A new CHRO joins a company. One of the first tasks? Fix HR.
Consultants present a sleek transformation roadmap: an agile HR model, AI-powered systems, a shared service redesign, and a rigorous cultural change initiative. The plan promises efficiency, digitalization, and strategic alignment.
Months later, despite the investment, business leaders are frustrated. HR Business Partners are still not delivering strategic value. Middle managers complain core HR services are slow. The transformation feels outdated already.
I once advised a company that went through this exact scenario; they’d spent millions on a new HR IT system without addressing their core talent needs.
Then, a few years later, a new CHRO arrives, surveys the frustration, and—mirroring a widespread trend identified by Gartner, where 89% of HR functions have recently restructured, are restructuring, or plan to do so—decides HR needs a fresh start.
The cycle repeats.
This costly cycle is avoidable. The problem isn’t a bad Target Operating Model (TOM); it’s a lack of clear HR strategy. Many HR Target Operating Models (TOMs) fail because companies jump straight into how to structure HR (IT, processes, org design) before defining why HR exists and what it should achieve.
In this article, I’ll share insights drawn from research, advisory work, and firsthand experience leading HR TOM implementations to help you avoid these common pitfalls.
Business Strategy and the HR Target Operating Model (TOM)
Business strategy sets the workforce priorities HR must support. These priorities often revolve around three key drivers: Ability (Do employees have the right skills?), Motivation (Are incentives aligned?), and Opportunity (Is work structured for growth?).
Thus, an HR strategy must first define how HR enables these business goals. Only then should a Target Operating Model (TOM) – the operational blueprint for how HR will deliver – be designed to make this execution possible.
Yet, from what I have seen and heard from consulting partners is that many HR TOM projects skip this alignment step, focusing instead on specific models (like the Ulrich BP plus model, Gartner’s Split and fit for future model or various consulting frameworks such as McKinsey’s HR model overview) before defining their needs.
Thus, an HR strategy must first define how HR enables business goals. Only then should a Target Operating Model (TOM) – the operational blueprint for how HR will deliver – be designed to make this execution possible.
This leads to four critical traps.
The Four HR TOM Traps That Derail Transformation
HR TOM projects are rarely self-initiated. CHROs typically launch them due to pressure from the CEO, cost-cutting demands, or the need for more strategic HR support. But when companies move too fast, they fall into predictable traps.
Trap #1: The Preemptive Execution Trap—Solving the Wrong Problem First
Companies jump into what to do (e.g., HR technology) before defining why and how.
Example: A manufacturing company, needing specialized EV engineers, implemented a new talent acquisition platform. This increased applicant volume but didn’t address retaining engineers with niche skills, causing a 15% shortfall and delaying the new EV model launch by six months.
Trap #2: The Gamified TOM Trap—Focusing on the Show, Not the Substance
Consulting firms can push pre-packaged TOMs, overshadowing the essential work of defining HR strategy.
Example: Once I was working on a transformation project with a global service company, needing to upskill HR. They used a $50,000 “gamified” online course to explain new HR Business Partner roles. Underutilized, the course failed to drive strategic alignment, leaving HR overwhelmed… The problem: The HR Strategy was not even clear yet, thus missing also the roles.
Two-thirds of companies changed their HR operating model recently (Talent Strategy Group, 2024). Only 9% of HR is highly effective (Gartner 2025).
So, what are all these updates achieving?
Trap #3: The Politically Driven TOM Trap—Protecting Turf, Not Optimizing Structure
Companies sometimes pre-assign roles and force the TOM to fit, hindering optimal structure.
Example: A manufacturing company’s attempt to centralize HR expertise into CoE was blocked by a powerful MD protecting “their” regional HR manager. This caused confusion, and for global standards hindered important accreditation, and ultimately cost a key certification required for the CSR report.
Trap #4: The Governance Blind Spot—Ignoring Existing Constraints
Projects often overlook governance, legal constraints, and culture, assuming they’re fixable later.
Example: A multinational retailer, centralizing HR operations, failed to account for regional governance models. This led to costly rework and a $1 million consulting bill for process redesign (including re-writing ALL HR roles) because the initial HR strategy was non-existent.
The CHRO’s Playbook: Designing an Effective HR TOM
How can CHROs avoid these traps? By ensuring the TOM follows strategy—not the other way around.
- Start with HR Strategy: Define how HR enables business success (skills, workforce structure, culture).
- Map the Current State: Analyze your current HR operations, identifying strengths, weaknesses, and how HR currently delivers on enabling business success. This provides a baseline for change and a realistic assessment of feasibility (Check the example of Assessment of Existing HR Operating Model by PwC)
- Secure Stakeholder Buy-In: Ensure business leaders, IT, and finance align on HR’s role and key constraints.
- Design TOM for the Strategy: Structure HR service models, governance, and roles around defined priorities.
- Separate TOM from Implementation: IT rollouts, org design, and process automation are execution projects—not the TOM itself.
A well-designed TOM provides the governance structure HR needs to operate effectively—but execution must come after alignment.
Conclusion: Key Questions for a Strategically Aligned HR TOM
Reflect on these crucial questions:
- Is our TOM designed to meet specific business needs, or are we forcing a pre-set model?
- Is HR’s role in achieving our business strategy clearly defined?
- Have we thoroughly assessed our current HR operations?
- Is TOM design separate from implementation details?
- Does this TOM account for existing governance and cultural realities?
An HR TOM is not the strategy – it is the strategic implementation plan.
CHROs must lead TOM design before IT, process automation, and consulting firms take over. Otherwise, TOM risks becoming just another cycle of expensive, ineffective change.
👉🏻 Lead the change. Start with strategy.
>> I advise a select number of boards and CHROs each quarter. To discuss your specific situation, contact me for evidence-based HR TOM design guidance.
#HRTransformation #TargetOperatingModel #StrategicHR #HRLeadership #CHROInsights