Anuradha posts about how she is adding the evaluation of the HR generalist in her own performance evaluation as a specialist.
They need to be actively involved in the input process - be it training need identification, specification gathering or new system implementation.
Just as a Business Head makes a contribution to the performance review of his / her HR generalists, a specialists' performance evaluation should have one component that comprises Business HR feedback.
Having worked in both sides of the HR divide (corporate and generalist) I had come to the conclusion that the difference of the worldview of both these groups is due to the nature of work they perform.
A HR generalist (or Business unit/partner/HR manager) manages exceptions. A new leave policy is being rolled out? A good HR generalist will let you know what the 20% employees will be unhappy with it.
A specialist on the other hand, needs to focus on the 80% of the people who will be OK with the new policy.
This is where the dichotomy of viewpoints happen.
I am not sure if incorporating a change in performance evalution as Anuradha is trying will work or not. If anything, then it cannot merely be one way. A specialist must also evaluate a HR generalist on how promptly the feedback was given to change the first draft of any new proposal.
My advice for most HR professionals is that adding more metrics/evaluation might make this much more muddier and confusing. It has chances of succeeding in a much mature HR group.
What does need to change is the adversarial positions of these key HR roles and various HR functions need to do so according to their own cultures and methods.