HR has been talking about culture, prevention, and long-term impact for years. But these arguments rarely resonate with the board. Not because no one believes in their importance, but because they are not formulated in the language of business.
Organizations do not invest in potential. They invest to avoid risk.
The difference is crucial.
Fear of loss trumps optimism about the future
Behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman has already proven empirically that people make decisions based more on fear of loss than on the pursuit of gain. It's no different in organizations. The latest Gartner study, "2025 HR Budget and Strategy Outlook," shows that around 71% of companies only increase their HR budgets when a specific risk becomes apparent, such as rising staff turnover or project delays due to vacancies.
As long as HR projects are considered "improvements," they remain on the nice-to-have list. Only when they are understood as risk management do they move up to the must-have agenda.
HR sells prevention as wellness
HR talks about "better culture," "employee retention," and "employer branding." That sounds good, but not urgent. For executives, these issues are abstract until they become expensive.
The reality:
- Missed projects due to missing key roles
- Loss of revenue due to staffing delays
- Brand and reputation risks due to poor candidate experience
These losses are measurable. However, HR rarely mentions them openly.
Leadership means showing the price of inaction
HR does not need a new argumentation model, but rather a paradigm shift: away from measures and toward risk.
Not: "We need a new ATS."
But rather: "Without digital tracking, we will lose X% of applicants who drop out after two weeks in six months."
Not: "We need to invest more in leadership."
But rather: "Without training our team leads, turnover in key areas will increase by Y%."
This is not dramatization. It is professional prioritization.
Impact begins with plain language
According to a recent Harvard Business Review analysis ("Why HR Still Struggles to Influence the C-Suite," 2024), HR teams that communicate risks clearly are twice as likely to get budget decisions approved as those that use cultural or engagement arguments.
This speaks for sober realism:
If you want to convince people, you have to provide data, present scenarios, and argue from an economic perspective.
Conclusion
HR is not underfunded because it is unimportant.
Rather, it is because it too rarely mentions the price of inaction.
If you want to establish prevention, you have to show what happens when it is lacking.
That's not scaremongering, that's leadership.
And yes, that is uncomfortable. But without this realism, HR remains explanatory rather than creative.
- Gartner. (2025). 2025 CHRO budget benchmarks: What HR leaders need to know. LinkedIn.https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hernanchiosso_hrtech-hrleaders-futureofwork-activity-7365738684282802177-7eIDlinkedin
- Gartner. (2025). A deep-dive into Gartner’s top 5 priorities for HR leaders in 2025. LinkedIn.https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/deep-dive-gartners-top-5-priorities-hr-leaders-2025-linda-fc8aclinkedin
- Gartner. (2025). Gartner’s top HR priorities for 2025: Leadership, strategy, and technology. LinkedIn.https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gartners-top-hr-priorities-2025-leadership-strategy-technology-6iuhflinkedin
- Lattice. (2024). 2024 State of People Strategy Report.https://hrsea.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/workplace/are-we-successfully-navigating-the-hr-c-suite-corporate-rift/105904884hrsea.economictimes.indiatimes
- Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prospect_theorywikipedia
- Harvard Business Review. (2024). Why HR still struggles to influence the C-suite.https://hbr.org/archive-toc/BR2405hbr
- BehavioralEconomics.com. (2024). Loss aversion.https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/resources/mini-encyclopedia-of-be/loss-aversion/behavioraleconomics
