Cage Match for the Future of the HR Generalist...

I'm an HR Generalist by trade, and I've always been proud of that fact.  A good generalist can do it all, with style, grace and a street smarts attitude that's almost impossible to replace.

Of course, some people have periodically said that the generalist role is dead or in the process of dying, with Jack Kevorkian in the next room.  I've always said that's not true, since there are literally hundreds of thousands of businesses, both large and small, that run on the back of generalists from an HR support perspective.

Here's the bigger problem - world-class generalists hear the buzz, look inward and wonder if they're involved in something sexy enough to invest the rest of their careers in.  I've got a couple of examples, first with my friend Jessica Lee writing on topic at the HR Examiner:

"During the course of that discussion, the audience was informally polled on the kinds of roles they were aspiring to. “Show of hands for folks who are looking to grow into an HR Generalist role?” You could practically hear the crickets in the room. Can you imagine? Of 230 recruiters, only one person raised her hand and said she was looking towards the role of HR Generalist. One person! All of a sudden, being an HR Generalist seemed so ugly to me.

Sure, you might argue that it was a recruiter’s conference – what else would I expect? But that sentiment – of very few people wanting to become HR Generalists – it’s everywhere. I promise. From deep in the HR trenches, I promise you this is true. No one wants to become an HR Generalist. People don’t want to be called HR Generalists. You could repackage it and call the role an HR Business Partner yet still, the reaction is more of the same."

That doesn't feel good to a new world HR Generalist like JLee.  And I agree with her on one thing - the best people in the talent space aren't generally longing to be generalists.   I think they're wrong.  But the problem isn't them, it's us.

Another example - I got a call from a strong HR Director who had lost faith a bit in the HR Generalist model.  She felt it wasn't working for her, and she didn't have the talent she needed to move to the strategic space.  As a result, she was actively looking at Talent Management models from people like Josh Bersin and contrasting them to things included in the traditional Ulrich models as she understood them.

As you would expect, the Talent Management model was sexier than the traditional models that are built around the path of the generalist.

What I told the HR Director who called me is the same thing I would tell anyone who thinks the HR Generalist model is dead.  The problem isn't the role of the HR Generalist at the manager, director and VP level, the problem is the feeder groups that we use to populate the Generalist role.

Use feeder groups from roles that are more transactional in nature (HR Coordinator, etc.), and you're going to end up with Generalists that like to do transactions and migrate to that.  It's not going to appear strategic, because we've pre-ordained that the DNA of the HR Generalist will be strongest in transactions due to the primary feeder group.

The answer is pretty simple in my eyes - mandate that your HR Generalists always have recruiting as part of their role - even if it's a couple of open reqs.  Then, if you're big enough, mandate that the recruiters in your organization take a rotation as a HR generalist.  Some will hate it, but more importantly, some will love the action on the employee relations front and the light OD exposure they get.  They'll also love being the head talent pro in charge of a client group.

At that point, your feeder group/reputation issue for the HR Generalist role will be solved.  The HR Generalist role (with 100s of different titles) will be attractive,

Kids out of B-School don't want to do transactions.  Fix the feeder groups, and you fix the problem.

Comments

[Scottthekyhrguy]

You know what I think makes a bigger difference than keeping an HR person's ear to the ground in recruiting? Forcing HR people to be business people first. Put em on the production floor. Make your HR people generate a product or project that has business value outside of the department. I don't know if they still do it, but UPS used to make all managers -- HR folks included -- spend some time on a truck. That's experience you can't get in a class. I think -- moreso than recruiting -- you may get more value out of putting a junior HR person in charge of a small P&L -- even if it's for a fluff project -- early in their career. If they can't get their mind around that conceptually and work within a budget, they're not strategic.

Anyone with a little brass, an internet connection and a telephone can recruit. I've known several corporate recruiters and headhunters who were successful and actually generated decent results, but would not understand "strategic" if it bit them. And I think our field's biggest failure is telling ourselves we want to be business partners and we deserve a a seat at the proverbial table, but not preparing ourselves to speak intelligently when we get there. I've found that my most valuable experience came from running branches in the temporary staffing business and understanding how much we needed to generate in top line sales and at what margin in order to break even. That taught me to ask a question whenever ANY proposed action is put in front of me: "Does this make us more or less profitable, or otherwise produce a business result?" I'm not sure I would have come to that through recruiting. Of course I don't think I would have to come to that through a transactional HR job either. The PHR ignores the subject and the SPHR exam pays lip service to the concept in a way that you can totally overcome if you memorize a few laws and know how to answer some common sensical benefit questions.

Which begs the question -- where else can you find generalists who can do more? Or better, what's the ideal assignment rotation for a generalist to enhance credibility for the role throughout your company or the field in general? The exasperating part is, even if you are forward-thinking about such things, we've got so much baggage to deal with in the field and in this country. I actually interviewed for a "Strategic HR Leader" role and the interview derailed when they explained how important it was to them for ther HR leader to be involved in routine benefit transactions. That is an obscenely common expectation. It's a bit of a rhetorical question, but how do you overcome that and keep your sanity? Good to know there are folks out there who understand it doesn't have to be that way.

[sara]

One thing I found to be really helpful was 5 Strategies for Improving Employee Satisfaction in Healthcare It just seemed to bring everything into a clearer focus.

Thanks for the great blog!