Every FP&A leader eventually confronts the same question: 

What type of people should I hire?

Do you want analysts who can model anything, understand every business unit, speak operations language, and present to any stakeholder, but lack deep expertise in specialised techniques? Or do you prefer specialists with profound knowledge of specific domains such as forecasting methodologies, data science, and systems architecture, but who might struggle when asked to present to the COO about manufacturing efficiency? 

The question isn't theoretical. It shapes recruitment decisions, training priorities, career paths, and ultimately the value your FP&A function delivers.

What we mean by generalists and specialists

The FP&A generalist possesses broad capabilities across multiple domains. They understand financial planning, forecasting, variance analysis, and reporting. They grasp operational dynamics across different business units. They communicate effectively with diverse stakeholders. As a support function, FP&A can be more of a generalist rather than a specialist, serving as a conduit for different parts of the organisation to come together.

The strength of generalists lies in their versatility and business partnering capability. They bridge between finance and operations naturally because they think in business terms rather than purely financial ones. The limitation becomes apparent when problems demand specialised knowledge, such as advanced forecasting techniques, sophisticated data modelling, or complex systems integration exceed their capabilities.

The FP&A specialist develops deep expertise in specific domains. They might focus on revenue analytics, becoming expert in customer behaviour modelling and pricing optimisation. Or forecasting methodologies, mastering statistical techniques, and scenario planning approaches. Or specific business units, developing profound operational knowledge.

Specialists solve problems that generalists can't. When your revenue forecast needs sophisticated statistical methods, specialists deliver. When systems integration requires deep technical knowledge, specialists design the architecture. The limitation surfaces in business partnering scenarios where deep expertise doesn't automatically translate to effective stakeholder management.

The case for each approach

Why organisations build generalist teams:

Versatility matters in dynamic environments. When business priorities shift, generalist teams can reallocate resources without massive retraining. Communication flows more naturally because generalists think in business terms first, financial terms second. Career paths remain broader, preparing people for roles requiring holistic business understanding. Knowledge transfer proves easier when responsibilities can be assumed by other team members without dramatic capability gaps.

The generalist approach works particularly well for smaller FP&A teams where everyone must contribute across multiple domains. It suits organisations where business partnering capability matters more than technical sophistication.

Why organisations build specialist teams:

Complex problems require specialised knowledge. Modern FP&A increasingly confronts challenges that generalists can't solve adequately, such as sophisticated forecasting methodologies, advanced data analytics, or complex systems integration. Quality improves with specialisation. Revenue forecasts become more accurate. Data architectures prove more robust. Analytical insights run deeper.

Specialists provide a competitive advantage when they develop capabilities competitors lack. External credibility increases when technical stakeholders work with FP&A specialists who understand their methods and speak their language.

The specialist approach works well for larger FP&A teams that can afford functional separation. It suits organisations where analytical sophistication differentiates performance.

This comparison reveals that neither approach dominates universally. The optimal structure depends on your organisation's size, complexity, strategic priorities, and competitive environment.

The T-shaped hybrid model

Recognising the limitations of pure generalist or specialist approaches, many organisations adopt T-shaped team structures. Building teams with a blend of generalist and specialist skills ensures a well-rounded FP&A function.

The T-shaped concept describes individuals with depth in one specialised area (the vertical bar) and breadth across multiple domains (the horizontal bar). T-shaped skills represent excellent knowledge of and skills in specific areas combined with the ability to work collaboratively across domains.

A T-shaped FP&A professional might:

• Possess deep expertise in revenue analytics (the vertical) whilst maintaining working knowledge of cost modelling, financial reporting, and systems architecture (the horizontal)

• Specialise in forecasting methodologies (the vertical) whilst understanding enough about operations, data architecture, and stakeholder management to collaborate effectively (the horizontal)

• Focus on data architecture (the vertical) whilst grasping business context, financial concepts, and communication approaches sufficient for productive partnerships (the horizontal)

The T-shaped model delivers the advantages of both approaches. Specialists solve complex problems in their domains. Breadth enables collaboration, business partnering, and resource flexibility. The FP&A role has evolved from an "I"-shaped professional (deep specialist) to a "T"-shaped team with specialists in one area but generalists in others.

Building T-shaped teams requires deliberate development. Hire for depth in critical specialisations such as forecasting, data science, systems architecture, or specific business unit knowledge. Then invest in developing breadth through rotations, cross-training, and collaborative projects.

Designing your team structure 

Determining the right balance requires assessing several factors:

• Organisational size and complexity. Small organisations with limited FP&A headcount need generalists who can contribute across multiple domains. Large enterprises with substantial FP&A teams can afford specialisation because they maintain sufficient coverage across all necessary capabilities.

• Analytical sophistication requirements. If your competitive advantage depends on sophisticated forecasting or advanced analytics, invest in specialists who can deliver these capabilities. If business partnering and decision support matter more than technical sophistication, prioritise generalists.

• Business model characteristics. Complex, diversified businesses benefit from specialists who develop deep knowledge of specific business units. Simpler, more homogeneous businesses can leverage generalists who understand the entire model.

• Technology environment. Organisations with complex system landscapes and substantial integration challenges need technical specialists. Simpler technology environments can manage with generalist capabilities.

A pragmatic approach involves building a hybrid structure with strategic specialisation. Maintain a core of broad business partners who can engage stakeholders across the organisation. Layer in specialists for critical capabilities and develop T-shaped capabilities through structured development programmes.

This structure provides versatility for routine work, specialised capability for complex challenges, and pathways for individuals to develop based on their strengths and interests.

The truth is that the generalist versus specialist debate represents a false dichotomy. Few organisations succeed with pure implementations of either approach. The question isn't whether to build generalists or specialists, it's how to balance breadth and depth appropriately for your context.

The FP&A leaders succeeding in this domain make conscious choices about team design rather than allowing structure to emerge accidentally. They assess their organisation's needs, build deliberately toward optimal structures, and invest in development that creates the capabilities their business requires.

What matters isn't adopting a particular orthodoxy. What matters is matching your team structure to your strategic objectives, organisational context, and capability requirements – then developing your people accordingly.