Parks and public works, both city departments, apply different interpretations of the same promotion rule. Employees in similar classes get different outcomes. What alignment action should HR take?

Alignment across business units means consistent application of enterprise HR rules for comparable work. When parks and public works apply different interpretations of the same promotion rule, similarly situated employees get different outcomes, which undermines merit, morale, and legal defensibility. HR should recentralize interpretation of the promotion rule so similar classes are treated consistently across departments. Local directors may recommend and supply performance evidence; they do not get to rewrite what the rule means for their favorite candidates.

Leaving interpretation to each director so departments can 'compete for talent with homemade rules' converts a citywide rule into a lottery by department. Abolishing promotion criteria for seniority-only citywide may be bargained or civil-service constrained and is not required to fix inconsistent interpretation. Publishing both interpretations and telling employees to pick the favorable one institutionalizes forum-shopping and destroys rule integrity.

Exam caveat: recentralizing interpretation is not recentralizing every operational staffing decision. The concept is consistent meaning of shared rules, not HR running parks day-to-day.

Operational check: issue a binding interpretation memo for the promotion rule with worked examples; require HR review of promotion packets for the affected classes; track cross-department outcome rates for similarly situated candidates; and brief both directors together so neither can claim a private side deal.