MHRM 6101 Week 10 HR Structure Memo Example

Memorandum

To: Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Kestrel Freight & Warehousing

From: Director of Human Resources

Date: May 26, 2026

Re: Reporting line and structure for the HR function

Recommendation

Move the HR director to report to the chief executive, keep a small central team and convert the three site clerk positions into site HR partners who report to HR, with a dotted line to their site managers. Keep a quarterly finance review of HR spending. This is a scaled version of the business partner model, sized for a firm of about 620 people.

Chart One: The Current Structure

The current structure explains three failures documented this term. HR learned of the July volume commitment in September because it reported through finance and had no presence in operations planning. Separation reasons went unrecorded on 58 percent of terminations because site clerks, who process them, answer to site managers and treat the field as optional. Five of eight lead roles were filled without internal posting because no one at the sites was responsible for HR policy.

Table 1

Current Structure

Composite organization.

Chart Two: A Stronger Central Model

This option tests whether staffing, not the reporting line, is the real problem. Moving the clerks under HR would fix the records and posting failures. It would not fix the first failure, because HR would still sit outside operations planning.

Table 2

Strengthened Central Model, Same Reporting Line

Composite organization.

Chart Three: The Recommended Structure

Table 3

Recommended Structure

Composite organization.

Comparing the Options

Against the three failures, the current structure addresses none, the central model addresses two and the recommended structure addresses all three. The site partners would carry more than the clerks' duties: recording separation reasons with a short exit conversation, enforcing the posting policy and bringing staffing estimates to site planning. Ulrich (1997) proposed business partners as HR staff embedded with business units who help managers make people decisions, while specialists at the center handle expertise and transactions. Full versions of that model assume large HR teams; Ulrich and Brockbank (2005) acknowledge that smaller firms combine roles. Three partners and a central team of five is that combination.

Costs

Upgrading three clerk positions to HR partners adds about $45,000 a year in salary. Against that, last peak season's agency premium alone was about $80,000.

Transition

The change can be made in three stages over one quarter. In June, the reporting line moves and the chief executive adds HR to the monthly sales and operations planning meeting. In July, the three clerk positions are reposted internally as site HR partner roles under the internal posting policy, so the current clerks can apply and are trained if selected. In September, ahead of peak season, the partners present their first staffing estimates to site planning. Progress can be judged by three measures already defined this term: separation reasons recorded, openings posted internally and the weeks between a volume commitment and HR's estimate.

Risks

Marchington (2015) warned that HR's focus on strategic positioning can draw attention away from the everyday employment relationship. At Kestrel, the site partners are the safeguard: their work is daily and practical. A second risk is that site managers resist losing their clerks; the dotted line keeps the partners responsive to site priorities.

References

Marchington, M. (2015). Human resource management (HRM): Too busy looking up to see where it is going longer term? Human Resource Management Review, 25(2), 176-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.01.007

Ulrich, D. (1997). Human resource champions: The next agenda for adding value and delivering results. Harvard Business School Press.

Ulrich, D., & Brockbank, W. (2005). The HR value proposition. Harvard Business School Press.