Do the CEOs get the CHROs they deserve?

“CEOs get the CHROs they deserve!”, said the Senior HR leader when he was highly frustrated. This was my seventh ‘encounter’ with this gentleman (See 'Passion for work and anasakti ‘, 'Appropriate metaphors for organizational commitment ‘ ,‘To name or not to name, that is the question’ , ‘A Mathematical approach to HR’, ‘OD Quest’ and ‘Of leaders and smiling depression’  for the outcomes of my previous interactions with him). Similar to what happened in the previous occasions, this comment prompted me to think deeply about the topic.

Yes, a CEO can try to get the  type of CHRO he/she wants by 'shaping' the behavior of the current CHRO, bringing in a new CHRO etc. The degree of success of this attempt will vary based on the context and the people involved. Of course, if a CEO is looking for a difficult to find set of capabilities in the CHRO and/or if the organization context is not suitable for attracting and retaining the type of CHRO the CEO is looking for, things can get complicated. The CEO-CHRO interaction is a human interaction and hence personality related factors, connect related factors and fit related factors (including that of the unstated definitions of 'what good looks like') come into play. Sometimes, the perceived lack of alignment is just a matter of perception. For example, the CEO might think that the CHRO doesn't understand the business context and the CHRO might think that the CEO is too shortsighted! It can work the other way also. The CEO and the CHRO can form a 'mutual admiration society' and ignore problems that adversely affect organization effectiveness! 

There is no doubt on the importance of the CEO-CHRO relationship, for them and for the rest of the organization. The CEO and the CHRO need to work very closely with each other on a lot of important and/or sensitive matters, and hence an effective relationship between them based on mutual respect and trust is critical. Lack of alignment between the CEO and CHRO, apart from creating a lot of frustration for both of them, can slow down decision-making, lead to suboptimal decisions, reduce response speed on critical issues and also lead to lack of commitment and passive resistance. It can also give the impression to the rest of the organization that the leadership team is like a 'house divided against itself'. 

Again, there is no doubt on whether the HR function (and the CHRO as the head of HR) should be business-oriented/business-aligned. HR exists to support the business and hence it should be aligned to the business needs/goals/strategy. ‘HR for HR’ (‘I want to do some HR interventions and I will get the business leaders to agree’) is definitely not a good idea. The problem occurs when we look at how exactly should HR demonstrate this 'business-orientation'.

There are multiple possibilities here - each with its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, the CHRO can agree to whatever the CEO says on people related issues ('after all, we get paid to support the business'). The CHRO can take this approach to the next level by trying to ‘guess’ what the CEO will be comfortable with and advocating that ('the CEO is our primary internal customer and we should be anticipating customer needs'). The CHRO can also avoid surfacing issues (or suggesting solutions) that he/she thinks the CEO will not be comfortable with ('business leaders are already stretched to the limits fighting for the survival of the company, how can we risk annoying them at this point ?').

This approach might help in reducing the number/intensity of possible arguments/conflicts between the CHRO and the CEO and the associated investment of time and emotional energy, leading to faster decision-making and smoother relationships. In this case, the CEO might ‘like’ the CHRO and will be more likely to support the CHRO in the roll out of basic HR processes and less likely to come down heavily on the CHRO when the CHRO/HR team makes a mistake. Hence, conflicts are avoided - making life easier for both the parties involved. However, this can also lead to sub-optimal decisions (see 'Training the victim' for an example).

The other option is to develop and articulate an independent point of view – based on the HR philosophy of the organization, HR functional expertise and an assessment of the context/situation.

Yes, this point of view might turn out to be different from what the CEO has in mind/is comfortable with and hence this can create conflicts and lengthy discussions/arguments and possibly delays in decision-making. The CEO might feel that ‘HR does not understand the problems that the business is facing’, ‘HR is becoming a pain in the neck’ or that ‘HR is being too idealistic’. This might lead to a situation where the CEO becomes very demanding – questioning the rationale behind each of the initiatives that HR comes up with. Therefore, this option can make life more difficult for both the parties involved. However, if the conflict can be managed constructively, this option can lead to superior decisions and also to the development of mutual respect and trust. Of course, there is no guarantee that this can be achieved in all the situations.

It is also possible that the CEO was more open than what the CHRO had guessed. Maybe, the CEO wanted the CHRO to make an independent recommendation. Again, it is possible that the CHRO’s ‘independent assessment’ of the business needs/constraints was totally off the mark, making his/her point of view completely unrealistic. Maybe, the context is such that the conflict of opinion can’t be resolved successfully quickly enough for the matter at hand. Thus, there are many possibilities here.

It can be said that if we take a long-term perspective, if both the parties are competent and open and if the conflict can be managed constructively and quickly enough, the second option will give better results. But that is too many ‘ifs’ (3 in the last sentence!). It can also be argued that the two options mentioned above are just two extremes and that reality lies somewhere in between. For example, a particular CHRO might adopt option 1 in the case of some issues and option 2 in the case of other issues – depending on the context/nature of the issues. After all, ‘picking and choosing one’s battles’ is supposed to be a key requirement for survival in the corporate world!

An important factor here is the credibility of the CHRO/nature of the relationship between the CHRO and the business leaders including the CEO. It is possible that the CHRO hasn't paid sufficient attention to positioning of the HR function appropriately, managing/shaping expectations, building capability and consistently meeting commitments/delivering value, enhancing the levels of mutual respect and trust etc. This can lead to serious problems because effectively managing the relationships with the business leaders can be the most significant enabler for demonstrating and sustaining the 'business-orientation' we have been talking about.

In this discussion about 'business-orientation' we should not forget the other customers of HR- like the employees and line managers. There is an increasing tendency on the part of HR to give less emphasis to the ‘employee champion’ role because of the increasing importance given to the ‘strategic business partner role’. This can easily lead to situations where there is not enough focus on ‘employee engagement’ (other than the cosmetic efforts/peripheral initiatives – see 'Employee engagement and the story of the Sky maiden’ for details). Of course, there are 'special-cause variations' in the focus (or lack of it) on employee engagement. For example, in response to the 'great resignation', currently there is a lot of focus (talk?) on employee engagement. 

As it is widely known, employee engagement is a good predictor/lead indicator of business results. Thus, if this 'business-orientation' (and being the 'strategic business partner') is achieved at the expense of 'employee' engagement, the result might be 'strategic (long-term) harm' to the business. This is not to say that when the business is under financial stress, the CHRO should ignore the boundary conditions set by the same. The point is just that the focus on employee engagement shouldn't be lost though the actual manifestations of this focus can be different under different circumstances (see 'Of employee engagement and the survivor syndrome' for details).  

It is also interesting to model this situation using the concepts of 'static' and 'dynamic' equilibrium (A chair has static equilibrium. A bicycle in motion has dynamic equilibrium. In a state of static equilibrium there is balance, but no change or movement that exists in the case of dynamic equilibrium). A 'live and let live' kind of arrangement between HR and business leaders (that avoids conflict) is similar to 'static equilibrium'. But, a scenario in which HR and business leaders openly and clearly state their independent opinions, followed by constructive debate/conflict leading to decisions that both the parties are comfortable with is similar to 'dynamic equilibrium'. This does not mean that the parties can't be passionate about their points of view/express 'strong' opinions. The requirement is just that they should not get too much attached to their opinions.

In general, dynamic equilibrium provides richer possibilities. However, establishing dynamic equilibrium might not be required or even feasible in all the cases. It requires more time, effort and skill (as the equilibrium needs to be constantly reestablished) . It is also more risky (you are more likely to have a fall from a bicycle as compared to that from a chair - especially when you are learning to ride - which can be compared to the 'establishing the relationship' phase that we discussed earlier!).

A key enabler for this dynamic equilibrium is for the CHRO to work with the business leaders to crystallize the HR Philosophy/the basic tenets of people management in the organization (see ‘Towards a philosophy of HR’ for details). This will also enable HR to come with quick and effective responses to various issues/situations – based on the people management philosophy of the organization, HR functional expertise and an assessment of the context/situation.  This is not to say that the people management philosophy is cast in stone. The people management philosophy can be revisited as the organization and its environment evolves. Also, if there are extraordinary situations, extraordinary responses are required!

So, do the CEOs get the CHROs they deserve? ‘Probably, to a large extent’ – is the best answer that I can come up with at this point. After all, the CEOs hire and fire the CHROs and are their direct managers (with the associated powers of 'carrot and stick'). Also, the CEOs want the CHROs to be aligned to them. This doesn’t mean that the CHROs can’t influence the CEOs. A lot of CHROs manage to do this. Yes, this requires competence, deep business-understanding, courage to speak truth to power, and clarity on values. The CHROs won't be earning their salary if they don't put forward their professional opinion. If CEOs want someone who will just execute whatever they ask without discussion, such a person can be hired at a much lower salary than what CHROs are paid. Also, the CHROs are not trees - CHROs can move (to another organization with a different CEO)! If all these are true, why do the CEOs get the CHROs they deserve to large extent?

One possible factor here is the hierarchical nature of many of the organizations. In hierarchical organizations, if the CHRO disagrees with the CEO, it can very easily get misinterpreted as 'lack business-understanding', ‘lack of competence’ or as ‘lack of trust in the judgment of the leader’. The relatively 'fuzzy' nature of the HR domain (that makes it difficult to prove or disprove things conclusively) also contributes to this. Yes, the CHROs also realize that there are no perfect CEOs/ organizations that would exactly match their preferences and hence learn to adjust (to varying degrees).  

Of course, there are other factors. Let's look at one of them. I spent the first five years of my career in HR in HR consulting. One of the things that amazed me was how easy it was to into walk into any organization, do a diagnosis and find many areas where there was potential for significant improvement. Why would the CHROs (who were much more experienced than me) fail to identify and act on those areas? Initially, I thought that this was mainly because of the ‘fresh eyes’, specialized diagnostic tools and 'learning from other contexts' that the external consultant brings in. Now, I am convinced that that there is much more to this.

Many of the organizations are not optimized for effectiveness. Organizations tend to gravitate towards a way of working that is most comfortable for the people who run it – even if it takes away from the effectiveness and efficiency. Of course, the leaders would like to believe (and make others believe) that what they are doing is the best way of functioning. Perpetuating this ‘convenient collective delusion’ (or at least not disturbing it) is often one of the unstated expectations the leaders have from the CHROs. This works even better if the CHRO is someone with impressive credentials – with best of the qualifications and prior experience in reputed MNCs and with a reputation for having done transformational work in those organizations. If such a person is the CHRO and he/she is not doing any transformation in the current organization, then the organization must be perfect – without any need to change!!!!

Of course, there is a positive side to 'CEOs getting the CHROs they deserve'. Progressive CEOs get (hire/retain/develop) progressive CHROs. There are indeed a lot of CEOs who push their CHROs to focus on  building an effective organization that is a great place to work, and also support the CHROs in this endeavor. These CEOs also set an example by role modeling the right behaviors. Again, we have no reason to believe that there are more 'good' CHROs in the industry than 'good' CEOs! 

We must also remember that there is a larger organization ecosystem that both the CEO and the CHRO are part of and it has expectations and/or influence on the CEO, CHRO and the CEO-CHRO relationship. Also, the strength and tone of the relationship that the CHRO has with the other CXOs in the company might have an indirect influence on the CEO-CHRO relationship. In MNCs and in companies that are part of a business group, the CHRO is likely to have an additional reporting manager (apart from the CEO) and this also influences the CEO-CHRO relationship/power balance! Yes, the strength of this influence will depend on the strength/nature of this additional reporting and the personalities involved. Therefore, the power that the CEO has over the CHRO (and on the decisions related to the CHRO role) will not be an absolute one! Also, CEOs are often people who have spent many years in organizations and hence learned to live with some degree of 'imperfections' in organization life. Hence, they might not have the compulsion to get exactly the kind of CHRO they want!

Any comments/ideas?

Stuck at the right level?!

 "But, you are stuck at the right level", protested the direct report to the CXO.  The direct report was having a conversation with the CXO on the career progression opportunities (or the lack of it, to be more precise). During the conversation, the CXO had claimed that he was in the same boat as he was also stuck in his role (because he had no real chance of becoming the CEO). That was when the direct report came up with the statement that we started this post with. It did prompt me to think more deeply about if there is really something like 'being stuck at the right level'.

There is indeed some merit in the argument that if one has to get stuck in one's career, it is better to get stuck at as high a level as possible, because it implies a higher salary and the associated benefits and perquisites. The problem is just that all these money and other advantages of being at a senior level might not eliminate the psychological feeling of being stuck. I guess, there is something in the human psyche that 'demands' progress! Yes, this 'progress' need not necessarily be only in terms of climbing the corporate ladder. However, if one has spent so many years climbing the corporate ladder, it is highly probable that one's (unstated) definition of 'progress' got colored by all that climbing!

Of course, one can try to become unstuck by moving to a 'bigger' role in another organization. However, narrowing of the organization pyramid when one moves to more senior levels is a reality and a lot of people will get stuck sooner or later. So, this problem can't be wished away and finding an opportunity to get stuck at the right level might not be such a bad idea!!!

We do see an increasing number of mid-career professionals taking up consulting/freelancing kind of options. The trouble is that majority of those mid-career professionals are unlikely to earn at least as much as they were earning in their regular job. Yes, there are a few who make it really big. 

There are also quite a few who use this opportunity to reinvent themselves and configure some sort of ‘portfolio life and career’ that is more aligned to their higher calling or more conducive to their self-actualization journey. Based on my interaction with a large number of people who have transitioned from corporate careers to coaching/consulting/freelancing, I can confidently say that making such transitions for the right reasons and with the right expectations is very important for personal happiness, professional effectiveness and and indeed for experiencing a sense of freedom and progress!

In domains like HR, there is an even more basic question that we need to look at – ‘’Do organizations have many HR jobs that would require a level of expertise which would take more than 20 years to develop?”. If the answer is “No”, then it creates a fundamental issue for the bulk of the HR professionals who are in the 20+ years’ experience range.  Yes, there will be many senior HR professionals who will continue to grow in their career within business organizations. But, here we are talking about career options available to bulk of the population - HR professionals with 20+ years’ of experience working in business organizations. 

In this context there are also dimensions like motivation and meaning, apart from that of just being gainfully employed (Please see ‘Truth and Beauty: Motivations and Elegance in HR’ and ‘If you hang around in HR for too long’ for more details). After all, work is as much about finding the daily meaning as it is about finding the daily bread!

Any comments/ideas?

When age is not just a number!

“Though it is not written in the job specifications, we have been asked by the client to look for a candidate below 45 years of age for the CHRO role”, said the executive search consultant who was asking for a reference.

“We decided to make the job offer to this particular candidate mainly because she was younger as compared to the other equally good candidates. We wanted to hire someone who can be developed into more senior level leadership roles. We want to be able to see the ‘next to next role’ for the candidate before we make a hiring decision.”, said the business leader.

These days, it not so rare to come across statements like ones above.  They make me wonder if they demonstrate some sort of ‘ageism’ at the workplace or if there are other more ‘rational’ reasons involved! Is age the issue or is it being used as a (convenient) ‘proxy’ for other factors?

The typical 'reasons' why someone comes up with a statement like the first one (the one made by the executive search consultant)  include things like ‘decision to bring in younger candidates at the CXO level as part of a business transformation exercise’ , ‘the other CXOs being in the same age bracket’ , ‘a workforce that is predominantly Gen Y’, ‘the need to bring in fresh thinking at senior levels’ etc.  It is true that the experience range specified for many roles is coming down. Now there is a greater emphasis on learning agility as opposed to experience. Also, knowledge can be acquired much faster these days.  It is also possible that the older (more experienced) candidates are more costly. Yes, there could also be cases where long years of experience is assumed to create some sort of rigidity and lack of flexibility/appetite for risk taking/creativity/tech-savviness.

One is more likely to come across statements similar to the second one (the one made by the business leader) in MNCs. Having greater runway left for the career is indeed valued especially in those cases where there is a fixed retirement age. Yes, there are still some traditional companies where higher number of years of experience is an advantage. This brings up an interesting question – Isn’t the very concept of a ‘mandatory retirement age’ (which is the norm in both private and government organizations in countries like India) a clear sign of ageism?

In domains like HR, there is an even more basic question that we need to look at – ‘’Do organizations have many HR jobs that would require a level of expertise which would take more than 20 years to develop?”. If the answer is “No”, then it creates a fundamental issue for the bulk of the HR professionals who are in the 20+ years’ experience range.  Of course, there would be many senior HR professionals would continue to grow in their career within business organizations. But, here we are talking about career options available to bulk of the population - HR professionals with 20+ years’ of experience  within business organizations. There is also the dimension of motivation and meaning, apart from that of just being employed (Please see ‘Truth and Beauty: Motivations and Elegance in HR’ and ‘If you hang around in HR for too long’ for more details).  

I do wonder what this means for mid-career professionals. There is always the risk that one can get replaced with someone who is more in line with the evolving requirement of the job and/or at a lower cost. The text book answer to this kind of a problem is that one constantly learns(keep the skill set relevant), takes up roles of increasing responsibility (where the experience adds value) and ensures that one’s contribution to the organization is much higher than one’s salary cost. This is a must especially in those  situations where the company can bill a person in particular role only at a particular rate and hence there is no economic sense in employing a person unless the loaded salary cost is significantly lower than the billing rate.  There is merit in the advice that one should try to revise one’s resume once in six months and if one is unable to make significant additions to the resume in two such cycles, one should look for a role change internally or externally. Of course, all these are easier said than done!

We do see an increasing number of mid-career professionals taking up consulting/freelancing kind of options. The trouble is just that majority of those mid-career professionals are unlikely to earn at least as much as they were earning in their regular job. Yes, there are a few who make it really big. There are also quite a few who use this opportunity to reinvent themselves and configure some sort of ‘portfolio life and career’ that is more aligned to their higher calling or more conducive to their self-actualization journey.

Any thoughts/comments?

The OD Quest: Part 6 – In the wonderland of HR Business Partners!

"I don’t have an opening in my OD team now. But, you can join our recruitment team and do recruitment in the OD way”, I heard the Senior HR Leader telling a candidate who was hell-bent on joining the OD team. This was my fifth ‘encounter’ with this gentleman (See 'Passion for work and anasakti ‘, 'Appropriate metaphors for organizational commitment ‘ ,‘To name or not to name, that is the question’ and ‘A Mathematical approach to HR’ for the outcomes of my previous interactions with him).

I was a bit taken aback by what I just heard. I knew that often these kind of ‘solutions’ will end in tears or worse. However, similar to what had happened during my previous encounters with him, this interaction forced me to think a bit more deeply about the underlying issue - the application of OD(Organization Development) to the various functional areas in HR (Human Resource Management). That, in turn, has prompted me to write this series of posts on 'The OD Quest' where we will look at the possibilities  that arise when OD ventures into other parts of the people management terrain.

In the first post in this series (see The OD Quest: Part 1- Mapping the terrain) we did a cartography of the Human Resources (HR) and Organization Development (OD) domains to map out the current world (the terrain) inhabited by HR and OD and also the evolving worldviews in HR and OD (ways of looking at the terrain). In the second post (see The OD Quest Part 2 : Doing Recruitment in the OD way) we made a visit to the land of Recruitment and explored the value OD can add to Recruitment. In the third post (see The OD Quest: Part 3 – Rendezvous with L&D) we covered the Rendezvous with L&D. In the fourth post we saw how OD can sweeten Rewards and make it ‘Total Rewards’ (see The OD Quest: Part 4 – Totally Rewarding). In the fifth post, we explored a domain (Industrial Relations) that has often been considered as the antithesis of OD (see The OD Quest: Part 5 - Face to face with the antithesis?). In this post let’s take our quest to the wonderland of HR Business Partners(HRBPs) and see what are the possibilities for mutual value addition. 

There are a wide range of HR roles that go by the HR Business Partner (HRBP) title. For the purpose of our discussion, let us focus mainly on ‘pure’ HRBPs – HRBPs whose role is that of being a strategic business partner - to the business they are supporting. This would mean that they are supposed to have very little or no transactional /operational HR responsibilities. So these roles (HR roles that don't do 'usual HR work') are some sort of freaks of evolution*- in the evolution of the HR function. As they don't have too many operational responsibilities, the pure strategic HRBPs tend to gravitate towards the business transformation, strategic workforce planning, employee engagement and culture building kind of work. This brings them closer to OD. 

The other kind of HRBPs, who have more operational roles (who focus on employee life cycle management) would  have another kind of overlap with OD. These HRBPs (HR Operations Managers) are closer to action (they are often embedded in the business they are supporting) and hence they are in a great position to know the pulse of the organization which is very essential for the diagnosis, solution design and implementation of OD initiatives.

The traditional distinction between HRBPs and OD has been that the specialists (including OD specialists) are supposed to do the design part and the generalists (HRBPs) are supposed to do the implementation part. In reality, these boundaries are fuzzy. Design can't happen in a vacuum (e.g. only based on underlying theory/principles and external best practices). Design has to be based on an accurate diagnosis of the organization context. HRBPs are closer to the context as compared to OD managers. Business relationship management is a key part of the HRBP role and this also gives them an opportunity to build close working relationships with the business leaders. So the diagnosis for OD initiatives is best done in partnership with the HRBPs. Also the partnership with HRBPs would make the OD designs more implementable. Similarly implementation can’t be done effectively without a deep understanding of the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of what is being implemented. This means that the HRBPs should work closely with the OD managers for carrying out their job effectively.  

I have seen 3 common modes of partnership that HRBPs have with OD Managers: 


1. I will do all interfacing with MY businesses leaders!! I will call you if I need OD help!
2. Do your work directly with the business leaders. Just don't create any trouble or additional work for me or my team!!
3. Let's work jointly on this!

Based on the discussion above, it is clear that the mode 3 is the most effective one. This brings us to the important question of why (if this is such an obvious choice for both the parties involved) mode 3 is not always adopted. To me, the most important issues here are related to trust, perceived value addition and sharing of credit.

For any partnership (including HRBP - OD partnership) to work both the parties should derive net value from the partnership (the benefits should be more than the costs/investment). If the HRBPs perceive that the OD Manager brings in a certain deep expertise that would be beneficial in meeting the HRBP deliverables and that the OD Managers won’t create  unwanted issues for the HRBPs, HRBPs would be keen to partner with OD Managers. A track record of consistent value addition creates trust and credibility. Similarly if the OD Managers perceive that the HRBPs can help in contracting with the business leaders, in  diagnosis, solution design & implementation and in sustaining the results, they would be keen to partner with the HRBPs. Yes, this would also mean that OD Managers should invest time in building/enhancing the OD skills of HRBPs by giving conceptual inputs, training on tools and by working together. Once the net value addition,  trust and credibility is established then it is easier to tackle the issue of sharing of credit. Of course, if HRBPs and OD Managers have different reporting lines both of them can claim ‘full credit’!

Where does this leave us?

In OD, scalability and the organization-wide impact and sustaining the new patterns of working post the OD initiative  are the most difficult challenges. Since OD would always be a small team, building OD skills in the HRBPs (in both the strategic and operational HRBPs, may be at different levels of proficiency depending on the nature of their job/involvement in OD initiatives) can help in scalability and organization-wide impact (beyond doing isolated ‘hit and run’ Interventions). Again, working jointly with the HRBPs would help in better diagnosis, solution design, implementation and sustaining the results of OD initiatives. Similarly, effective partnership with OD Managers can help the HRBPs to  build skills, climb the value chain, created differentiated value for the business they are supporting and develop the credibility to be true strategic business partners (See nature abhors vacuum for what could happen when the transactional responsibilities are removed from HR Managers). Of course, this also means that OD Managers should develop a very deep technical expertise in OD coupled with business understanding so that the HRBPs would have a logical reason to get them involved. Again, OD Managers, being relative outsiders, are in a better position to surface certain difficult issues with the business leaders and to have courageous conversations’’ with  business leaders that the HRBPs, being embedded in the business, might find more difficult to pull off (See OD Managers as Court Jesters for a related discussion)!

In a way, the separation between the OD and  HRBP roles are arbitrary with the strategic/pure HRBP roles gravitating towards the business transformation, strategic workforce planning, employee engagement and culture building kind of work that very much overlaps with the traditional OD domains. In one of my previous companies, people like me who were on OD roles were moved to HRBP roles worldwide as it was felt that the HRBP roles require an OD kind of skill set. Also, I  have seen many senior HR generalists do the kind of great process facilitation/ process consulting work with business leadership teams that would make any OD specialist proud. But usually these HR leaders don't call it OD and they don't talk too much about it - may be because they see it as a very natural part of their job and may be also because they don't want to annoy the 'designated OD specialists' in the organization!

Thus, the HRBP-OD partnership can be highly beneficial for both the parties involved. The key requirement is to address the key issues of perceived value addition, trust and sharing of credit as we have seen earlier! 

Any comments/thoughts before we take our OD quest to the next domain in the HR land?!

*Note: Freaks occur in the course of biological evolution also. But they are unlikely to create much of a problem as they usually don't live long enough to reproduce. However since HRBPs can (and do) survive long enough in organizations to create (hire/develop) more HRBPs, it is worthwhile to take a closer look at them and their world - especially in terms of the intersection with the world of Organization Development.