Where HR Execution Actually Breaks
HR friction is usually structural — speed without design increases risk
Most leaders don’t feel HR friction as a policy issue. They feel it as delays and rework:
Offers that take weeks to approve
New hires who arrive without system access or equipment
Payroll “exceptions” that quietly consume days every pay period
Policy changes that sound good in the deck but stall in the field
When you zoom in, it’s tempting to blame individual performance: “HR is slow,” “managers don’t follow the process,” “people resist change.”
But research on HR operating models, process bottlenecks, and transformation failure points to something else: the friction is usually structural—a function of how work, decisions, and systems are designed, not how hard people are trying.
This matters even more in mid-market and PE-backed environments, where growth and integration timelines are tight. When you try to go faster without addressing structural friction, you don’t just get “annoying HR delays.” You take on real execution and compliance risk.
HR Friction Is Usually Baked Into the Operating Model
Multiple recent reviews of HR operating models conclude that the dominant model has become too process-centric and fragmented to meet current demands. Common problems include: narrow specialization, one-size-fits-all structures, and weak alignment with business decision-making.
At ground level, that sounds like:
HR teams organized around internal activities (recruiting, “HR ops,” learning) rather than end-to-end outcomes
Service delivery models that are clear on paper but fuzzy in practice (who actually owns what, and in what sequence?)
Technology layered onto legacy workflows instead of being used to redesign them
In that context, even highly capable HR people will struggle. The system pushes them into workarounds and heroics, not consistent execution.
Where HR Execution Actually Breaks
Here are the places I see execution fail most often—not as one-off incidents, but as repeating patterns.
1. Intake and Prioritization: “Everything Is Urgent”
In many organizations:
Requests show up through email, chat, side conversations, and ticket tools
There is no single intake channel, and little triage by impact
HR ends up working on whoever shouts loudest, not what matters most
Research on HR service delivery and pain points shows that ambiguous ownership and ad hoc intake are major sources of delays, rework, and poor employee experience.
What it looks like:
Recruiting chasing down missing approvals from multiple leaders
HR ops drowning in “quick questions” that are actually complex cases
No clear view of demand, so staffing and prioritization are guesses
This is a structural problem: no defined front door for HR work.
2. Cross-Functional Handoffs: Onboarding as the Canary
On paper, onboarding is a single process. In reality, it’s a chain:
Talent → Hiring manager → HR ops → IT → Facilities → Payroll → Benefits
Studies on onboarding bottlenecks show that delays often come from gaps between these owners: missing information, unclear handoffs, and misaligned timing.
What it looks like:
New hires waiting days for laptop access or system credentials
Conflicting information between offer letter, HRIS record, and payroll
Managers assuming “HR will handle it,” while HR assumes “the manager did that already”
None of this is about attitude. It’s about process seams that no one has explicitly designed.
3. Decision Rights and Approvals: Too Many Stops, Not Enough Clarity
Process-bottleneck research is clear: slow decision-making—especially when approvals are misaligned with risk—is a major drag on cycle time. Long-term bottlenecks often come from flawed process design and unrealistic assumptions about who has capacity to review what.
In HR, that shows up as:
Simple job changes requiring three or four signatures
No clarity on when HR can decide, when finance must approve, and when legal must weigh in
“Shadow approvers” who aren’t on any RACI but can stop progress
The result: work waits in inboxes, not in queues. People call this “HR taking too long,” but the true issue is a decision architecture that doesn’t match the risk or the pace of the business.
4. Technology Without Operating-Model Design
Recent surveys show that a significant share of HR technology implementations underperform because adoption is low and workflows aren’t redesigned around the tools. In some cases, fewer than a third of employees actively use core HR systems.
Common patterns:
New platforms added on top of old approval chains and manual workarounds
Configuration that mirrors old org charts rather than current decision flows
HR teams measured on “go-live” rather than sustained usage and outcomes
Speeding up tech implementation without structural design creates digital friction: more logins, more confusion, and more parallel spreadsheets.
5. Capacity and Skills Mismatch in HR Itself
Reviews of HR transformations frequently point to under-investment in HR capabilities as a key failure point: teams are asked to run strategic change on top of overloaded transactional work, without the skills, time, or authority to do it well.
At the same time, broader research on transformation fatigue shows high rates of burnout and intent to leave among employees working through constant change.
What it looks like:
HR people spending evenings catching up on project work because the day is consumed by tickets and firefighting
Strategic initiatives “owned” by HR, but with no realistic capacity or cross-functional support
Turnover in HR roles right when you most need stability
Execution breaks when the HR engine itself is running too hot.
Why “Speed Without Design” Increases Risk
In growth-mode companies, the default move is often:
“We don’t have time to redesign this—just get it done.”
The intent is understandable. But research on operating-model redesign and risk management is consistent: rushing structural changes without explicit design and risk planning amplifies execution risk, especially around continuity, talent, and compliance.
For HR, speed without design tends to create three categories of risk:
Compliance risk
Inconsistent application of policies across sites or entities
Gaps in timekeeping, classification, and documentation as workarounds multiply
Operational risk
Single points of failure (one person who “knows how to do it”)
Missed SLAs in recruiting, onboarding, or payroll that undermine growth
Trust and credibility risk
Employees and managers stop believing HR timelines or commitments
Change initiatives get labeled as “just another rollout” and struggle for adoption
Going faster on top of a fragile structure doesn’t just create more friction; it creates structural debt—problems you’ll pay interest on later through higher cost, slower change, and more risk.
How to Spot Structural Friction in Your HR Execution
You don’t need a full diagnostic to see the outlines. If several of these resonate, you’re dealing with structural issues, not isolated misfires:
The same request type (e.g., job change, off-cycle comp adjustment) creates confusion every time.
Onboarding quality varies widely by manager or location, even with the “same” process.
HR has multiple trackers for work in flight, and none of them match.
Leaders complain about HR being slow, but no one can produce an end-to-end cycle time view.
HR transformation or tech projects “finish,” but day-to-day experience doesn’t materially improve.
These are signs that the operating model, not just the people, needs attention.
Design Principles to Reduce Friction (Without Grinding to a Halt)
You don’t have to rebuild everything. Start with small, structural moves.
1. Make the Front Door Explicit
Choose one primary intake path for HR work (or one per major service line).
Introduce simple triage: what gets handled by self-service, shared services, specialists, or HR business partners.
The goal is to move from “inbox roulette” to visible demand and intentional prioritization.
2. Design a Few Critical Journeys End-to-End
Pick the processes where friction hurts you most—often:
Hiring and onboarding
Job and pay changes
Offboarding
Map these across functions, not just within HR, and agree on:
Owners by step
Standard handoffs and data requirements
Target cycle times and service expectations
Then run small experiments on simplification before you automate further.
3. Simplify Decision Rights Around Risk
For each common decision type (e.g., comp changes, policy exceptions, role approvals):
Define who decides, who advises, and who is just informed
Scale the number of approvals to the actual risk—not to history or hierarchy
Research on bottlenecks and operating models highlights that aligning decision rights with risk and value is a key lever for both speed and control.
4. Pair Tech Changes With Operating-Model Experiments
Instead of rolling out a new system “as is”:
Choose a pilot area and treat it as a lab: new workflow, new roles, new rules.
Track adoption, cycle time, error rates, and user sentiment.
Adjust configuration and operating model together, not separately.
This lets you learn your way into a better structure rather than baking in new friction.
Where Guarden Labs Fits
This is exactly the kind of problem set I had in mind when I created Guarden Labs.
In a lab engagement, I work with leadership teams to:
Surface where HR execution is actually breaking—not just where it’s noisy
Map the structural roots: operating model, decision rights, workflows, and capacity
Design small, time-bound experiments to reduce friction in one or two critical journeys
Measure both operational outcomes (cycle time, error rates, cost) and human outcomes (adoption, trust, load)
No guarantees, no black boxes—just disciplined experimentation that replaces “HR is slow” narratives with clear evidence about what the system is doing and how to change it.
Final Thought
Most HR friction isn’t about people slacking off or resisting change.
It’s about structures that were never designed for the speed, complexity, and scrutiny you’re operating under now.
You can push harder on the existing system, or you can start redesigning the system in small, targeted ways.
If you want help turning “HR friction” from a vague complaint into a set of concrete, testable structural changes, try a Guarden Lab or email contact@bloomguarden.com and we can explore what that would look like in your organization.
References
(AIHR, 2025). Capability-Driven HR Operating Model: What the Future Effectiveness Looks Like.
(Atlassian, 2025). HR Service Delivery Model: How to Choose the Right One.
(Business & HR Service Delivery Guide, 2025). Best Practices for Frictionless HR Services.
(CIPD, 2023). Do Current HR Operating Models Serve Future Needs?
(Emergn, 2025). Transformation Fatigue and Employee Burnout in Digital Programs.
(Future of HR Report, 2024). Future Models of HR and Workforce Support.
(HRDuo, 2024). Avoiding HR Bottlenecks: How Centralised Dashboards Improve Visibility.
(HR Cloud, 2025). 12 Common Problems with Onboarding New Employees.
(McKinsey, 2025a). A New Operating Model for a New World.
(McKinsey, 2025b). The New Rules for Getting Your Operating Model Redesign Right.
(People Managing People, 2025). HR Operating Models: Comprehensive Guide.
(Process & Bottleneck Diagnostics, 2025). How to Identify and Fix Bottlenecks in Your Business Processes.
(RBL Group, 2023). HR Transformation: Common Pitfalls and Tried and True Tips.
(SHRM, 2025). The Biggest Reason Why New HR Technology Implementations Fail.
(Talent Strategy Group, 2025). Three Reasons HR Transformations Fail.
