Generalist and Specialist HR FunctionsSteven Cesare and Thornton Coleen (1993) identify some differences between specialists and generalists in an organization setting. Specialists have more in-depth knowledge of an issue, as they focus on a specific discipline in their training. Thus, they are professionals who are more concerned with increasing their knowledge and developing their skills. They get much pride from the recognition they get from their peers who specialize in their area of interest. Conversely, generalists have wider scope of knowledge. They seek to cover many issues at once instead of focusing on a definite area of knowledge. They are more interested in their development within their organization as they seek to advance to various levels. Therefore, they tend to be more committed and loyal to their employers than they are to any professional body.Bartram et al. (2013) note that specialists and generalists have different priorities. They aim for different results and this can sometimes lead to conflicts. While generalists are concerned with the improvement of productivity, which is an internal organizational concern, the specialists are focus on the external as well as the internal factors that will affect the performance of the company. Thus, for instance, they will take measures that will reduce the companys legal liability, which might end up compromising its performance. Generalists and specialists differ in their sources of motivation and business operation. Specialists often handle a few projects at the same time, and they do so intensely. They depend on tangible information to enable them make decisions, and they have a high regard for independence when making decisions. On the other hand, generalists can handle many projects at the same time, and they require minimal information and evidence when making decisions.Specialists are seen as more superior compared to the generalists. Cesare and Coleen (1993) highlight the importance of their professional development and skill acquisition. They posit that specialists are more valuable to the company as they enable it to retain its competitive advantage. Organizations spend a lot of money to recruit and orient specialists. This shows that employers think that that the specialists are valuable to the company. It is important for the companies to create an enabling environment for the specialists, as this will lead to their retention. The companies should provide flexible work schedules and they should give the specialists a chance to work independently and to make decisions that will lead to the progress of the company. They should have access to adequate office resources, as this will improve their performance. The ability to communicate with the level executives directly and the organizational support that the specialists receive for their advancement in education further point to their superiority. Many organizations are not in a position to provide such incentives to other employees and they reserve them for those specializing in different issues (Cesare & Coleen, 1993).Persistent legalism in organizations has increased the role of specialists in human resource functions. Specialists have become more important as organizations continue facing many legal issues (Bartram et al., 2013). Some situations in human resource require the intervention of specialists. People working in some industries are mistreated in some ways by their employers and they do not have any channels of communication. Specialists know the kind of people to engage in dialog and action to change such situations. Generalists do not have adequate skills and expertise to handle and resolve legal matters. This factor places the specialists in a superior position compared to the generalists. However, Bartram et al. (2013) note that some situations have continued to strengthen the role of generalists. For instance, generalists are able to deal with some internal human resource situations, which do not necessarily require legal expertise. They can effect changes in the company that will reduce and discontinue practices such as bullying.Cesare and Coleen (1993) seem to advocate for the employment of generalists as they consider them more flexible and less demanding to organizations. The generalists are loyal and committed to their companies, and their employers can have more confidence in them. They are willing to follow the rules and they recognize organizational bureaucracy, hence, they are less likely to make major changes in the company, which will change business operations and the work culture drastically. The authors point out to the increased need of the specialists to advance in their professional development by acquiring skills, which means that the organization has to accommodate their needs. Many organizations may not be able to do this, and this may hinder them from employing specialists.Bartram et al. (2013) do not take any position and they do not seem to support generalists or specialists. They instead highlight the importance of both human resource functions to deal with emerging situations in the company. Although they recognize the importance and value of specialists in organizations, especially when dealing with legal issues, they are also quick to point out the changing role of the generalist in the company. They note that some trends in industrial relations are contradictory in the sense that they have changed the role and function of human resource personnel. The HR personnel are currently dealing with more diverse issues than they used to, and this has increased the significance of generalists in organizations.References:Bartram, T., Cooke, L. F., & Malcolm Rimmer Editors. (2013). Editors note: Specialists versus generalist managerial roles in HRM. (4), 389-391Cesare, S. J., & Coleen, T. (1993). Human resource management and the specialist/generalist issue. (3), 31-43