Observing The HCM:21 Model And Assumptions About HR's Purvie ✓ Solved

Observing the HCM:21 Model, the assumptions around HR’s purv

Observing the HCM:21 Model, the assumptions around HR’s purview within an organization require a new paradigm and serious consideration throughout an organization’s leadership structure. In your estimation, what phase of the MCM:21 Model will require the greatest reset of assumptions, processes, and behaviors organizationally?

Paper For Above Instructions

The question invites a disciplined examination of how a forward-looking human capital framework—here labeled the HCM:21 and MCM:21 models—redefines what HR is responsible for and how it operates within the broader organizational system. Across myriad organizations, the most consequential reset typically occurs not in early ideation or planning, but in the transformation and execution phase where strategy is translated into scalable capabilities, operating models, and daily practices. When HR transitions from a primarily administrative or service-oriented function to a strategic, enterprise-wide driver of performance, an organization must overhaul assumptions, processes, governance, and mindsets at multiple levels. This paper argues that the Transformation/Execution phase (the phase in which strategy is operationalized and continually refined through feedback loops) will demand the greatest reset of assumptions, processes, and behaviors organizationally. The argument rests on established theories of change, learning organizations, and strategic human resource management, and is supported by evidence from HR analytics and transformation literature.

First, the transformation phase requires a fundamental redefinition of what HR is accountable for. Historically, HR often operated as a siloed function focused on talent administration, compliance, and transactional hiring. Under the HCM:21 paradigm, HR is expected to act as a strategic partner and co-architect of enterprise value, shaping capabilities that enable competitive advantage. This shift mirrors the core insight from change-management and learning-organization literature: durable organizational change demands not only new processes but a new set of mental models across leadership ranks (Kotter, 1996; Senge, 1990). As organizations push for data-driven, analytics-enabled decision-making, the HR function must demonstrate measurable contributions to financial outcomes, workforce productivity, and risk management, a stance echoed in the HR scorecard approach (Becker, Huselind, Ulrich, 2001). The transformation phase thus requires reconfiguring governance structures, redefining roles, and updating performance metrics so that HR activities align with enterprise strategy rather than isolated function-centric goals (Boxall & Purcell, 2011; Cascio, 2015).

Second, the scope of HR’s purview expands significantly during transformation. The HCM:21/MCM:21 framework implies a move toward a truly enterprise-wide talent management model, where workforce planning, leadership development, DEI, learning ecosystems, and organizational design are embedded across functions and geographies. This requires a rethinking of HR processes—from recruitment and onboarding to performance management and career development—so that they support strategic priorities such as digital capability, agility, and resilience. The integration of HR governance with other C-suite domains (finance, operations, IT) necessitates new collaboration protocols, shared accountability for outcomes, and cross-functional governance bodies, all of which demand a revised leadership culture. The literature on strategic HRM emphasizes that creating value through people depends on aligning HR capabilities with organizational strategy, a lesson central to the transformation phase (Boxall & Purcell, 2011; Wright & Snell, 1998). Moreover, the analytics revolution underscores that people data must feed strategic decisions, not merely HR dashboards (Davenport & Harris, 2007).

Third, the behavioral and cultural resets demanded in the transformation phase are substantial. Leadership must model and reinforce new norms—continuous learning, experimentation, collaboration across silos, and evidence-based decision-making. Senge’s (1990) work on the learning organization frames this as a systemic change: organizations prosper when leaders create mental models that are challenged and revised in light of new data and experiences. Kotter’s change framework further clarifies that sustaining momentum requires a guiding coalition, a compelling vision, and mechanisms to institutionalize change; without these, even well-designed processes fail to take root (Kotter, 1996). Pfeffer’s emphasis on people-first practices reinforces that sustained performance requires structural and cultural commitments that place human capital at the center of strategy (Pfeffer, 1998). Together, these sources argue that the transformation phase is not just about implementing new tools but about re-engineering beliefs, routines, and leadership behaviors across the organization.

Fourth, the analytics and technology dimensions multiply the scale of the reset. Delivering enterprise-wide HR analytics, workforce planning, and continuous improvement requires robust data infrastructure, governance, and skills. Davenport and Harris (2007) demonstrated that organizations winning on analytics do so by integrating data strategy with business strategy and embedding data-driven decision-making into daily operations. The HCM:21 model’s emphasis on HR-enabled capabilities amplifies this need: HR must design and use predictive insights to anticipate workforce needs, optimize investments in talent, and measure the ROI of people initiatives. This places a premium on technology-enabled processes, data ethics, and change-readiness across the organization (Deloitte, 2020).

Finally, the proposed reset in the transformation phase has practical implications for leadership development and talent management. If HR is to drive enterprise-wide capabilities, leaders must be equipped with new competencies—strategic partnering, data literacy, and change leadership—while HR professionals themselves must move beyond transactional expertise to become credible, influential partners in strategy execution (Ulrich, Brockbank, Johnson, Sandholtz, & Younger, 2012). In this sense, the transformation phase is a catalyst for rethinking recruitment, development, incentives, and accountability, ensuring that the organization’s talent architecture aligns with long-term strategic ambitions (Armstrong, 2020).

In sum, while all phases of a HCM:21/MCM:21 transformation require adjustments, the Transformation/Execution phase embodies the greatest reset because it directly translates strategy into capabilities, governance, culture, and day-to-day practice. The changes at this phase reverberate through leadership behaviors, organizational design, HR processes, and technology ecosystems, demanding a holistic, systemic approach to change management. Practically, this implies a phased but ambitious plan: establish cross-functional governance, redefine HR roles as strategic partners, build analytics capabilities, redesign core HR processes around enterprise outcomes, and cultivate a culture of continuous learning and evidence-based decision-making. Implementing this reset aligns HR’s evolving purview with the broader objectives of the organization and is consistent with the foundational literature on change and strategic human resource management.

References

  • Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
  • Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.
  • Pfeffer, J. (1998). The Human Equation: Building Profits by Putting People First. Harvard Business School Press.
  • Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Ulrich, D. (2001). The HR Scorecard: Linking People, Strategy, and Performance. Harvard Business School Press.

Related Assignments