Discussion: View Thread

From: Wilberding, Kyle W [mailto:kww535s@smsu.edu]

In Fred Nickols article, Generalists and Specialists: Unraveling the
Mystery, I got the impression that an HR Generalist had to first be an HR
Specialist. My question then is why do so many college graduates have their
first jobs under the title of being an HR generalist? It seems to me that in
the workplace being a generalist means little more than being an HR employee
that does all the HR work themselves--without a lot of external help. Is my
impression wrong?

Kyle

________________________________

From: Fred Nickols [mailto:nickols@worldnet.att.net]

I've just uploaded three new articles to my web site. All can be accessed
by clicking on the link in my email signature and then clicking on the link
to articles and going to the appropriate section. Direct links are also
provided below. All are in .pdf format.

"In Search of Quality." This can be found in the Work and Management
section. It examines the meaning of Quality.
http://home.att.net/~essays/in_search_of_quality.pdf

"The Consulting Process: A Bare Bones Outline." This can be found in the
Consulting section. It presents a high-level look at the consulting process
based on the way I've experienced it during the many years I've been
consulting.
http://home.att.net/~discon/consulting_process.pdf

"Generalists and Specialists." This can be found in the General Interest
section (no pun intended). It examines the distinctions and relationships
between generalists and specialists.
http://home.att.net/~essays/generalists_and_specialists.pdf

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT
Distance Consulting
"Assistance at a Distance"
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us

Kyle Wilberding writes:

> In Fred Nickols article, Generalists and Specialists: Unraveling the
> Mystery, I got the impression that an HR Generalist had to first be
> an HR Specialist. My question then is why do so many college
> graduates have their first jobs under the title of being an HR
> generalist? It seems to me that in the workplace being a generalist
> means little more than being an HR employee that does all the HR
> work themselves--without a lot of external help. Is my impression
> wrong?

First, thanks for taking the time to read the piece and comment on it.

Second, as to the correctness of your impression "that an HR Generalist had
to first be an HR Specialist." My sense of things is that the job of an HR
Generalist is very much as you have described it. However, HR Generalist is
a job title. Its use of the word "generalist" doesn't necessarily tie to
the definition of "generalist" and "specialist" as I addressed them in my
article. My view of so-called HR Generalists is that they are both
"generalists" and "specialists" in the sense I used those terms. They are
generalists within HR and, being in HR, that makes them specialists in the
larger scheme of things.

So, to answer your question directly: I think your impression of the HR
Generalist job is probably accurate. I also think that if HR Generalists
are to indeed be generalists within HR, they had better master more than one
specialty (e.g., compensation, benefits, recruiting, etc). If they are
called HR Generalists but have not in fact mastered multiple specialties
within HR then there is an old saying that fits them like a glove: "Jack of
all trades, master of none."

Regards,

Fred Nickols, CPT
Distance Consulting
"Assistance at a Distance"
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us