One expert argues HR business partner roles are set up to fail, and explains how leaders can change that
Only 7% of organizations are making real progress toward breaking down the functional walls that keep HR out of core business decisions, according to Deloitte's 2026 Global Human Capital Trends report. Gary Johnsen, Human Capital and HR Strategy and Technology Leader at Deloitte Consulting LLP in Minnesota, points to that same number as evidence the human resources business partner (HRBP) model behind that isolation has simply run its course.
For Johnsen, the failure sits in the architecture around HR leaders, the titles, metrics, and reporting lines, which was never designed to deliver strategic influence in the first place. That argument lines up with other reporting on the shift away from HR's traditional support role.
Why the old model stopped working
Johnsen's skepticism about the HRBP model started with a pattern he kept hearing directly from clients.
"In ongoing conversations with clients, I've repeatedly heard, 'we designed a strategic, business-focused HR role, yet the people in the role continue to be occupied with transactional HR work and not focused on business outcomes,'" Johnsen said. "The data confirmed what I was seeing firsthand. Gartner research shows 82% of HRBPs are rated ineffective at strategic activities, and 61% struggle to even prioritize the strategic work in front of them, not because they lack the talent, but because the role was never architected for it."
The Gartner research Johnsen cited also found that the average HRBP spends roughly 19 hours a week on employee issues and another 16 on daily operations, leaving about nine hours for strategic work.
What's in a name?
Johnsen's fix starts with language: retire the "business partner" title in favor of "people business leader," a change meant to signal ownership rather than proximity.
"Names set expectations, and 'business partner' quietly signals a support function, someone consulted, not someone who owns the outcome. HRBPs need to have a mindset that they are co-equal business leaders who help shape business strategy and specialize in talent, leadership, and organizational effectiveness," Johnsen said.
That reframing is about what a leader walks in prepared to own, not just what they're called. Johnsen described co-equal standing as an HR leader sitting in on a quarterly business review with the same footing as the head of sales or operations, presenting workforce data as an input to the discussion rather than a report delivered after decisions are locked in.
Measuring HR like the rest of the business
If HR wants a different kind of standing, Johnsen argues it needs to be measured differently. Rather than inventing new metrics, he wants HR's scorecard to run on the same business figures finance and the board already track.
"I'd measure HR leaders on data most companies already track elsewhere, just not on HR's scorecard: revenue or profit per employee, which finance already reports; regrettable attrition in business-critical roles, not blended turnover; internal fill rate for key positions; and manager effectiveness. I would put HR's performance on the same dashboard the rest of the business already reads, in the same language the board already uses," Johnsen said.
That tracks with other reporting on proving HR's strategic value to the business in numbers the board already trusts.
Getting HR into the room earlier
Johnsen has watched the alternative play out, and it wasn't cheap. He described a client that locked in its timeline and organizational design before bringing HR into the room, leaving HR to simply "build us a training plan." Within months, the workforce couldn't absorb the pace, and the rollout had to be redesigned mid-flight.
"If HR had been in the room during initial planning, they could have flagged the capability gap before the timeline was set; that's the difference between HR informing the 'how' and HR informing the 'whether' and 'when,'" Johnsen said.
That pattern lines up with separate reporting on HR being left out of AI investment decisions, where many chief human resources officers are brought in only after the major choices are made.
What has to change on both sides
Johnsen is careful not to place the burden for change on HR alone, pointing to Deloitte's own trends data as evidence that business leaders share responsibility for the stalemate.
He sees business acumen inside HR as a real gap that job rotations and development programs can help close. But he says that's only half the equation, since the business side often doesn't know how to use a strategic HRBP even when it has one.
"Deloitte's 2026 Global Human Capital Trends report backs this up from the business side too: 66% of C-suite leaders say traditional functions like HR must change, yet only 7% say they're making progress toward that goal," Johnsen said.
He's optimistic that AI could be the push that finally makes room for the shift, absorbing the administrative volume that's kept HR occupied for decades.
"This is one of the most exciting moments HR has ever had," Johnsen said. For years, he explained, HR's role was buried in administrative volume with little time left for strategy, and AI is now absorbing that routine work.
"That's the opening HRBPs have been waiting for. AI absorbing that load isn't a threat, it's finally giving HRBPs room to operate at the same altitude as the business leaders they sit beside. The HRBPs who lean into this moment are going to help write what HR leadership looks like for the next decade," Johnsen said.
Whether that optimism holds will depend less on any single fix than on whether companies and HR leaders rebuild HR's reporting lines, its metrics, and its seat at the table together.
