Finding yourself suddenly responsible for an entire human resources management system with no supporting team is both exciting and terrifying. On one hand, you have complete ownership of a critical system that affects everyone in the organization. On the other hand, you’re staring at an implementation project and ongoing maintenance for hundreds or thousands of employees with nobody to share the load.
Organizations often create HRMS manager positions without really understanding what the role entails or how much work is involved. They see it as “managing software” rather than recognizing it’s actually about managing data integrity, business processes, system configuration, user support, vendor relationships, compliance requirements, and continuous improvement—all while keeping critical systems running smoothly.
Let’s talk realistically about what it takes to manage an HRMS for a large organization, what you can reasonably accomplish alone, and how to build the support structure you need to actually succeed in this role.
Can one person really handle HRMS for over 1700 employees?
The short answer is no, not sustainably. One person can keep the system limping along, responding to urgent issues and handling basic maintenance. But doing the job well—maintaining data quality, implementing improvements, optimizing processes, providing good support, and managing a vendor transition—requires more capacity than one person possesses.
Think about what HRMS management actually involves on a daily basis. Employees need help accessing the system, resetting passwords, fixing errors in their records, and understanding how to complete various tasks. Managers need support running reports, processing approvals, updating their team information, and troubleshooting when things don’t work as expected.
HR team members need assistance with system functionality for their specific areas—recruiters working with the applicant tracking module, benefits administrators managing enrollment, payroll staff processing pay, and compensation analysts pulling reports. Each functional area generates questions, discovers issues, and needs configuration changes.
System administration requires regular attention. User accounts need to be created, modified, and deactivated. Security permissions must be managed. Workflow approvals need monitoring to catch bottlenecks. Data cleanup is ongoing because people constantly enter information incorrectly or incompletely.
Then there’s the project work—implementing new modules, configuring features, testing updates, rolling out improvements, and managing the integration of your HRMS with other systems. A vendor transition is essentially a year-long project on top of all the daily operational work.
Seasonal fluctuations compound everything. When you’re bringing on 900 seasonal employees, the volume of system work explodes during that hiring period. Onboarding that many people requires significant HRMS support, and when they leave, there’s offboarding work as well.
One person can survive in this role but will constantly be in reactive mode, putting out fires and handling only the most urgent priorities. Strategic work, process improvement, and anything requiring focused time will never happen. You’ll also burn out fairly quickly from the relentless pressure of being the single point of failure for a critical system.
What does proper HRMS staffing actually look like for this size organization?
There’s no universal formula, but organization size and HRMS complexity give you a general idea of reasonable staffing levels.
For an organization with around 800 year-round employees, a minimum viable HRMS team typically includes two to three people. This provides coverage when someone is out, allows for specialization, and creates enough capacity for both operational support and project work.
The seasonal employee component significantly increases the workload. Those 900 additional employees during peak season essentially double your user base temporarily. Each seasonal hire touches your HRMS—they need accounts created, onboarding processed, time tracked, payroll run, and eventually termination processed. Even though they’re temporary, they create permanent HRMS work.
Larger organizations often structure HRMS teams with distinct roles. There might be an HRMS manager who handles strategy, vendor relationships, and major projects. One or more HRMS analysts focus on system configuration, testing, troubleshooting, and functional support. An HRMS support specialist or coordinator handles tier-one support, user account management, and routine maintenance tasks.
Organizations with complex HRMS ecosystems—multiple integrated systems, sophisticated reporting requirements, or highly customized configurations—need more specialized expertise. You might need someone with strong technical skills for integrations and custom development, a reporting specialist who handles analytics and compliance reporting, and people with deep functional knowledge in areas like payroll or benefits.
Industry matters too. Organizations in highly regulated industries like healthcare or finance face more compliance requirements that drive HRMS complexity. Retail and hospitality organizations with large seasonal workforces need systems and teams optimized for high-volume hiring and terminations.
Many organizations understaff their HRMS function because they don’t see the full scope of work. They focus on “the system runs” without recognizing all the effort required to keep it running well, maintain data quality, support users effectively, and continuously improve processes.
How much can you realistically delegate to other HR team members?
This is the critical question for making a small HRMS team work, and the answer depends heavily on organizational culture, how technical your HR colleagues are, and how willing they are to take ownership beyond their primary responsibilities.
Subject matter experts in different HR functions can handle configuration and testing for their areas if they’re properly trained and willing. Your benefits administrator should be able to manage benefits module configuration, test enrollment workflows, and troubleshoot benefits-related system issues. Your talent acquisition lead could manage applicant tracking configuration and recruiting workflows. Your payroll specialist might handle time and attendance setup and payroll processing configuration.
This distributed ownership model works when several conditions are met. First, people need sufficient technical comfort with the system. If your HR team members struggle with basic technology or find the system overwhelming, they won’t successfully own more complex administrative tasks.
Second, they need time and willingness to take on system responsibility beyond their core jobs. Many HR professionals are already stretched thin with their regular work. Adding HRMS administration, testing, and troubleshooting on top of recruiting, benefits administration, or employee relations work can be too much.
Third, there needs to be clear role definition and coordination. When multiple people have administrative access and make configuration changes, things can quickly get messy without coordination. Who decides on changes? Who tests them? Who communicates them to users? Without clear processes, you end up with conflicting configurations, untested changes going live, and nobody knowing what’s happening in the system.
Training is essential for distributed ownership to work. Your HR colleagues need thorough training not just on using the system but on administering their functional areas. They need to understand how their area connects to other system functions and what could break if they make changes incorrectly.
Documentation becomes even more critical with multiple people managing different parts of the system. You need clearly documented configurations, processes, and decision points so everyone knows how things are set up and why.
The reality is that even with the best-case scenario where HR team members enthusiastically take on system ownership for their areas, you still need a central HRMS person who coordinates everything, maintains system integrity, manages the vendor relationship, handles cross-functional issues, and provides technical expertise. The distributed model reduces the HRMS team size needed but doesn’t eliminate the need for dedicated HRMS resources.
What happens during a major HRMS implementation with insufficient staffing?
A vendor transition for an organization your size is a massive undertaking that exposes any staffing inadequacies immediately and painfully.
Implementation projects demand enormous time investment over extended periods. You’re not just installing new software—you’re analyzing current processes, designing new workflows, configuring the system, migrating data, integrating with other systems, testing everything extensively, training hundreds of users, and managing the transition from old to new systems. This easily becomes a full-time job for several people for six to twelve months.
If you’re attempting implementation alone while also keeping current systems running and supporting daily operations, something will suffer. Most likely, the implementation will drag on much longer than planned, compromises will be made that create future problems, testing will be inadequate, and go-live will be rocky because preparation was rushed.
Data migration is particularly risky with insufficient resources. Moving employee records, payroll history, benefits information, and organizational structure from your old system to your new one requires careful planning, extensive cleanup, multiple rounds of migration testing, and thorough validation. Mistakes in data migration create persistent problems that take years to fully clean up.
Testing requires significant time and coordination. You need to test every module, every workflow, every integration, and every report before go-live. Then you need user acceptance testing where actual HR staff and managers test realistic scenarios. One person cannot possibly complete thorough testing of a full HRMS platform for a large organization.
Training is another huge effort. You need to train HR staff, managers, and employees on new processes and system functionality. Creating training materials, conducting training sessions, and providing go-live support requires substantial time and multiple people to cover all the users who need help.
Change management throughout the implementation is often underestimated. You need to communicate what’s changing, why it’s changing, when it’s changing, and how it affects people. You need to address concerns, gather feedback, adjust plans based on input, and maintain enthusiasm for the project despite inevitable frustrations. This is difficult when you’re buried in technical implementation tasks.
Organizations that understaff implementations often resort to heavy reliance on vendor professional services or implementation consultants. This works to a degree but has downsides. External resources lack knowledge of your specific organization, processes, and culture. They’ll leave after implementation, taking their knowledge with you. And they’re expensive—sometimes expensive enough that you could have hired additional staff members with money to spare.
How do you make the case for additional HRMS team members?
If you’ve concluded that you cannot realistically manage your HRMS responsibilities alone, you need to build a compelling case for additional resources.
Quantify the workload in concrete terms. Track how you spend your time for several weeks. How many hours go to user support? System administration? Reports and data requests? Project work? Vendor management? When you can show that the role requires sixty or seventy hours per week to cover everything, the need for additional help becomes obvious.
Document what’s not getting done because of capacity constraints. Are there system improvements that would save time or improve processes but you never have time to implement? Are reports running slowly because nobody has time to optimize them? Is data quality suffering because you can’t keep up with cleanup? Are users frustrated because support response times are slow? These gaps demonstrate the cost of understaffing.
Calculate the cost of inadequate HRMS support. When managers can’t get the reports they need for decision-making, when payroll errors occur due to data quality issues, when recruiting is slowed by applicant tracking system problems, or when benefits enrollment is delayed by system glitches, there are real business costs. Quantifying these costs strengthens your case.
Benchmark against similar organizations. If comparable organizations your size staff their HRMS teams with three people while you have one, that’s telling. Professional HR associations and industry groups often publish staffing benchmarks that can support your case.
Frame the request around the implementation project if that’s more palatable to leadership. Even if long-term additional staffing isn’t immediately approved, you might get temporary project resources to help with the vendor transition. Once leadership sees the value of adequate HRMS support, permanent staffing often follows.
Propose specific solutions rather than just highlighting problems. Come with a clear proposal—whether that’s adding a full-time HRMS analyst, hiring a part-time support coordinator, using an intern, bringing in temporary contractors during peak periods, or outsourcing specific functions. Show that you’ve thought through options and costs.
What can you outsource or automate to reduce the workload?
If additional staffing isn’t immediately possible, you need to find other ways to create capacity for critical work.
Tier-one support for basic questions and password resets consumes enormous time. Some organizations use chatbots or comprehensive self-service knowledge bases to deflect simple questions. Others outsource basic helpdesk support to manage the volume of routine requests, escalating only complex issues to internal HRMS staff.
Report development and maintenance can be time-consuming, especially if you’re constantly creating custom reports for various stakeholders. Investing time upfront to create self-service reporting tools or training key managers to build their own reports reduces ongoing demand. Some organizations bring in reporting specialists or business intelligence consultants to establish robust reporting infrastructure that reduces manual effort.
Data validation and cleanup is tedious work that doesn’t require high-level expertise. Some organizations hire temporary data entry clerks during cleanup projects. Others use data quality monitoring tools that automatically flag errors and inconsistencies for correction.
Vendor management for routine issues can potentially be handled by a coordinator rather than requiring manager-level attention. Creating a clear escalation path where someone screens vendor inquiries, handles routine matters, and escalates only significant issues preserves your time for higher-value work.
Workflow automation within your HRMS reduces manual processing. Thoroughly configuring automated workflows for common processes like hiring approvals, terminations, job changes, and time-off requests eliminates repetitive manual work. Many HRMS managers spend too little time on upfront automation configuration and pay for it with ongoing manual processing.
Integration between systems reduces duplicate data entry. If information is manually entered into multiple systems, automating those connections saves enormous ongoing effort. This requires upfront technical work but pays ongoing dividends.
Training delivery can be partially automated or outsourced. Creating video tutorials, interactive guides, or self-paced e-learning modules allows users to access training when they need it without requiring live sessions. Some organizations hire professional trainers for large-scale training initiatives during implementations.
What skills beyond technical knowledge does an HRMS manager need?
Successfully managing an HRMS involves much more than understanding the software’s technical functionality.
Business process analysis helps you understand how work actually flows in your organization and how the HRMS should support those workflows. You need to see beyond system features to understand what business problems need solving and how technology can help.
Project management skills are essential for implementations, upgrades, and improvement initiatives. You’re coordinating multiple workstreams, managing timelines, tracking deliverables, and ensuring projects stay on track despite competing priorities and obstacles.
Communication ability matters enormously. You’re constantly translating between technical vendor language and business-focused HR colleagues. You’re explaining system concepts to non-technical users, gathering requirements from stakeholders, and presenting proposals to leadership. Clear communication prevents misunderstandings that create expensive problems.
Political navigation skills help you work effectively across the organization. HRMS work touches everyone, and you’ll inevitably encounter resistance to changes, conflicting priorities, and competing agendas. Understanding organizational politics and building relationships helps you implement changes successfully.
Analytical thinking allows you to diagnose problems effectively. When something isn’t working correctly, you need to methodically identify root causes rather than just addressing symptoms. You also need to analyze data to spot patterns, identify improvement opportunities, and make evidence-based decisions.
Vendor management capability helps you get the most from your HRMS provider. You need to hold vendors accountable for service delivery, negotiate effectively, escalate issues appropriately, and maintain a productive working relationship.
Change management expertise helps people adapt to new systems and processes. Technical implementations fail most often not because of technology problems but because of people challenges—resistance to change, inadequate training, poor communication, or lack of buy-in from key stakeholders.
These softer skills often matter more than deep technical expertise. You can learn system functionality, but business acumen, interpersonal effectiveness, and strategic thinking are what enable HRMS managers to drive real organizational value.
How do you prioritize when everything feels urgent and important?
With insufficient capacity to do everything, ruthless prioritization becomes essential for survival.
System stability and payroll accuracy are always top priorities. If the system is down or payroll is wrong, nothing else matters. These issues get immediate attention regardless of other work.
Compliance requirements come next. Things that create legal risk, regulatory violations, or audit findings cannot be ignored. If a configuration change is needed for compliance, it jumps the queue.
Issues affecting large numbers of users take precedence over individual problems. A bug that prevents managers from approving time off for their teams affects dozens of people and disrupts workflow. That gets fixed before an individual employee’s personal data correction.
Quick wins that free up future capacity are worth prioritizing. If you can automate a workflow that currently requires manual processing every week, the upfront time investment pays ongoing dividends by reducing your workload.
Strategic initiatives that leadership cares about get attention because organizational support for your role depends partly on delivering visible value. If your CFO wants better workforce analytics, making progress on that reporting project maintains executive support for HRMS investments.
Projects with external deadlines or dependencies must stay on track. If you’re implementing a new module that must be live before open enrollment, that deadline is firm. Similarly, if other departments are waiting on HRMS work before they can proceed, those dependencies create urgency.
Everything else goes into a backlog that you revisit periodically. Nice-to-have improvements, individual user requests that have workarounds, and non-urgent enhancements wait until you have capacity—which might be never if you’re chronically understaffed.
Transparent communication about prioritization helps manage expectations. When stakeholders understand why their request isn’t happening immediately and where it sits in the queue, they’re more patient than when requests simply disappear into a black hole.
What does success look like for an HRMS team of one?
Given the constraints of sole responsibility for a large HRMS, defining realistic success criteria helps you focus on what truly matters.
System reliability and uptime is fundamental. Users can access the system when they need it, core processes like payroll work correctly, and critical functionality doesn’t break. You’re keeping the lights on consistently.
Reasonable support response times mean users get help within a day or two for most issues, with urgent matters handled same-day. You’re not providing instant white-glove service, but people aren’t waiting weeks for responses either.
Clean core data matters more than perfect data. Employee names, positions, compensation, and manager relationships are accurate. Other data fields might have gaps or inconsistencies, but the critical information HR and payroll need is reliable.
Key stakeholders in HR and leadership feel supported. The CFO gets the financial reports needed for board meetings. The HR director can pull headcount and turnover analytics. The payroll manager has what’s needed to process pay accurately. You’re meeting the most critical needs even if you can’t fulfill every request.
Major system incidents are handled effectively. When something breaks, you diagnose it quickly, engage vendor support appropriately, communicate clearly about impacts and expected resolution, and follow up to prevent recurrence.
Critical projects make steady progress. The vendor implementation moves forward at a reasonable pace. Required compliance configurations happen on time. High-priority enhancements get completed even if lower-priority items wait.
You’re not working eighty-hour weeks unsustainably. Success includes maintaining reasonable work-life balance, taking time off, and not burning out. An HRMS function that collapses when the single person managing it inevitably leaves is not sustainable.
This might mean accepting that many potential improvements won’t happen, that users sometimes wait longer for support than ideal, and that the system never becomes as optimized as you’d like. These trade-offs are unfortunate but realistic given the constraints.
When should you consider leaving if staffing doesn’t improve?
This is a personal decision, but certain warning signs indicate that your situation may not be sustainable or healthy long-term.
If you’re consistently working excessive hours just to keep basic operations running with no end in sight, the situation isn’t sustainable. Chronic overwork leads to burnout, health problems, and declining quality of work.
If repeated requests for additional resources are dismissed or ignored despite clear evidence of need, leadership either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about proper HRMS support. You can’t force an organization to value something it doesn’t.
If you’re blamed for issues that result directly from insufficient resources, the organization is setting you up as a scapegoat rather than acknowledging systemic understaffing.
If your professional development is stalled because you’re completely consumed with reactive firefighting and never have time for strategic work or skill building, you’re not growing in your career.
If the stress of sole responsibility for a critical system is affecting your health, relationships, or overall wellbeing, no job is worth that cost.
However, before leaving, exhaust all reasonable options. Have you clearly articulated the need for additional support? Have you proposed specific solutions? Have you tried to build a case with data and business impact? Have you explored temporary help, contracted services, or other alternatives? Have you given leadership reasonable time to respond?
If you’ve done all of this and the situation remains untenable, moving to an organization that properly resources its HRMS function is a reasonable decision. Your skills are valuable, and plenty of organizations understand that effective HRMS support requires adequate staffing.
The reality is that managing a full HRMS implementation and ongoing operations for over 1700 employees as a solo effort is genuinely not feasible for sustained success. You can survive in the role, but thriving requires either additional staff, significant outsourcing, dramatically reduced scope, or acceptance that many important things simply won’t get done. Understanding these constraints helps you set realistic expectations and advocate effectively for the resources needed to do the job properly.
About Post Author
