Why the Ulrich HR Model Failed—and How to Replace It with a Strategy Built for Today
The Lie CEOs Bought: Why Ulrich Wasn’t Just a Mistake—It Was a Strategic Abdication
For decades, the Ulrich model has shaped corporate HR strategy. It was touted as transformative. Efficient. Strategic. But what if the most celebrated framework in modern HR wasn’t just outdated—it was never designed to lead under pressure?
What if CEOs didn’t just inherit a broken system—they invested in it, scaled it, and protected it?
The truth is this: the Ulrich model didn’t simply age poorly. It was misaligned from inception. It fragmented authority, diluted accountability, and gave organizations the illusion of transformation without forcing structural change.
And the cost? It's no longer theoretical. It's systemic. And it's compounding.
The Comfort of Alignment—At the Cost of Authority
When David Ulrich introduced his model in the 1990s, it was framed as a roadmap to elevate HR from an administrative function to a strategic partner (Ulrich, 1997). It segmented HR into four primary roles: Strategic Partner, Change Agent, Administrative Expert, and Employee Champion. Later operationalized through HR Business Partners (HRBPs), Centers of Expertise (CoEs), and Shared Services (Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005), it promised clarity and specialization.
But that’s not what organizations got.
Instead, they created complexity without ownership. HRBPs were undertrained and marginalized from decision-making (CIPD, 2015). CoEs operated in isolation from business context. Shared Services, while efficient, became black holes for accountability.
The result? A function designed to support—but never drive. To align—but never challenge.
It looked strategic. It felt efficient. But it wasn’t built to lead.
CEOs Didn’t Inherit This—They Endorsed It
Behavioral economics offers a simple insight: people gravitate toward systems that help them avoid discomfort (Ariely, 2010). And for many CEOs, the Ulrich structure removed the most uncomfortable part of people leadership: power redistribution.
By segmenting HR into specialized units, they could claim transformation while avoiding systemic redesign. It outsourced complexity. It made culture someone else’s problem. And it ensured that HR—despite new titles and metrics—remained fundamentally reactive.
As Kahneman (2011) warns, shared responsibility without decision ownership creates organizational paralysis. And that’s exactly what the Ulrich framework institutionalized.
This wasn’t accidental. It was architectural.
The Strategic Context Was Already Misaligned
Crucially, the Ulrich model was introduced after hypercompetition had already become the norm. Strategy scholars like D’Aveni (1994) had already declared the death of sustainable advantage. The emerging environment was defined by volatility, speed, and constant disruption.
Yet while leaders were being warned about temporary advantage and rapid-cycle innovation, they were adopting an HR structure designed for stability, segmentation, and static alignment.
That dissonance still haunts organizations today. The Ulrich system assumes:
Predictability
Linear growth
Central control with decentralized execution
But today’s realities demand something else entirely:
Antifragility (Taleb, 2012)
Insurgency and adaptability (McGrath, 2013)
Unified accountability for system performance
The Ulrich structure cannot deliver that.
The Organizational Impact: Invisible But Devastating
The damage is measurable:
76% of HR professionals report feeling under-empowered in moments of crisis (Gartner, 2022).
High-potential HR leaders are leaving the profession due to chronic disempowerment (Gallup, 2023).
Managers are unsupported yet over-relied upon, leading to erratic culture execution (HBR, 2020).
Retention strategies are reactive—focusing on perks and engagement tools, not system architecture.
These are not people problems. They are design problems—amplified by a framework that gives responsibility without power.
Why This Framework Fails in Today’s Environment
The world has changed. Business conditions are shaped by geopolitical instability, talent fluidity, digital acceleration, and cultural pressure. Organizations need systems that can:
Move fast without losing alignment
Withstand volatility without collapsing trust
Shift direction without diffusing responsibility
The Ulrich system is fundamentally incapable of meeting these needs. It rewards alignment, not insurgency. It stabilizes roles, not redesign. It manages—but it cannot regenerate.
And that means CEOs are not just holding on to the past. They are actively undermining their own adaptability.
What Comes Next: Redesign Over Rebrand
The solution is not to tweak the existing structure. It’s to replace the operating assumptions entirely.
Three principles must define what comes next:
Systemic Decision Ownership™
HR must not just advise on trust, performance, and culture—it must own the design and accountability of these systems (Woods, 2025).Unified Accountability
No more diffusion. From diagnosis to execution, ownership must be vertically aligned across HR and leadership teams (Rogers & Blenko, 2006).Antifragile Design
HR structures must be built for pressure—not just for policy. That means responsive, integrated, leader-enabled systems that grow stronger through adversity (Taleb, 2012).
Final Thought: The Reckoning Isn’t Coming. It’s Already Here.
The Ulrich model is not a legacy. It’s a liability.
It gave organizations language—but no levers. Structure—but no strength. Alignment—but no authority.
If you're a CEO asking why culture isn't changing, why retention is still lagging, or why your HR leaders aren’t stepping into the role you need—they are not the problem. The system you funded is.
It’s time to stop defending a structure that was never designed for this era.
And it’s time to build one that is.
References
Ariely, D. (2010). The upside of irrationality: The unexpected benefits of defying logic at work and at home. Harper.
Biron, M. (2021). The impact of role conflict and role ambiguity on burnout in HR professionals: A multi-country analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 26(2), 142–155.
Caldwell, R. (2003). The changing roles of HRM: Old ambiguities, new uncertainties. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 983–1004.
CIPD. (2015). HR business partners: Definition, benefits and development.
D’Aveni, R. A. (1994). Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. Free Press.
Gallup. (2023). State of the Global Workplace: 2023 Report. Gallup Inc.
Gartner. (2022). CHRO Leadership Vision for 2023. Gartner Research.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Korn Ferry. (2022). Corporate Culture: Reality vs. Rhetoric.
McGrath, R. G. (2013). The end of competitive advantage: How to keep your strategy moving as fast as your business. Harvard Business Review Press.
Rogers, P., & Blenko, M. (2006). Who has the D? How clear decision roles enhance organizational performance. Harvard Business Review, 84(1), 52–61.
Staw, B. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 577–587.
Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. Random House.
Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering results. Harvard Business Press.
Ulrich, D., & Brockbank, W. (2005). The HR value proposition. Harvard Business Press.
Woods, J. (2025). The HR Power Model™ Manifesto. Seattle Consulting Group.