Leading Edge Human Resource_3 pot

42 HR Structures: Are They Working? excellence members with some existing HR team members departing and “new blood” being recruited. We believe some HR leaders find such a “clinical” process difficult and therefore “mend and make do.” To overcome this reluctance the HR leader will need to possess a strong drive to really improve quality – what we term an “Excellence Mindset.” Possessing the mindset may not be enough, however, as replenishing will require budget. Thus if the HR leader is part of the Golden Triangle 18 outlined in Chapter 6 then it is more likely that they will be able to lever the power and influence to champion any temporary budget increase. The fifth and sixth challenges posed the question of whether there is an unsuitable organizational culture and unreceptive client/line managers. Put very simply, our research indicates that the 3-Box model does not suit all cultures. In some cultures the concept of the strategic Business Partner would be beyond the conception of even the most powerful line managers. This may be where HR is far from Golden Triangle membership and, like it or not, is seen as the “hire, fire, and train” function. Very technically based companies may be resistant to a customer service perspective and find it difficult to relate to Ulrich’s perception of value. The seventh challenge that we posed raises the issue of line indifference and resistance to HR restructuring. In terms of delivery, HR would appear to be in quite a difficult position at present and in the near-future within organizations. In order to respond strategically to the recession HR clearly needs a well-oiled strategically informed and high influence delivery model. Our research indicates that it is clear that going into the recession many HR models were in need of refinement. The recession may well make the implementation problems more problematic as energy is directed at recession solving problems and not on the necessary relationships and networking w ith client/line managers that tie a 3-Box Model together and make it work effectively. Also if line managers sensed that, in the recession and immediate post-recession climate, HR saw its delivery model as a strategic priority, then they may write off HR as a serious partner. HR Directors will need to put their energy into correcting and re-balancing the model by stealth! 2.6. Conclusions Research over the last 20 years (to which Dave Ulrich in particular has been a major contributor) has helped HR Directors 1. think about the structures (generally based around how HR organizes its processes) and role changes associated with a separation out into transactional work, HR business partners, and centers of excellence; 2. change HR from a process-specific function into a business with its own Profit and Loss and concomitant transparency and ROI visibility. Ulrich’s ideas clearly have given much impetus to the HR function from the late 1990s. They have propelled it forward and help ed it look at its contribution to value and the bottom line. However, by thinking more deeply about the changing value of knowledge inherent in business model change, and about the capabilities that HR Directors need to align the HR contribution to this, we argue that we now need to move beyond this perspective. Martin Hird, Paul Sparrow, and Craig Marsh 43 In Human Resource Champions Ulrich does not mention the issue of business models in relation to HRM. He mentions str ategic business units (SBUs) as the focus of attention twice – once in the context of a chemical company and once in a pharmaceutical company. An SBU is an entity within an organization that is given responsibility to serve a particular part of the business area and is allowed to develop its own mission, objectives, and strategy. The term “unit” relates to a part of the business that has a defined external market that enables a separate strategic plan to be developed and so often relates to large organizational structures such as a whole division. Ulrich argues that SBUs should be used as the level at which HR business partners should be organized as “ the initial point of contact for each business unit’s line managers” and also interfaced with the central centers of excellence. 19 Using Johnson and Johnson as an example, he notes that SBUs often have independent philosophies and operating histories as well as unique customers, products and cultures. 20 We believe that although these SBUs may be pursuing slightly different strategies and potentially operate to a different business model, these operations can be seen as “components” of the broader performance logic that exists once all such models are brought together under the “architectural” (organization strategy level) business model. However, aligning HR to the higher level business model is by default a complex task, as the alignment has to deliver a degree of coordination across what might be conflicting “component” interests. Not surprisingly, then, this chapter has signaled the crucial importance – in terms of the long-term success of HR delivery systems – that the system is linked to effective Relationships, Networks, and Influence – both w ithin and outside of the HR function. The balance of relationships between the three main components of the HR structure needs to be optimized and maintained carefully. This is certainly the case in terms of Business Partner/Expert relationships. These positive or otherwise relationships will often be based on good personality “fits,” so HR Directors need to be alert when influential jobholders depart their function as the positive balance may erode. There is also a warning for HR Directors. They must avoid or navigate successfully w hat we term a number of Fatal Flaws. One fatal flaw that emerges, when we look at our data on the implementation problems faced, is that we believe it is possible that there is a double capability problem that is making implementation currently very difficult: 1. not only is the capability of the Business Partner in question, 2. the capability of the line to use the Business Partner appropriately can be questioned. The line behavior problem is not just one of education – it might be a fatal flaw in the model in that they will always need to have low-level transactional solutions, but solutions provided by an individual HR person and not a service center. 44 HR Structures: Are They Working? A second fatal flaw might be that the key to success is not having the “boxes” per se, but having a clear logic as to how the boxes must be joined together and how they are used interdependently. This “way of working” is very dependent not just on the formal structure, but on the networks of connections and relationships that key players inside and “on top of” the boxes have. Historically these networks (often held by a handful of key players) help glue the system together, handle the problems of power and influence, and help solve the difficult issues that sit between boxes. It is important to note that a key issue for HR Directors in to “optimise” each of the three boxes in the model, as they tweak the roles and structure, rebalance it and re-educate the users and operators accordingly. They also need to be able to respond flexibiblity to events as they happen – for example talent shortages – and re-assign responsibilities across the model. Finally, to the extent that there is a new generation of line managers who are willing to drive the people agenda, and an “air traffic controller” sitting on top of the model handling the optimisation activities, then they may be more or less willing or able to use external consultants to run their Centres of Expertise and devise strategy. Similarly, if they have entered early on into service level agreements and outsourcing arrangements that restrict this ability to learn how to optimise the model, then they may experience problems of execution. Corporate stewardship of the 3-Box model can be hampered by these sorts of considerations. Fatal flaws are design faults that are accidents waiting to happen – a subtle set of events can disrupt the networks and power and knowledge that have made the model work in the past. The credit crunch might have proved to be this accident – attention was distracted (understandably) from managing the health of the HR delivery model, to managing the consequences of the recession. A possible outcome of such distracting pressures is the emergence of a “sick” 3-Box model system. The problem is one of reputation – once the model gets sick, the line will lose belief in it and it might take years to repair the reputation hit. As a final observation, however, we would observe that all these design faults can be fine-tuned and hopefully corrected before they wreak real damage. Leading HR involves surfacing the key networks and power relationships that currently make the delivery model work and surfacing the “design intelligence” of the key players that currently (and in the future) help to tie the boxes together and keep the system healthy. The next chapter reviews the experience of Nestlé in evolving its HR delivery models. Chapters 4, 6, 8, and 9 then describe the key activities and capabilities that are necessary for Leading HR. In introducing the chapters it is important to stress: 1. First and foremost, the activities outlined in each chapter may be viewed as a totality that, if all are present, should provide for a high level of proactivity within that HR function. There is a logic that links each set of capabilities to the next, and this logic has dictated the order in which each chapter is presented Martin Hird, Paul Sparrow, and Craig Marsh 45 2. However, few HR functions, at the present time, would have “mastery” of all the capabilities outlined. NOTES 1 Becker, B.E., Huselid, M.A. and Ulrich, D. (2001) The HR Scorecard: Linking People, Strategy, and Performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 2 Becker, B.E. and Huselid, M.A. (2006) Strategic human resources management: Where do we go from here?, Journal of Management, 32: 898–925. 3 CIPD (2006) The Changing HR Function: The Key Questions. London: CIPD. 4 Ulrich, D. (2008) The three HR paradoxes, Human Resources,January,p.5. 5 Joinson, C. (1999) Changing shapes – Trends in Human Resource Reorganisations, HR Magazine, March 1999. 6 Personal correspondence between Paul Sparrow and Dave Ulrich. 16th October 2009. 7 Joinson (1999) p. 5. 8 Ulrich, D. (1997) Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for Adding Value and delivering Results. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. p. 38. 9 Ibid., p. 126. 10 See for example: http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/corpstrtgy/general/hrbusprtnr.htm Accessed on 15 December 2009. 11 Gratton, L. (2003) The humpty dumpty effect: A view of a fragmented HR function, People Management, 9 (9): 18. 12 Ulrich and Brockbank (2008) p. 6. 13 Reilly, P. (2006) HR transformation – Pitfalls of the Ulrich model, People Management,23 November 2006, p. 36. 14 Higgins, N.J. (2007) Thought leadership: Real HR transformation, Journal of Applied Human Capital Management, 1 (3): 19. 15 Hird, M., Marsh, C. and Sparrow, P.R. (2009) HR Delivery Systems: Re-engineered or Over-engineered. Centre for Performance-led HR White Paper 09/05. Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University Management School. 16 See: Daft, R. (2001) Organization Theory and Design. 7th Edition. Ohio: South Western Publishing; and Child, J. (1984) Organization. New York: Harper Row. 17 See: Granovettor, M.S. (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3): 481–510; and Uzzi, B. (1996) The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect, American Sociological Review, 61 (4): 674–98. 18 Hesketh, A. and Hird, M. (2009) The golden triangle: How relationships between leaders can leverage more value from people, Human Resources Business Review, 2 (1): 24–37 19 Ulrich, D. (1997) p. 210. 20 Ibid., p. 84. CHAPTER 3 Nestlé: Reflections on the HR Structure Debate MARTIN HIRD AND MATT STRIPE 3.1. Introduction T he opening chapters have raised the issue of business model change and noted its implications for the structure of HR and the choice of delivery model. A key issue therefore is the business utility of the delivery model that HR chooses. The business utility of the 3-Box model Headline issue: How do you organize your HR function and delivery service to employees? What does the nature of this delivery look like? Does the context of business model change alter the business utility of Ulrich’s 3-Box model? Strategic imperative: The current dominating influence of the Ulrich 3-Box Model upon HR structures is amply demonstrated by the frequency with which the topic occurred. Both HR and operational managers demonstrate familiarity with the characteristics of the model and what it could imply for the HR contribution. However, we are witnessing some advocacy for thinking through more carefully whether the introduction of the 3-Box Model structure would enable HR to lead and support the business model. Does it fit what HR aspires to achieve? Must-win battle: HR Directors need to ensure that the Ulrich model – even if it is the right high-level structure for HR – follows the analytical process and does not precede it. It is clear that HR functions have become extremely focused on the Ulrich 3-Box model of structuring the HR department, even though this model is not the only way to address the headline issue noted above. We argue that 46 Martin Hird and Matt Stripe 47 The key messages that emerge from this chapter 1) It cannot be taken for granted that there is enough of an experience-base to know how to work the Ulrich model. In practice, this model itself models very complex mechanisms. Making these mechanisms operate together like clockwork has been something achieved by some, yet has proved challenging to others. 2) Maintaining a true course through history requires considerable forethought. Far from being planned, most changes in HR structures are organic. Ideas get developed within small communities of practitioners, the network of “on-side” practitioners grows, business forces bring renewed integration pressures, consulting propositions evolve, and the key proponents themselves move in their careers. The frameworks to coordinate structures are often not widely understood. 3) It has long been recognized that the quality of business partners is a key success criterion for HR Delivery Models, and therefore so is the role of assessment processes – a fair proportion of existing professionals are inevitably found wanting and cannot make the journey. 4) Account management skills and an attention to the “what” and “when,” as opposed to the “how” of HR, become a differentiating characteristic. Much of the benefit comes of course not from the structure itself, but from the quality of supporting infrastructure such as service level agreements, e-enablement arrangements, and the protocols that ensure coordination between each part of the structure. 5) The strategic priorities within HR Delivery Models have themselves evolved over time – prescribed models continue to change. The need for tight operational oversight was overlooked in early iterations of the delivery model. 6) There is still a need for “optimization” of HR Delivery Models, and this issue requires careful thought in terms of Leading HR, not least because duplication could unnecessarily increase costs within the HR function as well as leading to ongoing conflict. There is still an underlying belief that new HR Structures will and do lead to cost economies, but questions remain about whether these HR Structures enable HR professionals to play an effective corporate role in managing the complex problems that will emerge from an era of global recession and beyond. 7) The 3-Box Model is not a globally accepted HR Structure concept, although it continues to find more global attention and relevance. Global complexities in business structures often mean that the HR organization in operation can have a series of three-box models within a “macro” three-box model. Practical decisions about the nature and organization of geographically diverse resources based on size, complexity and geographic location units and sites, and the level of local HR capability require bespoke solutions. 8) The Shared Services box should be viewed as broader than just an HR problem. Many functions in global corporations will centralize (either outsourcing or keeping in-house) but using a more flexible range of locations. 48 Nestlé: Reflections on the HR Structure Debate The key messages that emerge from this chapter: (Continued) 9) Different capabilities across the global dimension will mean that business partners may be designed as a series of tiered roles driven off a common competence model. In order to act in a truly strategic way, there may need to be a tier of “junior” business partners to support the lead HR players. Centers of excellence may well become more differentiated, based around pragmatic thinking about local capability. 10) The 3-Box model emerged inexorably within HR, driven by, for instance, the emergence of comprehensive HR IT systems via providers. Ulrich’s writing provided a clear insight into the different roles that HR can play, with a particular emphasis on that role being strategic in nature On September 11, 2008, my taxi – as the lead author of this chapter – dropped me in front of Nestlé’s imposing headquarters building in Vevey, Switzerland. My mind turned to the various experiences I had shared with my host, Matt Stripe, currently Assistant Vice President for Human Resources Nestlé SA. Matt and I had first worked together at Matra-BAe Dynamics in 1996. The Company was then a recent creation from the first major structural joint venture that British Aerospace had embarked upon. Matra-BAe Dynamics or MBD as it became known was, upon its creation, the largest missile defence company in Europe. Matra itself was part of the Lagadère Org anisation which held interests in television, print media, motor vehicles, and defense. BAE Dynamics had an operational headquarters building at Stevenage in Hertfordshire, whilst Matra’s operational headquarters was at Velizy just outside Paris. Matt held a series of HR positions at MBD between 1990 and 2001. In 2001 he and I also worked together within the Programs Division of what had become BAE SYSTEMS (following the merger with Marconi Defence). In 2002 I left BAE SYSTEMS and joined Tag-McLaren and then in 2003 was employed by Royal Mail. However throughout these changes Matt and I stayed in close contact and retained our shared fascination in HR Structures and their continuing evolution. In 2003 Matt left BAE SYSTEMS to join Nestlé’s Confectionery business (then Rowntrees) in York and gained promotion rapidly to become HR Director of the UK Confectionery Division. In 2008 Matt had been appointed HR Assistant Vice President for Strategic Business Units and was based at the Company’s headquarters in Vevey. So what was the purpose of our meeting in September 2008? Given our mutual interest in HR Structures, we wanted to explore and evaluate how those structures had evolved over the last 10 years or so. Two days of discussion and exploration followed. By virtue of our joint experiences, this chapter is partially a case study and a case history, but it also documents how our thinking has evolved in terms of where HR Structures may develop in the future. In the context of HR Structures, it is also informative and indeed intellectually stimulating when one considers the truly global nature of Nestlé. It is the largest food corporation in the world by a very large margin; it employs 280,000 people Martin Hird and Matt Stripe 49 and operates in 84 countries with 456 factories. Sales in 2008 were 109.9 billion Swiss francs yielding a profit of 10.6 billion. The headquarters in Ve vey employ and accommodate over 80 different nationalities. Structures at Nestlé are therefore necessarily complex to manage its global leadership position. Consequently, HR Structures, in terms of their architecture, require much thought and a good level of intellectual horse-power to get them right! In this chapter we focus to a great extent on the emergence of the “3-Box Model” and its application as a focus for HR Structures. We will discuss, based on our experiences, the strong linkage between the 3-Box Model and Professor David Ulrich. We believe that the model is in many ways an inevitable design pattern for HR and that the model was present in some companies from the late 1980s/early 1990s onward. The model, then, predated the publication of Ulrich’s seminal book Human Resource Champions. 1 We might expect there is enough of an experience-base to know how to work the Ulrich model – but as Matt and I reviewed our experiences it became clear that this cannot be taken for granted. In practice, this three-part model itself models very complex mechanisms. 2 It seems that making these mechanisms operate together like clockwork has been something achieved by some, yet has proved challenging to others. Research presented in Chapter 2 questions the ease with which the Ulrich 3-Box model can be implemented. In this chapter we add substance to the debates about HR Delivery Models and Structures introduced in Chapter 2. We draw upon our insights into practice at a number of org anizations we have worked at, and with. The chapter consists of three sections: 1. The case history of our experiences of structural change/architecture in HR drawing upon some shared, some individual, observations at MBD, British Aerospace/BAE SYSTEMS, Nestlé, and Royal Mail. 2. A review of where HR Structures currently find themselves and the issues that need to be confronted. 3. Reflections on how structures have evolved over time, including the conclusions and recommendations that emerged from our discussions. 3.2. Early experiences of HR structure change In recounting history, it is instructive to consider just how planned, or organic, changes in HR structures really are. Ideas get developed within small communities of practitioners, the network of “on-side” practitioners grows, business forces such as mergers bring renewed integration pressures, consulting propositions in the BPO market evolve, and the key proponents themselves move in their careers across divisions and organizations. Maintaining a true course through history requires considerable forethought. As we talked at Ve vey, Matt Stripe recalled the history of how thinking about HR structures developed across his network. He explained when he first became aware of the imperatives driving HR Structural Change: 50 Nestlé: Reflections on the HR Structure Debate I think around 1997, when there were fears about the inflating costs of HR, I started to become a bit more aware of what HR’s role was currently and likely to be in the future. My bias, at that point, was software engineering, as I originally come into HR as a software engineer, and so I was more interested in the systems part of it at that time. I got quite interested in the values of the Intranet, the use of Shared Services and how HR could make its contribution in those areas. So in 1997 we started thinking about reorganising HR at MBD UK. I can remember designing an Intranet quite quickly. He continued: At that time the Internet or Intranet didn’t really exist within the organisation I knew. The Internet was stil l pretty new, and those who were interested in technology were starting to use software like Microsoft Front Page There were shared dr ives that were starting to be used as a mechanism for sharing information. The platform just wasn’t there. I had free rein, at the time, to put some software in. We just moved very quickly – I remember doing it every weekend at home – designed the first Intranet, which we communicated to the MBD HR team a t one of our Bi-Annual Mini Conferences. So that was the kicking off of MBD’s Shared Service box. So, in 1997 the main focus of MBD’s HR Structures was upon HR teams, colocated with their operational clients. The lead members of those teams focused their attention on individual members of MBD’s Management Committee (six in total), and the HR team leaders attended directorate senior team meetings as full members, equivalent in status to the senior managers responsible for finance, commercial/procurement, project management, and so forth. They were in many ways embryonic business partners. Indeed, their unbroken reporting line was to their client, and their dotted line to the MBD UK HR Director. The HR teams also, however, carried all transactional/process responsibilities – they had their own clerks and administrators. This increasingly appeared to be uneconomic – the ratio of HR staff to general employee was not particularly spartan! As a consequence, throughout 1997 and early 1998, the HR teams focused increasingly upon more strategic and policy activities, with their clients and transactional HR activity being moved to a central “hub.” If one were to summarize the HR structural trends by late 1997, the scenario was one of HR advisors being colocated with their clients, increasingly centralized HR transactional work, which relied to an increasing extent upon IT support and also was located physically close to the transactional hub. There were also a small number of relatively senior specialists with responsibility for learning and development, rewards, p ensions, and industrial relations. However, these changes were quite organic. There was an overall notion of a framework to guide the changes but that framework was not widely understood. Perspectives were going to change in the near future! In early 1998, at one of the Bi-Annual HR Conferences, referred to earlier, the key guest speaker was Adrian Walker, then a senior HR figure with the highly successful Sun Microsystems. In his keynote a ddress he introduced the senior MBD UK HR Team Martin Hird and Matt Stripe 51 to the work of David Ulrich, the book Human Resource Champions, and the notion of what was to become called the “3-Box Model.” The content of what Adrian presented was extremely relevant to where MBD UK HR was heading. His input gave all the senior HR team a framework to use in taking HR Structures forward. Human Resource Champions surely had a surge of sales in the Hertfordshire area! Events moved rapidly during 1998. Matt Stripe describes that change process: With Ulrich, we had something to hang our ideas upon. We took a look at the central hub and decided that we had to drive forward at a quicker pace. One of the first changes we made was to establish a software team who could put the technology in place to actually make the Shared Server work properly! Then there was the re-establishment of what would now be called Expert Services, because at that time MBD UK, under its previous HR Director, had taken large parts of rewards and compensation, recruitment and learning and development, and put them into the generalist teams. We re-established not only the Shared Services piece – and got that working – but then re-established real, central Expert Services in the same areas. As MBD UK restructured and reoriented its HR proposition there was, of course, the need to consult with French joint venture partners at Matra. Matra HR operations were ver y much site-based, with a major emphasis upon employee–union relations and health and safety. They were less interested in the notion of a transactional center. They also took a more conservative and skeptical stance toward the notion of senior and powerful “Experts.” In summary, an increasingly clear 3-Box Model “emerged” at MBD UK, but there was little movement across the Channel in terms of a new HR Structure emerging in France. 3.3. British Aerospace Group involvement What happened next? By late 1998 MBD UK’s 50 per cent owner and “cultural” parent, Br itish Aerospace, became aware of the changes in HR Structure being implemented at MBD. Matt Stripe describes the interest: Well, we started to get a little exposure around that time (1998) because MBD UK was small in terms of the British Aerospace context (3,500 employees) and because we were in a joint venture and weren’t bound by the same sort of restrictions of 100% owned BAE divisions. So we had a bit more freedom. We were able to put the model in place and most of MBD UK’s policies became self-developed rather than being direct BAE policies. In fact, in 1998 MBD UK was part of one of the four “Groups” that constituted British Aerospace globally, namely, the Land and Sea Systems Group. The HR DirectorfortheGroupwasTonyMcCarthy(heiscurrentlyGroupHRDirectorat British Airways having previously also been at Royal Mail), who was intrigued by MBD’s structures, and visited Stevenage to sample the impact of the changes that had been made there. Tony McCarthy was impressed by what he saw at MBD UK and asked the HR Director for MBD UK and Matt Stripe to present their developments at the Land [...]... of business model change is to consider the significance and depth of knowledge change associated with the new model Rebecca Henderson and Kim Clark1 made a distinction between two different types of knowledge that have to be combined: 1 2 component knowledge (knowledge of the parts rather than the whole); and architectural knowledge (the shared understanding of the interconnection of all components,... The type of knowledge shifts involved in business model change HR Directors can help the organization understand whether business model change might involve changes to only one, or to a combination of both, of the following: Component knowledge (also called Operational knowledge): It refers to an understanding of the nuts and bolts of the operations of the business It is based on knowledge of the parts... exploit the business model Business model change alters the strategic value that is attached to particular types of knowledge It also changes the way that different types of knowledge have to relate to each other Of course, knowledge represents the starting point, but once this knowledge has become internalized into an organization and is supported by all of the supporting systems, structures, and processes,... value in it), 2 Knowledge of common architecture, which relates to firm-wide routines that coordinate and combine the various components (i.e., the organization and its key talent needs knowledge of the bigger picture and of the conflicts contained within it, and hence a greater ability to tweak and exploit the business model) The ability to bring together the known constituents or knowledge bases associated... (1997) Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for Adding Value and Delivering Results Harvard: Harvard Business School Press 2 Hird, M., Marsh, C and Sparrow, P (2009) HR Delivery Systems: Re-engineered or R Over-engineered? CPHR White Paper 09/05 August 2009 Martin Hird and Matt Stripe 3 Sparrow, P R., Brewster, C and Harris, H (2004) Globalising Human Resource Management London: Routledge 4 Ibid... knowledge of common components can be applied to the sub-routines or operations that overlap in the new business model HR Directors have to understand whether – and how – their organization can develop deep enough knowledge of all the various partner’s (such as internal functions or external business partners) expertise so that it can assimilate, interpret, apply, and recognize the value in this knowledge... knowledge Only with deep component capability can new possibilities be explored Architectural knowledge: It requires the shared understanding of how the new strategy and business models require interconnections between all of the operational (component) knowledge In short, how things fit together Knowledge of common architecture relates to the organization-wide routines (or indeed cross-organization... Kang, Shad Morris, and Scott Snell2 to argue that knowledge may be disconnected, or common Two HR architectures are needed: Paul Sparrow et al 71 1 Knowledge of common components, which is applied to sub-routines or operations that overlap so that new possibilities may be explored (i.e., the organization and its key talent needs deep enough knowledge of an internal or external partners’ expertise to... refining their existing HR delivery models Leading HR is therefore becoming a more complex affair As 68 Paul Sparrow et al 69 business models change, then by definition, so too do the demands for the sorts of capabilities that HR must itself possess or attempt to develop But when the business is reinventing itself, the last thing it wants to hear from those Leading HR is discussion of a new structure... routines) that have to be coordinated and combined, so that the various components can deliver their value It is knowledge of the bigger picture It requires the HR Director to be sure that the organization has thought through the strategy and business model and has understood the (potential) conflicts contained within this picture This type of capability gives the organization a much better chance to . people, Human Resources Business Review, 2 (1): 24 37 19 Ulrich, D. (1997) p. 210. 20 Ibid., p. 84. CHAPTER 3 Nestlé: Reflections on the HR Structure Debate MARTIN HIRD AND MATT STRIPE 3. 1. Introduction T he. London: CIPD. 4 Ulrich, D. (2008) The three HR paradoxes, Human Resources,January,p.5. 5 Joinson, C. (1999) Changing shapes – Trends in Human Resource Reorganisations, HR Magazine, March 1999. 6 Personal. model, People Management, 23 November 2006, p. 36 . 14 Higgins, N.J. (2007) Thought leadership: Real HR transformation, Journal of Applied Human Capital Management, 1 (3) : 19. 15 Hird, M., Marsh,