What Went Wrong With PRIME-HRM?
PRIME-HRM was supposed to fix compliance culture. Instead, it quietly became another one. Everywhere you go, HR offices talk about “Level 2” or “Level 3.” Binders multiply. Templates are perfected. People rehearse for audits as if they were performance exams.
The irony? The program meant to make HR strategic has turned many offices into evidence-production factories.
PRIME-HRM’s idea is solid: professionalize HR, measure maturity, and reward good systems. The problem is the instinct behind how it’s implemented — it measures presence, not practice. It rewards paperwork, not performance.
Agencies chase proof of process: “Do we have a policy?” “Is it signed?” “Do we have a committee?” These questions check compliance, not competence. And so, the cycle repeats — a newer, shinier version of the old compliance game.
For many HR units, “Level 3” is the dream. But what does it really mean? A set of documents. A validation visit. Maybe a plaque. Yet maturity isn’t a plaque — it’s behavior. If supervisors still fear giving feedback, if employees still distrust HR, if learning and performance aren’t linked — then it’s not maturity. It’s mimicry. We’ve built structures that look strategic but still think bureaucratic.
We don’t need to throw PRIME-HRM away. We just need to stop worshipping the scorecard.
The goal of PRIME was never to collect evidence for its own sake — it was to make our HR systems truly help people and improve organizations. Somewhere along the way, though, many agencies became more focused on documentation than on development, more eager to show proof than to show progress.
It’s time to bring PRIME back to what it was meant to be: a framework for growth. To do that, we need a shift in how we think and how we measure success.
First, we must move from evidence to experience. Instead of asking, “Do we have proof that our HR systems exist?” we should be asking, “Do our HR systems actually help our employees?” The real measure of maturity isn’t how thick the files are, but how well the systems serve the people who depend on them.
Second, shift from levels to learning. The question shouldn’t be, “What level did we reach this year?” but, “What did we actually improve?” Levels are milestones, not trophies. Learning is what keeps organizations evolving even after validation ends.
Third, turn audit into reflection. Validation shouldn’t feel like an inspection; it should feel like a coaching session. Instead of hunting for errors, it should create space for conversation: What worked? What can we strengthen next? A good validation process leaves an agency wiser, not just rated.
Finally, move from uniformity to context. Each agency has its own rhythm, size, and reality. PRIME-HRM should respect that. Maturity doesn’t mean sameness — it means strength built from within.
When we see PRIME this way — not as a scorecard, but as a scaffold for growth — we return it to its real purpose: helping institutions become more humane, more capable, and more self-aware. The goal was never to have perfect folders. It was to have people systems that work even when no one is watching. That’s real maturity — when reform no longer needs an audience.
Until then, PRIME-HRM remains a mirror of the very bureaucracy it hoped to change: tidy, procedural, and quietly afraid of failing the checklist.
