Econ-Sentiment Twin Think Tank · Value Conservation Argument Series
Human Resource Management: A Value Conservation Argument
Viewing the applied value and integrated use of human resource management (HR) through the Law of Value Conservation (multiplication and division, macro and micro) and the 7-Layer Depth Model: from the six modules (planning, recruitment, training, performance, compensation, labor relations) to the three pillars (COE, HRBP, SSC), from the value create–evaluate–distribute loop in Putting Striders First to Huawei’s end-to-end HR practice, and to the differentiated adaptation paths of high-tech enterprises, traditional manufacturing, service industries and street-corner shops. The six modules are the functional axis (what HR manages), the three pillars are the organizational axis (how HR organizes itself to manage), and value conservation is the underlying formula (why manage this way). The essence of HR is to turn human potential into organizational value through multiplication (E), to build fairness and recognition into the institution of division (S), and to make talent pipelines and organizational capability the compounding of time (T) — only when the three multipliers E/S/T are simultaneously greater than 1 is human resources a true vitality engine of the organization.
Just as the law of conservation of energy pervades the natural world, so too, from the holistic perspective of the economy, society, and the people, economic value, social value, and time value are neither created out of nothing nor vanish into nothing; they merely transform from one form into another or transfer from one subject to another, while the total amount of value remains unchanged.
Macro: Y = E × S × T = Economic Value × Social Value × Time Value = Aggregate Economic–Social Value (In this article: E = people efficiency, performance, cost control and shareholder returns; S = fairness, trust, belonging and harmonious labor relations; T = talent pipeline, organizational capability and long-term incentives)
Micro: y = f(m,h,t) = f(m) × f(h) × f(t) = f(m)Monetary Value × f(h)Happiness Experience × f(t)Time Value (In this article: m = compensation, benefits and career returns; h = belonging, achievement and recognition; t = talent pipeline and the compounding of organizational capability)
“The Value Cube · Three Readings of the Formula”—fold the two formulas above back into geometry: every variable is an edge, and the multiplication sign is the volume. Three readings (macro adds, micro multiplies / value never disappears, it only changes shape / 1 is the only watershed in multiplication), 12 isometric plates, and a verbatim script you can read aloud.
The Answer in One Sentence
HR’s core is deeply isomorphic with the Law of Value Conservation: personal value = monetary value × happiness experience × time value. The six modules govern “the full life cycle of people from entry to exit” (planning → recruitment → training → performance → compensation → labor relations); the three pillars govern “how HR organizes itself to deliver value” (COE designs professional solutions, HRBP diagnoses close to the business, SSC executes standard transactions efficiently); putting striders first governs “how value is created, evaluated and distributed.” Placing the three into Y = E × S × T: the six modules are the multiplication engine (E — making people’s output measurable and amplifiable), the three pillars are the division mirror (S — keeping professionalism and business from becoming two disconnected sheets and keeping fairness and experience from being swallowed by efficiency), and training/development with long-term incentives are time compounding (T — letting talent and organizational capability appreciate with each year). The essence of HR is keeping the three multipliers E/S/T simultaneously greater than 1 — when any multiplier falls to zero (evaluating without fairness, recruiting without developing, paying without empathy), the organization’s talent potential is divided back to the starting point.
Macro + Micro: The Two Formulas
Macro: Organizational Value = Economy × Society × Time
Y = E × S × T
For the organization, E is the economic return on human capital (people efficiency, output, cost control), S is social value (fairness, trust, belonging, harmonious labor relations), and T is time value (talent pipeline, organizational capability, long-term incentives). The six modules plus the three pillars turn the three into operable engineering: planning and recruitment amplify E, performance and compensation hold S, and training/development with leadership succession invest T. When Huawei brought together 150,000 knowledge workers, its conclusion was: technology matters, capital matters, but human resource management matters even more — because people are the only multiplier that can amplify E, S and T at the same time.
Micro: Personal Value = Money × Happiness × Time
y = f(m) × f(h) × f(t)
For an employee, m is monetary value (compensation, bonus, benefits), h is happiness experience (growth, recognition, belonging, being treated fairly), and t is time value (skill accumulation, career path, long-term incentives). The six modules are precisely the shot-by-shot rendering of this micro formula: compensation and benefits manage f(m), performance and employee relations manage f(h), and training/development with career growth manage f(t). The distribution philosophy of putting striders first — salary protects fairness, bonus widens the gap, benefits safeguard the floor, long-term incentives seek development — is precisely the precise unfolding of this micro formula in compensation.
The Division Perspective: E = Y ÷ (S × T) — How Performance-Only Management Gets Divided Back
The division mirror of value conservation is exceptionally sharp in HR. Management that only enlarges KPI and profit (E) while sacrificing fairness and labor relations (S) and overdrawing the long-term capability of employees and organization (T) builds E on a fragile divisor. 996 overwork, opaque appraisals, inverted pay, recruiting without training, treating people as “costs” rather than “capital” — these are all traps that divide S×T small. Ren Zhengfei defines a “striver” as one who “creates value for customers, contributes increment to the company, and works hard over the long term,” not one who “works the longest hours” — because only striving that creates incremental value enlarges E at the same time; formalistic busyness is merely performance that divides S (trust) away. The division mirror asks: does your HR system make people’s value multiply, or does it get divided back by S×T?
HR Management × E/S/T Mapping
HR’s Four Themes Each Light the Three Multipliers E / S / T
The six modules (E · multiplication engine), the three-pillar restructuring (S · division mirror), value distribution that puts striders first (T · time value), and adaptation to diverse entities (reconfiguring the multipliers) — only when the four lines work in sync does the organization’s talent potential enter the expansion phase where the three multipliers > 1.Value-conservation methodology assessment model, illustrative, not from sampled statistics
HR System Panorama · Six Modules + Three Pillars
📋 Six Modules · The Functional Axis: Managing People “from Entry to Exit”
The six modules of human resources are HR’s functional foundation, running through the full life cycle of employees’ “entry–development–use–retention”: HR planning (clarifying demand and supply, setting direction), recruitment and staffing (attracting and selecting talent, matching people to positions), training and development (raising capability, supporting growth), performance management (evaluating results, driving achievement), compensation and benefits management (a fair and reasonable return system), and labor relations management (labor contracts, regulatory compliance, employee communication). Each of the six modules guards one link, and they interlock into a closed loop — recruitment decides the object of training, training supports performance, performance decides compensation, and compensation with relations decides who stays and who leaves.
🏛️ Three Pillars · The Organizational Axis: Managing “How HR Organizes Itself”
The three HR pillars are an upgrade of the organizing model proposed by Ulrich, implemented by IBM and carried forward by Huawei: COE (Center of Expertise) designs HR policies, processes and institutions — the “strategy command”; HRBP (HR Business Partner) goes deep into the business front line, translating business needs into HR needs and integrating solutions — the “front-line diagnostician”; SSC (Shared Service Center) efficiently delivers standard transactions such as onboarding/offboarding, compensation and social insurance — the “standardized delivery desk.” The essence of the three pillars is upgrading HR from “functional modules” to “end-to-end processes” — starting from the needs of the hiring department and ending where the needs are met.
🔖 Huawei Practice · Putting Striders First
Huawei fuses the three pillars with its values — customer-centric, strivers-first, and hard work over the long term — running on the closed loop of “value creation — value evaluation — value distribution.” HRBP translates business needs into HR needs, COE outputs actionable solutions (rather than “correct but empty words”), and SSC delivers standardized services; in compensation, “salary protects fairness, bonus widens the gap, benefits safeguard the floor, and long-term incentives seek development”; cadres can “rise and fall, competing like horses in a race.” Ren Zhengfei says: HR must let those on the front line who hear the cannon fire call for artillery — and the artillery must fire accurately. That is precisely the portrait of the three multipliers E/S/T working at the same time.
From Ulrich to Digitalization: The “Value-Conservation” Evolution of the HR Organization
In the 1980s Ulrich proposed the four-role model of HR (strategic partner/administrative expert/employee champion/change agent), laying the theoretical foundation for the three pillars → in 1997 IBM, on Ulrich’s theory, pioneered the operable three HR pillars (the SSC/COE/HRBP division) → in 2006 Huawei began exploring the HRBP model, landed it in its R&D system in 2008, launched SSC in 2011 and completed COE in 2012, taking 6–7 years to build the three pillars → afterward Tencent, Alibaba and other Chinese companies innovated (Alibaba’s “people are capital, not cost,” Tencent’s “professional, service, partner”) → entering the 2020s, HR digitalization and AI reshape the three pillars: intelligent SSC (AI Q&A, RPA automating transactions), data-driven COE, and HRBP more deeply fused with the business. The main line of evolution has always been clear: HR moves from “transaction handler” to “value creator,” from “professional-oriented” to “business-oriented” — every upgrade amplifies one of the multipliers once more.
Fig. 1 · Key nodes in the evolution of the three HR pillars (1980s–2025; illustrative cumulative curve; nodes are public management-history facts; sources in Section Ⅽ). From Ulrich’s theory to IBM’s practice, from Huawei’s implementation to digital reshaping, every step forward by the HR organization further amplifies one of the E/S/T multipliers.
Six Modules × Three Pillars: One Matrix to Understand HR’s “Integrated Application”
The six modules are “what to do”; the three pillars are “who does it and how.” The matrix of integrated application is: COE is responsible for the institutional design of the six modules (setting the rules), HRBP is responsible for landing the six modules in its business unit (diagnosis + solutions), and SSC is responsible for the standardized transactional delivery of the six modules (execution + experience). For performance management, for example: COE designs the performance institution and tools (KPI/OKR/BSC templates), HRBP helps business leaders set goals, coach and give feedback interviews, and SSC maintains the performance system, processes data and produces reports. The three pillars do not overturn the six modules; they equip the six modules with a more efficient “organizational engine” — professionals do professional design, those close to the business do business diagnosis, and those who standardize do efficient delivery.
Four Themes × Multiplication–Division Argument
Six ModulesThe Multiplication Argument: A Full Life-Cycle Loop That Turns “People” into Multiplication
Planning → recruitment → training → performance → compensation → labor relations: the six modules are a multiplication machine with head and tail joined — each step amplifies the output of the previous one, and if any link breaks, the entire human chain falls back from multiplication to addition, or even to zero.
The Multiplication Argument · The Entry–Develop–Use–Retain Loop: Every Link Amplifies People’s Value
Planning is the “benchmark setting” of multiplication: align with strategy to forecast the supply and demand of people and set the direction for the next 1–3 years (the direction of E). Recruitment is “selecting the seed”: person-position fit decides the ceiling of all subsequent links; recruit the right person and training, performance and compensation all amplify; recruit the wrong person and every later step is discounted (the base of E). Training is “fertilizing”: raising capability directly amplifies the output of performance, and f(t) begins compounding here (the engine of T). Performance is “calibration”: goal decomposition, process coaching and result application let employees know clearly “what to achieve and what they get” (the yardstick of E). Compensation is “distribution”: a fair and reasonable return makes employees willing to invest continuously (the switch of S). Labor relations are the “foundation”: compliance, communication and harmony hold the trust accumulated in the previous five steps (the guardian of S). Multiply the six steps, and the value of talent is amplified level by level.
The Division Mirror · Broken Modules and Evaluate-without-Developing Are the Most Typical Ways to Be Divided Back
Once the six modules break apart, multiplication falls back to division: recruit without developing — new hires are thrown into positions, capability gaps appear, performance relies on talent, and attrition soars (T is divided away); evaluate without developing — performance results come out with no coaching or improvement, appraisal degenerates into “scores after the autumn”, and employees only defend rather than act (S is divided small); compensation divorced from performance — performing well has no relation to earning more, and effort becomes a joke (E is divided back); missing relations management — labor disputes multiply and trust collapses, and the value accumulated in the previous five steps returns to zero overnight (S falls to zero, the whole is divided back). The six modules are not six folders but a six-link multiplication chain — break one link and the whole chain fails.
Three PillarsOrganizational Restructuring: COE / HRBP / SSC — Turning HR from Functions into Processes
The core of the three pillars is not “splitting into three departments” but upgrading HR from “six functions each running its own way” to “end-to-end processes”: COE sets rules, HRBP understands the business, SSC delivers with efficiency — the three multipliers each hold their position.
The Multiplication Argument · Expertise × Business × Efficiency: The Three Multipliers Work in Sync
COE empowers strategy with expertise (E·T): design operable compensation, performance and organization solutions, turning “strengthen long-term incentives” into “core technical posts with 3+ years of tenure receive shares = position value coefficient × tenure coefficient” — when the solution can be implemented, expertise becomes value. HRBP solves problems with a business mindset (S·E): treat hiring departments as customers, go deep into the front line to translate business needs into HR needs, and coordinate with COE/SSC for overall solutions — when the business sees value, HR is not marginalized. SSC raises experience through efficiency (E·S): standardize the delivery of onboarding/offboarding, compensation and social insurance so employees “run less and get faster responses”, freeing HR from repetitive transactions — efficiency is experience. Multiply the three pillars and HR turns from a “cost center” into a “value center”.
The Division Mirror · Blind Splitting and Role Confusion: Painting a Tiger That Ends Up a Dog
The most common failure of the three pillars is “looking alike without the spirit”: blind splitting — a 200-person company forces three pillars, COE is one person both setting policy and doing training, HRBP doubles as recruiter and compensation specialist, SSC is one front-desk person, more tiring than traditional HR; role confusion — HRBP helps the business “squeeze wages” to cut cost, and attrition soars instead; ignoring business fit — manufacturing copies the internet HRBP model and has HRBP attend product R&D meetings, where it cannot understand technical jargon and becomes a “listener on the sidelines.” The right answer for SMEs is a “lightweight three pillars”: COE consists of the HR head plus external consultants, HRBP is held by senior HR staff in parallel, and SSC outsources social insurance and payroll to professional agencies — get the process flowing first, then talk about a complete structure.
Striders FirstValue Distribution: Create → Evaluate → Distribute — Only a Closed Loop Conserves
Putting Striders First compresses HR’s highest proposition into one sentence: create value with all your strength, evaluate value scientifically, and distribute value fairly — three links in a closed loop, and value is conserved; if any link fails, the striver leaves.
The Multiplication Argument · Salary Protects Fairness, Bonus Widens the Gap, Benefits Safeguard the Floor, Long-Term Incentives Seek Development
The multiplicative logic of Huawei’s value distribution: salary protects fairness (the base of S) — equal pay for equal posts, never chilling people’s hearts; bonus widens the gap (the engine of E) — those who do well earn more, letting strivers be seen; benefits safeguard the floor (the guardian of S) — protecting basic livelihood and security; long-term incentives seek development (the compounding of T) — shares, TUP and deferred payment make employees responsible for long-term value. A “striver” is not the one who works the longest hours but the one who creates value for customers, contributes increment to the company and works hard over the long term — defining striving by incremental value is enlarging E and S at the same time. Distribution tilts toward strivers and contributors and insists on “benefits flowing from one opening,” changing the employee-enterprise relationship from “employment” to “shared cause.”
The Division Mirror · Equal Shares, Inverted Pay and Lying Flat: Cracks in the Distribution Divisor
Once distribution fails, value conservation immediately inverts: equal shares — more work and less work are the same, strivers are divided small by “averaging”, and the best people leave first; inverted pay — new hires outearn veterans, veterans’ hearts are divided back, and core assets drain away; promising without delivering — long-term incentives become “options that turn to waste paper”, T falls to zero and trust collapses; the lying-flat culture — without elimination or constraint, the organization’s entropy rises and inertia spreads. Huawei’s answer to fighting entropy is the “striver agreement”: binding rights to voluntary application plus value contribution, letting employees who genuinely create value receive above-market returns and stripping privileges from those who lie flat — welding the fairness of S and the incentive of E into one institution.
Diverse EntitiesThe Way of Fit: High-Tech / Manufacturing / Service / Corner Shops Each Do Their Own Multiplication Right
The three pillars are not “the bigger and more complete, the better” but “only fit conserves”: high-tech firms do “knowledge multiplication,” manufacturing does “efficiency division,” service industries do “experience multiplication,” and street-corner shops do “lightweight multiplication” — four types of entities, four multiplication–division combinations.
The Multiplication Argument · Different Types of Entities Make the Corresponding Multiplier Greater Than 1
High-tech enterprises (knowledge-intensive): the core is talent recruitment, knowledge management and continuous development of professional capability — maximize T (talent pipeline) and E (innovative output), using the full three pillars to support strategy; traditional manufacturing (process-intensive): the core is standardized execution, mass hiring and cost control — SSC standardization plus transaction outsourcing (BPO) makes E solid, freeing about 60% of transactional HR time; service industries (labor-intensive): the core is recruitment, training, scheduling and compensation under high attrition — HRBP stays close to the front line doing “experience multiplication”, and SSC resolves the complexity of scheduling and payroll; street-corner shops (extremely lightweight): limited pay, small scale and little energy — the boss acts as HRBP, outsourcing acts as SSC, and external consultants act as COE, using the “lightweight three pillars” to get things done on a small budget.
The Division Mirror · Copying Big Companies and Getting Out of Place: Misaligned Fit Gets Divided Back
The cost of a misaligned fit is real: manufacturing copying the internet’s “agile appraisal” pushes front-line workers to chase only indicators rather than quality under KPI pressure (E is divided back); corner shops copying big companies’ complex performance and benefits systems can neither learn them nor afford them, and attrition rises instead (10–30-person small firms average 35%–45% annual attrition, 2–3 times that of large enterprises); high-tech firms using manufacturing’s “control-style HR” end up with rigid processes and inflexible performance, and talent votes with its feet (T is divided away). The essence of the way of fit: do not pursue “complete structure” but “multipliers > 1” — first make each type of entity fix its most painful multiplier, then upgrade step by step.
Pain Points of All Sides · Six Parties’ Aspirations
Applicability Intensity of Four Entity Types × Three Pillars: Misaligned Fit Is the Common Root of Pain
High-tech enterprises need a complete “expertise engine” (COE), manufacturing needs a standardized “delivery desk” (SSC), service industries need a “business partner” close to the front line (HRBP), and corner shops need the “lightweight three pillars.” The chart below shows, at illustrative intensity, the different weights that the four entity types place on the three pillars — the mismatch between demand and supply is precisely the common root of every side’s pain.Value-conservation methodology assessment model, illustrative, not from sampled statistics
Six Parties’ Aspirations: Every Side’s “Pain” Is the Result of the Institution Dividing the Corresponding Multiplier Small
Operators of the four entity types, HR practitioners and front-line employees stand on the same organizational contract yet each bears a different multiplication–division imbalance — amplify anew “that multiplier” each side truly wants, and HR returns from a cost center to a value engine:
Contesting Core Talent · Knowledge Multiplication Is Hard
Technical talent is scarce with high turnover and strong dependence on core people; R&D performance is hard to standardize and quantify (needing OKR/KPI/360 combinations); senior-position recruitment takes long, and knowledge management coexists with knowledge protection. The aspiration of high-tech firms is to make T (talent pipeline and knowledge accumulation) and E (innovative output) multiply — supporting strategy with the full three pillars and binding core talent with long-term incentives.
Drowned in Transactions · The Efficiency Divisor Is Hard to Resolve
HR teams in traditional manufacturing spend about 60% of their time on transactional work such as attendance anomalies and payroll, 20% on bulk recruitment, and only about 10% on talent strategy; under smart-manufacturing transformation, skill gaps, human-machine collaboration and technician shortages coexist. The aspiration of manufacturing is to make SSC standardization and BPO outsourcing solid, freeing HR from “process administrator” to “strategic participant” — the efficiency divisor of E must be done right first.
High Turnover · Experience Multiplication Is Hard to Sustain
In service industries (catering, retail, hotels), front-line staff turnover is high, working hours fluctuate widely, and scheduling and payroll calculation are complex; recruitment demand is large, training must continue, and service standards must be unified. The aspiration of service industries is to use HRBP close to the front line to do “experience multiplication” — when employees are treated well, customers are treated well; and to use SSC to resolve the complexity of scheduling and payroll, letting front-line store managers focus on service rather than bookkeeping.
Hard to Hire, Hard to Keep · Compliance Risks Hanging Overhead
10–30-person small firms average annual attrition as high as 35%–45%, 2–3 times that of large enterprises, and about 62% of that attrition traces to “person-position fit problems at hiring time”; with limited pay, small scale and little energy, complex KPI/OKR cannot be learned, and compliance risks over labor contracts, social insurance and overtime hang overhead. The aspiration of corner shops is to put the “lightweight three pillars” to use: the boss acts as HRBP, outsourcing acts as SSC, and external consultants act as COE — spend a little, and first fill the two cells of retention and compliance.
Drowned in Transactions · Value Underrated
Traditional HR is mired in the transactional work of the six modules: recruiting, attendance, payroll, paperwork — doing “execution” rather than “creation” all year; the boss cannot see the value, the business regards it as a “cost department”, and HR itself falls into transformation anxiety. The aspiration of HR practitioners is to complete, through the three pillars, the turn from “transactional” to “strategic” — entering through SSC, transforming toward HRBP, and drilling deep into COE, letting professional capability compound along the time axis.
Poor Experience · Unclear Growth Paths
Attendance kept by handwriting, performance kept by spreadsheets, benefits conveyed by word of mouth; no clear promotion system, no idea “where to go next”; treated as “cost” rather than “capital”, feeling the company does not value them. The aspiration of employees is to be treated fairly (S), to be seen growing (T), and to be rewarded in time (E) — the six modules and the three pillars must ultimately answer: in this organization, is it worth staying?
Domestic & International Comparison · Stones from Other Hills
Five HR Organizational Paradigms, Five Multiplication–Division Paths
Placing the HR organization in a global evolution coordinate system, the five paradigms are exactly five experimental samples of value conservation: Ulrich proposed the four-role model of HR, laying the theoretical foundation for the three pillars (the awakening of S — HR cannot only do administration); IBM pioneered the operable three pillars, turning theory into a division of labor (the efficiency engine of E); Huawei spent 6–7 years fusing the three pillars with its values (the full E×S×T chain); Tencent and Alibaba made localization innovations (Alibaba’s “people are capital, not cost”; Tencent’s “professional, service, partner”); SMEs and micro-enterprises take the path of “lightweight three pillars + BPO outsourcing” (fit before completeness). The five paradigms are not substitutes for one another but different solutions for enterprises of different sizes and stages.
| Paradigm / entity | Core mechanism | Multiplier role (value conservation) | Key lessons & warnings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ulrich · Four-Role Model (1980s) | The four HR roles: strategic partner, administrative expert, employee champion, change agent — laying the theoretical foundation for HR’s move from administration to strategy | S social value (awakening) · T time value (direction) | Frees HR from the “only payroll” positioning; but it remains a role framework and needs organizational mechanisms to carry it |
| IBM · Pioneer of the Three Pillars (1997) | On Ulrich’s theory, proposes the operable three HR pillars: SSC/COE/HRBP division of labor with global shared services | E economic value (efficiency engine) | The first benchmark of three-pillar practice; standardization + sharing raises efficiency markedly; fits large organizations, needs simplification for SMEs |
| Huawei · End-to-End Three Pillars (2006–2012) | HRBP close to the front line, COE outputs operable solutions, SSC delivers standardized services; strivers-first, the value create-evaluate-distribute loop | Full E×S×T chain | Fuses the three pillars with values, letting “those who hear the cannon fire call for artillery”; requires 6–7 years and heavy investment to implement |
| Tencent / Alibaba · Local Innovation | Alibaba’s “people are capital, not cost” and political-commissar-style HRBP; Tencent’s “professional, service, partner” and business-group HR systems | S social value (empathy) · T time value (culture) | In the internet context HRBP integrates deeply into the business and is value-driven; culture-dependent and needs strong organizational soil |
| SMEs & micro-enterprises · Lightweight Three Pillars | COE formed by the HR head + external consultants; HRBP held by senior HR staff in parallel; SSC outsources transactions (social insurance/payroll to third parties); BPO outsourcing cuts cost | Fit · E cost reduction | Get the process flowing first, then talk about a complete structure; avoid “forcing the three pillars in a 200-person firm” that looks alike without the spirit |
Note: each paradigm is compiled from public management practice and consulting sources; the “multiplier role” is a value-conservation methodology inference, illustrative.
Official Data & Authoritative Books
Core Books of Human Resource Management (compiled from public bibliography and authoritative sources)
| Book / system | Author / unit | Publication | Core contribution (conservation dimension) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Putting Striders First: Outline of Huawei’s Human Resource Management | Huang Weiwei et al. | CITIC Press, 2014-11, ¥68, one of Huawei’s management trilogy, reviewed by Ren Zhengfei, public internal training material | The value create–evaluate–distribute loop; salary protects fairness, bonus widens the gap, benefits safeguard the floor, long-term incentives seek development; the definition of a striver (full E·S·T chain) |
| High-Quality Learning: HR Three Pillars & Huawei’s Strategic Management Method | — | A monograph on HR three pillars × Huawei strategic management (on sale at Dangdang etc.) | Fusing the three HR pillars with Huawei’s strategic management: COE/HRBP/SSC organizational design and strategy landing (E·S·T organizational axis) |
| HR + Three Pillars: Transformation, Upgrading and Practical Innovation of Human Resource Management | Ma Haigang, Peng Jianfeng, Xi Nan | Renmin University of China Press, new ed. 2024-06, ISBN 9787300327143, ¥69, 100,000-copy bestseller | Systematically reviews Western exploration and Chinese practice of the HR three pillars (IBM/Tencent/Huawei/Alibaba); three pillars as “savior of coordination problems” (E·S organizational restructuring) |
| HR + Digitalization: Cognitive Upgrade and Systematic Innovation of Human Resource Management | Ma Haigang | Renmin University of China Press, 2022-02, ¥69, companion volume to HR + Three Pillars | The HR digital ecosystem: data awareness, product thinking, end-to-end business capability (T digital compounding) |
| Introduction to Human Resource Management (5th ed.) | Dong Keyong, Li Chaoping | Renmin University of China Press, 2019-07, ISBN 9787300270470, ¥45, national planned textbook under the 10th & 11th Five-Year Plans for higher education | Classic HR textbook: full modules of planning/recruitment/training/performance/compensation/employee relations, with OKR, evidence-based HR and other new methods (E·S·T textbook authority) |
| Introduction to Human Resource Management (3rd ed.) | Peng Jianfeng | Fudan University Press (Fudan Boxue · 21st-Century HR Management Series), organized by Renmin University’s School of Labor and Human Resources | Chinese-style HR textbook: discusses HR concepts, techniques and processes from a strategic perspective, and the internal relationships and junctions of the six modules (E·S Chinese practice) |
| The Huawei Code of Striving | Yang Aiguo | CITIC Press | Huawei value management + element management + system management: how the HRBP/HRCOE/HRSSC three pillars work in Huawei (E·T system implementation) |
| Business as the Foundation: Three Layers and Twelve Methods of HRBP Value Creation at Huawei and Alibaba | Xiangyang Guodan | By a former Huawei global Top-10 HRBP and former Alibaba senior business HR expert | HRBP value-creation methodology: business-person integration, business winning battles (S·E business integration) |
The Scale of the HR Service Industry in 2025: The Big Denominator of HR Externalization
The HR service industry is the core body of market-based employment services and the external support behind countless SMEs’ “lightweight three pillars.” Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security (MOHRSS) data show that by end-2025 there were 81,000 HR service agencies nationwide with 1.115 million employees, providing employment, job-seeking and mobility services to more than 300 million person-times of workers annually and serving more than 50 million firm-times of employers; 2025 industry revenue was about RMB 3.1 trillion, with a 2019–2025 average annual compound growth of about 7.9%. Outsourcing payroll calculation, social insurance payment and recruitment to professional agencies (SSC outsourcing / BPO) is precisely the realistic path by which SMEs leverage a “socialized SSC” to achieve the multiplication of efficiency. (From MOHRSS’s 15th Five-Year Plan interpretation and Zhiyan Consulting, sources in Section Ⅽ.)
Fig. 3 · Core indicators of the HR service industry in 2025 (81,000 agencies, 1.115 million employees, serving 50+ million firm-times of employers and 300+ million person-times of workers, industry revenue RMB 3.1 trillion; compiled from MOHRSS and Zhiyan Consulting public data, sources in Section Ⅽ).
Key Data Checklist (objective data; sources in Section Ⅽ)
| Data | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| HR service agencies / employees | 81,000 / 1.115 million (up 78% and 32% respectively from the end of the 13th Five-Year Plan) | MOHRSS 15th Five-Year Plan interpretation |
| Annual revenue of the HR service industry | About RMB 3.1 trillion (2019–2025 average annual compound growth about 7.9%) | MOHRSS / Zhiyan Consulting |
| Workers / employers served annually | 300+ million person-times / 50+ million firm-times (about 40% manufacturing firms) | MOHRSS 15th Five-Year Plan interpretation |
| National HR service industrial parks | 29 (another 32 under the key liaison mechanism) | MOHRSS / Zhiyan Consulting |
| Pilot cities for HR-services-manufacturing integration | 39 (15 in the east, 9 in the central region, 12 in the west, 3 in the northeast) | MOHRSS / Zhiyan Consulting |
| New urban jobs in 2025 | 12.67 million | MOHRSS |
| 2025 high-tech salary-adjustment / involuntary-attrition rates | Adjustment rate about 4.9% / involuntary attrition up to 6.3% | Aon 2025 Human Capital Insights |
| Annual attrition in 10–30-person small firms | Average 35%–45% (2–3 times large enterprises); about 62% of attrition from recruitment fit | Public industry reports |
| HR time allocation in traditional manufacturing | About 60% transactional work, 20% bulk recruitment, about 10% talent strategy | Public industry analysis |
| Huawei’s three-pillar construction timeline | Explored HRBP in 2006 → SSC launched 2011 → COE completed 2012, 6–7 years in total | Public management-practice materials |
Three-Dimensional Conservation · E/S/T
Three-Dimensional Conservation in HR Management: Wealth, Bonds and Time Each in Place
A good HR system lights three dimensions at once: E (wealth) — the multiplication engine of people efficiency, output and cost control; S (bonds) — the social value of fairness, trust and employee experience; T (time) — the time compounding of training/development, talent pipeline and long-term incentives. Only when the three multipliers are simultaneously greater than 1 do organization and individual enter the value-expansion phase.Value-conservation methodology assessment model, illustrative, not from sampled statistics
E Wealth · The Multiplication Engine
Planning sets direction, recruitment selects seeds, performance calibrates, compensation delivers — the six modules turn people’s output into a computable engine; within the three pillars, SSC raises efficiency by standardization, COE amplifies by expertise, and HRBP lands in the business. When the E multiplier exceeds 1, the situation where labor-cost growth outruns output is reversed into people-efficiency growth outrunning cost.
S Bonds · The Division Mirror
Performance fairness, pay fairness, harmonious labor relations and employees being seen are all projects that enlarge S. Inverted pay, opaque appraisals, egalitarianism and treating employees as “cost” are traps that divide S small. When the S multiplier exceeds 1, employees are willing to leave their hearts, and the organization can hold the invisible asset of trust.
T Time · The Compounding Engine
Training/development, career paths, leadership succession and long-term incentives turn one-off incentives into time compounding, letting the talent pipeline and organizational capability grow exponentially with the years. Striders-first long-term incentives (shares, TUP, deferred payment) make employees responsible for long-term value and let the T multiplier keep amplifying throughout each person’s career.
The 7-Layer Depth Model × Six-Dimension Radar
The 7-Layer Depth Mapping of HR Management: From “Paying Salaries” to “Uniting Hearts”
HR’s effect on employees is far more than “paying money and assigning posts”; it penetrates seven layers of depth and works level by level. The visible layers (information/material/behavioral) address “knowing, receiving, doing”; the middle layers (bodily/awareness) address “feeling and experience”; the deepest layers (subconscious/mind) decide “identification and belief.”Value-conservation methodology assessment model, illustrative, not from sampled statistics
| Layer | Corresponding mechanism in HR management | Conservation dimension |
|---|---|---|
| ① Information Layer | Transparent pay structure, clear appraisal indicators, public promotion criteria — employees “know” the rules (open information reduces fairness error) | S social value (fairness) |
| ② Material Layer | Salary, bonus, benefits, long-term incentives — monetary return f(m) delivered fully and on time (not paying enough where it should be high is the biggest waste) | E economic value (money) |
| ③ Behavioral Layer | Recruitment and staffing, KPI/OKR steering behavior, incentive delivery — employees “do” what is appraised (positive reinforcement must be timely) | E economic value (behavior) |
| ④ Bodily Layer | Work intensity matched with returns, pressure balanced with support — overwork and exploitation erode the body and turn incentives into backlash (negative reinforcement needs caution) | E·S (economic value · social value) |
| ⑤ Awareness Layer | Employees “feel” recognized and respected — performance interviews, instant feedback, public commendation (satisfaction and engagement) | S social value (experience) |
| ⑥ Subconscious Layer | Fairness, belonging and ownership — long-term incentives and culture-building turn employees from “workers for hire” into “co-builders” (habit and emotional binding) | S·T (social value · time value) |
| ⑦ Mind Layer | Value identification and mission alignment — “customer-centric, strivers-first” becomes belief (culture is the deepest mental contract) | T time value (mind) |
Six-Dimension Profile: The Radar of a Healthy HR System
Profiling the HR system from six dimensions: professional design power (COE), business insight (HRBP), service delivery (SSC), fair incentives (S), talent pipeline (T), and digital effectiveness (E·T).Value-conservation methodology assessment model, illustrative, not from sampled statistics
Multiplication–Division Overview Table
| Theme | Conservation role | Multiplication track (make E/S/T > 1) | Division mirror (avoid being divided back) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Six modules (full life cycle) | E economic value (multiplication engine) | Closed loop of planning→recruitment→training→performance→compensation→relations; the six-link chain amplifies level by level: person-position fit and capability compounding | Broken modules, recruit-without-develop, evaluate-without-develop, compensation divorced from performance — break one link and the whole chain fails |
| Three pillars (organizational restructuring) | S social value (division mirror) | COE sets rules, HRBP understands business, SSC is efficient; the end-to-end process runs from need to fulfillment: expertise × business × efficiency | Blind splitting, role confusion, ignoring business fit — forcing three pillars in a 200-person firm paints a tiger that ends up a dog |
| Striders first (value distribution) | T time value | The create-evaluate-distribute closed loop; salary protects fairness, bonus widens the gap, benefits safeguard the floor, long-term incentives seek development; benefits flow from one opening | Equal shares, inverted pay, promising without delivering, lying-flat culture — once the distribution divisor fails, strivers leave |
| Diverse entities (the way of fit) | Reconfiguring the multipliers | High-tech does knowledge multiplication, manufacturing does efficiency division, service does experience multiplication, corner shops do lightweight multiplication — each fills its most painful multiplier | Copying big companies, getting out of place, control-style HR — when fit is misaligned, talent votes with its feet |
The Twin-Blossom Lessons
🏢 For Enterprises · Make HR an E×S×T Multiplication Project
The six modules establish function (E: planning→recruitment→training→performance→compensation→relations interlocking layer by layer), the three pillars establish the organization (S: COE sets rules, HRBP understands business, SSC is efficient, turning functions into processes), and strivers-first establishes distribution (T: the create-evaluate-distribute closed loop, salary protects fairness, bonus widens the gap, benefits safeguard the floor, long-term incentives seek development). High-tech firms do knowledge multiplication, manufacturing does efficiency division, service does experience multiplication, corner shops do lightweight multiplication — fix the most painful multiplier first, then talk about a complete system. Remember Ren Zhengfei’s judgment: technology matters, capital matters, but human resource management matters even more.
👤 For Individuals · Run Yourself Like a “Company of One”
f(m) is your market price (capability × performance × negotiation), f(h) is your experience price (meaning × recognition × growth), and f(t) is your compounding price (skills × credibility × long-term accumulation). Do not stare only at the absolute monthly salary — use six-module thinking to do your own “HR planning” (where are my skill gaps?), “training and development” (which capability am I investing in?), and “performance management” (how do I prove my incremental value?); use three-pillar thinking to choose an organization (is there an HRBP who understands business, an SSC that standardizes, a COE that is professional?); use strivers-first thinking to manage yourself (create incremental value, persist in long-term accumulation, and let compounding start turning). The micro version of value conservation: make yourself a person whose three multipliers are all growing.
Takeaway in one sentence: the essence of HR management is not “hiring people and paying salaries” but configuring human potential, fairness and time into a multiplicative combination — the six modules amplify E, the three pillars hold S, and strivers-first invests T; only when the three multipliers are simultaneously greater than 1 can organization and individual achieve the multiplied growth of value conservation.
FAQ
Q1: What is the relationship between the six modules and the three pillars?
The six modules are the “functional axis,” answering what HR manages (planning, recruitment, training, performance, compensation and labor relations, running through the full life cycle of entry, development, use and retention); the three pillars are the “organizational axis,” answering how HR organizes itself to manage (COE sets rules, HRBP understands the business, SSC is efficient). The matrix of integrated application is: COE is responsible for the institutional design of the six modules, HRBP is responsible for landing them in its business unit, and SSC is responsible for standardized transactional delivery. The three pillars do not overturn the six modules; they equip the six modules with a more efficient “organizational engine” — professionals do professional design, those close to the business do business diagnosis, and those who standardize do efficient delivery.
Q2: Should SMEs / street-corner shops build the three pillars?
There is no need to copy Huawei’s complete structure, but you can learn its “structural thinking.” Forcing the three pillars in a 200-person firm only adds burden (a one-person COE both sets policy and does training). The right answer is the “lightweight three pillars”: COE consists of the HR head plus external consultants (invite a compensation expert as a part-time COE), HRBP is held by senior HR staff in parallel (a recruiting manager also serves as HRBP for a business line), and SSC outsources social insurance payment and payroll calculation to third parties. For street-corner shops it is even simpler: the boss acts as HRBP, outsourcing acts as SSC, and external consultants act as COE — spend a little and first fill the two cells of compliance and retention. Get the process flowing first, then talk about a complete structure.
Q3: How does traditional HR transform toward the three pillars?
The path is “enter through SSC, turn toward HRBP, drill deep into COE.” SSC is the entry — first become familiar with standardized transactional processes and systems to build HR fundamentals; those who love communication and staying close to the business develop toward HRBP — learning to translate business needs into HR needs; those who love professional depth develop toward COE — becoming an expert in one area such as compensation, performance or organization development. The key is shifting from the supply orientation of “I give what I can” to the demand orientation of “I give what the enterprise needs.” This is a growth path from “transactional HR” to “strategic HR.”
Q4: Does putting strivers first become “disguised exploitation”?
The key is whether value distribution conserves. Huawei does not define a striver as “the one who works the longest hours” but as one who “creates value for customers, contributes increment to the company and works hard over the long term” — the core is incremental value, not formalistic busyness. Genuine strivers-first means “strivers have returns and contributors are respected”: salary protects fairness, bonus widens the gap, benefits safeguard the floor, long-term incentives seek development, and employees who create value receive above-market returns. If you only emphasize striving without delivering returns, you are treating strivers as tools and dividing the S multiplier away — a poor imitation of strivers-first; institutions eventually teach such behavior a lesson.
Q5: How are positions whose performance is hard to quantify, such as R&D and creative roles, appraised?
Do not force quantification on what cannot be quantified. The right approach is to decompose result indicators into several intervenable process indicators (project milestones, delivery quality, collaboration contribution), use a combined appraisal of KPI/OKR/360-degree reviews, and pair them with COE-designed professional tools and HRBP process coaching. High-tech enterprises especially need diversified appraisal modes (OKR aligning goals, KPI measuring results, 360 reflecting collaboration) adapted to agile scenarios such as project-based work and remote work. The core principle: quantify “the measurable part,” not squeeze all work into numbers; only with transparent processes and timely feedback will employees be convinced.
Q6: When employee attrition is high, where does the problem usually lie?
First use the six modules for “attrition attribution”: about 62% of attrition in 10–30-person small firms traces to “person-position fit problems at hiring” — hire the wrong person and everything after goes wrong (the base of E); 28% traces to poor employee experience — handwriting attendance, spreadsheet performance, unclear growth paths, feeling undervalued (S divided small); compensation divorced from performance, missing training and tense labor relations are also common causes. The solution is returning to value conservation: use competency models in recruitment to raise fit (E), give employees visible growth paths through training and promotion (T), and link compensation to performance with transparent processes to hold fairness (S) — attrition is the thermometer of an HR system’s health; whichever multiplier is divided small is the cell to repair first.
Sources & References
[1] Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security · Series interpretations of the “15th Five-Year Plan for Human Resources and Social Security Development” (The Paper, 2026-07-31) — 81,000 HR service agencies, 1.115 million employees, serving 300+ million person-times of workers and 50+ million firm-times of employers annually, about 40% manufacturing firms, The Paper · MOHRSS 15th Five-Year Plan interpretation
[2] Zhiyan Consulting (republished by Sina Finance) · 2026 China HR Service Industry Report — 2025 revenue RMB 3.1 trillion, up 3.7% YoY, 2019–2025 average annual compound growth 7.94%, 29 national industrial parks, 39 cities piloting manufacturing integration, 12.67 million new urban jobs in 2025, Sina Finance · HR Service Industry Report
[3] Anmou Consulting · An In-Depth Dissection of Huawei’s HR Three-Pillar Model — COE/HRBP/SSC role division, SME implementation pitfalls and the “lightweight three pillars,” Ren Zhengfei’s “let those who hear the cannon fire call for artillery,” Anmou Consulting · Huawei HR Three Pillars Explained
[4] HR Desk · Clarifying the HR Three Pillars (HRBP/HRCOE/HRSSC) in One Article — definitions, the Huawei timeline of 2006 exploration → 2008 HRBP → 2011 SSC → 2012 COE, from supply orientation to demand orientation, HR Desk · HR Three Pillars
[5] QQ Reading · Huawei Human Resource Management, Section 1 “The Three-Pillar Model: End-to-End Processes in HR Management” — HRBP/COE/SSC end-to-end division and customer-oriented HR processes, QQ Reading · Huawei HR Three Pillars
[6] MBA Think Tank Documents · Interpretation of Huawei’s HR Three-Pillar System — HRBP/COE/SSC role division and the six HR roles (strategic partner, solution integrator, process operator, etc.), MBA Think Tank · Huawei HR Three Pillars Interpretation
[7] Anmou Consulting · Putting Striders First: Huawei’s Value Evaluation and Distribution Management for Striders — the striver definition (customer value/incremental contribution/hard work over the long term), fighting entropy, and the striver agreement with legal fit, Anmou Consulting · Striders-First Value Distribution
[8] Douban Reading · Putting Striders First: Outline of Huawei’s Human Resource Management (Huang Weiwei et al., CITIC Press 2014-11, ISBN 9787508647791) — one of Huawei’s management trilogy, publicly published from Huawei internal training material, Douban Reading · Putting Striders First
[9] Kongfz · HR + Three Pillars: Transformation, Upgrading and Practical Innovation of Human Resource Management (new edition, Ma Haigang, Peng Jianfeng, Xi Nan, Renmin University of China Press 2024-06, ISBN 9787300327143) — Western exploration and Chinese practice of the three pillars (IBM/Tencent/Huawei/Alibaba), Kongfz · HR + Three Pillars
[10] Kongfz · Introduction to Human Resource Management (5th ed., Dong Keyong, Li Chaoping, Renmin University of China Press 2019-07, ISBN 9787300270470) — national planned textbook under the 10th and 11th Five-Year Plans, part of the MOE 21st-Century HR Management textbook series, Kongfz · Introduction to HR Management
[11] BenQ Guru · The Complete Guide to HR System Selection for Emerging Service Industries — HR characteristics and pain points of knowledge-intensive industries such as internet, cultural-creative and consulting (fast organizational iteration, dependence on core talent, diversified appraisal), BenQ Guru · HR Selection for Emerging Services
[12] i-HR · How Small Companies Reduce Employee Attrition — 10–30-person small firms average 35%–45% annual attrition (2–3 times large enterprises); about 62% of attrition traces to recruitment fit and 28% to poor employee experience, i-HR · Small-Company Attrition
[13] Yuanzhanhuiku · 2025 Human Capital Insights: Salary-Adjustment Rates Fall Across Four Industries (Aon report) — 2025 high-tech adjustment rate about 4.9%, involuntary attrition up to 6.3%, manufacturing controls cost by “strict entry and strict exit,” Yuanzhanhuiku · Aon 2025 Human Capital Insights
[14] Jiandaoyun · Detailed Explanation and Work Guide for the Six Modules of Human Resources — module contents (planning/recruitment/training/performance/compensation/labor relations) and workflows, Jiandaoyun · Six Modules of HR
Note: data marked “illustrative” on the page are illustrative expressions of the value-conservation methodology assessment model, not sampled statistics; all other objective data come from the public authoritative sources listed above (MOHRSS, Aon, well-known consulting agencies, etc.). E/S/T intensity assessments are methodological inferences; please judge against the actual conditions of your enterprise. Book information for Putting Striders First (Huang Weiwei et al., CITIC Press 2014), High-Quality Learning: HR Three Pillars & Huawei’s Strategic Management Method, and others is detailed in the bibliography table in Section Ⅷ.