From centralization to cultural transformation in human resources

In a profoundly transformed global market, the Human Resources sector is currently under unprecedented pressure to balance technology, speed, and the human component. The rise of artificial intelligence, the transition to skills-based organizations, and the need for more flexible leadership are redefining work and raising expectations regarding the role of HR.

At the same time, challenges such as attracting and retaining talent, managing multigenerational teams, fostering inclusive cultures, and ensuring well-being have become critical factors for organizational competitiveness. In this context, HR is taking on an increasingly strategic and demanding role, responsible for redesigning processes, strengthening cultures, and ensuring that teams evolve at the pace of change.

Global growth, internal complexity

Present in more than 60 countries and with approximately 50,000 employees, this multinational company in the food and specialty retail sectors built its growth through continuous business diversification and expansion.

As the group expanded, so did the Human Resources function. New companies, new operational realities, different internal cultures. To respond, dedicated HR teams were created for each business unit.

However, years later, the need to centralize emerged. The teams were brought together into a shared services center, as the structure had been physically consolidated, but operations had not.

The challenge: when centralization is not enough

The decision to physically centralize the Human Resources teams represented an important step in the function’s evolution. However, it quickly became evident that physical proximity did not guarantee operational alignment.

The organization faced a paradox: there was a shared services center, but no single operating model.

The lack of harmonization generated increasing inefficiencies and limited the HR function’s ability to respond to the group’s expansion. The challenges became visible at three distinct levels.

Lack of organizational alignment

Macro processes were not fully formalized, and the roles and responsibilities of different teams were not always clear. There were implicit responsibilities, overlaps, and ambiguities that hindered the workflow.

The absence of a structured global architecture prevented an integrated view of the HR value chain and limited cross-functional management capability.

Heterogeneous and inefficient processes

Identical processes were executed differently depending on the business area. Redundant validations, duplicate controls, error corrections, and approval waiting times multiplied.

Lead times were high and unpredictable. Rework became recurrent. The absence of common standards made performance measurement difficult and compromised overall efficiency.

This operational variability put the HR function’s ability to absorb the group’s continuous growth at risk.

Predominantly reactive culture

The teams were very focused on execution and immediate resolution of requests. However, they lacked structured routines for performance analysis, visual management, and systematic problem solving.

Improvements occurred sporadically and were not integrated into the operating model. Data-driven management was not yet consolidated, and team autonomy was limited.

Without a structured system of continuous improvement, any gains achieved were at risk of not being sustainable.

The strategic response to transformation

Given the identified challenges, it became clear that the intervention needed to be structural rather than merely operational. Improving isolated processes would not be sufficient without clarifying strategy, aligning the organization, and developing teams.

The transformation was carried out on three complementary fronts:

• Organization – strategy and macroprocesses
• Processes – productivity and efficiency
• Teams – capabilities and culture

Each of these fronts directly addressed the previously identified barriers.

Figure 1 – Organizational transformation model

Organization – strategy and macroprocesses

To overcome structural misalignment, it was necessary to start at the foundation: the architecture of the Human Resources function.

An in-depth mapping of macro processes was carried out, clarifying responsibilities, interfaces, and flows between teams. This exercise made it possible to identify macro processes that had not yet been formalized, as well as areas of overlap that generated rework and inefficiency.

By aligning strategy and macroprocesses, the organization began operating with an integrated view of the HR value chain. Structural clarification created the foundation necessary for any sustainable operational gains.

Processes – productivity and efficiency

To overcome structural misalignment, it was necessary to start at the foundation: understanding how the Human Resources function actually operated.

The transformation began with a cross-functional diagnosis of all existing team processes. Rather than mapping isolated tasks, the objective was to understand the function’s complete value chain.

To identify critical processes, the SIPOC tool (Supplier, Input, Process, Output, Client) was used, enabling a structured mapping of relationships between information suppliers, inputs received, processes executed, outputs generated, and respective internal clients.

This exercise provided visibility into what had previously been fragmented: interdependencies between teams and friction points in information flow.

Process prioritization was based on objective criteria, such as workload, execution frequency, and improvement potential. This analysis clearly distinguished core processes from those with less impact on overall functional performance.

With this consolidated view, it became possible to align strategy and macro processes, clarify responsibilities, and eliminate overlaps. The organization began operating with an integrated understanding of its value chain, creating the foundation necessary for any sustainable operational gains.

Teams – capabilities and culture

Process reengineering was not conceived as an isolated technical exercise. The organization understood that standardizing flows without changing behaviors would produce temporary, but not sustainable gains.

For this reason, a structured model of development and autonomy was designed and implemented, applied across approximately 30 teams in the Human Resources Department. This model was not only intended to improve indicators; it also sought to change the teams’ level of operational maturity.

Figure 2 – Teams redesigning processes in a collaborative environment

The logic was clear: before improving, it was necessary to stabilize. Before demanding autonomy, it was necessary to create a foundation.

The first priority was to create operational stability. Teams began managing their work through clear routines and visible indicators. The principle of “speaking with data” replaced perception-based management. The implementation of digital team boards made workload, deadlines, and deviations transparent. Performance was no longer implicit; it became discussed.

Once stability was established, it became possible to act on work organization. Sources of waste associated with physical and digital disorganization were eliminated, information flows were clarified, and unnecessary interruptions were reduced. This stage increased daily productivity without increasing resources.

Only then was it possible to move forward with structured standardization. Clear standards were defined for critical processes, establishing best practices and reducing variability. The Competency Matrix ceased to be merely a training tool and became a management instrument: it revealed where operational risks existed and where it was necessary to develop versatility.

Finally, the organization worked on building autonomous improvement capability. Teams were trained in structured problem-solving, focusing on identifying root causes rather than merely correcting symptoms. Team leaders assumed a different role: they ceased to be solely execution supervisors and became improvement facilitators.

Cultural transformation did not happen because training was delivered. It happened because the model changed how work was managed daily.

Teams gained visibility into their performance, clear execution criteria, and tools for continuous improvement. Improvement ceased to depend on external initiatives and became part of the natural operation of the Human Resources Department.

Results achieved with the model implementation

The implementation of the continuous improvement system in the Human Resources Department has had a clear impact on operational performance as well as on culture and organization.

Quantitative results

Operational gains were evident in the main critical HR processes.

In the training management process, the annual plan completion rate increased from 70% to 100%, ensuring greater predictability and alignment with business needs.

In the recruitment and hiring process, the average time from request to vacancy fill was reduced from 69 days to 42 days, representing a 39% reduction in lead time and significantly increasing responsiveness to operational areas.

Regarding internal deployment of the continuous improvement system, the following also stand out:

• 40 workshops were conducted focused on productivity and efficiency.
• 624 training hours delivered (excluding workshops and coaching).
• 138 structured team meetings held.
• 114 improvement opportunities identified by natural teams.
• 21 digital boards implemented for visual management and performance tracking.

Qualitative results

The transformation repositioned the Human Resources function within the group. Centralization ceased to be merely structural and began reflecting an integrated operating model, with clear responsibilities and harmonized processes.

A culture of urgency-driven response was replaced by a structured management model based on indicators, deviation analysis, and preventive action.

With defined standards and greater operational visibility, teams gained real autonomy and assumed direct responsibility for improving their processes.

This evolution consolidated a consistent internal customer orientation and created a system capable of sustaining growth with greater predictability and robustness.

Building the foundation to grow consistently

This project marked a turning point in the Human Resources Department. The group’s growth had exposed structural weaknesses that could no longer be resolved with ad hoc adjustments. It was necessary to get to the root of the problem: clarify, align, and rebuild the operating model.

The decision to face these challenges required organizational courage. It meant recognizing that physical centralization was not enough, that processes needed consistency, and that teams required new capabilities to sustain the future.

The work was demanding, cross-functional, and deeply transformative. It involved reviewing the function’s architecture, harmonizing practices, creating standards, developing leaders, and implementing continuous improvement routines. None of this was done in isolation; each step was designed to build structural strength and internal capacity.

The results are visible in the indicators, but above all they are felt in how the function operates today. There is clarity where there was previously overlap. There is predictability where there was previously variability. There is autonomy where there was previously dependency.

The Human Resources Department stopped supporting the group’s growth through increased effort and became prepared to sustain it with method and consistency. It was this change (structural, cultural, and strategic) that transformed a demanding project into a true organizational success.

We are committed to respecting our clients’ confidentiality. While we have altered or omitted their names, the results are genuine.