A recent LinkedIn discussion among senior HR and OD voices, prompted by a post from Perry Timms on HR operating models, crystallised something we see repeatedly in conversations with HR and People leaders: the case for “Enterprise HR”, cross-organisational, future-facing, strategically visible work, collapses the moment the foundational layer underneath it isn’t reliable.
Timms’ framework describes three “energies” HR needs: Stabilising (reliable admin and control), Strategic (work aligned to business value), and Enterprise (cross-organisational, future-facing practice). It resonated widely, and rightly so. But our own experience with clients points to a harder truth underneath it: most HR functions want to talk about Enterprise HR, because it’s the interesting one, while Stabilising HR quietly goes unaddressed, because admitting it isn’t solid means admitting the thing you’ve been managing, or ignoring, isn’t good enough.
We see this pattern directly in client conversations. At one large organisation we spoke with recently, line managers described a consistent frustration: advice from central HR wasn’t actually helping them manage difficult situations. HR, in their account, tended to sit on the fence, defaulting to a risk-averse position, and measuring success by how quickly a ticket was closed rather than whether the underlying issue was resolved. The manager who had to deal with the problem was often left to log a case and wait, while the substantive issue remained unresolved.
That is what a broken Stabilising layer looks like in practice. Not a dashboard showing inaccurate numbers, though that is often present too, but a basic operational function that isn’t giving managers what they need, because it’s built to close tickets rather than solve problems.
Our position, built on work across NHS Trusts and corporate clients, is that this is where the real, immediately available value sits. Fixing it isn’t glamorous, but it’s tractable, measurable, and fast. One Empactis client saved £4m a year in absence costs, alongside a 37% reduction in absence overall, not from a new strategic programme, but from getting the basic layer, accurate data, real case management, working properly first.
The board finds the gap eventually regardless, usually when it’s asking why productivity is down, attendance is down, and costs are up, questions that only get harder to answer the longer the foundational layer stays unaddressed.
HR doesn’t get credit for fixing the boring stuff. But it doesn’t get away with skipping it either.
