How we organize ourselves often becomes a time-consuming political engagement that satisfies no one. Some organizations oscillate between centralized and decentralized structures almost as frequently as the seasons change, while others toy with networks and matrices and all sorts of variations. In the end we are struggling to balance and find political agreement on three fundamental needs:
The Traditional Centralized Model The traditional, centralized hierarchy serves many organizations well. It makes it very clear who is responsible for what and places accountability squarely on the leader of the centralized function. It is the military model and assumes a leader who knows almost everything, rarely makes mistakes, can make decisions quickly, and who is totally accountable and responsible for the results. In most organizations that I am familiar with, this is the model that is more or less in place. The recruiting manager gathers information on open positions and other needs and submits a budget. The budget is given to the manager to control, and she is responsible for keeping spending within that budget. The manager makes most big decisions, assigns staff and runs political interference when needed. She acts as a filter between upper management and the staff. The benefits are obvious: speed, efficiency, and accountability. However, there are huge negative aspects to this model. First of all, the manager rarely can know all that she needs to know to make the best decisions, and she often cannot act quickly enough because she lacks information. In a world of constantly changing needs and priorities, many clients feel underserved or are faced with resistance to needed change because of budget or resources limitations. The Swing to Decentralized So, when the pressure gets really high, many organizations swing to a decentralized model, in which all the recruiters are disbursed to the business units, the manager is laid off or reassigned, and control of budgets and resources revert to the business managers. Responsibility and accountability are where they matter most ó with the client ó and strategies and tactics can change quickly because there is little need for hierarchical decision making and information gathering. Hiring managers prefer the decentralized model because it gives them almost total control over the hiring process. 10 Disadvantages to the Decentralized Model Unfortunately, many things get lost in the decentralized model, even though it seems to put accountability and power where it belongs:
Another Approach: A Flexible Top and a Stable Base The best way to organize a recruiting function, in my mind, is to create a hybrid model, very much as we as a nation have set up our national government. Sometimes called the “federal model” because of its similarity to the U.S. government’s structure, it has both a centralized and a decentralized component. A Flexible, Responsive Top Recruiters are physically placed in the business units and have the responsibility both to liaison between the central recruiting function and the business unit as well as to build a close relationship with the functional staff in the business unit. They can be flexible and can move as needs change. The recruiter must be loyal to the client, yet be aware of corporate goals and requirements and keep the client aligned with those as much as possible. The core responsibility of this function is to develop relationships with candidates and with hiring managers. The recruiter should know the needs and competencies required for each job in his function. He should have a talent pool of candidates that can be tapped for open positions. He should be primarily a networker, a relationship-builder, and a partner to the hiring manager to ensure that talent is ready when it is needed. The Central Unit The central unit is the stable base of the recruiting process. It is generally small in number of employees but powerful in the impact it has on the organization. It has four critical responsibilities.
While this is a very brief overview, the real answer to the argument of whether the recruiting function should be centralized or decentralized is simple: it needs elements of both, carefully blended.
