HR Pros: If You Can't/Won't Recruit, You're a Secretary...

I said the following last week on a show called the HR Happy Hour: "There's a word for HR pros who don't recruit - they're called secretaries".

I thought about what I wanted to say for about 10 seconds before I said it.  I pondered "administrators".  Didn't get the effect I was looking for, so I opted for secretaries. I got some emails and tweets that said I called all HR pros secretaries.  That's not true - I called HR pros who can't/won't recruit secretaries.  Big difference.

I'm a HR Generalist.  My definition of that is that I do it all - recruit, employee relations, benefits, performance management, etc.   I'm also a firm believer that Generalist roles span the globe of HR titles - Generalists can be found at the Rep/individual contributor, manager, director and VP levels.

So, here's the deal - The death of the generalist is overblown.  Sure, specialists are alive and well in bigger companies that get press, but in the guts of the American economy, companies still hire generalists to take care of HR business.  That will continue.  As Flavor Flav once said, "don't believe the hype", especially when it comes to the death of the HR generalists.

In fact, there's only one thing that can prevent you from being a thriving HR generalist along the lines of my definition - an unwillingness to chase the most valuable aspects of your craft - whether you're asked to or not.  Those aspects generally revolve around talent management - starting with recruiting - not administrative activities. 

You're good at the administrative side of the business?  Congratulations.  You allow it to suck up 95% of your time and you say you don't have time to do any recruiting or other talent management activity?  Allow me to withdraw my back-pat.  You have an efficiency problem and/or you're simply settling for the things you are most comfortable with. 

And the world views you as a secretary whether you are a male or a female.  Do a 360 on yourself with tough questions and learn the reality.  Tell the CEO what you're focused on and what you don't have time to do.  See what she says.  If she's honest, she'll agree with me.   Or she'll start looking harder to outsource the transactional side of your business.  Which you just told me is what you focus on.

The best HR pros, especially on the generalist side of the business, don't allow themselves to be defined by transactions.  They commit a certain percentage of time to transactions and protect time to go after the most valuable contributions they can make to the business.  Chasing true talent issues (or not) is a choice that every generalist makes.  It's there for you to focus on.

What are the most valuable things for you to work on as a generalist?  It all starts with your ability to go after talent from the recruiting side.  I've come into departments whose definition of that was posting a job on Monster and then forwarding 100 resumes with no screening to a hiring manager.

They called that recruiting.  I called it being a secretary.  And it happens more places than you might think.

You think you belong in the NextGenHR classification?  You better show some passion towards the pure talent side of the business.  While I'm focused on recruiting, you could easily plug in performance management, organizational development, etc.  But you've got to do those things while you keep all the other balls (administration) in the air.  If you are mad as you read this, that's OK.  I'm challenging you to really think about what's meaningful in an HR practice.

Don't hate.  Be a player.  Don't be a secretary. 

Comments

[HumanResourcs Pufnstuf]

Great take Kris. I think recruiting (real recruiting) offers HR pro's the chance to really develop their sales skills, something that is often lacking in many practitioners. So much of the hand wringing over the future of HR comes down to the ability to measure and sell results. Skills that the recruiter is intimate with doing.

[Lance Haun]

I have to disagree with you a bit on this Kris.

In a smaller company, this may make sense. When you only have so much staff, everyone has to focus on the non-transactional part of their positions and everyone's job description is broad enough to take it.

In a large company, I would say that you definitely don't have to do recruiting in order to be a Next Gen HR pro. In fact, if you work for a big Fortune 100 company and you are the training or OD guru that's pushing your specialty area forward, thank God you don't have to do recruiting in order to not be a secretary. You can focus on pushing your innovative stuff forward.

I'd also take issue with the notion that doing something well on a transactional level isn't of value. Paychecks are certainly one of those things. Health benefits are another. Not everyone can be VP.

And finally, the inverse of this argument would be that recruiters that don't do HR are simply interchangeable salespeople. I can't buy that either.

[HRG that Recruits]

And I disagree with Lance's comment. I think it's everyone's job in an organization to be on the hunt for great talent. Even when I headed up Training and Development for a 6000+ company, I was constantly promoting and branding our company to everyone I met, whether they were interested in our organization or not. It starts with the CEO down and you can't just say it falls on the recruiters shoulders because they chose a specific career path.

[Lacy]

I am more on the line with Lance's thinking than Kris' in this case. I work for company within the top 20 ranking of the Fortune 500 this year. I am an HR Generalist. The way our company is broken up in terms of HR includes Training, Recruiting (which is outsourced), HR Business Partners and HR Generalists as well as groups for Payroll, Transactions etc.

I happen to be an HR Generalist. I support around 30K employees every single day along with about 9 others. (We support about a quarter of the total number of employees for this company)On a given day I handle questions about pay, terminations, severance, HR systems, benefits (health and monetary),training, coaching managers and employees alike and assist with the new hire onboarding process. But I don't recruit. As I said, we have our own outsourced group to handle that. I hardly view myself as a glorified secretary just because I don't post job openings or review resumes before handing off to a hiring manager.

I think Kris has a point for some companies but that it depends on the size and culture of the company and it's hard to make a blanket statement about who is a paper pusher vs. who is an HR contributor simply based on their time spent selling the company to people who aren't active employees. Especially in an economy where new hires are far outweighted by those who have been terminated or severanced.

[Sue Meisinger]

While I'm not crazy about the use of the term "secretary" in Kris' description of HR Pros who can't recruit, I think it served it's purpose in getting people's attention on the point he was making. And while I don't always agree with Kris (Kris, we can talk about SHRM some day over coffee -- or something stronger) on this point I agree with him.

Recruiting is integral to every HR professionals role within an organization, whether the role is transactional or strategic. But I view the term "recruiting" broadly. Employees are really volunteers working for an organization. They can leave at any time. So, for me, recruiting includes not just bringing talent in from the outside, but ensuring there are systems and analytics in place to keep talent in place or within the organization. Employees need to be re-recruited every day.

And that can be done by doing something as basic as making sure the payroll is right. If people don't get paid, they surely don't feel valued. The key difference I think between an HR Pro and a secretary in this example would be that the HR Pro will understand the linkage and the responsiblity, and be looking for additional ways to add value.

[Steve wilson]

Is it that they don't recruit or is it that they don't source? I think there is a differance. Sourcing is something one learns by trial and error to figure out how to find people that are real candidates. Many Hrfolks have so many other tasks on the table the don't have the time to source. Apps such as www.inparser.net and infogist.com can help HR people speed up their sourcing efforts. So don't rag on HR that hard.

[HR Newbie]

A tangent thought that occured to me was, since when has the title secretary becomes offensive? All HR regardless of roles has a part to play in a team. Not everyone can be a HR super star and not everyone wants to do the administrative part of HR. Personally, doing routinal 'admin' work in HR doesn't make anyone any less a HR then another. It's team work that gets the results.

[Kris Dunn]

All - thanks for weighing in...

Lance - always like to see your thoughts here. One thing I have to point out - I said at the end of the post that you could easily replace recruiting with Performance Mgnt, OD, etc. My point is that if you are only focused on keeping the buses on time, you're replaceable and not really part of the solution. Or at the very least, you're resigned to be a cog in the wheel and not really focused on any type of innovation.

Sue - dig your points on broadening the definition of what I'm talking about. To my point at the end of the post, replace recruiting with OD, etc., or to your point, broaden the definition of what recruiting means. BUT - you have to add value, true value that's not expected in the role you're in. If you don't, you're a secretary.

And, of course, I get the reaction to the secretary term. It's partly for effect, partly because that how HR pros who don't focus on true talent issues and the value add are viewed.

Ask your CEO. They'll tell you.

KD

[Michelle]

Kris - I'm glad you clarified your point. This isn't about recruiting and how valuable that work is. This is about making sure your role in the organization is about adding value to the bottom line. Do you simply execute and administer or do you create, change and challenge?

Personally, my job does not involve recruiting. I'm a generalist in a large corporation and we have specialized department that handles that. As a generalist, I've seen many that fall into the role of administrator. They make sure that all the people processes keep working and answer employee questions / concerns. That is not being an HR Pro. The challenge is to make sure that stuff is being handled while adding unique value at the same time.

[CB]

Kris - this kind of post is exactly why I like you so much. I've been struggling with finding fulfillment in HR and you've hit the nail on the head - I'm a glorified secretary (sometimes not so glorified). It drives me nuts.

This is what I need to focus on to figure out if I'm on the right career path. I used to be a star and I want to be one again.