Receive daily articles & headlines each day in your inbox with your free ERE Daily Subscription.

Not logged in. [log in or register]

Is the HR “Specialist” Function Becoming Obsolete?

by
Janine Truitt
Jul 11, 2012, 5:26 am ET

More and more there is talk of the HR business partner and HR generalist functions when it comes to all things HR. These functions are HR’s way of aligning with the C-suite or, as most say, getting a “seat at the table.” To have the HR business partner or HR generalist in your organization says you are being “strategic.” In any event, both of these roles are handling everything from succession planning to recruitment plans, depending on the organizations’ structure.

That said, one might ask what is the use in having a “specialist” in HR? More importantly, what are the implications for recruiters if indeed this is a trend? I’ll address both separately.

Traditionally, HR has been comprised of varying levels and types of specialists all well-versed in a specific area of HR (e.g. compensation analysts and benefits specialists). Since HR generalists and HR business partners are being embedded in the various departments and groups, conversations that were generally happening with specialists regarding their specialty are happening with HR business partners and/or HR generalists instead. The hope is that central HR has some allies out there in the field. This group’s primary function is to be in the trenches with the customer and also to champion the work that HR does. If the business partner and generalist are seeing the day-to-day and have the ability to mitigate and/or resolve issues at the department level, maybe there is no need for the “specialist.”

This fashionable push toward the business partner model may be seen as polarizing to the HR function on the whole, and perhaps it is.

For example, let’s look at the recruiter role — also called a talent acquisition specialist. Traditionally in this role you are responsible for the attraction, selection, and hiring of professionals for your company. Any recruiter worth their salary doesn’t just post jobs, route candidates, interview, and hire people. If you’re really good at what you do, you were already a business partner to your internal customers. You were contacted when vacancies were on the horizon. You set meetings to proactively develop job descriptions and recruitment plans. In addition, you help them come to realizations as they plan for future positions advising them of candidate availability and market conditions. You pre-screen, interview, and develop offers with the input of compensation and others to ensure internal equity.

Where does the talent acquisition specialist/recruiter fit in now, if there is suddenly someone else who is doing what they have always done? It leaves the recruiter confused and unsure of where to focus their energy. In other cases, the recruiter may wonder what their purpose is.

Some organizations — due to the lack of adequate staff and the economic downturn — have shifted more and more responsibility away from central HR to the HR business partner or HR generalist as a cost savings. In effect, the HR generalist and HR business partner are no longer just doing the “strategic” work but they are also acting in the capacity of central HR. This trend certainly makes it seem like HR is moving toward having a “Jack or Jane of all trades” function like the generalist and/or business partner who can do it all, rather than having different specialists for each facet of HR.

The overarching question is: can these practitioners do it all, and do it all effectively? The answer to that question depends on these three variables: the size of the organization, the amount of HR functions to be handled, and the amount of support the company is willing to supply to these decentralized practitioners. Without these three variables being properly considered and planned for, the role of the “partner in the trenches” is basically a joke. Deploying these practitioners without proper support, resources, and with a ridiculous workload will result in burnout, things left undone, or done in an untimely matter and a lack of focus. All of ths will cast HR in a light of being inefficient and not adding value, which is the opposite of our intention.

Less is not always more. We may think we are being more efficient and strategic by decreasing headcount and consolidating responsibilities — but it may be to our demise. There is something powerful in having specialists, business partners, and generalists working toward the goal of ensuring a happy and productive workforce. Depending on your companies’ needs you will ultimately decide what is right for your organization under the current economic climate. However, in deciding how to structure your HR department and best service both your internal and external customers, consider the risks and opportunities involved in using an HR generalist or business partner in lieu of or with the help of other HR specialists.

photo from imdb

This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to offer specific legal advice. You should consult your legal counsel regarding any threatened or pending litigation.

  1. Richard Melrose

    By and large, HR continues to shoot itself in the foot or allow itself to be shot in the foot by the C-suite.

    In any business function there are needs for content knowledge (e.g. compliance) and for process knowledge (e.g. employee engagement); there are strategic activities (e.g. job analysis, selection process design, strategic workforce planning) and transactional activities (e.g. payroll, benefits administration, etc).

    The costs of bungled enterprise talent management are staggering — generally more than enough to double most companies’ pretax profits. And it’s been that way for decades, while business leaders tinker with HR business partners, shared services, HRIS upgrades and the like.

    Meanwhile, the “elephant in the room” is broad-gauge overarching incompetency at real talent management. Peter Drucker observed that executives bat no better than .333 on staffing and promotion decisions (the equivalent of 666,666 DPMO in six sigma terms). He added: “In no other area of management would we put up with such miserable performance.”

    Bottom line: in every enterprise people drive performance (or not). The important question is not whether HR Specialist or HR Generalist, but who will take responsibility for dramatic improvements in talent management practices. We have known precisely what to do for decades. Now would be a good time to do it.

    r.melrose@vision21.us

  2. Is the HR “Specialist” Function Becoming Obsolete? | Human Resource Vetting

    [...] Source: ere [...]

  3. Janine Truitt

    Hi Richard,

    I love your insight-it is thought provoking. You are 100% correct that HR continuously shoots itself in the foot. I think it is HR’s incessant wanting to be respected and viewed as a value adding entity in the eyes of the C-Suite. In wanting this to be the perception they go out on wily tangents every once again.

    In my mind there is a need for specialization, people to do transactional activities, and at the same time you need people like generalists to bring a broader perspective. The bungled talent management as you call it and (particularly the shared services model) is often ill-conceived and is more labor intensive than it is worth.

    Unfortunately, most companies are cutting back and trying to do more with less FTE’s-so I’m afraid this is a trend that is likely to continue for sometime.

    By the way, you may be interested in this article from Forbes: The Secret Power Of The Generalist — And How They’ll Rule The Future – Forbes http://shar.es/t55Tv via @sharethis

    Thanks again for reading and chiming in,

    Janine

  4. Suzanne Vaughan

    A bit late to the party, but this was a great article. It sparked some great discussion in our office and ended up inspiring our own little blog post (http://blog.hireworx.com).

    It’s incredible how easily businesses can commit to “economizing” without considering the costs that aren’t directly represented on a balance sheet. At some point taking away resources and trying to get more from less really does just get you less. Would-be specialists are swamped by the range of required duties, while generalists can get bogged down in minutiae and become unable to provide the broad perspective that is their great strength.

  5. Janine Truitt

    Suzanne,

    I’m so pleased that my article sparked some dialogue about this subject in your office. I love…love…love your blog post and can’t agree with you more.

    Less is many times just less-not more. I know way too many HR practitioners that have gone from being brilliant specialists working in the trenches to stressed out and overwhelmed generalists. I caution any company rushing to implement a shared services or HRBP model to pump their brakes and assess the threats and opportunities involved.

    Thank you for reading and weighing in on this topic.

    Best Regards,

    Janine

  6. HR Specialists: Not Obsolete Yet « gmansoor

    [...] Resources representative for Brookhaven National Laboratory and HR blogger, recently came out with this article on the value of centralized and specialized HR versus the trend of generalists embedded within [...]

  7. HR Specialists: Not Obsolete Yet | Technology Rivers | software development for startups

    [...] Resources representative for Brookhaven National Laboratory and HR blogger, recently came out with this article on the value of centralized and specialized HR versus the trend of generalists embedded within [...]

  8. Roundup: This Week’s Top HR Stories From Around The Web | Cost Management Services

    [...] Is the HR “Specialist” Function Becoming Obsolete? [...]

Post a comment

Please log in to post a comment.

Note: You need to sign up for an account on our new commenting system if you haven't already done so — even if you have an existing ERE account. Find out why »

Login Information