The real test of HR is whether it enforces the standards that keep an enterprise intact under pressure. Asking the right questions unlocks that truth. Asking the wrong ones reinforces HR’s irrelevance.
Seattle Consulting Group has worked with organizations across industries—from global manufacturers to government agencies—and the pattern is clear. When leaders demand transactional updates, HR delivers reports. When leaders ask systemic questions, HR becomes the architect of permanence.
This article outlines the six questions every leader should be asking HR right now—and what those questions reveal about the true health of your enterprise.
Every company has values, principles, and leadership models. Few can prove they are enforced. Posters and speeches don’t translate into behavior. Enforcement requires systems.
At one multinational retailer, we observed a striking contradiction. Their “customer-first” value was printed on every wall and recited at every town hall. Yet, in their scheduling system, floor managers were rewarded for minimizing staff hours. The result: long lines, poor service, and eroding trust.
When we worked with their executive team, the first question we pushed them to ask HR was: “Where in our systems are these standards enforced—and what happens when they are violated?”
The answer was silence. No platform, no reporting mechanism, and no consequence system supported the declared value. The company was running on aspiration, not enforcement.
Our intervention redesigned their workforce system so that customer wait times—not labor hours—became the enforced metric. HR became the custodian of that standard. Within 12 months, customer satisfaction scores rose by 22%, attrition among frontline staff fell sharply, and the company reversed its downward trend in market share.
Lesson: Leaders should never ask, “What are our values?” They should ask, “Where are our values enforced—and how do we know?”
Execution failures are rarely about bad leadership intent. They occur in the structural seams of the organization: when roles overlap, accountability diffuses, or reporting lines confuse.
At a North American government agency, senior leaders were frustrated by the chronic delays in rolling out new programs. Each project required coordination across five departments. Everyone claimed commitment. Yet projects dragged for months, often years.
When we pressed HR with the right question—“Where are the structural gaps that undermine execution?”—the reality became obvious. No single role was accountable for inter-departmental execution. Every leader believed another department was responsible. The system rewarded silo performance, not enterprise performance.
Our redesign inserted explicit cross-department accountability roles, with authority to cut across functions. HR became the architect of the structure, not just a passive observer. Within 18 months, program delivery speed improved by 40%, saving taxpayers millions.
Lesson: Leaders should not ask, “Do we have the right people?” They should ask, “Where are the seams where execution consistently breaks down—and what structure closes them?”
Enterprise platforms are deceptively dangerous. They look sophisticated, but many are designed as repositories, not enforcement engines.
A global technology company illustrates the risk. They had invested heavily in a state-of-the-art performance management system. Leaders could set goals, track progress, and run analytics. Yet, when we studied the data, over 40% of managers had failed to input quarterly reviews. Nothing happened as a result. No sanction, no intervention. The system collected dust.
When we reframed the CEO’s question from “Is our performance system being used?” to “Which systems are enforcing behavior—and which are allowing drift?” the truth became clear. Their platforms were documenting intent, not enforcing action.
By re-engineering the system rules—linking quarterly review completion directly to manager bonus eligibility—we flipped the system into an enforcement engine. Completion rates moved from 60% to 100% in one cycle. More importantly, the culture shifted: employees now saw HR systems as consequential, not optional.
Lesson: Leaders must stop asking, “What systems do we have?” The sharper question is, “Which of our systems drive discipline—and which enable drift?”
Employees pay more attention to signals than to slogans. Metrics, dashboards, and executive language communicate what truly matters. The problem is that signals often contradict the declared strategy.
We worked with a financial services firm that proudly announced “innovation” as its growth driver. Yet every KPI visible to managers was cost-related. Innovation projects were buried under financial scrutiny, while cost-saving initiatives were celebrated. The signal to employees was obvious: cut costs, don’t innovate.
By pressing HR to answer: “What signals are we sending that contradict our strategy?” we uncovered the misalignment. HR partnered with Finance to redesign the KPI set so that innovation milestones became as visible as cost targets. Project leaders were recognized for learning velocity, not just financial efficiency.
The result was dramatic. Within two years, the firm launched three new products that accounted for 18% of total revenue. The CEO later admitted that the single greatest shift was not the products themselves, but the alignment of signals that made innovation credible.
Lesson: Leaders should not ask, “Are our people aligned with strategy?” They should ask, “What signals are we sending that undercut the strategy—and how fast can we correct them?”
Cultures are not built by statements of values; they are built by the consequences attached to behavior. Employees don’t watch what leaders say—they watch what happens when leaders break their own rules.
At a healthcare organization, the stated culture emphasized “respect and dignity.” Yet, senior physicians routinely undermined nurses in meetings. Complaints were filed. HR documented them. But no consequences were applied. Within three years, nurse turnover reached crisis levels, and patient satisfaction collapsed.
We reframed the CEO’s question from “How do we reinforce respect?” to “What consequences are consistently applied when standards are broken—and where do we tolerate drift?”
HR redesigned the sanction system: disrespect became a reportable, trackable infraction with visible consequences. Within 18 months, nurse turnover fell by 27%, and patient satisfaction rebounded.
Lesson: Leaders should not ask, “How do we promote culture?” They should ask, “What consequences are anchoring our culture—and where are we tolerating the opposite?”
Organizations consistently underestimate the fragility of execution systems during leadership transitions. A new leader can undo years of cultural and structural progress in months if the systems are personality-dependent.
A global consumer goods company faced this challenge when their admired CEO retired. He was lauded for his vision and charisma, but execution discipline evaporated within a year under his successor. Why? Because HR had never been asked the question: “What in our execution model is designed to survive leadership changes—and what will collapse when a personality leaves?”
By the time we were called, product launches were behind schedule, attrition was rising, and market share was slipping. The system had been built around a personality, not an infrastructure.
Our intervention embedded standards, sanctions, and system rules into platforms and governance mechanisms. Leadership became replaceable without performance decay. The board later described the shift as moving from “a personality-led company to a system-led company.”
Lesson: Leaders should not ask, “Who’s our next great leader?” They should ask, “How will our systems survive leaders who are not great?”
When leaders ask HR the wrong questions, they anchor HR as a service provider: responsive, tactical, and marginal. When they ask the right questions, they elevate HR to its rightful role: the architect of enterprise execution.
At Seattle Consulting Group, we argue that the most strategic move any CEO can make is to reframe the dialogue with HR. Stop demanding data points. Start demanding system accountability.
These six questions are not academic. They separate organizations that endure volatility from those that collapse under it. They determine whether HR is a peripheral partner—or the infrastructure that holds the enterprise together.
We’ve seen the difference firsthand. Organizations that treat HR as a reporting function drift. Those that treat HR as a system architect achieve resilience.
In retail, reframing enforcement systems restored customer satisfaction and stabilized market share.
In government, redesigning structural seams accelerated program delivery and saved millions.
In healthcare, embedding consequences rebuilt culture credibility and reduced turnover.
In technology, converting systems into enforcement engines restored performance discipline.
In finance, aligning signals with strategy unlocked new growth products.
In consumer goods, designing for permanence ensured survival through leadership transitions.
These are not anecdotes—they are systemic patterns.
The question is whether your HR is prepared to answer them.
The enterprise that survives is not the one with the boldest vision, the most inspiring culture, or even the strongest leaders. It is the one with systems designed to enforce execution.
And the fastest way to test whether you have those systems is simple: start asking HR the right questions.
Because in the end, the quality of your questions to HR determines whether you’re running an organization held together by inspiration—or by infrastructure.