone watches a video. Someone completes a module. Someone rates the course four stars. Over time, we have built sophisticated systems to capture all of this, and many dashboards are filled with these metrics.

But consumption is not proof of value.

Traditional learning metrics such as completions, clicks, and satisfaction scores can show participation, but they say little about actual capability building.

At AIHR, we define learning value as the extent to which learning builds capability, leads to meaningful behavior change, supports the original purpose of the learning intervention, and aligns with business outcomes. This is why training effectiveness should be evaluated through a broader lens than course completion or content engagement alone.

The real question is then not whether someone clicked through a module, but whether they do their job differently because of it.

A helpful way to think about modern training measurement is through three levels:

1. Activity reflects what people consume. 
2. Learning reflects what they understand. 
3. Value reflects what they actually do differently, and the impact those changes create in the business.

This distinction is not new. Bloom’s taxonomy already separated knowledge acquisition from higher-order outcomes such as application and synthesis. The Kirkpatrick model, with its four levels of reaction, learning, behavior, and results, has shaped L&D evaluation for more than 60 years, while the Phillips ROI model extended this logic by linking learning outcomes to financial impact.

These models laid the foundation for many of today’s learning and development KPIs, even if they do not fully reflect the realities of modern digital learning.

Many of the models, I think, are limiting because they overcomplicate what it is that we really need to do to show that what we’re investing in is really working. Simplicity can really make a difference for folks who are struggling with measurement. So what metrics should we be looking at? It’s not really about the metrics because I think that might put us in a box of trying to standardize. Not surprisingly, I am not a proponent of standardization across organizations. I do think you can create some standard procedures within an organization, and as long as everybody is bought in and understands why these systems and procedures matter, and they follow them, then it will work.

Dr Alaina Szlachta

I do believe it’s important to be able to benchmark or baseline, or to compare apples to apples. And so the way that we would do that is you could create something like an alignment score. How well is our program aligning with what matters to the business? And then you can have an alignment score for every single initiative that your team is accountable for, which allows you to compare apples to apples. In our alignment score, we would see that this particular program is clearly aligned with solving a business problem or achieving a business goal, whereas in this other initiative, the clarity is simply not there.

Dr Alaina Szlachta

A 5-layer training measurement model for measuring learning value

AIHR’s training measurement model builds on the foundations of the established training effectiveness models but updates them for the realities of modern digital learning and more effective training measurement. It introduces application readiness as a leading indicator, separates platform experience from learning outcomes, and grounds each layer in contemporary behavioral science, while explicitly recognizing the different stakeholders involved in creating and measuring learning value.

Equally important is starting with the business problem that the learning is intended to address. Learning should never exist as an isolated activity or as content looking for an audience. It should be designed to address a specific capability gap that prevents the organization from executing its strategy or improving performance.

This starting point shapes how learning value is defined and measured. When the underlying business challenge is clear, it becomes easier to determine which capabilities need to change, what behaviors should look different, and how success can be observed in the workplace. Measurement then moves beyond participation metrics to assess whether the learning intervention actually helped address the original problem it was designed to solve.

AIHR’s training measurement model comprises five connected layers that help L&D teams assess learning value more credibly:

• Layer 1. Platform Experience: “What is the experience of learning?”
• Layer 2. Knowledge and Skill Acquisition: “Did learning actually occur?”
• Layer 3. Application Readiness:  “Am I ready to use this?”
• Layer 4. Workplace Impact: “Did behavior visibly change at work?”
• Layer 5. Learning Reinforcement: “Does the work environment enable application?”

The first four layers track the pathway from learning experience to workplace behavior change. The fifth captures the organizational conditions that influence whether learning is applied and sustained over time.

Let’s look at each of the five layers in more detail.

Layer 1. Platform Experience: “What is the experience of learning?”

Learning value starts with the learner experience. Two factors matter most. The first is ease of use. The platform should be intuitive and frictionless so that learners can focus on the content rather than the technology. The second is expectation fit. The learning experience should deliver the level of interactivity, structure, and practical application opportunities that learners expect.

At this level, engagement-based learning metrics still play an important role. Completion rates, interaction data, and usability feedback help determine whether the learning experience is accessible and easy to understand. These are useful early indicators, but they are not enough on their own to assess training effectiveness. A strong platform experience does not create learning value on its own, but a poor one can quickly undermine it by preventing learners from engaging with the material effectively.

From a stakeholder perspective, these metrics are primarily used by our product and content teams. They help evaluate whether the platform and learning materials meet the expectations they were designed to fulfill.

Layer 2. Knowledge and Skill Acquisition: “Did learning actually occur?”

Once learners can access and understand the material, the next question is whether they can actually use it. At this stage, learning moves beyond simple recall. For many teams, this is where a common KPI for training stops, even though skill acquisition alone does not guarantee workplace application. 

Learners apply concepts to realistic situations and explore different ways of solving problems. Assessments, therefore, move beyond knowledge checks and focus on scenario-based challenges that test whether learners can recognize when and how to apply what they have learned.

This stage confirms that employees have gained new knowledge or skills. However, it does not guarantee that these capabilities will translate into workplace impact. Research by Pfeffer and Sutton on the “knowing-doing gap” shows that performing well in an assessment environment and applying knowledge in real work situations are fundamentally different cognitive tasks. Assessment designs that do not account for this distinction tend to overestimate learning transfer.

Our own data reinforces this insight. In other words, effective training measurement should assess not just whether someone knows something, but whether they are ready to use it. 

Effective application requires not only competence but also confidence. Measuring this level helps our subject-matter expert teams evaluate whether our content and learning experience are successfully building the skills we promise as part of our T-Shaped HR Competency Model.

Layer 3. Application Readiness:  “Am I ready to use this?”

This is one of the most overlooked layers in learning measurement and one of the most predictive. Between knowing and doing sits a critical question: Does the learner feel ready to apply what they learned in the real world? 

Application readiness captures the psychological bridge between learning and behavior change. It measures three things: 

• Whether learners see the relevance of what they’ve learned to their actual role, 
• Whether they feel confident enough to apply it, and 
• Whether they intend to apply. 

Before applying new skills at work, employees typically ask themselves a few practical questions: Is this relevant to my role? Do I feel confident trying this? When would I actually use it?

This stage is grounded in well-established behavioral science. Bandura’s self-efficacy theory shows that confidence in one’s ability to perform a behavior is one of the strongest predictors of whether that behavior will occur. Similarly, Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior identifies intention as the most reliable predictor of future action.

For L&D leaders, readiness metrics provide something extremely valuable: predictability, making them one of the most useful indicators of training effectiveness. If learners complete a course without confidence or a clear intention to apply what they’ve learned, meaningful behavior change is unlikely, no matter how strong the content itself is. 

This metric is used internally by your teams and by our clients to evaluate whether they believe their teams will be able to apply the learning back at work. This is often measured at the end of the learning journey to allow corrective action before learners return to the workplace.

Layer 4. Workplace Impact: “Did behavior visibly change at work?”

Learning value becomes visible when behavior changes on the job through observable shifts in how people work. This layer is also where talent development metrics become more meaningful because they can be tied to behavior, performance, and business contribution. 

Unlike application readiness, which captures whether learners feel prepared to act, workplace impact captures whether that change is actually visible on the job.

Employees solve problems differently, design new approaches, and contribute more effectively to organizational goals. Managers notice changes. Teams adopt improved workflows. Decisions become better informed.

It is also the most difficult layer to measure because it requires moving beyond the LMS and into the work itself. Yet this is precisely where learning proves its value. Most L&D functions stop short of measuring behavioral change, which is why those that do achieve a fundamentally different level of organizational credibility. Research by Watershed shows that organizations recognized as strong learning organizations are twice as likely to use performance improvement as their primary measure of learning success.

At this level, incorporating data from 360-degree feedback, performance reviews, and other performance-related indicators becomes critical to evaluating training effectiveness in practice. These sources help identify whether the intended behavioral changes are actually occurring in practice.

…answering the simple question, did our investment do what it said it was going to do? Did we accomplish what we invested in this program in the first place? So did we accomplish what we set out to accomplish?

Dr Alaina Sclachta

At AIHR, this layer often sits outside the direct scope of our programs. However, we support our clients in measuring these outcomes and in connecting observed performance changes back to the learning interventions that enabled them.

Layer 5. Learning Reinforcement: “Does the work environment enable application?”

The final layer looks beyond the learning intervention itself. Learning does not happen in isolation, and behavior change rarely depends on training alone. Whether new skills are applied and sustained depends heavily on the work environment around the learner.

Learning takes place in organizations shaped by competing priorities, inconsistent management, misaligned incentives, and cognitive overload. Baldwin and Ford’s influential 1988 transfer-of-training model identified three factors that determine whether learning transfers: training design, trainee characteristics, and, critically, the work environment. Decades of research have consistently confirmed that workplace conditions, particularly manager support and opportunities to apply new skills, are among the strongest predictors of whether learning translates into behavior change.

In practice, we focus on three factors that most consistently determine whether learning translates into value or quietly fades after the course ends.

• Incentive alignment: If the organization rewards the old behavior, the new one will not stick. Learning cannot overcome a compensation structure or performance management system that points in the opposite direction.
• Manager reinforcement: Managers are arguably the most powerful variable in learning transfer. A meta-analysis by Blume et al. found that supervisor support is one of the most consistent predictors of training transfer across studies—often stronger than the quality of the training itself. Gartner research reinforces this point: when managers actively embed new behaviors into day-to-day interactions with their teams, employee performance increases by up to 35%.
• Opportunity to apply: Sometimes employees genuinely want to apply what they have learned, but simply cannot. The tools are missing, processes prevent it, or the team culture discourages experimentation. These are not learning failures and often need to be resolved through organizational design, process reengineering, and the availability of tools.

Seeing the model in practice

Consider a company redefining the role of its HR Business Partners. Historically, HRBPs focused on operational support—handling employee issues, coordinating processes, and responding to requests. Leadership now expects them to act as strategic advisors, contributing to workforce planning, talent decisions, and organizational design. The challenge is not simply to train HRBPs, but to change how HR operates within the business.

Using AIHR’s training measurement model reshapes both the program and how its outcomes are evaluated.

• Layer 1: Platform experience. HRBPs engage with an intuitive learning platform designed around interactive, scenario-based exercises rather than passive content. Engagement data and usability feedback confirm that the learning experience is accessible and aligned with participants’ expectations.
• Layer 2: Knowledge and skill acquisition. Participants work through realistic business cases; interpreting workforce analytics, identifying talent risks, and recommending strategic actions. Scenario-based assessments confirm whether they can apply the concepts to real organizational challenges.
• Layer 3: Application readiness. After completing the program, HRBPs assess whether the new capabilities are relevant to their role, whether they feel confident applying them, and whether they intend to use them in upcoming conversations with business leaders. Where readiness is low, targeted coaching reinforces learning before the opportunity for impact is lost.
• Layer 4: Workplace impact. Several months later, the focus shifts to the workplace itself. Are HRBPs bringing workforce insights into planning discussions? Are they influencing talent decisions rather than simply responding to requests?
• Layer 5: Learning Reinforcement. The team also investigates whether HRBPs are included in strategic forums and whether their mandate has shifted to align with the new role expectations.

Why AIHR  focuses on learning value rather than learning impact

A natural question about this model is why we refer to learning value rather than learning impact. The distinction matters because good training measurement should show contribution without overstating causality. 

The reason is simple. True organizational impact is rarely the result of learning alone.

When outcomes such as productivity, revenue growth, or organizational performance improve, many factors are at play. Strategy shifts, leadership decisions, market conditions, technology, team dynamics, and organizational structures all play a role. In complex systems like organizations, isolating learning as the sole driver of impact is rarely realistic.

For this reason, AIHR’s model focuses on learning value instead, giving L&D leaders a more credible and practical framework for training measurement. Value captures the contribution learning makes along the pathway from capability development to behavioral change at work. It reflects whether learning builds skills, increases readiness to apply those skills, and leads to observable changes in how people perform their roles.

Impact may still occur, and organizations should absolutely track broader business outcomes. However, learning value allows L&D to measure what it can most credibly influence and demonstrate how learning contributes to improved performance without overclaiming causality in complex organizational systems.

How can we use learning analytics to tell the story of the value, and prove the value of learning through our learning analytics? And the answer is, you can’t. Our learning analytics, if you think of it as a story, learning analytics are just part of the story of what unfolds when people engage in learning initiatives. There are a lot of other data points we look at to understand the impact, or to prove, did your initiative do what it was intended to do? 

Dr Alaina Szlachta

Final words

AI has already changed how learning is created. The next step is for HR and L&D leaders to rethink training measurement so it reflects learning value rather than learning activity.

The real question is whether HR and L&D leaders will use this disruption to measure what matters finally.

Activity metrics once helped L&D scale and report participation, but they do not predict value. In a world where content is abundant and knowledge is everywhere, access to learning is no longer scarce. Capability is.

The post Training Measurement for Impact: Moving From Activity to Learning Value appeared first on AIHR.

Yet beneath these discussions lies a more fundamental shift. AI is not only changing how HR works, but it is also changing how organizations make people decisions. And that’s where HR’s leadership and guidance are most needed. The real opportunity is not simply to deploy AI, but to elevate the quality, fairness, and integrity of our decision-making.

In this article, we explore how AI is reshaping people decisions, the four risks leaders must actively govern, and a practical lens to integrate AI in ways that can strengthen organizational trust.

Contents
How AI is changing the architecture of HR decision-making
4 risks to address before scaling AI in HR decisions
A practical framework for AI in HR decision-making

How AI is changing the architecture of HR decision-making

AI is influencing HR decision-making at multiple levels, from daily operational choices to strategic workforce planning.

For years, HR has been on a journey toward more evidence-based decision-making, from building analytics capabilities to strengthening reporting and investing in dashboards. Adoption of people analytics has increased by 60% over the past five years within HR functions, signalling the higher importance of data-driven decision-making. In addition, 74% of organizations report measurable improvements in workforce experiences through the use of people analytics.

Yet in many organizations, data still plays a supporting role. Insights often follow discussions rather than shape them, and metrics validate decisions more than they inform them.

AI changes that dynamic. Instead of reporting on what already happened, AI systems identify patterns across fragmented data sets and generate predictive insight. Leaders can move from retrospective reporting to forward-looking risk signals. From reviewing last year’s attrition to predicting which roles are most likely to turn over next quarter. Put simply, AI is changing how HR leaders evaluate evidence and make workforce decisions.

We discussed AI governance and the role of HR with John Rood, Founder of Proceptual, an AI compliance solution provider. Watch the full interview here:

Balancing human judgment and AI in HR decisions

While human judgment has always shaped HR decisions, it has never been flawless. Decades of behavioral research show that managerial decisions are shaped by cognitive bias, incomplete information, and matters such as overconfidence. AI does not remove these dynamics, but it changes how organizations manage them. When well-designed and governed, AI can surface hidden patterns, highlight inconsistencies, and help reduce bias in decision-making.

Consider a promotion decision, one of the most consequential moments in an employee’s experience. Traditionally, a manager builds a case based on performance history, observed potential, and personal assessment. HR provides benchmarks or historical data, but the reasoning is explicit and human.

Now imagine that same decision supported by AI. The system surfaces patterns from prior promotions, highlights capability gaps associated with success, flags potential bias in historical ratings, and generates ranked recommendations. The manager’s judgment is no longer the sole driver. It is augmented, not ignored, but seen as one of the data points, not the overarching factor.

This also represents a subtle redistribution of authority. The parameters embedded in a model, the variables selected, the thresholds defined, and the outcomes optimized reflect design choices. And those choices shape decisions long before a manager enters the conversation.

The opportunity is significant: greater consistency, earlier insight, and a more structured basis for high-stakes decisions, while retaining human oversight and responsibility.

At the most fundamental level, AI ethics is about alignment. How do we align the AI systems we develop, buy, or use with what we want them to do, and think carefully about how our use of AI affects other people? That alignment question is the foundation. The next level up is a simplified model we call the three cornerstones: transparency, bias prevention or mitigation, and explainability.

John Rood

Adapting the HR operating model for AI-enabled decisions

Adopting AI in HR decision-making also changes the expectations of roles such as the HR Business Partner. Historically, HRBPs created impact through advice, judgment, and influence in the room. In an AI-enabled environment, their value increasingly lies in:

• Scalable decision-making capability
• Knowing when to rely on data
• When to challenge system recommendations
• How to design decision processes that remain fair and accountable.

In other words, HR’s competitive advantage shifts from individual judgment to scalable decision architecture. Fairness, accountability, and discretion are no longer shaped only by human reasoning; systems shape them. And that is where leadership must pay attention.

4 risks to address before scaling AI in HR decisions

As AI becomes embedded in people’s decisions, the risks extend beyond compliance or technical accuracy. They are leadership risks as they affect trust, culture, and credibility. And because AI rapidly scales decisions, it also scales their impact, or potential harm.

There are four risks to actively mitigate as part of scaling AI in people’s decision-making:

1. Opacity and explainability

AI systems often rely on logic that is not easily visible, explainable, or transparent. When employees cannot understand how a decision was shaped, trust weakens.

Example: An employee is declined for an internal role because their “fit score” falls below the threshold, yet neither the manager nor HR can clearly explain how the AI model calculated that score.

Mitigation: Ensure that all AI model outputs are explainable and that leaders using them can justify and explain how the model reached its conclusions.

2. Maintaining fairness at scale

AI can reduce bias, but it can also institutionalize historical patterns. Unlike human bias, which is inconsistent, system-level bias can be replicated with precision and speed.

Example: A screening model consistently filters out candidates from non-traditional career paths because past hiring data favored linear trajectories.

Mitigation: Audit training data and maintain a human-in-the-loop approach for high-risk and critical decision-making.

3. Dehumanization

As decisions become more data-driven, employees may experience processes as transactional rather than relational. Being assessed by a system feels different from being seen by a leader.

Example: Performance discussions focus on productivity dashboards, leaving little room for context, nuance, or individual circumstances.

Mitigation: Ensure that AI does not replace human interaction or accountability, but rather enhances the manager or employee’s ability to improve the quality of the interaction.

4. Diffused accountability

When AI informs decisions, responsibility can blur. Was it the manager’s call, or the system’s recommendation? Ambiguity undermines credibility. There is also a quieter risk: automation bias. When a system appears data-driven and precise, leaders may defer to it too quickly — mistaking algorithmic output for objective truth.

Example: A leader justifies a compensation decision by saying, “That’s what the system recommended,” without owning the outcome.

Mitigation: Establish clear human accountability for AI-generated outputs and decisions. The human being remains accountable for the decision made.

There’s a significant regulatory push in this direction. We do a lot of work with the EU AI Act regulation; we have a number of laws here in the United States as well. Global organizations really have to start thinking, with all of these measures going into effect over the next two years, what is the strategy for getting out ahead of that compliance hurdle?

John Rood

None of these risks is an argument against AI. They are reminders that technology reshapes power, perception, and responsibility. They are also increasingly visible to regulators and courts, as AI-informed employment decisions come under greater scrutiny. 

However, how do we translate these principles into a framework that leaders can practically adopt in their organizations daily?

A practical framework for AI in HR decision-making

Before adopting or scaling AI in any people process, leaders should apply a disciplined set of questions that helps guide them on how AI could or should be applied. These questions act as decision gates, and AI must pass each hurdle before we decide to proceed.

AI in HR decision-making framework in action: A Singaporean business using AI in the performance management process

When the executive team proposed replacing annual performance reviews with an AI-driven continuous scoring system, the ambition was to reduce bias, increase objectivity, and make talent decisions more objective.

But when HR pressure-tested the idea through a few simple decision gates, some concerns were evident.

Decision gate 1: Enhancing judgment

Would this strengthen managerial judgment, or replace it? Having AI assign and process incentives based on the scoring risked the technology becoming the decision-maker, rather than the decision support.

Decision gate 2: Clear accountability

Who, precisely, owned the final call? The algorithm? The manager? The executive team? The lack of a clearly accountable human decision-maker exposed a governance gap.

Decision gate 3: Fair consequences

Early analysis showed potential unintended harm, particularly for lower-visibility roles and employees returning from leave. 

Decision gate 4: Explainability

Could leaders explain, in plain language, how scores were generated and how they influenced outcomes? If the answer required technical defensiveness, the system wasn’t ready.

Decision gate 5: Maintaining trust

Would employees experience this as fair and dignified? Trust depends as much on perception as precision.

Based on these decision gates, the team redesigned the process to augment annual reviews rather than replace them with AI. AI helped employees prepare, enabled managers to check decisions for bias, and allowed executives to analyze trends to improve calibration over time.

Final words

AI will continue to evolve. Models will improve. Adoption will accelerate. But the defining question for HR will remain unchanged: Who safeguards the integrity of people decisions?

HR’s responsibility is not to master every algorithm, but to set the standards that guide decisions, embedding fairness, accountability, and employee experience into the systems that shape workforce outcomes.

The post AI in HR Decision-Making: How To Create Better, Fairer People Outcomes appeared first on AIHR.

However, around half of strategic plans are not executed to expectation, and only 7% of leaders say their organization excels at implementing strategy. When strategies fail, the post-mortem often sounds strikingly similar. Beyond budget and alignment, the issue wasn’t the strategy itself. It was the culture.

Culture is frequently described as the invisible force that hinders progress, dilutes intent, or quietly derails well-designed strategies. The familiar quote, “culture eats strategy for breakfast”, is often used as a sort of universal truth. While catchy, it oversimplifies a far more nuanced relationship.

This article examines the interplay between culture and strategy, highlighting why treating culture as an afterthought can create friction, how organizations can make strategy work with their existing culture, and the role HR must play.

Contents
Why culture matters in strategy execution
Understanding your current type of organizational culture
How to align culture and strategy: Two approaches
How HR can start creating culture and strategy alignment

Why culture matters in strategy execution

Organizational culture has many different definitions. Some describe it as “how we do things around here.” Others refer to values, rituals, or observable behaviors. Put simply, culture is the set of spoken and unspoken beliefs that shape what an organization truly values, rewards, and tolerates. 

Culture is ever-present in all organizations and influences every decision, action, and trade-off, often in an unobserved manner. In that sense, if strategy defines the destination, culture determines how the organization travels to get there.

This is where many organizations stumble. Culture is often treated as something that needs to align with strategy, as if it will naturally adapt once a new direction has been announced. In practice, this rarely works, and culture is usually treated as an afterthought rather than a core part of strategy setting.

Example

An insurance business introduced a strategy focused on customer centricity.  They focused on getting closer to customers, understanding their needs, and adapting services accordingly. But their existing culture was deeply rooted in product excellence and process efficiency. Their culture always led them to try and think about products and not customers, yet the revised strategy wanted them to act and behave differently.

The result was a disconnect between what they wanted strategically and how the culture executed. Employees were not actively resisting the strategy; they simply didn’t know how to behave differently. The culture consistently pulled the organization back to established norms, often under the pretense that this is how we’ve always done things.

The mistake many leadership teams make at this point is assuming culture needs to be fixed after the strategy has been defined. In reality, culture cannot be an afterthought. The strategy formulation process should consider how and where culture will help or hinder the strategy execution from the very start.

I don’t buy into the idea that culture eats strategy for breakfast. It’s an old cliche. And honestly, you really need both in your organization. You need to have the direction, the purpose, and you need to have the means to get there. And the culture is what helps support that.

Ed Brzychcy, Founder and President of Lead from the Front

But in the end, culture is an end state. Culture is something that is a result of the history, the activities, the attitudes, what people bring to work every day, and how they espouse that collaboration, how they incentivize that innovation, how they go about communicating with one another, and sharing those values.

Ed Brzychcy, Founder and President of Lead from the Front

Understanding your current type of organizational culture

Working effectively with culture begins with understanding the culture that exists today, not the aspirational version, but the one that shows up in everyday decisions, incentives, and trade-offs. So, how do organizations develop an understanding of their current culture?

A good starting point is to use culture frameworks grounded in thorough research. Popular models include the classic work of Edgar Schein, as well as more recent models, including the McKinsey 7S, Denison, and Barrett models.

A model that we have used with AIHR’s clients is the Competing Values Framework developed by Cameron and Quinn. The model strikes a balance between a well-researched foundation and practical, easy-to-use elements that business leaders can quickly grasp and relate to. Rather than defining culture as a single ideal state, it highlights the inherent tensions that exist within organizations.

The framework describes four dominant culture types, based on two dimensions:

• Flexibility and discretion versus stability and control
• Internal versus external focus.

Organizations display elements of all four, but typically one or two dominate, giving it a specific profile:

• Clan cultures are internally focused and highly flexible. They emphasize collaboration, participation, and a strong sense of belonging. Relationships, mentorship, and team cohesion matter more than formal hierarchy. They get work done through relationships, not procedures or policies.
• Hierarchy cultures are also internally focused but prioritize stability and control. Structure, rules, and clearly defined authority guide behavior. They execute through consistency, predictability, and efficiency that reside in formal processes and decision-making structures.
• Market cultures are externally focused and results-driven. They value performance, competition, and goal achievement as primary drivers of success. They operate with a strong results mindset, prioritizing competitiveness and performance-based rewards.
• Adhocracy cultures are externally focused and highly flexible. They encourage innovation, experimentation, and adaptability. The culture promotes challenging the status quo and exploring new possibilities.

The Competing Values Framework in action

An organization wants to enter a new market to grow its business. The different culture types would approach this objective differently:

• Clan cultures would approach market entry by leveraging relationships, trust-based partnerships, and collaborative ecosystems to reduce risk and build long-term presence.
• The hierarchy culture would consider entering the market by replicating a tried and tested operating model, and rely on its discipline in execution to get things done.
• The adhocracy culture would focus on creating a new, innovative product that gives a competitive advantage in the market.
• The market culture would focus on an aggressive growth strategy, and might even consider mergers and acquisitions as the preferred manner to go.

No culture type is inherently better than another. Each brings strengths and blind spots, and it’s more important to understand how the dominant types play out in everyday behavior. Most importantly, each shapes how strategy is interpreted, adopted, and executed.

We discussed what actually matters in successful strategy execution with Ed Brzychcy, Founder and President of Lead from the Front consultancy. See the full interview below:

How to align culture and strategy: Two approaches

Organizations can align culture and strategy in multiple ways. In practice, this usually means adjusting execution in the short term while gradually shaping the culture needed for the future. Let’s take a look at the two approaches.

Approach 1: Adapting execution to the current culture

Can any strategy work in any culture?

The answer is yes, but only if execution is adapted to fit the cultural context.

Some strategies naturally align more easily with specific cultural profiles. But organizations are rarely as constrained as they believe. The challenge is not changing the strategy itself; it is adjusting how the plan is implemented to leverage the strength of the current culture.

Take a common strategic objective such as improving operational efficiency and reducing costs.

• A Clan culture might approach this through collaborative problem-solving, emphasizing shared responsibility and collective benefit.
• In an Adhocracy culture, efficiency becomes an innovation challenge of finding smarter, more creative ways to do more with less.
• A Market culture would shift the focus to performance metrics, targets, and competitive advantage.
• In a Hierarchy culture, efficiency is driven through process redesign, standardization, and formal training.

The strategy and results remain the same, but the approach to translation and execution is vastly different.

What this looks like in practice

A retail organization set a strategic goal to create a premium in-store experience through personalized service and frontline employee empowerment. Cultural analysis revealed a dominant Hierarchy culture with a strong focus on operational control and consistency, but less comfortable with flexibility and autonomy.

Rather than attempting to overhaul the culture, leaders adapted execution. They focused on optimizing their customer-facing processes, introducing clear decision-making points. The leadership rolled out this new approach in a structured pilot supported by structured training, process maps, and role clarity.

By adapting execution to fit the cultural context, the organization achieved traction without destabilizing its operating model. Strategy and culture worked together, not against each other.

Approach 2: Creating intentional culture change over time

Adapting execution can create immediate traction, but lasting alignment sometimes requires intentional culture change.

Culture is shaped through repeated decisions, behaviors, and trade-offs, which means meaningful change is gradual by nature and rarely confined to a single strategy cycle. When organizations treat culture change as a parallel initiative with short-term milestones, they underestimate both the depth of what they are trying to shift and the consistency required to sustain it.

That doesn’t mean that businesses should avoid cultural change. When fundamental shifts are necessary, such as transitioning from control to empowerment or from an internal focus to customer obsession, they must be led deliberately and over time. These shifts rely less on programs and more on leadership choices about what to prioritize, who to promote, which behaviors to reward, and which to stop tolerating.

HR plays a critical role in supporting this journey. Still, lasting change only occurs when leaders consistently model the new behaviors and embed them into the organization’s operating rhythm.

How HR can start creating culture and strategy alignment

Aligning culture and strategy takes deliberate effort, and HR plays an important role in making it happen. A good starting point is to follow the steps below to understand whether your current strategy and culture are working with or against each other. 

Step 1: Clarify ownership of culture

Too often, culture is positioned as an HR responsibility, something the CHRO or HR team is expected to “fix” through engagement programs, values refreshes, or behavior frameworks. While well-intended, this framing almost guarantees disappointment. Culture does not change because HR launches an initiative. It changes when leaders behave differently, and when culture becomes ingrained in ways of work and values.

Culture is, by definition, a business responsibility. It is shaped every day by the same leaders who make strategic decisions, allocate resources, set priorities, and reward performance. When culture work is separated from those decisions and handed to HR, it becomes disconnected from the reality of how the organization operates.

To address this, HR needs to explicitly reset expectations with leadership, making it clear that culture is shaped through leadership decisions and behaviors, not HR-led initiatives.

Rather than treating culture as an abstract concept or a set of programs, HR brings it into leadership discussions about strategy, priorities, and trade-offs. By linking cultural outcomes to concrete decisions, such as what gets funded, who gets promoted, how performance is assessed, and which behaviors are rewarded or tolerated, HR helps leaders see culture as the result of their own actions.

Put simply, HR’s role is not to own culture, but to orchestrate alignment. This involves helping leaders understand the cultural implications of their strategy and creating space for honest dialogue about behaviors and consequences.

When HR cannot bring leaders into that ownership role, culture efforts remain cosmetic. When it can, culture and strategy begin to reinforce each other, guided by leadership accountability rather than delegated responsibility.

HR is a great role for helping implement all of this because, as a staff element, they’re going to reach across everywhere in the organization. They naturally have touch points with all the other pieces, especially on the personnel side of things… 

…Being able to provide that level of data and understanding and being sort of a cross-functional hub that is able to collect, here’s what’s going on with our people, here’s how those checkpoints are working, here’s the departments where we’re starting to see stronger results coming out of, because we do see more frequent manager conversations. They have the ability to track all of that, and they have the ability to track the outcomes much strongly.

Eryn Peters, Founder and President of Lead from the Front

Step 2: Understand the current culture

A clear understanding of the organization’s dominant cultural profile is key to creating strong alignment between strategy & culture. This can be done through assessments, stakeholder interviews, or facilitated discussions anchored in well-researched culture models highlighted above.

The goal is not a perfect diagnosis but to identify which cultural patterns most influence decisions and behavior.

Step 3: Assess strategic fit

Next, view the strategy through a cultural lens. Which elements will the current culture naturally support? Where is friction likely to occur?

Use this perspective to identify potential culture stumbling blocks and areas of strength to leverage. Consider where existing behaviors, incentives, or decision-making norms will either accelerate or slow execution.

Step 4: Execute with the culture in mind

Adapt how the strategy is communicated, implemented, and reinforced so that it resonates with the existing culture. Keep the strategic intent the same, but adapt how it translates into daily actions. That may involve adjusting workflows, decision-making processes, performance expectations, and how priorities are reinforced across the organization.

Step 5: Mitigate cultural risks

Finally, identify the specific behaviors or mindsets that could undermine execution, such as slow decision-making, risk avoidance, or inconsistent accountability. Address them through targeted levers like adjusting incentives, clarifying decision rights, building missing capabilities, or reinforcing different behaviors in performance conversations.

Focus on the few risks that pose the greatest threat to execution. The goal is not to completely overhaul the current culture, but to remove the obstacles that would prevent the strategy from succeeding.

Final thoughts

Culture and strategy are two sides of the same coin, and organizations need to consider both together to execute effectively. HR plays an important role in helping leaders factor culture into strategy discussions and understand how their decisions either work with the existing culture or create friction during execution.

When HR helps leaders recognize how culture influences strategic execution, organizations are better positioned to turn strategic intent into sustained results.

The post Culture and Strategy Alignment: How To Achieve Successful Execution appeared first on AIHR.

Going forward, HRBPs must be ready to navigate not only the current reality but also future demands. What’s more, they need to address the perception that the HRBP role has not delivered sufficient strategic impact. To achieve that, businesses must prioritize the development of HR Business Partner skills.

In this article, we explore the changing skill requirements of the HRBP, propose an HRBP profile based on our T-Shaped HR Competency Model, and show a three-phased approach to developing HRBPs that are ready for the future.

Contents
The changing expectations of the HR Business Partner
The current reality of the HRBP
Defining the skill set of the HR Business Partner of the future
Adopting a phased approach to developing HR Business Partner skills

The changing expectations of the HR Business Partner

The HR Business Partner role aims to bring HR closer to business, elevate its contribution to a strategic level, and ensure alignment between HR priorities and business goals. This positions the HRBP role as the HR representative in business and the business representative within HR. Often described as “wearing multiple hats”, the role is of a multifaceted nature, facing a variety of demands and expectations.

As business and the world of work change, we see three fundamental shifts in the HRBP role:

• The positioning of the HRBP role
• Its scope and focus
• The future impact of the HRBP role. 

Regarding positioning, the HRBP role will need to address an increasingly complex stakeholder landscape. This will include breaking the stereotype that HR only exists as a “partner to business” but instead becomes a strategic advisor to all, including various employment groups, the Board, and community stakeholders.

The HR Business Partner role will also broaden to include a more market-oriented focus. This expansion involves integrating HR activities with business and market demands and adopting a commercial mindset that aligns closely with evolving market trends.

By doing so, HRBPs will be better positioned to anticipate and react to the dynamic needs of the business. This way, the HR strategies can not only support but also drive key business objectives in alignment with the broader market landscape.

The impact of the HRBP will also shift to become more focused on business continuity and sustainability, ensuring that the business can deliver today and in the future. This can translate into building proactive workforce capability, proactive risk management, and fluid talent strategies to gain access to skills.

We discussed how HR can embrace change and succeed in the future with Jan Laurijssen, HR Evangelist from SD Worx. See the full conversation below:

The current reality of the HRBP

The changing expectations will demand more from HRBPs, and organizations must create an environment that enables HRBPs to perform their role successfully. This includes investing in relevant technologies, equipping HR teams appropriately, and ensuring a clear mandate and legitimization of HR within the organization.

Unfortunately, these factors are not in place for many HRBPs. A lot of HRBPs feel they are pulled into transactional work given the lack of infrastructure and resources, and many also cite high levels of burnout. Beyond these challenges, we also need to realistically assess where the HR Business Partners are today in terms of skillset to determine how big the transition will be in the future.

AIHR’s T-Shaped HR Competency Model is based on multiple years of research with more than 20,000 HR professionals and various organizations using it as the standard for their HR teams. For HRBPs specifically, we find the following insights about the current reality of how HRBPs evaluate themselves against the model:

• HRBPs leverage their interpersonal skills and focus on driving execution to create business impact
• HRBPs have less preference and confidence in using data and digital in their day-to-day execution
• Confidence in business acumen is steadily increasing, yet this seems to be developed at senior levels and may not be a focus area at other levels within the organization
• People advocacy remains a reported strength for HRBPs, often also based on the experience and exposure that they have had.

HRBPs highlight their drive to balance business expectations with HR solutions, often stating that they are drawn to the career as they want to help make the business successful.

Delving further into the career of the HR professional, we see that the HRBP role remains one of the leading preparatory roles for future CHROs, even though many HRBPs do not necessarily aspire to move into a future CHRO role.

Defining the skill set of the HR Business Partner of the future

Based on these realities and insights, we used our T-Shaped HR Competency Model to identify and prioritize the skills and behaviors that we believe will be crucial for the HRBP of the future.

These competencies, skills, and behaviors aim to outline the competencies HR Business Partners need to be future-fit and remain relevant: 

Let’s break this down.

Competency 1: Business Acumen

From its inception, the HRBP role demanded business focus and commercial awareness. A strong focus on business acumen formed the bedrock of the HRBP profile and will continue to do so in the future.

Going forward, the HRBP must have greater market understanding and the ability to translate how emerging trends can influence their business. This will naturally lead to more involvement in the strategic processes of organizations. In addition, we firmly believe that scenario planning will become a key area of expertise for HRBPs in the future.

Competency 2: Data Literacy

As organizations become more data-driven, the emergence of evidence-based HR is ushering the field in a similar direction.

Data literacy of HRBPs—being aware of how and where data can be utilized, how to apply data to business and HR hypotheses, and communicate data in a meaningful and effective way—will become crucial. The HRBP of the future is a master data-driven storyteller and is comfortable infusing data across the HR value chain.

Competency 3: Digital Agility

Being digitally agile will be critical to the success of the HRBP, allowing them to partner in a more meaningful manner at scale. Future-ready HRBPs utilize technologies to improve individual productivity and know how and where to introduce technology into HR practices.

As organizations adopt digital collaboration tools and ways of working, the HRBP must also be able to effectively drive the HR agenda using these digital platforms. This goes beyond being an expert in MS Teams or Zoom; it is rather about knowing how to do HR work effectively in a digital world.

Competency 4: AI Fluency

As artificial intelligence becomes an essential part of HR tools and business decision-making, the HRBP of the future must be able to work confidently with AI and guide its use across the organization.

AI Fluency equips HRBPs to identify where AI can support people and business decisions, interpret AI-generated insights, and apply human judgment where needed. This includes understanding limitations, managing risks such as bias and data quality, and ensuring AI use aligns with organizational values and ethical standards.

For HRBPs, AI Fluency strengthens their strategic partner role by enabling sharper questioning, clearer interpretation of insights, and more informed advice to leaders. As AI increasingly influences workforce planning and talent decisions, HRBPs with strong AI Fluency help organizations adopt these technologies responsibly while maintaining employee trust.

Competency 5: People Advocacy

Globally, employees are overwhelmed, and uncertainties related to the future workplace will place increasing pressure on them. HRBPs must act as people advocates, mastering creating organizational cultures that balance wellbeing and productivity, and maintaining a healthy workforce to drive organizational performance.

This delicate balance will require HRBPs to advise business leaders on balancing targets with health, all in the name of creating sustainable organizations with workforces that can deliver today and tomorrow. Managing this process will require significant change management, not only in evolving workplace practices but also in the leadership team’s mindset.

Competency 6: Execution Excellence

Execution Excellence refers to how the HRBP shows up in the organization. Specifically for the HRBP of the future, the ability to problem-solve, think systemically about the organization, and a strong drive towards action will be required.

Given the nature of the role, interpersonal skills such as networking, managing conflict, and leading with empathy will remain important. Yet, we see the increasing importance of what the HRBP does and how they do it, highlighting a renewed focus on interpersonal skills.

Specialist competencies

Complementing these core competency domains, we see several specific domains that will increase in importance for the future HRBP.

First, HRBPs will need a thorough understanding of the HR value chain. This will equip them with the foundational knowledge to integrate HR practices and policies into comprehensive business-focused solutions.

The attraction, development, and retention of talent will remain a critical driver of business success. In addition, the future HRBP needs a thorough understanding of talent management, performance management, and compensation and benefits as the foundation of building comprehensive employee experiences.

Given these realities, as a starting point, we need to invest in HRBP reskilling and ensure a continuous and responsible development experience for HRBPs to transition into this expanded role over time.

As HRBPs grow into this expanded role, AI is also reshaping what effective business partnering looks like. To explore what that shift looks like in practice, download our guide to the post-AI HRBP model.

Adopting a phased approach to developing HR Business Partner skills

Reflecting on these requirements, it is important to be realistic regarding how HRBPs can transition into the future.

As we’ve seen in the past when organizations redefine the role of HRBPs without stipulating a realistic development roadmap for them, the HRBP operating model fails to bring the desired results, and the role itself is seen as nothing more than a title change. 

To address this challenge, we propose a three-phased approach to developing HRBPs, prioritizing the skills highlighted above at different times to increase the fastest route to value.

Phase 1: Entry to the game – By building solid foundations

To ensure the fastest time to value for new HRBPs, there should be a focus on the following skills:

Developing agile, resilient, and strategic HRBPs requires a structured approach. AIHR’s 9-Step HRBP Capability Framework helps you improve HRBP function performance through:

• Designing a fit-for-purpose HRBP function
• Developing and enabling your HRBP team
• Preparing the business for HRBP changes.

Phase 2: Adding value – By building emerging skills

Once the foundation has been established, the focus should shift towards emerging skills that include the following:

Phase 3: Making impact – By differentiated skillsets

During phase 3, as the HRBP steps towards more senior responsibilities, prioritize the following, considering the potential transition to a future CHRO role.

Final words

As the world of work changes, so too must the scope of the HRBP role. We believe the HRBP role will become increasingly important in a future characterized by AI, increasing skills gaps and talent shortages, and shifting economic powers. As businesses navigate these turbulent waters, they will require HRBPs with the required skill set to guide them.

The post HR Business Partner Skills of the Future: How Organizations Should Develop Their HRBPs appeared first on AIHR.

With these changes, the scope of HR is increasing to include domains such as sustainability, employee wellbeing, digital transformation, and analytics as organizations adjust their strategies to meet market demands. This calls for a revision of the outdated HR competency models that organizations are using.

That’s where the T-Shaped HR Competency Model comes in. The T-shaped model is AIHR’s perspective on the competencies we believe the HR professional needs to have to be successful in the future world of work.

Let’s dive into the details of these HR competencies and the T-shaped model.

Contents
T-Shaped HR Competency Model: An overview
Core HR Competencies
Specialist HR Competencies
Leadership Competencies
How HR professionals can develop these competencies
How HR teams can develop these competencies
FAQ

T-Shaped HR Competency Model: An overview

A competency model identifies and defines the knowledge, skills, abilities, and behaviors required to be successful within a specific profession or role. Competency models act as guidelines for individuals to understand what is expected from them in their work, where they need to focus in terms of development, and how they can enable themselves to be successful in their roles.

In the same vein, an HR competency model outlines the requirements of HR professionals across various levels to build robust HR capabilities across the function. In the appendix, you can read more about how the model was developed, validated, and improved over time.

We at AIHR believe that HR professionals need to be T-shaped. Being T-shaped implies that all HR professionals, regardless of role or context, need to master six HR core competencies complemented by specialist domains that depend on their specific role or organizational requirements.

Beyond specialist competencies, being T-shaped also entails mastering leadership competencies for HR leaders who manage people teams.

Embracing a T-shaped HR professional profile offers numerous advantages. Striking the right balance between core and specialized competencies empowers HR professionals to seamlessly juggle the demands of both generalist and specialist roles, all the while ensuring HR strategies align with the overarching business objectives.

According to BCG, HR is one of the most disrupted industries in terms of how quickly the skills required for the job have been changing. A versatile skill set encompassing both generalist and specialist expertise equips HR professionals to swiftly adapt to evolving business requirements, enhance the effectiveness of HR solutions, and stay relevant in the ever-changing corporate landscape.

We’ve developed a comprehensive T-Shaped HR Competency Model to help HR leaders build high-impact teams. This practical guide enables you to assess your team’s competencies, identify critical skill gaps, and prioritize development efforts that drive business value.

Core HR Competencies

The bar of the T in the T-Shaped HR Competency Model contains the Core Competencies essential for all HR professionals. The first five (Business Acumen, Data Literacy, Digital Agility, AI Fluency, and People Advocacy) help HR excel in enabling business and employees alike. The sixth competency, Execution Excellence, is focused on personal effectiveness and underpins all other competencies in the model.

Each of the Core Competencies comprises several Dimensions, which are the various aspects or areas of the competency that are important for successful performance in an HR role.

Let’s break down each of the six Core HR Competencies.

1. Business Acumen

An HR professional with Business Acumen interprets external trends, analyzes customer needs, and co-creates business strategy to achieve sustainable business results.

Dimensions to master

In HR, aligning with organizational goals and industry trends is essential. HR professionals must understand and interpret these trends and craft strategies that seamlessly integrate with the business, elevating HR to a strategic partner role driving key business value. This is only possible with a thorough understanding of the commercial business value drivers.

Beyond alignment, HR should also look at the employee as their customer and apply user-centric principles to design products and services that meet a specific need. With this approach, HR can design solutions that resonate with employees, fostering a highly engaged and motivated workforce. 

Lastly, HR needs to co-create and influence strategy to ensure that HR focuses on the right priorities and can demonstrate its impact through tangible metrics.

2. Data Literacy

Data Literacy is the ability to analyze, interpret, and communicate people data to derive actionable insights, inform decision-making, and assess HR’s contribution to achieving strategic business objectives.

Dimensions to master

Going forward, being data-driven is not just a desirable skill; it’s imperative. HR professionals must go beyond merely working with data and harness it to provide fact-based recommendations that catalyze business action.

This starts by being able to create, read, and apply data in an evidence-based and ethical manner. A critical competency in this domain is using data to tell compelling stories. It’s about creating narratives that transform raw data into actionable insights, integrating data-driven decision-making into HR’s operations.

In this new era of evidence-based HR, data is the cornerstone of informed choices, and HR professionals emerge as strategic partners, driving organizational success through data-driven storytelling.

3. Digital Agility

Digital Agility refers to utilizing technology to increase the impact of HR and prepare the organization to adopt digital practices.

Dimensions to master

In an increasingly digital world, HR professionals serve as champions for advancing the digital HR agenda and guiding broader business transformation into a digital future. 

Digital Agility is more than just the adoption of digital tools; it’s adopting a mindset of continuous experimentation and developing the confidence to navigate and thrive in this digital reality. HR’s role extends beyond just harnessing technology for HR-related tasks. It entails shaping an organization’s digital journey.

By fostering a culture of innovation and adaptability, HR professionals can help their teams and organizations embrace the digital age. In this capacity, they become architects of change, driving the transition toward a digital future that promises new opportunities and efficiencies.

4. AI Fluency

AI Fluency describes the ability to work confidently and thoughtfully with artificial intelligence tools and systems to enhance HR outcomes while maintaining ethical, people-centered practices.

Dimensions to master

As AI becomes embedded across HR, from screening candidates to generating insights, proficiency with these technologies moves beyond tool use. HR professionals need to understand what AI systems can and can’t do, where they add real value, and how to pair them with human judgment.

AI Fluency involves curiosity, sound judgment, and an awareness of ethical implications. HR practitioners who develop this competency help their teams make faster, fairer decisions, streamline work, and improve experiences for employees and leaders alike. They also influence how AI is introduced across the organization, setting clear expectations for responsible and practical use.

5. People Advocacy

People Advocacy is about building human-centric organizational cultures that promote productivity and wellbeing, navigating change, and holding the organization to ethical and sustainable standards.

Dimensions to master

HR faces the intricate challenge of balancing improving organizational productivity, building resilience, and fostering a culture of care. That comes with various moral dilemmas.

The changes brought about by evolving technologies, the dissolution of traditional borders in the sense of growing remote work, and escalating social issues will call for thorough ethical considerations. HR will step forward as the champion of risk management and ethics, serving as the conscience of the organization.

Moreover, HR will also embrace a sustainability focus, extending its reach to benefit communities and society. By adding value beyond the corporate walls, HR will play an integral role in driving positive change and contributing to the betterment of the world around us.

6. Execution Excellence

Execution Excellence refers to delivering impact through practical problem-solving, engagement with stakeholders, and purposeful execution.

Dimensions to master

HR’s success will depend on its commitment to execution excellence, encompassing its work and collaboration approach. HR professionals must become action-oriented, driving initiatives from conception through to completion. 

This determined focus on taking concrete actions is essential for HR to showcase value within the organization.

The dynamic and increasingly complex world of work requires HR professionals to become adept problem-solvers, constantly seeking innovative solutions and reallocating resources to meet changing demands. HR must adopt an analytical and systemic mindset to make sense of the evolving environment and steer organizations in the right direction.

Furthermore, HR must excel in collaboration, building networks and relationships that transcend boundaries, including intercultural ones. Effective communication and collaboration across diverse backgrounds and perspectives will be central to HR’s role in fostering an inclusive and globally connected workplace.

As HR careers develop, the levels of proficiency required within these competencies will differ. For example, a Senior HR Executive will require a higher level of business acumen, while an HR Consultant will require a lesser degree of proficiency. However, these six Core Competencies form the baseline for all HR professionals to deliver value in the future.

Specialist HR Competencies

The stem of the ‘T’ in the T-Shaped HR Competency Model clusters six Specialist Competency Domains that incorporate 22 Functional Areas. The relevance of these areas for the HR professional will depend on their role, context, and organization.

For example, a recruiter will require an in-depth understanding of “Awareness and Attraction” related to employer brand and talent acquisition. Still, it would be beneficial to understand total rewards to guide the design of new innovative benefit packages to attract non-traditional talent.

We consider it crucial that all HR professionals have a basic understanding of the different domains, with in-depth knowledge in at least one specific cluster. 

Leadership Competencies

As the HR profession expands and grows, we expect more HR practitioners to take on leadership responsibilities. While organizations often assume that HR inherently knows how to lead teams, given their focus on leadership development for the business, HR leaders also need to be equipped with the right skills for the future.

As such, we believe that HR leaders will need to develop the following Leadership Competencies, depending on the scope and context of their role.

How HR professionals can develop these competencies

Starting the HR upskilling journey might seem overwhelming at first, not knowing what to prioritize and where to begin. First, HR professionals can assess their current skills using AIHR’s T-shaped HR assessment, identifying strengths and areas for improvement.

Next, they should explore career opportunities through our HR Career Map, which guides skill prioritization and helps them understand the various career patterns that drive HR professional development and the skills required to access these opportunities.

At AIHR, our platform guides HR professionals with various development activities aligned to becoming T-shaped.

Last, we believe that this cannot be done alone, and as such, HR professionals need the community around them to support and transition to this future. Working with and learning from others will be essential to drive future HR development and relevance.

How HR teams can develop these competencies

For HR teams, developing these HR competencies will require a targeted approach that ensures that these competencies are aligned with broader strategic capability areas. Depending on the business and HR strategy, organizations will be able to determine which of these domains need to be prioritized to deliver on the business strategy.

AIHR’s HR Navigator process helps HR teams better understand which of these competencies will enable them to execute their strategy and meet business needs. The HR Navigator is an interactive process where our subject matter experts work with HR leaders to design, develop, and build the appropriate learning experiences to develop these competencies within the HR function.

Final words

The future of HR is bright, and to capitalize on the opportunities the future holds, HR has to become T-shaped. The T-Shaped HR Competency Model provides a blueprint for HR professionals to understand the knowledge, skills, and experience they require to be future-fit and have an impact on employees, organizations, and society.

FAQ

The post HR Competencies for 2030: What HR Needs To Create Impact appeared first on AIHR.

This article discusses what building an HR career involves, the various types of career paths you can pursue, and three HR career progression examples to help inspire you.

Want to picture what your own career path in HR could look like? Don’t hesitate to explore AIHR’s free HR Career Map tool!

Contents
The modern career path for HR
How to start a career in HR
Understanding HR career progression
Types of HR career paths
HR career path examples from practice
HR job titles by career level
How to choose your HR career path

The modern career path for HR

Traditionally, people viewed the career path for HR as a series of steps leading up to the highest point of success — a strategic leadership position. Typical career progression went from HR Assistant to HR Manager and ultimately, overseeing a team as an HR Director or CHRO. Today, career trajectories in HR are much more varied, as we’ll discuss below.

HR roles, at all levels, have evolved to be more strategic and data-driven. A successful HR professional needs more than in-depth knowledge of compensation and benefits, talent acquisition, and learning and development. You must also understand business operations, including production, service delivery, and key profit drivers.

Still, 83% of HR professionals report feeling highly confident in operational and transactional tasks, while only 64% say they’re confident in translating strategy, aligning HR priorities, and using financial data for HR decision-making. The modern HR career development path must shift focus from operational and transactional tasks to becoming a strategic business partner.

Traditional vs. modern HR career paths

HR career paths have shifted from a predictable, title-driven progression to more flexible, business-focused journeys that prioritize impact, strategic capability, and continuous skill development. Here’s a summary of how the modern HR career paths have evolved:

How to start a career in HR

It’s essential to have strong foundational knowledge and competencies before embarking on a career in Human Resources. Here are four steps to help you get started:

1. Build your education and training

Develop foundational HR knowledge through a mix of formal education (such as a degree) and short-term learning like courses and certificates.

Tip: Degrees in HR, Business, Psychology, or similar fields are beneficial. Short courses in recruitment, employee relations, performance management, employment law, or organizational behavior help you expand your knowledge further.

2. Gain relevant experience

Apply experience from non-HR roles such as administration, customer service, operations, or people management to HR contexts and actively support HR-related tasks and initiatives in your current role.

Tip: Clearly connect your skills from other roles (communication, coordination, problem-solving, confidentiality) to real HR tasks and outcomes. Also,look for opportunities to contribute to HR activities like hiring, onboarding, and training through projects, shadowing, or internal moves.

3. Get certified

Attain an entry-level HR certificate (e.g., HR Coordinator or HR Generalist) and continue upskilling to meet changing business needs.

Tip: Focus on certifications that add value to the role you’re currently aspiring to, as well as your desired future HR roles.

4. Apply for entry-level HR roles

Look for entry-level HR positions once you’ve built relevant (transferable) skills, experience, and knowledge.

Tip: Common entry points include HR Assistant, HR Coordinator, or Recruiter, but hybrid or project-based roles can also open doors.

Understanding HR career progression

HR career path options are not just changing; they’re growing. Research shows that HR jobs have been growing steadily in most Western countries since the early 2000s. The HR Manager role is projected to grow by 5% within 10 years (faster than the average for other occupations), with a median salary starting at over $140,000. HR Specialists can expect an average of 81,800 job openings per year over the next decade. In fact, unemployment rates among HR professionals have been trending below the average rate in the U.S.

With the rise of new HR roles and responsibilities related to wellbeing, digital transformation, and sustainability, there are now more non-traditional HR career progression opportunities. HR professionals now switch between roles and companies more often, allowing them to take on different roles and still achieve the same end goals.

This means, for instance, if your end goal is to be a Chief HR Officer (CHRO), you don’t have to take the traditional path from HR Assistant to HR Specialist, HR Manager, and then to HR Director beforehand. It’s possible to begin your career as, for example, an HRIS Analyst, transition into an HR Ops Manager role, then become a Shared Services Manager before reaching the CHRO position.

You can easily visualize your career path with AIHR’s free HR Career Map tool, and it can look like the journey below:

Your career progression in HR is essentially a collection of meaningful experiences. With each role you take on, you gain a new set of skills and competencies that boost your personal and professional growth.

These skills will also enable you to advance further in your career. Remember — different companies (depending on size, structure, and industry) might require different skills, competencies, and portfolios for the same job. This means the possibilities are endless.

However, it also means you must go beyond your HR specialization and develop additional, more general HR competencies that are transferable between roles. These competencies will not only allow you to collaborate and innovate across the board but also adapt to changing work environments and future-proof your career in the face of global disruption.

Types of HR career paths

Did you know that just 8% of HR professionals start their careers in HR? Most don’t. HR professionals often start off in administrative and non-business roles, for example, as admin assistants, teachers, and social workers. Entry into HR is often unstructured and unplanned, which impacts career readiness, motivation, and the skills of entry-level HR professionals. 

So, why do these people want to join the HR profession? AIHR’s research suggests that people move into HR because they have a desire to make an impact on businesses and their people. In fact, 37% of those surveyed in HR said that “translating business needs into impactful people interventions” is their number one preferred job activity. 

Let’s explore the five types of HR career paths, including what each one looks like, what it’s motivated by, and its potential advantages and disadvantages.

1. Traditional vertical career path

A traditional vertical career path is defined by linear career progression, often beginning with an entry-level position, and making vertical career moves into increasingly more senior positions. HR professionals who tend to seek out this upward career mobility are often motivated by increased responsibility, leadership, status, and recognition.

To climb the career ladder in this way, it’s essential to build foundational functional skills, learn to effectively manage others, and form a strategic vision to guide the organization forward. This movement is often tied to opportunities that are available within the organization, but it can also involve stepping into a more senior role at another company.

The main advantage of a vertical career path is the relatively fast progression from entry-level roles to senior positions, often accompanied by increased responsibility, visibility, and pay. However, this path can also encourage overwork as individuals push to keep moving up, which increases the risk of burnout. In some cases, organizations may award more senior titles without a corresponding increase in skills or experience, creating a gap between role expectations and actual capability.

AIHR’s research shows that approximately 33% of people in HR take this career path.

An example of a traditional vertical HR career path: Serena begins her HR journey in an entry-level role as an HR Coordinator. From here, she moves into an HR Business Partner role, and then into a Senior HR Business Partner position, continuing to increase her responsibilities and leadership status. Next, she is promoted to HR Director, followed by Head of HR. Finally, she moves into the role of Chief People Officer (CHRO) at the organization.

2. Specialist domain-driven career path

A specialist domain-driven career path focuses on selecting one specialist area of interest within HR and progressing in this niche. HR professionals who follow this HR career path tend to be motivated by mastery of their specialty: gaining credibility, developing specialist skills, and obtaining a deep knowledge and experience of one domain. People who carve out this type of career tend to love the scientific or technical aspects of their work. 

This career path requires ongoing learning, visibility, and specialization. Movement is always aligned to specialist domains, for example, compensation and benefits, people analytics, or organizational development. 

One of the advantages of taking this path is that you tend to spend a lot of time developing your skills and obtaining new qualifications, which often puts you in the minority of people who can do what you do, increasing your job prospects. As a result, people on this HR career path have the option to move into a similar role in a new industry or environment. However, there are some drawbacks. This path can lead to siloing, less mobility within an organization, and role narrowness. 

According to AIHR’s research, around 17% of people take this type of HR career path.

An example of a specialist domain-driven HR career path: Ranahjai studied law at University and began his career as University law lecturer, before moving into HR and becoming an Industrial Relations Expert. By deepening his expertise, he was promoted to Industrial Relations Executive, where he now plays a critical role in maintaining and improving the relationship between his organization and its employees.

3. Moving across disciplines within HR

Moving across disciplines within HR is also known as a lateral career move, or a non-linear career path. People who take this path are often motivated by variety and grow bored if their area of work stays the same for too long. They enjoy exposure to lots of different disciplines and having a wide range of experiences at work. However, to succeed on this path requires individuals to build deeper functional and transferable skills, enabling them to arrive at a new discipline with a strong foundation to build on.

Movement along this HR career path is through opportunities within and outside of the organization, making it more flexible than a traditional path. 

The main advantage of this path is the variety of experience, knowledge, and skills you’ll build by being exposed to many disciplines and departments within HR. This can be particularly helpful in understanding how all the operations within HR intersect. The main disadvantages are that it requires substantial transferable skills, can take longer to demonstrate impact, and requires exposure to the different HR domains in order to broadly develop.

AIHR estimates that 23% of HR professionals choose this career path.

An example of a lateral HR career path: Janelle begins her career in HR as an OD Administrator, then moves across into another entry-level, but more general role as an HR Coordinator. From here, she undertakes some specialist training so that she can move into an HRIS Analyst position.

After a while in this department, she has a desire to work with and develop people more, so she makes another lateral move but is promoted to HR Scrum Manager. She enjoys this work, but wants to move into operations, and secures a position as HR Operations Manager. Utilizing all the skills and experience she has developed so far, Janelle is promoted to Head of Employee Experience.

4. In and out of HR

The in-and-out HR career path involves moving from a non-HR role into HR, and potentially back out and in again. Individuals who choose this path are often motivated by curiosity, integration, and breadth. People on this path must master the application of transferable skills and create meaningful links between varying HR and non-HR roles. Movement here is aligned to the various opportunities available and role expansion, and is not purely bound by organizations. 

The advantage of this career path is the much wider range of opportunities available, as well as the vital transferable experience acquired in both HR and non-HR roles. However, the main drawback of this route is that it can present an unclear career ambition and appear as if someone is simply “hopping” from one job to another. 

AIHR has found that approximately 11% of people take this HR career path.

An example of an in and out of HR career path: Luca begins his career working as a Call Center Agent, but doesn’t enjoy the monotony of this role. He uses his skills to gain an entry-level HR role as a Learning and Development Administrator, and quickly rises to become a Learning and Development Specialist, followed by a Learning and Development Manager.

At this point, Luca is ready for a change and hungry to progress to the next level of his career, but his current organization doesn’t have a suitable opportunity. So, he secures a non-HR role as a Regional Manager at another company, where he spends a few years further developing his leadership skills. Following this, he’s keen to move back into HR, and takes a Regional HR Head position at the same company. 

5. Squiggly career path

The final HR career path is a squiggly one, where someone makes a lot of moves across departments, and in and out of HR. These people are motivated by freedom, experimentation, and their personal values. To succeed, they must gain exposure, continually upskill themselves, and align with the core needs of the next role they’re pursuing. Movement in this path is through projects, short term-gigs, assignments and certifications. 

The advantage of a squiggly career path is that this person can stay true to their changing personal and professional aspirations and prevent boredom. However, it can quickly lead to burnout, result in a lack of formal recognition, and loss of career identity. 

AIHR estimates that around 17% of people take a career path like this in HR.

An example of an in and out of HR career path: Aoife begins her career as a freelance Fashion Consultant, but work dries up and she decides to move into HR as an entry-level Talent Researcher. She’s great at her job and is quickly promoted to Headhunter, but after taking a diversity and inclusion course, she follows her interests and transitions to a DEIB Officer role.

Again, she’s quickly promoted to DEIB Specialist, but after a few years, she feels stagnant in this role. A huge career change sees her leave her organization and take an external job in Public Relations, followed by a promotion to Head of Comms. Three years later, she decides to move back into HR and secures a position as a Senior HR Project Manager.

HR career path examples from practice

Now that you have a good idea of the various shapes and forms an HR career path can take on, let’s look at some examples to see how an HR professional can progress in real life. The following three stories are taken with permission from Andrea, Michael, and Lucy (we’ve changed their names for privacy reasons).

From HR Administrator to CHRO

Andrea has held various HR roles over the past 20 years after acquiring her Generalist HR degree. She started as an HR Administrator in one of her country’s biggest mining operations. This role was a valuable learning experience for her, as she not only mastered HR tools like ATS, CRM, HRIS, and HR analytics, she also gained end-to-end exposure to the HR value chain.

Being an HR Administrator helped prepare her for her first HR Generalist role two years later, when she moved to a financial services organization. In this position, she learned the ins and outs of many HR areas, such as recruitment, payroll, C&B, and HR compliance.

As an HR Generalist, she acquired versatile skills, enabling her to lead a number of HR initiatives before moving into a Senior HRBP role, this time in the telecommunications sector. As a Senior HRBP, she had the opportunity to work with the business on more strategic initiatives, collaborate with other HR specialists, and lead long-term projects.

After four years, Andrea moved on to her first HR executive role. She worked as the VP of HR of another telecommunications business that was undergoing an M&A process, and was responsible for one of their largest enterprise service lines. She capitalized on her comprehensive HR toolkit, building strategic partnership abilities and leadership experience to support senior leaders during the M&A.

Building on her executive and strategic leadership experience, she easily transitioned into the role of CHRO at a public sector organization 3.5 years later, leading the transformation of the organization’s HR function.

Currently, she’s a Senior CHRO at one of her country’s biggest multinational banks. She has gained enterprise-wide influence and management experience in a large-scale organizational transformation. She’s also in charge of the strategic HR agenda and solutions for her 30,000+ workforce.

From HR Consultant to CHRO

Michael started his career as an HR Consultant in the insurance sector. In his first role, he focused on supporting the HR group services team in implementing various interventions across the business. This experience allowed him to support the implementation of major change processes.

After realizing his true passion was engaging with the business, he moved into an HRBP role, where he was responsible for aligning HR initiatives with business objectives. He developed key skills in stakeholder management and strategic business partnership.

Due to his success in recruitment, he could move into a CoE, where he was responsible for the business’s end-to-end talent management portfolio as Head of Talent Acquisition. In this role, he developed expertise in talent strategy, performance management, and succession planning.

Over time, he also took on the L&D portfolio, which allowed him to become the Manager for OD and Learning, gaining skills in organizational design and creating large-scale L&D programs. After 14 years, Michael wanted to move into a different industry, so he became the Group OD Executive for a company in the logistics industry.

He mastered stakeholder management to optimize specialist HR functions and strategic HR consulting at the executive level. This prepared him for his next role as VP of Shared Services, which put him in charge of developing, implementing, and optimizing HR tech solutions for the business. This built his capacity for global system implementation and service delivery optimization. Currently, he is the CHRO of a global manufacturing business.

From OD Assistant to OD Head

Lucy is an HR professional with 12 years of experience in various roles within a multinational organization. She started her HR career path as an Organizational Design (OD) Assistant in the financial services industry. In this role, she supported the business in implementing various interventions. She gained a solid understanding of organizational design principles, project management, and HR reporting and analytics.

She later moved into an HRBP role, which taught her how HR engaged with and could add value to the business. At the same time, her role’s broad focus helped her understand all the stages of the employee life cycle better.

After four years, she moved into a CoE as an Organizational Development Specialist, where she gained expertise in strategic needs assessment, program implementation oversight, and end-to-end program design. Eventually, Lucy took up the role of Head of Organizational Development, making her responsible for the OD portfolio and giving her experience in setting the strategic direction for OD across the organization.

HR job titles by career level

When planning your HR career path, it helps to understand how HR roles are typically structured at different stages of seniority. While titles vary across organizations, most HR positions fall into entry, mid, senior, and executive levels, which gives a useful reference point for mapping possible next steps. Here’s an overview of the typical hierarchy with example job titles.

Entry-level

Mid-level

Senior

Executive

How to choose your HR career path 

With so many different HR roles and career paths available, how do you choose the right one for you? 

A good first step is to familiarize yourself with the different options we’ve discussed above. This way, you can make an intentional decision about your career progression, knowing what’s possible. 

The second step is to take some time to reflect on various factors to help you better understand who you are, what you want, and how to get there.

Here are four guiding questions you can pose to yourself to make informed decisions about your HR career progression:

Question 1: Who am I and where am I?

Begin by reflecting on who you currently are and everything that has brought you to this point in your career. For example, what past interests led you here? What education do you have? What work experience (voluntary and paid) have you acquired to date? What are your key skills and competencies? Have you completed any additional certifications or courses?

It’s equally important to reflect on where you are personally and all of the choices, events, and learning lessons that have led you to this point. For example, if you’re a parent and looking to plan out your HR career path, you might make different choices than someone who is single and doesn’t have that responsibility to consider.

Question 2: What do I want and why do I want it?


Next, move into the present and consider your current aspirations. Make time to consider what your current interests and passions are, and which areas of HR these naturally align with. What motivates you, or would motivate you, in a work context? For example, are you primarily motivated by money and status, or are you intrinsically motivated by growth? What do you want out of your career as an HR professional?

Tap into resources like online articles, industry newsletters, and career pages to better understand different roles and what organizations are looking for with each of these. 

Take as much time as you need to make a decision, but do make one. If choosing a path feels restrictive, it’s likely something less linear (a squiggly path) will suit you and offer more flexibility in the future. 

Question 3: How will I get there?

Once you’ve got a clearer idea of which role(s) and path is most appealing and suitable for you, you can assess what skills and experience you need to build to get there. 

What is standing in your way, and how can you navigate these obstacles?

Do you need to continue your education, enroll in an online course, or complete a certification to increase your chances of securing a role and make yourself stand out from other candidates? Is there anyone in your personal or professional network who can offer some guidance and wisdom? Is there a different role that would serve as a stepping stone to the one you really want? 

Question 4: What will I want or who do I want to be?

The final step is to look to the future and consider where you want to go. 

It’s okay if you don’t have a clear end goal – not everyone will. If this resonates, focus your attention on as far into the future as you can go. Perhaps there are two different areas of HR that really interest you, and you’re not sure which direction to go in. In this case, a general role as an HR Generalist or Administrator would help you explore both, and once you’re further in your career, you can make that decision. 

Define some clear goals, and set expectations that align with who you are and what you want from your HR career. Think about what success in this field looks like to you – because it will be different for everyone. Remember to include your personal self in these decisions, and set goals that align with the other areas of your life. 

There’s no one single way to determine the best HR career path for you. However, a skills-first approach has become increasingly critical. This applies especially to developing analytical, technological, and AI skills. You must think beyond advancing to particular HR job titles and continuously upskill to drive long-term HR career progression.

With the number of HR roles available and the different competencies each one requires, this can be a daunting task.

However, a quick and simple way to do this is to use AIHR’s HR Career Map. This will help you explore and compare suitable roles, identify the skills and training you need, get salary insights, and plan next steps to advance your HR career. It also allows you to discover emerging HR roles and trends based on regularly updated data, so even as the world of HR evolves, you can carefully consider your next career move.

Over to you

As an HR professional, you need a well-rounded set of skills to ensure you are able to turn existing and future challenges into opportunities for yourself. In this article, we’ve introduced the HR functional profiles and the different HR career path options you have within each functional profile. Each type of role requires a specific combination of core and functional competencies, divided into skills and behaviors. You can explore different HR roles in our HR Career Map.

However, understanding which skills and behaviors you need is only the first step. The next step should be to determine your current skills level and identify your own personal skills gap. Head over to our T-shaped assessment to measure your current HR competency level and identify the learning path you need to take to advance your career.

The post HR Career Path: Everything You Need to Know appeared first on AIHR.

The pressure to constantly adapt, learn, and “keep up” with AI is eroding wellbeing at a scale few leaders fully grasp. Layoff anxiety is only the tip of the iceberg that consists of chronic uncertainty, doubts, incapabilities, and a sense of never being “up to date” to stay relevant.

This growing strain affects organizational performance, weakening productivity, slowing transformation efforts, and ultimately putting revenue and competitiveness at risk.

In this article, we look at how HR can protect employee wellbeing amid the technostress resulting from AI anxiety and the constant drive for employees to adapt.

Contents
The human impact of AI: Understanding AI anxiety and technostress
The role of HR in managing AI anxiety and technostress
Four actions HR can take to reduce technostress and protect wellbeing

The human impact of AI: Understanding AI anxiety and technostress

Digital fatigue and overwhelm threaten employee wellbeing and productivity. Nearly one in three people feels overloaded by digital devices and subscriptions. Meanwhile, 60% of people with high screen time worry about the emotional and physical toll of the digital world.

The rapid rise of AI has worsened these concerns. 71% of U.S. workers familiar with AI express anxiety about its effects. A study of 1,606 employees found that concerns about AI, such as job loss and career insecurity, are strongly linked to lower performance and wellbeing. These anxieties reflect deeper worries about displacement, loss of autonomy, and keeping up with evolving job responsibilities.

When anxiety rises, organizations feel the impact through reduced focus, slower adoption of new tools, and overall declines in productivity and work quality.

Instead of thinking about AI as “support in your pocket,” we should ask what it can actually do for people. At an event I went to, nearly every stand claimed to be AI-enabled, but I kept wondering: what problem are we really trying to solve? If your product uses AI, will it actually address the fact that employees working on a laptop are distracted every two minutes, according to Microsoft’s latest Future of Work report? It takes about 25 minutes to reach a state of deep focus, and we’re distracted every two minutes…

Ryan Hopkins, Strategic Wellbeing Leader

It’s not an organization’s responsibility to improve happiness, and that’s where a lot of apps and quick fixes miss the mark. But it is their responsibility not to make things worse. And when we flip that switch, we stop looking at the individual and giving them shiny tools to deal with and actually look at the workplace itself. Instead, we ask, how can we let the smart humans do the job that they were brought in to do with the minimal amount of distractions?

Ryan Hopkins, Strategic Wellbeing Leader

AI anxiety is emerging as a central driver of technostress. Employees encounter numerous AI tools, but often lack the time to learn how to work with them effectively. This creates an “always-on” culture that blurs work-life boundaries. It also brings complexity, as fast-paced learning outstrips employees’ readiness. 

Concerns about job security, skill relevance, loss of autonomy, or the pace of change serve as the psychological spark that activates the four classic technostress creators: overload, complexity, invasion, and uncertainty.

When employees feel threatened or underprepared, these technostress creators produce cognitive strain, emotional fatigue, and ultimately, declines in wellbeing and performance.

Importantly, evidence shows that organizational support can disrupt this cycle. Transparent communication, accessible skill-building opportunities, and attentive leadership significantly weaken the link between AI anxiety and technostress. 

These forms of support also buffer the downstream effects of technostress on wellbeing, shifting employee responses from fear and resistance toward confidence, capability, and engagement.

Organizations should treat AI anxiety and technostress as strategic risks to successful transformation. Left unaddressed, they slow implementation, erode trust, and undermine productivity.

The role of HR in managing AI anxiety and technostress

HR plays a critical role in enabling leaders to make responsible, people-centered decisions about AI adoption. Many leaders focus on efficiency and performance gains without fully understanding the workforce implications of how AI reshapes workloads, alters autonomy, or introduces new sources of stress.

Here’s where HR’s impact lies:

• Strategic guidance for leaders: HR must help leaders look beyond efficiency gains and understand how AI reshapes workloads, autonomy, and stress, guiding them toward decisions that balance innovation with employee wellbeing.
• Clear frameworks for responsible AI use: HR should equip leaders with structured ways to evaluate AI use cases, identify where human judgment remains essential, and anticipate how roles and capabilities will need to evolve.
• Psychological safety for experimentation: HR needs to create an environment where employees feel safe to explore AI, ask questions, and make mistakes. This can be achieved by utilizing learning spaces, such as AI labs or low-stakes testing sessions, to build confidence rather than fear. When employees are encouraged to test, challenge, and provide feedback on AI tools, adoption becomes a shared journey instead of a top-down mandate.
• Communication and support structures: HR must embed transparent communication, prepare managers to spot early signs of digital fatigue, explain the purpose and limitations of AI tools, and maintain open feedback channels for continuous improvement and real-time adjustments.

To summarize, HR can offer strategic guidance to leaders, promote psychological safety for employees, and facilitate communication that fosters trust. This ultimately creates an environment where AI adoption and employee wellbeing can coexist.

Four actions HR can take to reduce technostress and protect wellbeing

From a practical perspective, HR should prioritize four key actions as a starting point in creating a safe and trusted environment for AI adoption.

1. Build AI literacy and confidence

As we’ve already mentioned, employees are more likely to adopt AI when they can experiment without fear of making mistakes. That involves building AI literacy, which is about helping people understand what AI is, how it works, and where it can be applied responsibly and effectively in everyday work.

HR can create this environment, for example, by establishing AI learning labs where employees can explore tools in short, guided sessions. 

The focus should be on confidence, not on compliance. Instead of mandating adoption targets, organizations can encourage employees to share what they discovered, what didn’t work, and how tools could be applied to their roles. This reduces anxiety, normalizes learning, and builds capability from the ground up.

2. Redesign work with wellbeing in mind

AI reshapes workloads, not just workflows, and HR must assess both. For instance, automating report generation may save time, but if leadership interprets this as “capacity gained” and increases output expectations, burnout will rise rather than fall. 

Practical steps include:

• Conducting workload impact assessments before rollout
• Observing whether AI reduces or redistributes effort in teams
• Reallocating tasks so employees spend freed-up time on strategic or meaningful work.

We talked about AI and employee wellbeing with strategic wellbeing leader and author Ryan Hopkins. Watch the full interview below:

3. Own the narrative and make it human-centered

Employees need clarity, not hype. HR should proactively communicate the reasons behind introducing AI, the problems it addresses, and how roles will evolve. This narrative-building is essential for maintaining trust.

Leaders also need coaching to recognize the signs of digital fatigue, for instance, reduced responsiveness, irritability, declining quality, or repeated mistakes. A manager who notices these early can adjust workloads, review tooling complexity, or offer support, preventing deeper burnout.

4. Embed wellbeing metrics into AI rollouts

To ensure AI enhances rather than erodes the employee experience, wellbeing must become part of the measurement architecture. HR can:

• Add stress levels, autonomy, clarity, and engagement to KPIs for all AI initiatives
• Use short pulse surveys during key rollout stages to capture real-time sentiment
• Monitor whether AI is reducing administrative burden or inadvertently increasing pace and volume.

Final words

The rise of AI presents a critical moment for organizations. While the promise of efficiency is excellent, the human cost, manifested as AI anxiety and technostress, is a strategic risk that HR can no longer afford to ignore.

The post AI and Employee Wellbeing: Why HR Should Take Action Now appeared first on AIHR.

Yet significant barriers to adoption persist. Insights from our collaboration with Lightcast reveal a critical disconnect: the challenge lies less in employee willingness and more in leadership’s approach to AI adoption. While most leaders support AI in principle, they haven’t translated that support into structured, scalable action.

AIHR’s research, based on AI readiness data from 334 HR teams globally, reinforces this disconnect. While belief in AI is strong, readiness is not. Only 30% of HR teams report having a clear purpose, defined value, and prioritized use cases for AI, highlighting a persistent gap between ambition and execution.

Early pilots often remain isolated, disconnected from real HR workflows and broader business impact. Too many organizations have fallen into the trap of fragmented pilots and unstructured experimentation, neglecting the integrated approach required to turn promise into performance.

This article examines what true AI readiness means and how HR can play a decisive role in guiding organizations to mature their AI practices, anchoring them in strategy, enabling them through technology, and amplifying them through people.

Contents
Why is AI adoption not only about technology?
What is AI readiness?
AI readiness pillars for the business and HR
How AI readiness enables maturity and value creation
How HR can drive AI readiness and maturity

Why is AI adoption not only about technology?

Over the past two years, it’s become clear that successful AI adoption depends less on technology, tools, or data and more on how work itself is designed. For many organizations, the real challenge is reshaping workflows and cultivating an open and ready culture to integrate AI meaningfully and at scale. This involves redesigning roles, rethinking processes, and supporting employees through change, all of which fall directly under HR’s scope.

This becomes even more important with the rise of agentic AI, where value isn’t just added in support tasks, but generated directly through core workflows, decision-making, and day-to-day operations.

Yet most organizations are stuck at the starting line. AI adoption remains confined to the individual level: employees are handed tools, guardrails are loosened, and they are encouraged to experiment. While this can drive impressive personal productivity gains, it rarely translates into systemic impact.

This stagnation is rarely driven by employee resistance. In fact, AIHR’s data shows that 65% of HR teams demonstrate strong buy-in, awareness, and advocacy for AI use, suggesting the real barrier lies in how AI is embedded into systems, workflows, and leadership decisions, not in workforce willingness.

Few organizations have managed to move beyond individual tinkering toward embedding AI into shared practices, integrated workflows, or enterprise-wide operating models. The real competitive advantage will not come from the number of employees who use AI but from how deeply AI is woven into the organization’s core ways of working.

I think this is a really interesting implementation balance to strike, because you have to look at it almost like a matrix of two different factors. One is, is it a top-down initiative or is it bottom-up? And the other is, is it a very high control or a very low control environment?

Eryn Peters, Co-Creator of AI Maturity Index

Because if you have a top-down directive and an extremely high control environment, when was the last time your boss knew what tools you needed to do your job? So the chances are the three approved tools might not really be hitting the mark for what you needed to get done. But at the same time, if it’s extremely high control, most people are just going to go onto their phone, go on ChatGPT anyway, and now you have shadow AI, which is a huge issue.

Eryn Peters, Co-Creator of AI Maturity Index

Moving from individual experimentation to enterprise-wide transformation requires intention. It’s about building the right capabilities, implementing smart guardrails, and shaping a culture that can actually absorb and amplify AI. HR’s role in this is foundational, from activating new skill sets and creating the cultural conditions for AI to thrive to evolving organizational structures. Without this, organizations risk mistaking a burst of activity for real progress.

What is AI readiness?

AI readiness is the ability to successfully adopt AI in a business-focused and sustainable manner. In our work with businesses, we’ve determined that they need to have five readiness pillars in place to drive sustainable AI progress:

• Strategy
• Governance
• Technology
• People
• Skills

Importantly, AI readiness reflects how effectively the different pillars are integrated and work together rather than how they perform individually. AIHR’s readiness data shows that strengths in one pillar do not compensate for weaknesses in others. Teams with a strong AI mindset but weak strategy, governance, or technology foundations consistently struggle to scale AI beyond isolated pilots.

AI readiness pillars for the business and HR

Let’s take a look at each pillar and how HR leaders can start building them up:

Strategy

AI readiness starts with strategy. For organizations, this means moving away from treating AI as a side project or disconnected experiment and instead viewing it as a key driver of how the business creates value.

Aligning AI initiatives with strategic goals sets the direction and defines the “why” behind adoption, clarifying what success looks like and where AI can deliver its greatest impact.

HR plays a crucial role in enabling this process. By bringing business and functional leaders together, HR can help define AI’s purpose, establish clear success metrics, and identify use cases that directly support organizational priorities. When HR facilitates these conversations, AI becomes embedded in the organization’s operations, enabling more intelligent decision-making and measurable business outcomes rather than isolated technological wins.

Readiness checklist

• A defined promise of value and the purpose of AI for the business
• Defined success criteria and metrics for AI initiatives
• Identified use cases aligned to overall strategic objectives.

Governance

Instead of becoming a bureaucratic hurdle, governance provides the structure that ensures AI initiatives are built on trust, aligned with compliance, and resilient against risk. It clarifies what’s allowed, how decisions are made, and where accountability lies, removing friction and uncertainty from the process.

Governance anchors the responsible use of AI in fairness, transparency, and accountability. This includes identifying potential risks, setting clear policies, and maintaining oversight over how AI decisions are made and monitored.

HR contributes significantly here, especially as the steward of employee data and workplace ethics. By partnering with legal, compliance, and IT, HR can help create governance frameworks that uphold integrity and protect stakeholders. HR can also lead training and awareness programs to educate teams on what ethical AI use looks like in daily operations and build a culture where innovation and responsibility advance hand in hand.

Readiness checklist

• Identified risks related to AI use across the organization
• Clear policies and guidelines on how AI should be used
• Processes to monitor compliance and support ethical decision-making for AI
• Cross-functional CoE team in place, owning AI adoption
• A list of approved AI tools and access for employees

HR can encompass so many important roles within an organization. For example, in learning and development, with things like the EU AI Act, it’s HR’s job to make sure everyone is feeling at least some level of literacy. When we look at governance, HR is also closely tied to legal in many instances. So, how do we put safeguards in place while maintaining that human-centric AI element of it

Eryn Peters, Co-Creator of AI Maturity Index

Technology

Your business can only achieve your ambitious AI goals when the underlying systems are ready to support them. That means having reliable data, a robust infrastructure, and tools that integrate seamlessly across workflows.

Clean, connected, and accessible data is the foundation for AI impact. With scalable systems and well-integrated tools, AI solutions are not short-lived experiments but evolve with the business and bring continuous value.

HR can partner with IT to identify gaps in data quality, integration, accessibility, and system scalability. When HR is part of these conversations and decisions, organizations can make technology choices that truly support people and process goals and result in real organizational advantage.

Readiness checklist

• Reliable, structured business data
• Tools and platforms that support AI use across the organization
• Systems that are scalable and easy to integrate for AI solutions
• A technology roadmap for future AI adoption

People

Even the best tools and strategies fall flat if employees aren’t open to experimenting, learning, and adapting. Change accelerates when people see AI as something that helps them rather than is pushed upon them. Visible leadership support and everyday use of AI tools are often the strongest signals that an organization is truly ready to embrace this shift.

Culture plays a decisive role here. A culture that rewards curiosity, values learning, and celebrates experimentation is far more likely to turn AI ambition into reality. This is where HR becomes a powerful enabler. By creating psychologically safe spaces to learn, spotlighting early wins, and empowering AI champions to lead by example, HR helps build momentum and confidence across teams.

Through stories, collaboration, and real use cases that show how AI simplifies work and sharpens decisions, skepticism turns into engagement. When leaders model this behavior and teams feel trusted to explore, AI stops being a side project and becomes part of the organizational DNA. And when that happens, innovation doesn’t just spread from the top down; it grows through collective ownership.

Readiness checklist

• Clear understanding of AI’s value for the business
• Visible support from business leaders
• Practical examples of AI being used in everyday business operations
• Sharing of success stories
• Encouraging and rewarding experimentation.

Skills

Finally, AI readiness depends on skills—the ability of people to understand, interpret, and apply AI effectively and ethically. Beyond technical know-how, employees need confidence in using AI insights for decision-making, awareness of bias and fairness, and the capacity to adapt as tools evolve.

HR’s role is to make this learning accessible, continuous, and relevant to real work. This happens through integrating AI capability-building into learning programs, mentoring, and everyday tasks. Embedding ethical considerations into every learning moment makes the organization’s progress in AI maturity responsible and sustainable.

This way, HR helps create a workforce that doesn’t just use AI but understands its implications, ethically, practically, and strategically. As a result, the business becomes truly AI-ready, equipped to thrive in a future where technology and human potential advance together.

Readiness checklist

• Core skills and confidence to use AI across the workforce
• Opportunities to apply AI tools in daily work
• Ongoing learning and skill development for AI capabilities
• AI fluency is incorporated into job design and competency frameworks.

We discussed the different aspects of AI maturity with Eryn Peters, co-creator of AI Maturity Index. Watch the full interview below:

How AI readiness enables maturity and value creation

Readiness is only the starting point of AI adoption. The real value emerges when organizations advance and mature their AI capabilities in an integrated manner across these five pillars. However, maturity should not be viewed as a universal end goal or a race to the top. Not every organization needs to operate at the highest level of AI maturity to achieve meaningful impact.

A more effective approach is to pursue best-fit maturity, a level of capability that aligns with the organization’s strategy, operating model, and ambition. Instead of striving for the highest maturity possible, organizations should first define the value they want AI to deliver, determine the maturity level required to realize that value, and set up the five readiness pillars in a way that supports and enables the desired maturity and intended value.

A saying that’s become popular is “AI won’t steal your job, but someone who can use it better than you will.” I don’t think that’s a helpful narrative because more usage isn’t always better, and not every company, team, or role is built the same when it comes to AI.

Eryn Peters, Co-Creator of AI Maturity Index

It’s not fair to compare someone in HR to a software developer who’s been building AI tools for 20 years, or someone in healthcare, where data use is heavily regulated, to someone in tech, where governance is often optional. Benchmarking matters because it helps people avoid feeling left behind and gives them the confidence to ask the right questions.

Eryn Peters, Co-Creator of AI Maturity Index

By pursuing best-fit maturity, organizations can prioritize investments where they matter most. AI adoption can then deliver sustained value rather than chase maturity benchmarks that may not serve their strategic objectives.

How HR can drive AI readiness and maturity

HR is uniquely positioned to connect strategy, people, and technology in a way that accelerates responsible adoption. By bringing leaders together to define AI’s purpose, align initiatives with business priorities, and measure impact, HR helps transform AI into a strategic enabler—not an isolated experiment. This clarity of direction is what turns curiosity about AI into meaningful progress.

As maturity grows, HR becomes the guardian of trust and ethics in AI use. Robust governance, built on clear policies, transparency, and shared accountability, ensures AI decisions are fair, explainable, and compliant. When employees trust the systems they use, adoption follows naturally, and AI shifts from a technical add-on to a strategic business partner.

To drive AI readiness and maturity, HR should:

• Start from within: The journey begins inside the HR function. Too often, HR looks outward—enabling others—without first building its own confidence, capability, and clarity on how AI will reshape its operating model. Before guiding the business, HR must reflect inward: assess data maturity, rethink workflows, and ensure technology and skills are fit for purpose. What’s more, HR teams that experiment with AI build credibility and empathy for employees’ learning curves, showing that progress comes through exploration and iteration. Practicing what we preach means experiencing firsthand how AI streamlines processes, improves insights, and elevates service delivery.
• Develop employee AI fluency: Build understanding and confidence across the workforce. When HR drives accessible, ongoing learning, employees are better equipped to use AI effectively and responsibly.
• Enable leadership role-modeling: Encourage leaders to define AI’s purpose, align initiatives with strategic priorities, and visibly use AI tools in their work. Leadership involvement sets the tone for adoption and trust.
• Foster experimentation: Create space for testing, learning, and innovation. Encourage teams to explore new tools, share lessons learned, and understand that mistakes are part of the learning process. Normalizing experimentation, including setbacks, helps build confidence, curiosity, and a culture where progress comes through trying, refining, and improving together.

Final words

The journey to AI maturity is not a destination but a continuous evolution. Organizations can strategically integrate AI by prioritizing a “best-fit maturity” approach that serves their unique goals rather than chasing universal benchmarks.

HR plays an essential role in this transformation, fostering a culture of trust, ethical governance, and continuous learning. By leading from within, HR can demonstrate the tangible benefits of AI, empowering individuals and shaping an organizational DNA where human and artificial intelligence collaborate to create lasting value.

The post AI Readiness and Maturity: The Strategic Role of HR appeared first on AIHR.

Yet despite their prevalence, M&As are notoriously risky. The Post-Merger Integration Survey by Eight Advisory found that 71% of transactions were perceived as strategically and financially successful, but only 40% achieved or exceeded expected synergies. Similarly, EY reported that nearly half of employees leave within the first year of a merger, highlighting the human cost of poorly managed integrations.

For HR leaders, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Beyond the financial and legal mechanics of the deal, HR plays a decisive role in ensuring employees, culture, and leadership come together to realize the intended value.

This article explores the role of HR in navigating M&A change management and highlights seven critical success factors.

Contents
The HR role in mergers and acquisitions
What HR needs to get right in M&A change management

The HR role in mergers and acquisitions

While many HR professionals see their role in M&A as focused mainly on managing the people side of change, like communications, engagement, and culture, the reality is that HR’s involvement should start much earlier and extend across every stage of the deal.

That involvement begins with understanding the type of transaction taking place. Mergers involve combining two or more companies into a new entity, while acquisitions refer to one company purchasing and integrating another. These differences are essential as they set the tone for the integration and transition.

Organizations pursue M&A for a variety of reasons:

• Growth acceleration: Expanding market share or entering new markets quickly.
• Economies of scale: Driving efficiency and cost reductions through consolidation.
• Risk mitigation: Diversifying across geographies or industries.
• Talent and capabilities: Acquiring specialized expertise, technology, or intellectual property.
• Competitive advantage: Consolidating market position or disrupting through innovation.

However, many employees do not experience M&A as an opportunity but as a time of disruption, uncertainty, and loss. Fear of job loss and uncertainty about leadership changes and culture can cause employees to become disengaged. As a result, key talent is at a higher risk of leaving during M&A.

We discussed the role of HR in mergers & acquisitions with Andrew Bartlow, HR leader and Founder of People Leader Accelerator. Watch the full interview below:

Before M&A

Before the deal closes, HR focuses on due diligence and planning. This involves thoroughly auditing the target company’s HR policies, employee contracts, and benefits to identify potential risks and liabilities. HR also conducts cultural assessments to gauge how well the two organizations will fit together. Where possible, HR teams should also be involved in workforce analysis to better understand each organization’s critical talent and skills and how they can be leveraged in the future.

I think maybe the greatest misconception is that a lot of people think it’s mostly about the mechanics, like making payroll work, getting everybody onto one system, harmonizing benefits. Day one communications often pop to mind. There’s often an ops-centered focus versus a culture-oriented focus. And I’d suggest that there’s actually a different focus area that might be more important, and that is value creation. What is the logic for that transaction? Why are these companies coming together? Are you trying to increase distribution? Are you trying to reduce costs through corporate synergies?

Andrew Bartlow, CHRO & PE Operating Partner

During M&A

As the deal unfolds, HR leads the transition and communication effort. The responsibility during this phase stretches beyond these activities. It should also include ensuring that the new entity has a clear strategy, that work on an integrated operating model and organizational design is taking place, and managing governance and compliance requirements related to the transition. Depending on the nature of the deal, this could extend to consolidating contracts and terms or further negotiations with unions and bargaining councils.

Post M&A

After the merger, HR’s focus shifts to integration and alignment. Here, they work to blend the two company cultures into one cohesive identity, which is a significant factor in the merger’s long-term success. Additionally, HR monitors employee morale and engagement, ensuring the new workforce is motivated and aligned with the company’s strategic goals.

What HR needs to get right in M&A change management

Managing change during a merger or acquisition is one of HR professionals’ most complex challenges. They need to guide employees through uncertainty, aligning cultures, and building trust in a new direction.

Beyond the formalized HR responsibilities above, there are specific critical success factors that HR needs to ensure are in place to drive value throughout and beyond the merger process.

1. Understand the value creation plan

The most common mistake in M&A is assuming employees automatically understand why the deal is happening and what value the organization aims to realize.

Understanding the value creation plan and the business case outlining how the deal will create financial, operational, or strategic value is non-negotiable for HR. Without it, HR cannot prioritize initiatives or tailor communications effectively. If the agreement aims to capture talent and innovation, retention of key experts must become the top HR priority. If cost savings are central, workforce restructuring must be managed transparently and fairly.

The value creation plan also serves as a great starting point for aligning a leadership coalition responsible for leading the integration efforts.

2. Clarify HR’s role and set boundaries

During M&A integration, HR often becomes the default owner of all people-related work. While HR should lead on the people strategy, it is important to define what that includes and what it doesn’t.

Set clear boundaries across functions early. HR is responsible for designing frameworks, supporting leaders, and keeping alignment on track. Day-to-day change management within teams should remain with people managers. HR can guide and support, but cannot take on every task tied to the transition.

Be cautious about falling into the role of being the person that everybody complains to. Focus more on the value creation and drive clarity and decision-making. Even if you’re not the decision-maker, you can highlight the benefits of providing more clarity faster.

Andrew Bartlow, CHRO & PE Operating Partner

3. Build a strong integrated leadership coalition

Integration success hinges on leadership alignment. When leaders from both organizations present conflicting messages, employees quickly lose trust. HR’s role is to help shape a unified leadership coalition that represents both legacy organizations and speaks with a single voice.

This can sometimes be problematic if specific leaders exit the organization as part of the deal. In these instances, it is essential to be clear about these leaders’ expectations and create clarity on their roles during the integration process.

Where possible, it is beneficial to have representation of different entities on an integrated leadership steering committee that will guide the transition. Importantly, you need to set the expectation that this leadership team might not be the final leadership team for the new integrated business. Still, they have been put in place specifically to guide the transition.

Illustrative example

A retail business had acquired two smaller players to diversify its product suite. All three CEOs formed part of the integrated steering committee responsible for guiding the transition for the first six months after the deal. Once the organizational design work had been completed, one CEO exited the business, while the other moved into a different role in the new structure.

It’s really important that there are conversations with the senior leadership team and key members of the staff of the acquired organization.

HR is best positioned to do that. The investing team is having those conversations as well, but it’s really helpful to have a professional who’s thinking about org structure, org design, org effectiveness, to speak with the humans, understand what their expectations are, ask them what their recommendations are to support the value creation efforts.

Andrew Bartlow, CHRO & PE Operating Partner

4. Conduct cultural due diligence

While financial due diligence is standard, cultural due diligence is often underestimated. 67% of executives have reported that cultural alignment and change management were the most underestimated issues during integrations. Mercer’s Culture Risk in M&A study similarly found that around 30% of transactions fail to meet financial targets due to cultural misalignment, with 67% experiencing delays in synergy realization.

Cultural due diligence involves assessing leadership styles, decision-making processes, and employee engagement before the deal closes. By identifying cultural differences and disconnects early, HR can craft integration strategies that bridge differences and prioritize culture work as part of the integration process.

For example, Microsoft’s acquisition of LinkedIn succeeded partly because leaders preserved LinkedIn’s autonomy in areas critical to its culture, while aligning operational practices. This balance prevented the culture clash that has derailed other high-profile mergers.

5. Own the narrative and tell the story from the start

In the absence of clear communication, rumors dominate. Employees report feeling less involved in decisions and goal alignment and becoming demotivated during the M&A process, highlighting a need for frequent and consistent two-way communication.

HR must proactively own the narrative, crafting a story that connects the deal rationale with employee concerns. This means addressing questions about job security, career opportunities, and culture. Importantly, communication should be two-way: employees need safe channels to ask questions and express concerns.

Example from practice

An insurance business that had bought one of its biggest competitors embarked on a national communication campaign, with key leadership members visiting all the various branches and highlighting the reason for the acquisition, the value to be realized, and the process that will guide the transition.

In the absence of clarity, we humans tend to jump to the worst conclusions. We have all sorts of fears and anxiety spin up.

So fill the void, drive the message, own the message, and be proactive about all the questions that are likely circulating in people’s heads, which again are likely to steer towards negative outcomes. So provide clear, definitive messaging as soon as you can. If you don’t have an answer on something yet, acknowledge the issue and provide updates along the way.

Andrew Bartlow, CHRO & PE Operating Partner

6. Deliver on the 90-day integration plan

The first 90 days post-close are critical. To achieve quick gains, it is good practice to set up an integration steering committee focusing on specific high-priority items that must be completed during the first 90 days after the deal’s announcement. Some of these could include:

• Strategy integration work: Setting a short-term strategy to continue with business as usual before finalizing the long-term strategy.
• Client consolidation: Ensuring that clients are transitioned to the new business in a meaningful way.
• Technology consolidation: Aligning different systems across the various companies to ensure an integrated way of working going forward.
• Organizational design: Clarifying structures, reporting lines, and role expectations quickly.
• Cultural initiatives: Integration workshops, joint onboarding sessions, and symbolic rituals that build a shared identity.
• Communication: Ensuring clarity and continuous communication to bring employees along the journey.

7. Look after the HR team

HR teams often face heavy workloads, emotional strain, and role uncertainty during M&A processes. If their needs are overlooked, it limits the HR’s capacity to support others, making it essential to actively protect their wellbeing throughout the process.

HR leaders should aim to create certainty for the team as quickly as possible, be transparent about what they can communicate, and guide the team in staggered priorities aligned to the available capacity.

Final words

The future of mergers and acquisitions is becoming more digital, data-driven, and global. HR leaders must be ready for virtual integrations, AI-supported cultural assessments, and cross-border compliance in increasingly complex regulatory environments.

To lead effective M&A change management, HR must be involved early, act strategically, and stay aligned with the organization’s value creation goals. When done well, HR can turn a complex, high-risk initiative into a structured process that delivers lasting impact.

The post M&A Change Management: Where HR Can Lead appeared first on AIHR.