The 2027 People Strategy Test: Five Questions Worth Asking Before January

There’s a moment in the planning cycle when a people strategy looks wonderfully convincing.

The priorities are there. The language is right. Culture, capability, AI, employee experience, performance. There might even be a very handsome roadmap slide with chevrons and everything.

Then the plan has to get translated from its strategic ideals into actual reality. The manager who is meant to have more development conversations is covering two vacancies. A frontline colleague can’t access the new employee platform. The AI pilot has saved time, but nobody has decided what the team should do with that time. And the board wants to know what the investment is achieving.

As HR teams plan for 2027, that gap between ambition and the actual experience of work deserves some attention.

Two new research releases have exposed some of the tension points in more detail and now is a good time to take a closer look.

The CIPD’s HR Pulse Report 2026, published October 27, surveyed more than 800 UK people professionals. Improving organizational performance is a priority for 91% of respondents. Workforce planning and future talent pipelines are a priority for 78%. Yet only 61% say their people function has clear success measures.

Separately, Gartner’s October 2026 briefing on CHRO priorities for 2027 points to sharper expectations around productivity, accountability for AI, critical skills and leaders’ ability to handle disruption.

These are different surveys of different audiences, so the figures shouldn’t be combined into one picture. But they raise a common question: are we designing people strategies that organizations can actually deliver?

Here are five questions worth asking before the 2027 plan is signed off.

1. Which business problem will this help solve?

Try taking one priority out of the strategy and tracing it back to a problem the business already recognizes.

Suppose a customer service operation is struggling with quality and turnover among new starters. A new onboarding program might help. But so could more time with an experienced colleague, clearer processes or a change to the way new people are scheduled in their first month.

Those are different interventions. They would need different measures.

The useful conversation starts with the actual constraint: what is going wrong, for whom, and what evidence suggests the employee experience contributes to it?

You could measure time to proficiency, first-year retention and recurring errors alongside what employees and managers report. None of those measures alone proves an HR initiative caused the result. Together, over time, they can tell a far more credible story than attendance at an onboarding workshop.

Try asking: If this initiative succeeds, which business measure should move, and why do we expect it to?

2. What work will genuinely change?

AI is making this question urgent. It also applies to any major HR technology rollout or operating-model change.

It’s easy to count how many employees have access to a tool or how many tasks it can complete. More revealing is what changes for the people using it.

Does a recruiter now have more time to assess candidates? Is a manager expected to handle more cases because an agent drafts the paperwork? Who checks an AI-generated recommendation when the underlying data is incomplete? What happens when the system makes a mistake?

In a July 2026 Gartner survey of 297 CHROs, just 24% reported alignment in their leadership teams over who should be accountable for AI agents. That’s an uncomfortable finding when organizations are asking agents to take on increasingly consequential work.

A useful work-redesign conversation maps the task, the decision and the person responsible for the outcome. It also looks at the skills people will need when the routine parts of a role change.

Try asking: Which three activities will be different for employees by June 2027, and who remains accountable when technology is involved?

3. How much manager capacity have we quietly assumed?

Many people strategies ask managers to do more of the things employees value: regular feedback, coaching, meaningful recognition, conversations about growth and thoughtful support during change.

All reasonable ambitions. But an hour of coaching needs an hour in somebody’s calendar.

The CIPD’s latest report identifies support for line managers as a high or medium priority for 91% of respondents. The demand is clear. The delivery question is more practical.

Pick a typical manager in one part of the business. List the conversations, processes and decisions your strategy asks them to own. Estimate the time they need. Then look at the operational expectations, spans of control and administrative work already filling their week.

If the numbers don’t add up, the strategy needs a redesign. Perhaps a process can be simplified. Perhaps an HR request should disappear. Perhaps managers need fewer direct reports, or more specialist support.

Try asking: What are we taking off managers’ plates so they can deliver what we’re asking of them?

4. Whose experience is missing from our picture?

A workforce-wide engagement score can be a useful signal. It can also flatten some very different experiences into one reassuring average.

The employee working a rotating shift, the new starter, the remote specialist and the person who needs a different communication or assessment format may encounter entirely different barriers.

Think about the way you collect information. Who responds to surveys? Who can join listening sessions? Who has access to the technology you use? Are you hearing from people whose hours or location make them difficult to reach?

Look for patterns across work arrangements, tenure, job families or other relevant groups, while protecting confidentiality and avoiding conclusions from tiny samples. Add observations from the work itself: how a process feels, where it stalls and what people have to do to get around it.

This matters for neuroinclusion too. A workplace can have a thoughtful policy and still make everyday work unnecessarily difficult.

Try asking: Which employees would barely recognize their working lives in the experience our strategy describes?

5. What will we stop doing, and what will tell us we’re making progress?

A new plan usually adds things. A program, a platform, an initiative, another manager expectation.

The harder conversation is about what can be retired, simplified or brought together so that the important work gets attention.

For each of your top priorities, choose one meaningful outcome and one or two earlier signals that would suggest progress. If the goal is better internal mobility, for example, course completion is only part of the picture. You might also look at access to project opportunities, qualified internal applicants and actual moves into roles the organization needs.

Agree who owns the decision, when the evidence will be reviewed and what you will do if it points the wrong way.

Then find one thing you can stop. It could be a report nobody reads, an overlapping initiative or an approval step that adds delay without value.

Try asking: What will we review in March, and which existing activity are we prepared to make room by ending?

A 30-minute test for your next strategy meeting

Put one proposed 2027 people priority on the table. Complete these five sentences together:

1. The business needs to improve: ________
2. The employee or manager experience currently getting in the way is: ________
3. The work, process or decision we will change is: ________
4. The person accountable is: ________, and we will make room by: ________
5. By the end of Q1, we expect to see: ________, and we will review the evidence on: ________

If the group struggles to finish those sentences, that’s useful information. You’ve found a part of the plan that needs more work before it becomes somebody’s target for next year.

We have a lot of excellent ideas in HR. The more interesting challenge for 2027 is deciding which ones will make a visible difference, for employees and for the business, and giving people the means to deliver them.

---

Sources and further reading

• CIPD, HR Pulse Report 2026: People teams know their priorities. With the right skills and investment, they can deliver (October 27, 2026). Findings described here refer to UK people professionals.
• Gartner, CHROs’ Top Priorities for 2027 (October 6, 2026). Separate CHRO research and survey samples; the AI accountability statistic is from its July 2026 survey of 297 CHROs.

Related on EmEx

• HR 2030: Josh Bersin on HR’s past and future
• The AI jobs story may be 11 million career changes, not 11 million lost jobs
• Neurodiversity at Work Has an Awkward Truth: The Problem Is Often the Work