Compliance, Culture, and Strategy: The Power of a Unified GC/CHRO Role

What if one executive could lead both your legal and people functions—and do it with greater impact than two?

As companies look to streamline their executive teams, a growing number are combining the General Counsel and CHRO roles into a single position. While many assume this dual role is primarily a cost-saving move, it can offer far greater strategic value.

Few people are more qualified to speak to that value than Joshua Horenstein, who has successfully served as SVP, Chief Legal and Human Resources Officer at Innophos, Inc., a global specialty ingredient and chemical manufacturer with 1500+ employees in seven countries. Joshua has held this combo C-Level executive role for almost 8 years while Innophos was a public company and later as a private equity-owned portfolio company. Joshua manages a team of 50+ legal, human resources, regulatory and facilities employees and during his tenure he has completely rebuilt and overhauled both the legal and HR functions at Innophos.

Joshua recently sat down with Legal Practice Lead and Partner Dan Figueroa to share his firsthand experience in the dual role. In this conversation, Joshua reveals how this integration creates unexpected benefits: enhanced legal counsel through deeper understanding of employee dynamics, increased strategic involvement in business decisions, and streamlined executive communication that leads to faster, more holistic problem-solving. Perhaps most surprisingly, he discovered that the HR experience made him “a much better lawyer” by providing crucial context and insights that strictly legal roles typically miss.

The GC/CHRO Advantage

Dan Why don’t we start at a high level? The dual role of GC/CHRO has clearly gained traction over the past decade, but you’ve held it for quite a while. What was the difference for you between being just GC and then adding these responsibilities?

Joshua: As just a GC—and I hate saying “just” because it’s a very important role—I didn’t realize how siloed I was. You’re brought into certain projects or issues, but not the overall business solution. Even in something purely legal, like litigation, if you’re dealing with product liability and working with R&D or commercial folks, understanding what they’re dealing with from an HR angle gives you better insight. That R&D person might be under pressure from a manager to innovate or be upset about their comp, and this liability issue is just another thing in the way. So knowing their goals, their comp structure—it gives you a whole other perspective. I didn’t realize how much better a lawyer I could be by being the CHRO.

Dan: So it gives you more visibility—not just into employees, but different functions. The GC role touches every part of the business. Would you say that’s also true for the CHRO?

Joshua: Even more so. The CHRO has to know how the business is doing, what matters to employees, and how to support teams. If one unit is thriving and another is struggling, that impacts how you approach benefits, comp, and engagement. GCs have broad visibility, but HR is more personal. You know what’s happening in people’s lives. And a good HR person can respond to challenges—or opportunities—without always needing more budget.

Dan: In executive search, there’s a lot of talk about IQ and EQ. Do you think taking on a dual role requires a certain personality or shift in mentality?

Joshua: Absolutely. And it’s not for everyone. Especially in HR, you need strong people management skills. It’s not about being everyone’s best friend—it’s about navigating interpersonal dynamics, problem-solving, and being authentic. Some GCs are great lawyers but not great managers. Same goes for other business leaders. You can coach it to a point, but not everyone is built for it. For those who are, though, it’s a powerful combination. You can align business goals, comp, and compliance all at once.

Dan: Let’s shift to the CEO perspective. You mentioned that it’s one report instead of two, one salary instead of two, and that HR issues often end up with the GC anyway. What are the advantages at the top?

Joshua: One big “aha” moment came from a casual comment my CEO made—he was just happy not to have two direct reports. If one person can cover both areas well, it’s a major win. Especially when issues overlap—legal and HR don’t have to go back and forth. I sit down with the CEO, we go through everything, and we solve it. One meeting. One solution.

Over time, I got faster at answering both HR and legal questions. I knew our risk tolerance, our employee philosophy, and how we wanted to communicate. It made everything more efficient. Better to have three or four HR leads reporting directly to the GC. That way, you get visibility and real-time feedback.

Dan: Is there a point where the dual role doesn’t work? Does company size become a barrier?

Joshua: I wouldn’t say there’s a size where it flat-out doesn’t work. It depends more on the individual. As the company grows, you need someone who can manage multiple functions and who’s experienced in HR. You wouldn’t throw someone into a 30,000-person company with no HR background. But with the right team structure, it’s doable.

In larger organizations, it’s all about delegation and knowing how to build effective layers. Some GCs might not have that operational skill set—but that’s not about size. That’s about the person.

Dan: Are there any other advantages we haven’t talked about?

Joshua: It all boils down to three things: efficiency, better decision-making, and personal development. My teams work cross-functionally—HR business partners and legal staff collaborate on policies, share insights, and improve each other’s thinking. We even run monthly policy reviews as a joint group.

GCs often talk about understanding the business. The fastest way to do that? Talk to HR. That kind of intel shapes better legal advice. There’s also psychological safety. HR teams sometimes feel unsure where their role ends and legal’s begins. But in our structure, the teams know they have to work together. They rely on each other to build smarter, more effective programs.

Structure, Scale, and When It Works

Dan: What’s the right time split between the two roles?

Joshua: In most cases, HR should take at least 60% of your time. Legal—maybe 40% or less. With HR, there are more levers to pull: engagement, culture, retention, productivity. You can influence the business in a lot of ways. Legal is essential, but HR sits closer to the operational core.

Dan: What about highly regulated or litigation-heavy industries? Does that change the equation?

Joshua: Maybe in some cases—high litigation, heavy M&A—legal takes more time. But even then, I go back to structure. If you have the right deputies and systems, you can handle the volume. If your legal budget keeps going up, something’s off. You should be reducing risk, not just reacting to it.

Dan: And visibility across both teams probably creates efficiencies too, right?

Joshua: Absolutely. And it makes you a better operator. Managing multiple budgets—especially HR—gives you a much deeper understanding of the business.

Dan: My own personal mantra is “Legal may not be a profit center, but it can be a cost saver.”

Joshua: Exactly. But it also helps the business take smart risks. You’re not making profit directly, but you’re helping others do it. You give people the confidence to move forward with clarity around risk. I always talk about “reasonable worst-case scenarios” versus absolute worst-case—that helps frame things in a useful, realistic way.

Dan: Would you say someone in a dual role is better positioned to make those risk decisions?

Joshua: Definitely. That’s one of the biggest things I didn’t see coming. HR is all about risk management—decisions on promotions, performance, comp, morale. That mindset carries over into legal. It helps you see the bigger picture. It’s rarely black and white. Most decisions have multiple paths. You’re helping choose the best one, not necessarily the safest.

Compensation Clarity: Knowing the Numbers

Dan: Let’s dive into compensation and the comp committee. You’ve mentioned that as a big advantage.

Joshua: My tagline: there’s nothing more powerful than a GC who knows everybody’s comp—and can handle knowing it. Comp is high-stakes and emotional. It’s an art, but a very data-driven art.

You have to give objective advice, even when it’s uncomfortable. Sometimes you’re recommending a raise for someone you don’t personally like. That’s a mindset shift for some lawyers. HR also gets a lot of unfiltered feedback. People assume they know how to do HR, and you have to stay calm when they give you oversimplified takes like, “If you give them a raise, everyone will want one.” You say: “Totally hear you. Here’s how we’re addressing that.” You can’t get defensive. You have to be ready.

Dan: And when it comes to executive comp, especially your own?

Joshua: You need to remove yourself emotionally and lead with philosophy. You have to say: “Here’s the data for my role, here’s what it shows for others, and here’s what makes sense under our comp strategy, but it’s up to you to choose.” Data gives you a range. Then you help the CEO make the call that works for the company.

Dan: Is there any market data for dual-role compensation?

Joshua: Not really. When I started the dual role seven years ago, we had to piece it together. You rely on your comp team or comp consultant to look at GC data, CHRO data, and then roles like Chief Administrative Officer or CRO to get a sense of cross-functional premiums. Then you adjust for company size, industry, and complexity.

Dan: What’s the ideal background for someone in this role?

Joshua: Labor & Employment law experience helps, but it’s not required. What is essential is in-house experience. I wouldn’t recommend going straight from Big Law into a dual role. But if someone’s grown their responsibilities, especially managing employment law or people topics, they could be ready. The Labor and Employment law background does help with psychological safety—people trust that you know what you’re talking about when it comes to sensitive issues.

More important is experience working with business teams—environmental, IP, operations, sales. That gives you the business fluency you really need in a CHRO. You don’t need to be an expert in FMLA or disability leave. You just need to understand the big picture.