Strategic HR Teams Have Stronger Leadership Pipelines, Even After Restructuring

Restructuring puts HR’s role to the test

Few HR teams see what’s coming

Two-thirds of organizations have restructured in the past two years, and each restructuring forces decisions about leaders: whose role changes, who moves up, which roles disappear, and who is ready to step into the ones that remain. Those decisions shape the leadership pipeline for years. The question for HR is whether it sees the leadership implications before they’re made, or after.

That depends on the role HR plays. DDI’s research groups HR teams into three types, each building on the one before:

• Reactors ensure compliance with policies and practices and respond to business needs by providing key tools and systems when asked.
• Partners do that work and go further. They openly exchange information with the business about current talent issues and work collaboratively toward mutual goals.
• Anticipators do all of that and add foresight. They use analytics and data to predict talent gaps in advance, and provide insights about how talent quality relates to business goals.

Together, these roles form a spectrum of strategic HR, defined by how closely HR’s work is tied to where the business is headed. Anticipators sit at the most strategic end, and they’re the smallest group. Only 11% of HR teams say anticipating future talent needs best describes their work. Thirty percent mostly react to what the business asks for, and 59% partner with the business on current talent issues.

And anticipation is getting rarer. Since 2018, the share of HR teams that mostly react has grown by more than 40%, while the share that anticipate has shrunk by about a third. Shifting business priorities, constant restructuring, and AI transformation have often pushed HR into a supporting rather than steering role, keeping teams busy with whatever is most urgent.

What happens to the pipeline depends on HR’s role

Unlike many disruptions, a restructuring can be planned, which gives organizations a chance to think through what it means for their leaders. Executives will have their own sense of the leadership bench, but it's often built on instinct and the leaders they know personally. HR can add a data-backed view across the whole organization: where leaders are strong, where the bench is thin, and who is ready for what. When that view is part of the planning, it shapes decisions. When it isn't, HR is often left picking up the pieces.

The pipeline data shows the gap. Among anticipators, 43% say their leadership pipeline came out stronger, and only 16% say it came out weaker. Partners land in between: 35% say their pipeline got stronger, and 18% say it got weaker. Reactors saw the opposite: 37% say their pipeline weakened, and only 26% say it strengthened. The rest in each group say their pipeline stayed about the same. Leadership quality followed a similar pattern. About half of partners and anticipators say it improved after the restructuring, compared with 27% of reactors. Nearly a third of reactors (32%) say it declined.

The difference comes down to when HR gets involved, and what it brings. Anticipators come to the table with a data-backed view. They’ve also laid the groundwork: 74% proactively develop successors for critical leadership positions, compared with 48% of reactors. Reactors are more likely to see the new org chart after it’s drawn.  That’s one of the hardest positions in HR: carrying out a restructuring or reduction in force you had no hand in planning, supporting the people it affects, and filling the gaps it leaves behind.

Getting the bench right matters, because restructuring is hard on leaders. At organizations that restructured, just 1 in 10 HR professionals say their leaders are very capable of navigating the pace and nature of change. HR teams that help plan the change are in a far better position to set those leaders up to succeed.

Anticipators come to the table with a data-backed view: 74% proactively develop successors for critical leadership positions, compared with 48% of reactors.

The bench tells the same story

The advantage extends beyond restructuring. HR teams that anticipate are 3X more likely than reactive HR teams to report a strong leadership bench. On average, they estimate that 52% of critical leadership roles could be filled immediately by internal candidates, compared with 38% for reactive HR. They also rate more of their leaders as high quality (54% vs. 41%), report higher success rates for high-potential leaders (60% vs. 49%), and are more than twice as likely to say their leaders are very capable of anticipating and reacting to change.

The difference shows up in business results, too. Among organizations with anticipator HR teams, 64% are top financial performers, compared with 51% of organizations with partner HR teams and 42% with reactive HR.

Results climb at every step toward strategic HR, which fits how the roles build on each other. Anticipator HR teams still work alongside the business, and they still respond when something breaks. The difference is that they arrive with data, and with a view of what the business will need from its leaders next.

What holds most HR teams back

If anticipating pays off this clearly, why do so few HR teams do it? Part of the answer is influence. Many HR teams aren’t involved in shaping decisions about the business and its leaders. But influence tends to follow what HR can bring to those decisions, and anticipators bring three things. First, business insight: understanding where the business is headed and what matters to the people making decisions. Second, objective data on leaders: a clear view of strengths, gaps, and readiness across the organization. Third, the ability to connect the two, turning talent data into a case that speaks to the business’s priorities. Most HR teams are missing at least one. And without the right data, even an HR team that knows the business well can’t tell the right story about its leaders. 

HR departments usually collect plenty of data: assessment results, engagement scores, performance ratings, turnover numbers. But not all of it speaks to the business. HR has long reported on activity, like course participation and completion rates, while business leaders want to know what changed as a result. The harder work is measuring the right things, then finding what matters and turning it into something the business will act on.

That's where data-driven HR teams separate from the rest. Sixty-eight percent of anticipator HR teams say they can easily interpret their organization's HR data. Among partners, that drops to 48%. Among reactors, it's 37%. Access to the data shows a similar pattern (69%, 56%, and 44%), but the gap in interpretation is wider.

Turning HR data into a forecast takes time, the right measures, and strong analytical skill. Unfortunately, many HR teams are stretched thin on all three, yet without them, HR tends to bring the business requests rather than evidence, and business leaders respond to the two very differently. Every executive has a sense of their leadership bench. HR should be the function that can show it objectively. Too often, though, HR’s view of leaders is built the same way executives’ is: from its own observations and what business partners report. Objective evaluations, like assessments of leaders’ skills and potential, give HR evidence on strengths and development areas that no single leader can see from where they sit. HR doesn’t need permission to gather that evidence. Making the case to collect it is part of the job. Without it, HR stays in response mode, which leaves even less time to build the data capability it's missing. It's a hard loop to break.

Anticipators have found a way out of it. Sixty-five percent use data to forecast future talent needs against scenarios and contingency plans, compared with 54% of partners and 34% of reactors.

Reactors secure the least investment in their leaders

Data alone doesn't make HR strategic, though. Business insight matters too, and it shows up in how much organizations invest in their leaders. HR teams that partner with the business or anticipate its needs invest more in developing each leader than reactive HR teams do: 6% more per frontline leader, 15% more per high-potential leader, and 17% more per senior leader. That gap likely comes down to knowing the business. HR teams that work closely with the business know who signs off on funding, who will advocate for development, and what each of those people cares about. That lets them build a case for the person who has the ability to say yes and approve spending. A CFO weighing costs and a business unit leader focused on next year's growth plan won't be moved by the same argument, and HR teams with business insight know the difference.

Sixty-five percent of anticipators use data to forecast future talent needs against scenarios and contingency plans, compared with 54% of partners and 34% of reactors.

Anticipators also invest where many HR teams don’t: the middle. Every HR team knows new and frontline leaders need development, and most invest in coaching at the top. Mid-level leaders are easier to overlook, even though the middle is widely seen as one of the hardest places to lead, caught between strategy from above and execution below. Anticipators invest 38% more per mid-level leader than reactive HR teams and 13% more than partners. It takes a longer view to see why that matters. Today’s mid-level leaders are tomorrow’s senior leaders, and investing in them now builds the bench before the business needs it.

Reactive HR teams often hear about decisions after the fact, so it’s hard to know who is deciding, let alone what would persuade them. Partners bring business insight and know their stakeholders. Anticipators build on that with data that business leaders trust, which is why they’re better positioned when disruption hits.

None of this means HR should stop reacting to the business. Requests will keep coming, and many of them matter. But HR teams that bring business insight and evidence are the ones that shape decisions. 

Influence isn't something HR can simply ask for. It's earned by showing the business that HR understands where it's headed and can help it get there. That happens step by step: understanding what the business needs, knowing who makes the decisions, building objective data on leaders, and bringing it all together into a case they'll act on.

1. Start with what the business needs

If most of HR's work arrives as a request, that's a signal. It usually means HR isn't close enough to the decisions behind those requests.

Strategic HR starts with understanding what the business needs across three time horizons: the urgent demands of right now, the pressure to deliver this quarter’s results, and the goals of the 12- to 18-month strategy. Many HR teams spend most of their time on the first. Even there, the demands on the leaders doing that work aren’t always visible from where HR sits. Understanding all three horizons, and how they pull against each other, is what lets HR ask the right questions: What will leadership need to look like to get there? Where would a leadership gap put the business at risk? And how can development reduce that risk?

2. Know your stakeholders and what matters to them

For HR to act as a strategic business partner, it also needs to know who it's working with. Who makes the decisions that shape talent? Who signs off on funding? Whose opinion carries weight, and who will advocate for HR's ideas when HR isn't in the room?

Then learn what each of those people cares about, and on which time horizon. The goals they're measured on, the risks they're watching, and what could get in their way look very different for a leader focused on getting through this week than for one accountable for this quarter’s numbers or next year’s strategy. A case built for the wrong horizon rarely gets funded. That knowledge shows up in the budget: partners outspend reactors on development at every leader level.

After a restructuring, anticipator HR teams are 2.6X more likely to say their leadership pipeline got stronger than to say it got weaker.

3. Measure your leaders, not just your programs

Most HR teams have more data than they use, but it isn't always the data the business cares about. Program participation and completion rates show activity. Business leaders want to know what they can count on, today and down the road. Today: how well leaders are performing in their current roles, and where skill gaps are already putting results at risk. Down the road: which leaders are ready for what's next, and whether critical roles can be filled from within.

 Objective assessment data can answer those questions in a way observation can’t. It can show each leader’s strengths and development areas, both for the role they’re in now and for the roles the strategy will demand. That’s the evidence HR needs when restructuring and succession decisions are on the table. Build assessment into how leaders are developed and evaluated, so the data is already in hand when it’s time to make those decisions. Then track program outcomes the same way, so HR can also show what development changed.

4. Combine the data with what you know to make a persuasive case

Data on its own rarely persuades anyone. What separates anticipators is turning the right data into something a specific person will act on. They're nearly twice as likely as reactors to say they can easily interpret their organization's HR data (68% vs. 37%).

Start with the stakeholder and the business need, then go to the data. A CFO may care most about the cost of an empty critical role. A business unit leader may want to know whether the bench can support next year's growth plan. Pull the data that answers that question and build the story around it. Data-driven HR isn't about producing more reports. It's about giving each stakeholder a clear view of the leadership strengths and gaps that matter to their decisions, a view they can't get anywhere else.

Senior leaders decide how far HR can see

HR can only anticipate as far as the organization allows. When HR learns about a restructuring after it's announced, even the most data-fluent team is left reacting. Senior executives champion talent strategy in 78% of organizations where HR anticipates and 72% where HR partners, but in only 43% where HR mostly reacts. The relationship likely runs both ways. Leaders back the HR teams that bring them evidence, and HR teams anticipate better when leaders bring them in early.

For executives, the takeaway is simple: pull HR into strategy conversations sooner. It's one of the most direct ways to protect the leadership pipeline the business will need after the next disruption.