---
name: hr-business-partner
description: >
  HR business partnership across talent strategy, org development, and employee
  relations. Use when building workforce plans, designing performance reviews,
  resolving employee relations cases, or advising leadership on org change.
license: MIT + Commons Clause
metadata:
  version: 1.0.0
  author: borghei
  category: hr-operations
  updated: 2026-03-31
  tags: [hr, talent, org-development, employee-relations, people-analytics]
---
# HR Business Partner

The agent operates as a strategic HRBP, partnering with business leaders to align people strategy with organizational goals across talent planning, performance management, employee relations, and compensation.

## Clarify First

Before generating the plan, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:

- [ ] **Business priority / strategic goal (next 1-4 quarters)** — drives the people plan's targets and gap analysis
- [ ] **Engagement (workforce plan, calibration, ER case, or comp/offer review)** — selects the framework and template
- [ ] **Current-state workforce data (headcount, voluntary vs regrettable attrition, engagement)** — the baseline for gap analysis (step 2)
- [ ] **Headcount / budget envelope** — bounds the hiring plan and succession depth

Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.

## Workflow

1. **Diagnose the business need** -- Meet with the business leader to understand their strategic priorities for the next 1-4 quarters. Identify people-related gaps: headcount, skills, retention, engagement, or organizational design.
2. **Assess current state** -- Pull workforce data: headcount, attrition rate, engagement scores, open roles, and performance distribution. Validate data accuracy before proceeding.
3. **Build the people plan** -- Develop a workforce plan using the template below. Include hiring targets, development investments, succession depth, and risk mitigation for attrition.
4. **Execute and advise** -- Partner with Talent Acquisition on hiring, run calibration sessions for performance, coach managers on difficult conversations, and resolve ER cases using the issue resolution framework.
5. **Measure and report** -- Track KPIs quarterly (see People Metrics). Present findings to leadership with recommendations.
6. **Iterate** -- Adjust the plan based on business changes, attrition trends, and engagement survey results.

> Checkpoint: After step 2, confirm that attrition data distinguishes voluntary from involuntary and regrettable from non-regrettable before planning.

## People Metrics

| Category | Metric | Formula / Source | Benchmark |
|----------|--------|-----------------|-----------|
| Headcount | Total HC | HRIS snapshot | -- |
| Attrition | Voluntary turnover | Voluntary exits / Avg HC x 100 | 10-15% |
| Attrition | Regrettable turnover | Regrettable exits / Total exits | < 30% |
| Hiring | Time to fill | Req open to offer accept | 30-45 days |
| Engagement | eNPS | Promoters - Detractors | 20-40 |
| Performance | High-performer ratio | Top-tier ratings / HC | 15-20% |
| Diversity | Representation | Demographic breakdown by level | Org-specific targets |
| Compensation | Compa-ratio | Actual pay / Band midpoint | 0.95-1.05 |

## Workforce Planning Template

```markdown
# Workforce Plan: [Department] -- [Year]

## Current State
- Headcount: [X]
- Open roles: [X]
- Voluntary attrition (trailing 12 mo): [X]%
- Engagement score: [X] / 100
- Regrettable turnover: [X]%

## Future State (12 months)
- Target headcount: [X] (growth: [X]%)
- Critical skills needed: [list]
- Organizational design changes: [if any]

## Gap Analysis
| Role / Skill | Current | Needed | Gap | Action |
|-------------|---------|--------|-----|--------|
| [Role A] | 3 | 5 | +2 | Hire Q1-Q2 |
| [Skill B] | Low proficiency | Intermediate | Gap | Training program |

## Hiring Plan
| Quarter | Roles | Headcount | Budget |
|---------|-------|-----------|--------|
| Q1 | [Roles] | [X] | $[Y] |
| Q2 | [Roles] | [X] | $[Y] |

## Succession Plan
| Critical Role | Incumbent | Ready Now | Ready 1-2 yr |
|---------------|-----------|-----------|--------------|
| [VP Engineering] | [Name] | [Name] | [Name, Name] |

## Risk Register
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|-----------|--------|------------|
| Key-person dependency | High | Critical | Cross-train 2 backups by Q2 |
| Attrition spike in Sales | Medium | High | Retention bonuses, stay interviews |
```

## Performance Management Cycle

| Quarter | Activity | HRBP Role |
|---------|----------|-----------|
| Q1 | Goal setting -- cascade company OKRs to individual goals | Review goal quality, ensure alignment |
| Q2 | Mid-year check-in -- progress review, feedback exchange | Coach managers on feedback delivery |
| Q3 | Ongoing development -- 1:1s, real-time feedback, training | Monitor development plan completion |
| Q4 | Year-end review -- self-assessment, manager assessment, calibration | Facilitate calibration, advise on ratings |

## Calibration Session Guide

1. **Prepare** -- Collect manager-submitted ratings. Flag outliers (> 40% top-tier or > 20% bottom-tier in any team). Pull performance data and promotion history.
2. **Facilitate** -- Walk through each team's distribution. Managers present evidence for outlier ratings. Challenge ratings that lack behavioral evidence.
3. **Align** -- Reach consensus on final ratings. Ensure the overall distribution is defensible (no forced curve, but consistent standards).
4. **Document** -- Record final ratings and rationale for any changes. Feed into compensation decisions.

> Checkpoint: Verify that every "exceeds expectations" rating has at least two documented behavioral examples before finalizing.

## Employee Relations: Issue Resolution Framework

1. **Listen** -- Hear the concern fully. Take notes. Acknowledge the employee's experience without making commitments.
2. **Investigate** -- Gather facts from all relevant parties. Review documentation, emails, and policies. Maintain confidentiality.
3. **Analyze** -- Identify root cause. Assess policy and legal implications (consult employment counsel if needed). Evaluate options.
4. **Resolve** -- Determine the appropriate action. Communicate the decision to all parties. Implement the resolution.
5. **Follow up** -- Check on the outcome within 2 weeks. Document the case. Identify systemic patterns that may need policy changes.

## Difficult Conversations Framework (SBI-E)

| Element | Description | Example |
|---------|-------------|---------|
| **Situation** | When and where | "In last Tuesday's team standup..." |
| **Behavior** | Observable action | "...you interrupted two colleagues mid-sentence." |
| **Impact** | Effect on team/work | "The team hesitated to share updates afterward." |
| **Expectation** | What needs to change | "Going forward, let each person finish before responding." |

## Example: Workforce Plan for a Scaling Engineering Org

```
CONTEXT
  Current: 45 engineers, 8% attrition, 3 open reqs, engagement 74/100
  Business goal: Launch 2 new products requiring +15 engineers in 12 months

WORKFORCE PLAN

  Gap Analysis:
    Frontend engineers: have 12, need 18 (+6)
    ML engineers: have 3, need 8 (+5)
    Engineering managers: have 5, need 7 (+2, promote from within if possible)
    Platform engineers: have 10, need 14 (+4)

  Hiring Plan:
    Q1: 5 hires (3 frontend, 2 ML) -- $25K recruiting cost
    Q2: 5 hires (2 ML, 2 platform, 1 frontend) -- $25K
    Q3: 4 hires (2 platform, 1 frontend, 1 ML) -- $20K
    Q4: 1 hire (manager backfill if internal promo) -- $5K

  Succession:
    Promote 2 senior engineers to EM by Q2 (already in leadership program)
    Backfill their IC roles in Q3

  Risks:
    ML talent market is tight -- offer 75th percentile comp, sign-on bonus
    2 senior engineers flagged as flight risk -- schedule stay interviews Q1

  Budget: $75K recruiting + $120K incremental comp (15 new heads, partial year)
```

## Compensation Philosophy

| Element | Approach |
|---------|----------|
| Market positioning | Target 50th-75th percentile for base; equity for upside |
| Pay components | Base (70%), variable/bonus (15%), equity (15%) |
| Pay decisions | Based on role level, performance, market data, internal equity |
| Review cadence | Annual merit cycle + promotion adjustments + market corrections |
| Transparency | Share band ranges with employees; publish leveling framework |

## Offer Approval Workflow

1. Recruiter proposes offer based on compensation band and candidate profile.
2. Hiring manager confirms level, scope, and team fit.
3. HRBP reviews for internal equity (compa-ratio within 0.90-1.10 for same level/geo).
4. Finance approves if above band midpoint or if headcount was not pre-approved.
5. Offer extended.

## Scripts

```bash
# Score organizational health from workforce metrics
python scripts/org_health_scorer.py --file org_metrics.csv
python scripts/org_health_scorer.py --file org_metrics.csv --json

# Analyze compensation for pay equity
python scripts/compensation_analyzer.py --file comp_data.csv
python scripts/compensation_analyzer.py --file comp_data.csv --json

# Generate workforce dashboard from HR data
python scripts/workforce_dashboard.py --file workforce.csv
python scripts/workforce_dashboard.py --file workforce.csv --json
```

## Troubleshooting

| Problem | Root Cause | Resolution |
|---------|-----------|------------|
| Business leaders treat HRBP as transactional HR | Unclear role definition, reactive posture, or lack of business acumen | Establish a formal operating model: 70% strategic / 30% operational; present quarterly people plans tied to business OKRs; delegate administrative tasks to HR shared services |
| Calibration sessions devolve into arguments | No shared rubric, manager defensiveness, or lack of pre-work | Require managers to submit ratings with 2+ behavioral evidence examples before the session; facilitate with a neutral framework; start with aligned ratings and work through outliers |
| Workforce plan disconnected from business strategy | HRBP not included in business planning, or plan built in isolation | Attend leadership team meetings; build workforce plan as an appendix to the business plan; tie every headcount request to a revenue or product milestone |
| High regrettable turnover in specific teams | Manager quality issues, compensation misalignment, or stalled career paths | Run stay interviews with high performers; analyze exit data by manager; benchmark comp by role and level; publish career ladders with clear promotion criteria |
| Employee relations cases escalate unnecessarily | Late intervention, poor documentation, or inconsistent policy application | Train managers on early issue identification; standardize the ER intake and investigation framework; conduct monthly ER case reviews to identify patterns |
| Performance review cycle seen as bureaucratic | Too many forms, unclear purpose, or ratings disconnected from comp | Simplify to a 2-page template; connect review outcomes directly to merit and promotion decisions; train managers on feedback delivery (SBI-E model) |
| Change management initiatives fail to stick | Insufficient sponsorship, poor communication cadence, or no measurement | Apply Kotter's 8-step model; secure visible executive sponsorship; communicate in 5+ channels; measure adoption at 30/60/90 days |

## Success Criteria

| Dimension | Metric | Target | Measurement |
|-----------|--------|--------|-------------|
| Strategic Impact | Business leader satisfaction with HRBP | > 4.0 / 5.0 | Annual stakeholder survey |
| Strategic Impact | % time spent on strategic activities | > 60% | HRBP time allocation self-report (quarterly) |
| Workforce Health | Voluntary attrition (supported business units) | < 12% annualized | HRIS termination data, voluntary flag |
| Workforce Health | Regrettable turnover | < 25% of total exits | HRIS termination data, regrettable flag |
| Workforce Health | Engagement score (supported BUs) | > 75 / 100 | Annual or semi-annual engagement survey |
| Performance | Calibration completion rate | 100% of BUs complete on schedule | HRIS performance cycle tracking |
| Performance | Performance distribution alignment | No team with > 40% top-tier or > 20% bottom-tier | Post-calibration distribution analysis |
| Compensation | Compa-ratio within band | 0.90-1.10 for 90%+ of employees | Quarterly comp analysis |
| ER Effectiveness | ER case resolution within SLA | > 90% resolved within 30 days | ER case management system |
| Development | Manager capability score | > 3.5 / 5.0 on upward feedback | 360 or upward feedback survey |

## Scope & Limitations

**In Scope:**
- Strategic workforce planning: headcount forecasting, gap analysis, succession planning
- Performance management cycle: goal setting, calibration facilitation, rating alignment
- Employee relations: intake, investigation, resolution, and pattern identification
- Compensation advisory: internal equity analysis, offer review, merit and promotion recommendations
- Manager coaching: difficult conversations, feedback delivery, team development
- Organizational design advisory: spans of control, reporting structure, team topology
- Change management support: stakeholder mapping, communication planning, adoption tracking

**Out of Scope:**
- Benefits plan design and administration (owned by Total Rewards / Benefits)
- Payroll processing and tax compliance (owned by Payroll)
- Learning and development program design (owned by L&D; HRBP identifies needs)
- Legal counsel on employment law matters (HRBP escalates to Legal)
- Recruiting execution (owned by Talent Acquisition; HRBP sets hiring priorities)
- HRIS system configuration and administration (owned by HR Technology)

**Known Limitations:**
- Organizational health scoring is based on available metrics; cultural factors and informal dynamics require qualitative assessment alongside quantitative data
- Compensation analysis depends on accurate market data; benchmark sources (Radford, Mercer, Levels.fyi) should be refreshed at least annually
- The SBI-E framework works best for individualized feedback; systemic team issues require different interventions (team retrospectives, org design changes)
- HRBP effectiveness depends heavily on the quality of the business leader relationship; new partnerships require 1-2 quarters to reach full strategic impact

## Integration Points

| System / Skill | Integration | Data Flow |
|----------------|-------------|-----------|
| **HRIS** (Workday, BambooHR) | Headcount, attrition, performance ratings, compensation data | HRIS -> org_health_scorer.py, workforce_dashboard.py; HRBP recommendations -> HRIS updates |
| **People Analytics** skill | Workforce insights, attrition risk, engagement drivers, pay equity | Analytics insights -> HRBP strategic recommendations; HRBP questions -> analytics projects |
| **Talent Acquisition** skill | Hiring pipeline, offer approvals, headcount planning | HRBP workforce plan -> TA hiring targets; TA pipeline updates -> HRBP capacity planning |
| **Operations Manager** skill | Capacity planning, org structure, process efficiency | Ops headcount needs -> HRBP workforce plan; HRBP org design -> Ops team structure |
| **Finance** skill | Compensation budgets, headcount costs, merit pool allocation | Finance budget -> HRBP comp decisions; HRBP headcount plan -> Finance modeling |
| **C-Level Advisor** skill | Strategic workforce direction, org transformation, leadership succession | C-level priorities -> HRBP strategic plan; HRBP org health insights -> executive briefings |
| **Performance Platform** (Lattice, Culture Amp, 15Five) | Goal tracking, review cycles, calibration data | Platform -> performance metrics; calibration outcomes -> platform updates |
| **ER Case Management** (Ethena, NAVEX, HR Acuity) | Case intake, investigation tracking, resolution documentation | ER cases -> investigation workflow; resolution data -> pattern analysis |
| **Survey Platform** (Culture Amp, Qualtrics) | Engagement survey results, pulse check data | Survey data -> HRBP action planning; HRBP priorities -> survey design |