Real projects, presented anonymously.Real projects, presented anonymously.

The HR function worked mostly reactively: tasks were solved as problems appeared, roles within the HR team were not fully clear, and interaction with managers required a more systematic approach. Recruitment, employee retention and the distribution of responsibility between HR and managers required separate attention.

We conducted HR diagnostics, analyzed job descriptions, developed the HR Strategy, Recruitment Strategy and Employee Retention Strategy. We facilitated a working session with the CEO of the group of companies and the HR team to align key conclusions, roles and next steps.

The company received an HR roadmap, a clearer logic of roles within the HR team and practical recommendations on recruitment, retention and interaction with managers. The HR function started to be viewed not only as administrative support, but as part of the business management system.

The company needed to build a more comprehensive HR system and connect business goals, organizational structure, HR roles, KPI, performance management, motivation and internal communication. Some HR tools already existed, but they did not work as one integrated system.

We developed the HR strategy, clarified the roles of HR Director and HR Generalist, and described the key HR processes. We developed KPI for key management roles and proposed an approach to performance management, compensation and benefits, and internal communication.

The company received the foundation of a comprehensive HR system in which structure, KPI, evaluation, motivation and HR processes are connected to business goals and work within one management logic.

Recruitment of line personnel largely depended on the experience of individual recruiters and managers. There were no unified criteria for candidate evaluation, no common logic for telephone interviews and no clear templates for different positions.

We analyzed recruiters’ approaches to CV and candidate evaluation and improved the rules for conducting telephone interviews. We developed interview templates for 9 roles: cook, waiter, bartender, bartender-administrator, dessert seller, technical personnel, call center operator, delivery operator and courier.

The company received unified selection criteria and a more structured candidate evaluation process. Recruitment became less dependent on each recruiter’s individual style and clearer for managers involved in hiring.

The team needed to describe the recruitment process for a future HR platform in a way that would be clear both to HR specialists and the IT team. It was important to translate real HR logic into the structure of the future product: from the first contact with a candidate to the final decision, action history, statuses, analytics and management reporting.

We described the full recruitment process: candidate journey stages, statuses, user actions, logic of transitions between stages, action history in the system, HR and management analytics, as well as reporting requirements. Separately, we worked through what data should be recorded, what actions should be available to different users and how the system should support the work of recruiters, managers and management.

The team received structured business logic for the recruitment process as a basis for designing the HR platform. This helped ensure that the future product would not be just a set of screens and features, but a tool that reflects real work with candidates, supports management control and provides a basis for setting tasks for the IT team.

The company was developing in several directions at once: retail sales, supplies, own production and project solutions for clients. Because of this, the management team needed to understand which directions were key for growth, which required revision, how resources were distributed between them and where the organizational structure no longer matched the real logic of the business.

We analyzed the business directions, their role in the company’s overall model, the current organizational structure and the distribution of management responsibility. Separately, we examined which decisions were made at the owner and top-team level, which areas of responsibility were not clearly assigned and which processes required further description. We clarified the strategic priorities, mission, vision and areas for the next stage of work: structure, processes, KPI and management reporting.

The team received a clearer picture of how the business is structured: which directions should be developed first, where there are overlaps in responsibility, which management roles require clarification and which issues cannot be solved point by point without reviewing the structure and processes. This became the basis for further work with the organizational model, KPI and growth priorities.

KPI existed in the company, but they did not provide sufficient management clarity. The indicators were more a form of reporting than a tool for discussing results, focus, responsibility and the contribution of each role to business goals.

We developed KPI for key management and commercial roles, connected the indicators with business goals, managers’ responsibility and the logic of performance management. Separately, we worked through how KPI should be used in regular management discussions, not only in reports.

KPI became a clearer management tool: through them, it became possible to discuss results, priorities, areas of responsibility and expectations from the role. Managers received a clearer basis for regular evaluation and management decisions.

The company needed to review its approach to pay and motivation, making it clearer and more connected to roles, responsibility, results and internal fairness. It was important to move away from fragmented decisions and create more transparent logic.

We worked through the pay and motivation system: the fixed and variable parts of remuneration, elements of grading, the logic of bonuses based on performance indicators and the rules for salary review. We connected the approach to pay with job roles, level of responsibility, work results and the management logic of the business.

The company received a transparent basis for pay and motivation decisions. It became easier for managers to explain the logic of remuneration, discuss expectations and make more consistent decisions on salaries and bonuses.

The company was growing quickly, and management practices began to differ noticeably from team to team. Managers set tasks differently, gave feedback differently, controlled execution differently, worked with employee motivation differently and responded differently to difficult management situations.

We developed and delivered a leadership development program based on 6 major blocks: leading people, managing execution, self-organization and planning, implementing change, cross-functional collaboration and strategic thinking. The program included practice, case studies, role exercises, feedback and work with real management situations.

The company received a complete learning cycle for managers. Participants began to use a more common management language and unified approaches to setting tasks, feedback, responsibility and working with teams.

The team needed to align goals, priorities, areas of responsibility and an action plan in a situation of growth and uncertainty. Before the session, some issues had been discussed many times, but they did not turn into clear decisions and concrete next steps.

We developed the structure and scenario of the planning session, prepared questions and working formats, and moderated the discussion. We worked with different positions, priorities, controversial issues and management decisions so that the conversation would not remain at the level of a general discussion.

The team came out of the session with clearer agreements: which priorities matter now, which decisions have been made, who is responsible for what, which questions remain open and what next steps need to be completed after the meeting.