Lazard Asset Management

I studied philosophy and ended up in recruiting. I have spent my career asking questions for a living, which, in retrospect, is exactly what a philosophy major should do. Yet I have rarely met a recruiter who set out to become one. We talk endlessly about intentional talent matching, although most of us stumbled into this profession by accident. The irony is not lost on me.

Philosophy major or not, it’s hard to ignore the disconnect in how HR teams make decisions about technology. We are a function defined by human connection, yet we keep building ecosystems that fragment the very data that would let us understand people holistically. We invest in tools that make individual workflows easier while quietly dismantling our collective ability to see the full picture.This is the tension I want to examine. I have a strong point of view — I favor integrated HCM suites over stitchedtogether point solutions — but this isn’t an argument for any single vendor. It’s an argument for how we got here in the first place: the way HR and recruitment professionals actually make technology decisions, and what it costs us when we get them wrong.The Siren Song of Point Solutions.

Best-of-breed tools proliferate in HR for a reason. Expert users want tools designed for them. Recruiters want sourcing platforms that think like recruiters. Payroll analysts want software built around payroll logic. The usability gap in enterprise HCM platforms is real, as is the frustration driving teams toward point solutions.

But consider what we give up.

The talent journey has no clean functional borders. Recruitment shapes onboarding. Onboarding shapes development. Development shapes retention. These workflows are interconnected, yet siloed technology encourages us to treat them as separate transactions. We optimize each part at the expense of the whole.

This reflects a misconception often heard in workplace debates: that presence drives collaboration. It does not.

Proximity and connection are different. Technology can facilitate interaction without creating integration. A point-solution ecosystem may produce activity at every node while generating insight nowhere.

The hard truth is that prioritizing ease of use for one HR function may cannibalize the strategic impact we make on the business. The future belongs to HR teams that can use enterprisewide talent data through cohesive, interconnected workflows. Seeing the full employee lifecycle in one coherent system is the most powerful strategic differentiator available to us. Technology decisions must move beyond usability and begin with data.

Culture First, Technology Second

Before discussing integrated platforms and point solutions, ask a more fundamental question: what is the culture of your HR team?

A team operating in functional silos will think in functional silos. No technology will change that. A platform does not create collaboration. It exposes the collaboration, or lack of it, already present. Expecting new tools to change behavior is among the most common and costly mistakes in HR transformation.

“The tools are not the strategy. The team is. The culture is. Build those first, and the technology decisions become clearer.”

Culture is the connective tissue. Making the most of any technology requires shared ownership, collective accountability and a genuine commitment to cross-functional impact. Without that foundation, even the most sophisticated integrated suite will function like a collection of point solutions.

This is why, when rolling out an integrated HR ecosystem, how you implement it matters far more than what you implement.

Lessons from the Field

I have represented recruiting during four implementations: Workday, Yello, Oleeo and, most recently, Oracle HCM. Here’s what I learned.

“If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”

Implementation timelines are usually unrealistically tight, creating pressure to favor speed over alignment. Not everyone has the capacity or inclination to place individual preferences beneath the bigger picture. Coordination suffers where workstreams overlap, reinforcing the siloed thinking the project was meant to dismantle.

The antidote is deliberate investment in shared objectives. Use implementation as an opportunity to bring Core HR, HRBPs and recruiters together around a common problem. One of the most valuable steps is jointly cleaning up job codes, titles and taxonomy. Define skills, proficiency levels and competencies together. Carry that shared language into job descriptions, interview frameworks and performance evaluations. The goal extends beyond clean data to shared ownership of strategic impact.

“You are not the user.” Don Norman

Implementation consultants offer technical depth but often lack functional domain expertise. HRIS teams are best placed to translate between technical and non-technical stakeholders, yet often take a back seat when they should be central. Those deciding functional requirements may be furthest removed from daily user reality.

The remedy is straightforward, although rarely easy: put the right people in the room at every stage. Include technical consultants who understand user behavior and can demonstrate equivalent capabilities, even when they look different. Bring in functional leads who can separate genuine necessity from personal preference and HRIS owners who balance rigor with velocity. Underlying it all should be individual accountability and a collective commitment to excellence.

“Don’t buy into the pie in the sky.”

Be wary of product demonstrations that emphasize bells and whistles over seamless core functionality. Before making a financial commitment, speak with HR peers at firms already using the product. Set the expectation that the tool will be delivered as close to out of the box as possible, regardless of the available budget or appetite for configuration.

After the financial commitment is made, the team’s mindset must shift. The question is no longer, “what do I want this to be?” It becomes, “how do we make this work?” That shift requires a solution-oriented, adaptable culture built intentionally rather than assumed.

Be the Architect

Whether you choose an integrated HCM suite or a thoughtfully connected tool ecosystem, the principle remains: technology should not define the boundaries of your HR strategy.

If you lack a CRM, build workarounds. If your ATS search is limited, integrate the resources available, including LinkedIn Recruiter and generative AI. Embracing the burden of innovation is more than a consolation prize for under-resourced teams. The practice builds resilience, agility and creativity into HR culture while setting an example for the broader business.

We cannot credibly challenge our organizations to augment and elevate their capabilities with AI unless we have done so ourselves. Every business leader is asking how AI will change recruitment, development and retention. HR should answer that question through hard-won, data-informed experience instead of vendor-driven enthusiasm.

The tools are not the strategy. The team is. The culture is. Build those first, and the technology decisions become clearer.

You are the architect. Build accordingly.