You are on page 1of 19

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.

com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm

ER 25,3

Line manager involvement in HRM: an inside view


Douglas Renwick
Management School, University of Shefeld, Shefeld, UK

262

Received September Keywords Line management, Employee relations, Strategy, Human resource management 2002 Revised December 2002 Abstract Although line managers have always been involved in managing human resources Accepted December 2002 (HR), it is within human resource management (HRM) that their involvement has been placed centre-stage as a core element of an HR approach. This article reports ndings from 40 interviews with line managers on their experiences in handling HR work that has been devolved to them, from a study of three different UK work organisations. The study nds that signicant organisational benets and costs exist from involving the line in HR work. The article concludes that participation of both line and HR managers in HRM needs to be re-assessed, as line involvement in HRM is a problematic initiative for organisations to adopt.

Employee Relations Vol. 25 No. 3, 2003 pp. 262-280 q MCB UP Limited 0142-5455 DOI 10.1108/01425450310475856

Introduction The involvement of line managers[1] in human resource management (HRM) has always been noted in the literature (Guest, 1987; Legge, 1995; Storey, 1992), but in recent years the line have been seen to play a more prominent role in HRM due to more HR work being devolved to them (Brewster and Larsen, 2000; Currie and Procter, 2001; Guest and King, 2001; Storey, 1992, 2001; Ulrich, 1997, 1998, 2001). Although devolution to the line in the UK is low compared with other European countries, and the dominant pattern across Europe is of sharing human resouces (HR) work between HR and the line (Brewster and Larsen, 2000), WERS 98[2] notes that line managers outnumber employee relations specialists in the handling of employee relations (ER) issues at British workplaces (Millward et al., 2000, pp. 52-3). The rationale of why line involvement in HRM has come to the fore in recent years is seen by Brewster and Larsen (2000) to have ve main elements: to reduce costs; to provide a more comprehensive approach to HRM; to place responsibility for HRM with managers most responsible for it; to speed up decision making; and as an alternative to outsourcing the HR function (adapted from Brewster and Larsen, 2000, pp. 196-8). Other authors note the different roles that line managers should now play in organisations and the reasons for them. These include ideas that line managers are now expected to do more of their own HRM and can benet from crosstraining in HR processes (Mohrman and Lawler, 1998, pp. 443-4); that the line should lead the way in fully integrating HR into the companys real work (Ulrich, 1998, pp. 125-6); and that the line adopt a partnership approach between HR, line and employees to manage HR issues an HR triad (Jackson and Schuler, 2000, p. 25).

The possibility of increased line manager involvement in HRM surfaced in the British and American literature from the mid to late 1990s on in the form of partnerships being formed between HR and the line (Eisenstat, 1996; Hutchinson and Wood, 1995; Ulrich, 1997, 1998, 2001), to add value and deliver results for organisations (Ulrich, 1997, 1998). The costs and benets of devolution initiatives were also detailed at this time (Storey, 2001; Storey and Sisson, 2000)[3]. The thinking here is that the line should engage in HR processes which span boundaries outside the organisation, where they have freedom to experiment rather than being excluded from decision making (Currie and Procter, 2001, p. 57). Other academic HR literature at the turn of the millennium started to discuss the issues and dilemmas that surround line manager involvement in HRM (Brewster and Larsen, 2000).

Line manager involvement in HRM 263

Literature review The general background to line manager involvement in HRM in the literature is now outlined, as is their involvement in specic aspects of HRM. In general terms, although line managers have always been involved in managing HR at work, changes in the organisation of work increased the power and inuence of trade unions and shop stewards in the 1960s and 1970s, giving personnel managers greater powers to co-ordinate managements response by negotiating and administering collective agreements. As trade union inuence decreased in the 1980s and 1990s line managers re-asserted their prerogative to improve organisational performance in increasingly competitive markets. The specic ndings in the literature are now examined. Studies in this general area have historically revealed that chief production managers thought the personnel/industrial relations (IR) activity too timeconsuming and passed it onto others like factory administrators (Marsh, 1971, p. 22), and little evidence that managers saw themselves as formal negotiators (Marsh and Gillies, 1983). Managers saw the value of having specialists in personnel/IR, took their advice gladly, but were not keen to be subject to their direction, although they were, in general terms, willing to accept IR as part of their work without much resentment (Marsh and Gillies, 1983, pp. 32, 35-6, 38). In the operation of performance management systems, a weak link has often been the involvement of line managers in them. Harris (2001) for example, (quoting Gratton et al.,1999) found that managers disliked the bureaucracy involved, and argues that this can lead to abdication management on the part of line managers, and an unwillingness to accept responsibility for decisions and judgements they have made (Beaver and Harris, 1996, as quoted in Harris (2001, pp. 1190, 1182, 1187)). Redmans (2001) ndings on performance appraisal noted that it is often done poorly by line managers, (but the line see themselves as good at it), and is it their most disliked managerial activity

ER 25,3

264

(Redman, 2001, pp. 71-2, 68). Others note the need to kick or og managers into doing performance management properly (Guest and King, 2001, p. 26). In the eld of training and developing the line in HRM, there are scarce ndings, the notable exceptions being Brewster and Larsen (1992) on it occurring through experiential learning, and comment from a line manager that training in HRM was not needed as most of this is common sense anyway (Cunningham and Hyman, 1995, p. 18). Much work has been done on this topic in the general area of ER where research has focused on line attitudes to employee involvement (EI) schemes, and handling styles in grievance and discipline cases. On EI, Fenton-OCreevys (1998) survey of HR directors/MDs/and equivalents found that positive outcomes of employee involvement were lower in organizations that experienced middle management resistance (Fenton-OCreevy, 1998: 67). Fenton-OCreevys later (2001) study of managers attitudes to EI found their attitudes to be no more negative than those of senior managers, and concluded that where EI schemes fail senior managers may simply be scapegoating middle managers, and that middle manager resistance to change may be seen by the middle manager concerned as pragmatic adaptation (Fenton-OCreevy, 2001, pp. 24, 38). Marchingtons (2001) work on EI schemes found four unintended impacts of involving line managers, supervisors, rst-line managers and shop-oor managers in EI. These are that they may not be committed to it, may be dubious about it, may not have the abilities needed to work direct schemes on the ground, may have a work overload, and may face deciencies in training them to work schemes well (Marchington, 2001, pp. 238-42). Line manager involvement in grievance and discipline cases includes work on supervisor and managerial preferred handling styles. This research found that most organisations had tended to ask HR managers to sit in in these meetings, to police line managers and to ensure that good outcomes prevailed (Rollinson et al., 1996). The IRS (2001) ndings on managing discipline found that line managers were more involved than before in taking responsibility for discipline procedures, but were still less involved than their HR counterparts in it (IRS, 2001). Possible reasons for a lack of line enthusiasm for undertaking grievance and discipline duties may include the complexity of work involved, them being time-consuming activities, and/or fear of line shortcomings in this area being exposed. In the area of pay, Currie and Procters (2001) work on the National Health Service (NHS) found that middle managers play an important role as contributors to strategic change linking pins, and that this came from the greater discretion given to the line in implementing deliberate HR strategies and their role in synthesising information (Currie and Procter, 2001, pp. 58-9, 63-6). On the issue of individual performance-related pay (IPRP), Harris (2001) study, found a lack of ownership of the processes of performance-related pay

by the line, and the line viewing a hidden agenda[4] of HR wanting to change the culture; remove complacency; make managers manage; save salary costs; reduce stafng levels; increase work-loads; [gain] more control; and focus on under-performance (Harris, 2001, p. 1184). In the area of absence management, Dunn and Wilkinsons (2002) study found that most responsibility in everyday cases rested with line managers, but some organisations had an ad hoc approach, with unclear HR and line responsibilities, producing a case of muddling through (Dunn and Wilkinson, 2002, p. 245). In the area of managing long-term sickness and disability, Cunningham and James (2001) found limits occurring in line manager involvement in it due to line stubbornness in not wanting to attend training programmes on it; the line arguing that insufcient training was provided for them; low line skill levels in it; the line handling some cases without specialist (HR) help; and the line supervising punitive sanctions connected to it (Cunningham and James, 2001, pp. 20-21). Finally, the introduction of new technologies like HR shared services and e-HR to deliver HR advice and services to the line has brought problems, notably a questioning of the impact that such changes would have on line manager workload, seen at British Nuclear Fuels, and the willingness of line managers to take on more HR work, seen at Marks & Spencer (Deeks, 2000). UK developments in context Several issues emerge from the review above. These include the extent to which line managers are being forced into taking on increased responsibilities in HRM in a climate of fear and mistrust driven by HR (Harris, 2001), and the line being the lling in the sandwich as HR work is dumped on them via devolution (McConville and Holden, 1999). The capability of the line to learn about HR work effectively and to use this knowledge fairly and consistently when treating employees is also in question. Thus Brewster and Larsen (2000) detail the issues of line managers desire, capacity, ability, training, and conservatism in completing HR work. Other issues include what happens in situations where the HR function is small and/or understaffed and cannot intervene to promote good practice (as in many SMEs), and whether owner-managers and/or line managers abuse ` their position vis-a-vis employees where the HR function is absent. Lastly, we may want to know whether decentralisation and the greater involvement of line managers in HR decisions produces better organisational performance, as Gibbs (2001, p. 330) work suggests it does not. Methodology This paper reports ndings from 40 interviews with line managers on their experiences of, and involvement in, undertaking HR work in organisations where devolution of some HR work to the line has occurred, which is drawn

Line manager involvement in HRM 265

ER 25,3

266

from a larger study of HR-line work relations. The study investigates the issues surrounding line manager involvement in HRM, the problems associated with devolving HR work to the line, and the levels of line and HR participation in HRM. These line managers conform to the denition give by Currie and Procter (2001) of being middle managers. Research was done in three work organisations located in the UK a foreign-owned private sector multi-divisional utility group (Utility Co.), a large public sector local authority (Local Authority), and a foreign-owned private sector manufacturer of switching equipment (Manufacture Co.). In addition to data sourced from Manufacture Co., data were also drawn from four of the divisions of Utility Co. (Power, Energy, Generation and Telecom), and two of the departments in Local Authority (Housing, Development and Regeneration). All three organizations had an HR director on either the top management team or board of directors and devolution of some HR work to line managers. The HR work devolved to the line included performance appraisal, redundancy selection, pay awards, recruitment, communication with, and counselling of, employees, sickness absence and employee development (Utility Co.); management development, lling vacancies, performance appraisal, re-skilling employees, grievance handling (Local Authority); and co-ordination of an employee recognition scheme (Manufacture Co.). All three organisations were large employers, Utility Co. employing around 50,000 FTE, Local Authority 30,000 FTE and Manufacture Co. around 5,000 FTE respectively. Access to interview these managers was gained through the HR directors at each organisation, with managers chosen for interview at random from a company list, and all (tape-recorded) semi-structured interviews taking place within the research period of 1998-2000. A qualitative methodology was used to gain rich, meaningful data via case studies to develop analytical insights from three different work contexts. Line managers in the different divisions and departments in the three organisations were interviewed to give breadth and depth of managerial opinion, and to increase the reliability of ndings through the use of multiple respondents to gain corroborated accounts (Yin, 1994, p. 92). Pseudonyms have been used to protect organisational and respondent anonymity in this sensitive area of inquiry. The ndings from the case studies are detailed (below) in the following sequence: operational, positive, negative and general aspects. Case study ndings: perceptions of line managers Operational aspects Line managers had larger numbers of employees to manage than ever before:
Just over 30 people (Manufacture Co.). The staff doubles more or less (Housing Dept, Local Authority).

This in turn meant that they had many more HR issues to handle. As one line manager put it:
Ive got a team of 243 people, and its my responsibility to look after everything for them, their safety, productivity, and hygiene factors, down to problems at home (Power Business, Utility Co.).

Line manager involvement in HRM 267

Still, the lines of responsibility between HR and the line in HRM were clear from a line viewpoint:
HR give you the implications of the options you have, but the decisions mine that I am going to take within the boundaries that Im allowed (Energy Business, Utility Co.).

Positive aspects The line were relatively happy in completing some HR work:
I do step into personnel/HR if something needs to be done (Power Business, Utility Co.). If there wasnt any personnel [function] Id need to do personnel work anyway, because its my job (Power Business, Utility Co.). [Employee recognition scheme.] There are 900 people here, and I want those people to know that Ive noted it [their performance], recognised it, and appreciate it. Its great to be Santa Claus sometimes in the year as opposed to being part of the *******. You handout a bag of sweets instead of a P45. So I get a kick out of it I must say as well (Manufacture Co.).

This occurred even to the extent of some managers wanting to take a leading role in HR initiatives:
IiP I sort of champion that (Power Business, Utility Co.).

Line managers were keen to be seen to be doing HR work professionally:


[Redundancy selection.] It will be done in a way that will be professional, that we can hold our head up internally and say we did our best for the staff (Power Business, Utility Co.).

The line were insistent that they should, and did, take their responsibilities and accountabilities in HRM seriously:
It is important that you dont allow line managers in terms people management to walk away from their responsibilities (Energy Business, Utility Co.). I will not have anybody [our line managers] calling HR, because we as a team have to deliver to the individual (Telecom Business, Utility Co.). [Pay awards.] Youve got to decide what to do, and to understand what the rules are (Telecom Business, Utility Co.). Management is about managing people and money, and they [the line] can only achieve what they need to achieve by managing those things correctly. The most successful managers are the ones that talk to their staff.

ER 25,3

If the responsibility is with them [the line], they cant accept a negative response from personnel. They have to get a result (all Housing Dept, Local Authority).

The line acknowledged that they needed to be considerate of employees wishes and interests:

268

[HRM.] Its actually about making sure that we never lose sight that people are valuable to us and we treat them with respect (Energy Business, Utility Co.). I work by persuasion rather than table banging, and I think people appreciate that (Telecom Business, Utility Co.). [Redundancies.] We have got to allay peoples fears, its all about establishing a relationship, about honesty, and communication (Telecom Business, Utility Co.). People have things happen to them in their own private life and any decent group leader or manager has got to be aware of that, thats the way that you should be managing the teams (Development and Regeneration Dept, Local Authority).

The line had high regard for the role HR played in helping them in HR work:
These folk have got the training, thats their profession and I think you have got to take that on board. [Grievance handling] the work of the grievance is done by the line manager, but during all this you are getting advice, comment, and support, from personnel (both Development and Regeneration Dept, Local Authority).

Negative aspects The line were not totally convinced that doing HR work was something they should spend too much time on:
What you dont want to do is dilute my focus from what my main objectives are, which is keeping lights on (Power Business, Utility Co.). [Line role is] selling and to negotiate commercial transactions, not to be an expert in HRM (Energy Business, Utility Co.).

And doing HR work was difcult as other managerial duties needed completing as well:
Quality of product and quality of service is a given. Time and cost can be conicting requirements. But they are not exclusive, they all tie in. You cant go to a customer and say well we gave you two out of three, thats ok isnt it? (Manufacture Co.).

The line thought that doing HR work was difcult:


Ive picked up numerous HR issues that are historical, that goes with the territory (Telecom Business, Utility Co.).

This led to the line being reliant on receiving guidance in HR work from HR managers:

I rely on HR to keep us right in employment law, to protect my position as much as anything else (Telecom Business, Utility Co.).

The line admitted their own inadequacies in HRM:


[In HRM.] What role does the line manager play? I think it depends . . . there are those who really dont want anything to do with it, and until there is full generation change you can never claim that you have changed the culture (Generation Business, Utility Co.). Look at sickness absence, there are those line managers that will do that without being reminded, there are those that will do that because they care, and there are line managers that just will not do it unless they are actually pushed into doing it. I think the more HR that we push down to the line managers, the more uncontrolled it will become (Generation Business, Utility Co.). One of the main problems we have had in the past was we werent very selective about how we appointed foremen or supervisors, but we are getting rid of these people gradually (Generation Business, Utility Co.). Devolution is generally well accepted by managers and [in HR work] how you deal with it is really, really important. Its difcult to do both and its not fair on the staff, but that depends upon managers and their style, if theyre people people or strategic people. [Management development.] A lot of effort was going managers realising that they have to look at themselves critically (both Housing Dept, Local Authority).

Line manager involvement in HRM 269

Line manager inadequacy in HRM was sometimes seen to lead to problems when the line were doing HR work:
Managers have had to deal with staff who need re-skilling much more frequently than was the case in the past. Managers have to be much more exible and to communicate more readily and quickly with staff. There are certain times of the year when your budgets have to be worked out and that just takes absolute priority. If we had a stafng crisis then that would take priority. Its got to be kind of exible. [HR issues.] Quite often the manager doesnt have the time to deal with the problem and hes maybe unaware of it. And some managers undoubtedly are strong characters and give staff a hard time (all Housing Dept, Local Authority).

Line managers admitted that they were sometimes slack in completing HR work:
HR are an easy target to blame [but] half the time the line has been intransigent in its own progress. [Performance-related pay.] There was a consistency last year but not so this year, and you ask yourself why? That was down to the individual manager deciding on what he thought that guy was worth, and it didnt go down to knowledge of the individual and assessing his performance. [Performance appraisal scheme] The nal year interview is the only contact hes had with his member of staff, and in certain situations it has been done over the telephone.

ER 25,3

The discipline from some managers leaves a lot to be desired (all Telecom Business, Utility Co.).

The line had many problems with HR in completing HR-related tasks:


[A slow pace of change from HR.] There is only one way to really change and thats change the people. We only ever go halfway.

270

[Compulsory redundancies.] There is no such thing as a compulsory redundancy. I can see the good PR side of it, but we may be hurting ourselves . . . you dont have power of who you want to release really. When we get into the areas of exibility about what grades of cars and salary increases, at times Ive found myself being policed by the rule book. The rule book wont necessarily give you the best results, were ghting it and well see where we get to. [Employee development.] The new Corporate HR guy wants to spread his wings . . . [and he said] only one person from the company will attend courses and come back and will write a paper for the rest of the company to read. Its a load of absolute b******t (all Generation Business, Utility Co.).

The line thought that problems in HR policy lead to poor outcomes in HRM:
The Words come out from the Executive that we are in our expansion and growth phase, but none of the employees can actually see that. [Management development programme.] This is a HR initiative from corporate HR, but something is wrong. You should be developed now, not you are not going to get there for 18 months. It would be very nice to have supervisors who could carry out the HR function, but youve got to say well what is the price that you are paying for that? (all Generation Business, Utility Co.).

Line managers felt that they were being exible and adaptable in doing HR work, but that this was not necessarily being recognised:
We cant just keep absorbing people and turning them into the roles if we want to go forward. I have already absorbed some people, and I think thats a level of exibility that Ive shown to the company (Generation Business, Utility Co.). [Performance appraisals] That can be a fairly time consuming process if you have to sit down with at least a dozen people (Housing Dept, Local Authority).

The line had conicts with HR:


If you really fall out you try to give them a doing and it depends how well they defend themselves (Housing Dept, Local Authority).

General aspects Line managers acknowledged a requirement to cater to business needs in the HR work they did:

We as line managers, are in fact the shareholders agents. I do believe its important that you have proper annual appraisal processes, and give your people as broad a training as possible (both Power Business, Utility Co.).

Line manager involvement in HRM 271

The line saw that engaging in HR work could provide a boost to their careers:
[Line managers.] If they dont know what the future is, they are looking at [HR work] as a development activity, another string in my bow (Development and Regeneration Dept, Local Authority). Im quite happy to partake in any particular initiative that they [HR] have got, because it can only enhance your working life (Telecom Business, Utility Co.).

The line were aware of their responsibilities in HRM, but saw that HR needed to show a reciprocal commitment to line in general management work also:
I think the HR issues are too important for us to abdicate the throne to a group of HR people, equally so I think the business is too important for the HR people to abdicate the throne to us. I think we have to mix the oil and water together, and give the jug a good shake (Manufacture Co.).

Summary To summarise, when looking across these cases several issues emerge, and are detailed below: (1) Positives: . The line are taking on responsibility and accountability in HR work. . Flexibility is forthcoming from the line to do HR work. . The line are keen to take part on doing HR work. . The line are managing large numbers of employees. . The line take a professional and serious attitude to doing HR work. . Line managers are relatively happy doing some HR work. . The line are considerate of employee needs and wishes. . The line see HR as positive helpers in HR work. . The line see career benets for them in doing HR work. (2) Negatives: . The line have many duties, and lack time to do HR work well. . The line do not see themselves as experts in HRM. . Doing HR work dilutes the lines generalist managerial focus. . Signicant line inadequacies in handling HR work. . Tensions between line and HR over transfer and completion of HR duties. . The line need to reect and be critical of their performance in HR work.

ER 25,3

272

The line are reliant on HR to do HR work properly. Differing line commitment and discipline levels to doing HRM. . The line have responsibility and accountability in HRM, but little authority. . Little appreciation of line exibility in doing HR tasks from rms. (3) General: . The line detail their role as shareholders agents. . The line want reciprocity from HR to deliver business targets if the line do HR work.
. .

Discussion When reecting back on the case ndings with the themes in the literature, several interesting issues emerge. These are now detailed in turn. This study conrms the ndings made in Brewster and Larsens (2000) work, as the line managers here acknowledge that they shared the completion of HR work with HR (in grievance handling for example), that there was a drive to reduce costs (in the line managing more employees than before) and that a more comprehensive approach to HRM occurred (as the line did handle HRM). There was also a drive to place responsibility for HRM to the line, an in using attempt to increase the speed of decision making, and using the line as an alternative to outsourcing the HR function. However, there were also mixed results, as the line proved inadequate in doing some HR work, took decisions in HRM that were later blocked by HR, and the line acknowledged that HR specialists were needed. Thus the line lacked capability and responsibility when doing some HR work, tried to increase the speed of decision making by wanting to by-pass procedure, and therefore demonstrated the need for an expanded HR function, not for HR to be outsourced. When compared with the theories of Morhman and Lawler (1999), Ulrich (1997, 1998, 2001) and Jackson and Schuler (2000), the line gave us mixed messages. For example, the line were expected to do more HR on their own, they did integrate HR work with the organisations other work (we have to mix the oil and water together), they worked with the intent of forming a partnership with HR and employees, and tried to add value and deliver results for their organisations. However, partnerships seemed to fall apart as the line had signicant conicts and tensions with HR (over awarding salary increases and allocating company cars for example), and were seen to lack discipline when conducting performance appraisals hardly a partnership ethos. Whether the line added value and delivered results could be argued either way from the cases, but the line were keen to take on the responsibility to do more HR work (add value), and produced mixed results in terms of doing parts of it well (delivering results).

A frustration for the line was that they needed HR advice (as per Brewster and Larsen (2000)), but when it came it was often seen as unhelpful to them (as per Guest et al. (2001, p. 67)), as the line felt they were being policed by the rule book. Findings from this study conrm the anecdotal evidence in Brewster and Larsen (2000) that the line do not accept devolution willingly and neither do HR. If we look at the work of Marsh and Gillies (1983) and replace personnel/IR in their work with HR today, then we can see similar results to their ndings. The line thought that doing HR work was time consuming when other priorities were pressing (customers, time, quality of product), but that the line did see the value of having HR, for advice, comment and support. The line were keen to take HR advice, but not to be subject to their direction HR give you the implications of the options, but the decisions mine and there was a willingness to accept HR work as line work, as devolution is generally well accepted by managers. If we shift our focus to look at specic HR initiatives, there is no data in the study to compare with the literature on performance management, employee involvement, discipline, local pay, absence management, disability and HR shared services/e-HR mentioned in the literature review. However, we can comment on the other specic HR areas that were in operation at these organisations. In performance appraisal for example, the ndings from Redman (2001) that the line dislike this activity are conrmed, as it was sometimes done over the phone by them, seen as time-consuming, and something that the line lacked discipline in. But Cunningham and Hymans (1995) comment from a line manager that HR work was common sense was not conrmed. Line managers in this study saw HR work as a specialist activity, which they (the line) needed HR advice on. However, the line were willing to give HR work a try, and this perhaps raises notions of the line as gifted amateurs or ungifted professionals in HRM, depending how you read the data here. The line were enthusiastic about employee recognition, and if we compare our ndings to those of Fenton OCreevy (1998, 2001) on EI, there was little comment from the line of resisting it, nor of them as scapegoats in its operation if it went wrong. In grievance handling, the line did see an element of HR policing them (Rollinson et al.,1996), but the line seemed to welcome this as it kept them on the right track, especially when it came to matters concerning employment law. There was little notion of the line being subject to a hidden agenda when operating individual performance-related pay schemes (Harris, 2001), but the line did acknowledge that they were not happy with it as it was seen as inexible. Neither was there a lack of ownership by the line in the schemes operation, (Harris, 2001), although the line were keen to have control over salary decisions, but did not use this control professionally and consistently

Line manager involvement in HRM 273

ER 25,3

274

when making pay awards. In sickness management (see Dunn and Wilkinson, 2002), the line commitment to monitoring it varied, and the line thought that if more work like this being pushed down onto them, the more uncontrolled it would all become. If we shift our focus back up from the specics to the general level, a series of mixed results emerged in relation to the other issues raised in the literature. On Harris (2001) notions of the line being forced into doing HR work, this studys ndings support both a yes and no position. Yes, in the sense that the line were not keen in doing HR work as it diluted their focus, did not want to be experts in HRM, and saw a price to be paid in making supervisors do HRM. But no, in the sense of the line being keen to do some HR work as part of their job. A similar series of results emerged when examining McConville and Holdens (1999) notions of the line having HR work dumped on them, and the line being the lling in the sandwich. A yes position is supported in that the line were managing more employees than before on a day-to-day basis, but was contradicted by the line seeing a need to do HR work as its my job anyway, and acting as the champions of IiP for example. Whether the line are capable in HRM (Brewster and Larsen, 2000) we can again argue a yes and no position from this studys ndings. Yes, in the sense that the line did manage to complete some HR work (in employee recognition, redundancy selection and sickness absence), but no in the sense that not all of this work was done well. No also in the sense that the line were not reective about their performance in HR work, may not have the time to do it, and were perhaps unaware of all it entailed when doing it. This is perhaps maybe one reason for their self-description of themselves being intransigent in their own progress when it came to HRM. Finally, on the issue of whether the line treated employees fairly and consistently that was raised earlier, again both cases can be made. This study conrmed that that the line were aware of the need to treat employees with respect, conduct appraisals for them, and be professional in employee relations work (like they did in redundancy selection). But the study also showed that the line can be strong characters, give staff a hard time and see themselves as shareholders agents rather than as the agents of all the organisational stakeholders. The general analytical conclusions from this study are that (see Brewster and Larsen, 2000) the line do have the desire to do HR work, and may have both the capacity and the ability to do it well if adequately trained and assisted by HR, but not if they try do it without signicant HR help. Concern over line manager involvement in HRM does not simply contain issues of low line skill levels in it and their conservatism in falling back on what they know and using it to produce differing results (see Brewster and Larsen, 2000). It also contains perhaps an acknowledgement of the lack of judgement that the line exercise when doing HR work. A consequent feeling

(from the ndings in this study) is that although the line appreciate that HR work is a specialist area, they (the line) feel that they can still do it, and are keen to demonstrate their skills in it, whether their skills in it are imaginary or real. It could be argued that they are making HR work seem mentally a simple common-sense exercise, even though their lived experience of doing it is perhaps that it is not. Line manager commitment to HRM In terms of a scorecard, this study on line manager involvement in HRM provides us with some mixed results. Positive outcomes for employees depend on line managers being skilled in HRM as they are the interpreters of HR policy (Tyson and Fell, 1992, Marchington, 1999), and that these managers are committed to HR practices per se. But this study reinforces the themes in the literature that such axioms cannot necessarily be assumed to be delivered in practice (Budhwar, 2000; Cunningham and Hyman, 1999; Marchington, 1999). Although the line were considerate to employees needs, wishes and concerns, there were still questions on whether line managers carried out HR work fairly. The ndings here reinforce the impression in the literature of line managers acting as a barrier to professional people management (Cunningham and James, 2001; Harris, 2001; Redman, 2001). Perhaps it is time that organisations seriously considered re-centralising HR work, or using more (independent) HR specialists, if the line cannot, or will not, complete their HR work in a professional and consistent manner? Limitations The limitations of this study are that it only reports the views of line managers on the issue of their experiences being involved in HR work from research undertaken in three case study work organisations located in the UK. Statistical generalisation cannot be made, and only (limited) analytical generalisations can be made as well. Because of the random sample we cannot be certain whether better line management practice in HRM exists or not, but neither can we ascertain whether worse line practice in it exists either. Still, the benets of this study are that it has given an inside view from the line on their involvement in HRM across a number of HR work areas, and that they have been fairly critical of their own conduct in it which is not necessarily guaranteed in self-reports by managers of themselves. Conclusions This paper has sought to outline some of the issues involved in line manager involvement in HRM. All three of the organisations studied were large employers, and had adequate resources to develop line managers in HRM. However, questions were still apparent about the capability and commitment of

Line manager involvement in HRM 275

ER 25,3

276

the line in HR work in these organisations. There is therefore the possibility that poorer HR practice is being carried out by line managers in SMEs. In the light of the ndings of this study, the main implication for academics, practitioners and policy makers are that the issue of trust in HRM is back on the agenda, but with a new twist to previous foci (i.e. Sparrow and Marchington, 1998). Line manager involvement in HRM raises the issue of whether employees trust the motives of line managers to look after their wellbeing, and the motives of HR managers in seeking to devolve HR work to the line. The problems surrounding line manager involvement in HRM can be seen to be fairly reective of debates on the future of work (see Sparrow, 2003). A structural hole may arise if organisations adopt a devolved HR approach as people management is not completed properly either by the line or HR. Trust decits may emerge between managers and employees as they question the motives of each other. The willingness of HR to share their knowledge of HR work with the line is called into question, as this contains the seed of HRs own redundancy if they lose all control over operational HR knowledge. The assumed split between HR taking a strategic HR role and the line doing operational (perhaps devolved) HR work seems a false one. The ndings from this study indicate that greater participation is needed when devolution of HR work to the line occurs, not less, to ensure that good outcomes in HRM arise (particularly in employee relations). Hence work organisations in the UK still seek to employ large numbers of line managers to handle employee relations work (seemingly the largest group doing this at present), but are increasing their numbers of employee relations specialists here too (both trends as per ndings in WERS 98). That the latter development occurs has long been a case put forward by Gennard and Judge (1999) that organisations should consider. Maybe these increased numbers of employee relations specialists are employed to handle this need for greater contact between HR and the line in HRM (and not just to manage EU and employment law issues). Certainly, the ndings from this study suggest that the continued involvement of line managers in HR work is not an unproblematic initiative for work organisations in the UK to adopt.
Notes 1. Line managers are dened here as middle and junior level managers that undertake general management work for the organisation, and are not specialists in any functional area, e.g. HR, marketing, sales etc. (Legge, 1995). Although it is accepted here that distinctions can be made between line managers and supervisors (as per Currie and Procter, 2001, p. 54), frontline and rst-line managers and supervisors are also seen to have a key role to play in day-today HRM (Storey, 1992; Marchington, 2001). However, the line managers interviewed in this study conform to the denition of line managers given by Currie and Procter (2001, p. 54), of being middle managers. 2. WERS 98 refers to the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey.

3. Benets of line involvement in HRM HR problems are solved at source; better change management is achieved; increased speed of decision making; more scope for HR managers to focus on strategic HRM; HR issues receive a business focus; line managers own HR issues, are aware of them and thus cannot ignore them; line managers being more likely to be committed to their own HR decisions; promotes local management accountability and responsibility for HR issues; reduces costs; promotes the case that HRM cannot always be transferred to specialists; enables employee relations decisions to be tailored to suit local circumstances best t; shorter lines of communication. Costs of line involvement in HRM increased pressure to train and/or re-skill line managers in HRM; a need for strict HR auditing; problems in maintaining consistency in decision making; risk of falling standards, or abuse of position (discrimination); problems in maintaining balance of power between line and specialists; potential for HR/IR role to be marginalized; low line capability/commitment of managers to HR work; little time for line to perform HR duties well due to other operational demands on them; risks of job overload/stress as line manager workloads are increased; extra training costs and potential costs from tribunal cases (adapted from Brewster and Larsen (2000), Budhwar (2000), Currie and Procter (2001), Harris (2001), Marchington (1999), Sisson and Storey (2000), Sparrow (1999), Thornhill and Saunders (1998)). 4. Line handling of IPRP Organizational constraints, workforce values and their personal experiences of what motivated the majority of employees led the managers to have a far greater belief in the importance of demonstrating trustworthy behaviours as a means of encouraging employee commitment than paying for individual performance. In addition, perceptions of fairness among the managers were frequently more closely related to those of the employees they supervised than the principles reected in the systems they had to apply. Although there had been considerable attempts to demonstrate fairness in the reported PRP systems, most of the processes were so individually focused and transacted that the scope for lapses in procedural justice both alleged and real were considerable. Many of the managers seemed intuitively aware of these pitfalls. Yet, at times, their attempts to avoid taking any risks in their decision making which might reect badly on their personal integrity or judgement could result in systems that were viewed with considerable cynicism and even as rather pointless in terms of their nal outcomes. Finally there was evidence that the trend towards decentralization had limited the integration of pay processes with other HR strategies as it relied heavily on line managers undertaking a co-ordinating role for which they neither had the time nor the inclination (Thornhill and Saunders, 1998). It is argued that a far more signicant contribution that line managers can make to shaping HR policies may lie in communicating their sense of the values and beliefs of employees, but there was little evidence in the study that this had been a consideration or that it had been reected in the design and implementation of organizational performance-related pay systems (Harris, 2001, p. 1191).

Line manager involvement in HRM 277

References Brewster, C. and Larsen, H.H. (1992), Human resource management in Europe: evidence from ten countries, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 409-34. Brewster, C. and Larsen, H.H. (Eds) (2000), Human Resource Management in Northern Europe: Trends, Dilemmas and Strategy, Blackwell, Oxford. Budhwar, P.S. (2000), Evaluating levels of strategic integration and devolvement of human resource management in the UK, Personnel Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 141-61.

ER 25,3

278

Cunningham, I. and Hyman, J. (1995), Transforming the HRM vision into reality: the role of line managers and supervisors in implementing change, Employee Relations, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 5-20. Cunningham, I. and Hyman, J. (1999), Devolving human resource resonsibilities to the line: beginning of the end or a new beginning for personnel?, Personnnel Review, Vol. 28 No. 1/2, pp. 9-27. Cunningham, I. and James, P. (2001), Line managers as people managers: prioritising the needs of the long-term sick and those with disabilities, British Academy of Management Conference Paper, Cardiff University. Currie, G. and Procter, S. (2001), Exploring the relationship between HR and middle managers, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 53-69. Deeks, E. (2000), Self-service is hard work, People Management, Vol. 26 No. 23 November, p. 9. Dunn, C. and Wilkinson, A. (2002), Wish you were here: managing absence, Personnnel Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 228-46. Eisenstat, R.A. (1996), What corporate human resources brings to the picnic: four models for functional management, Organizational Dynamics Autumn, pp. 7-22. Fenton-OCreevy, M. (1998), Employee Involvement and the middle manager: evidence from a survey of organizations, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 67-84. Fenton-OCreevy, M. (2001), Employee Involvement and the middle manager: saboteur or scapegoat?, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 24-40. Gennard, J. and Judge, G. (1999), Employee Relations, 2nd ed., Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Gibb, S. (2001), The state of human resource management: evidence from employees views of HRM systems and staff, Employee Relations, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 318-36. Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P. and Truss, C. (1999), Strategic Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Guest, D. (1987), Human resource management and industrial relations, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 503-22. Guest, D. and King, Z. (2001), HR and the bottom line, People Management, 27 September, pp. 24-9. Guest, D., King, Z., Conway, N., Michie, J. and Sheehan-Quinn, M. (2001), Voices from the Boardroom, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Harris, L. (2001), Rewarding employee performance: line managers values, beliefs and perspectives, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 7. Hutchinson, S. and Wood, S. (1995), Personnel and the Line: Developing the New Relationship, Institute of Personnel and Development, London. IRS (2001), Managing discipline at work, IRS Employment Trends, No. 727, pp. 5-11. Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S. (2000), Managing Human Resources: A Partnership Perspective, 7th ed., International Thomson Publishing, London. Legge, K. (1995), Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities, Macmillan, Basingstoke. McConville, T. and Holden, L. (1999), The lling in the sandwich: HRM and middle managers in the health sector, Personnel Review, Vol. 28 No. 5-6, pp. 406-24. Marchington, M. (1999), Professional qualication scheme: core personnel and development exam papers and examiners reports May 1999, paper given to the IPD Professional

Standards Conference, University of Warwick, July, Institute of Personnel and Development, pp. 1-12 Marchington, M. (2001), Employee involvement at work, in Storey, J. (Ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text, Thomson, London, 2nd ed., pp. 232-52. Marsh, A.I. (1971), The stafng of industrial relations management in the engineering industry, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 14-24. Marsh, A.I. and Gillies, J.G. (1983), The involvement of line and staff managers in industrial relations, in Thurley, K. and Wood, S. (Eds), Industrial Relations and Management Strategy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 27-38. Millward, N., Bryson, A. and Forth, J. (2000), All Change At Work? British Employment Relations 1980-1998, as Portrayed by the Workplace Industrial Relations Survey Series, Routledge, London. Morhman, S.A. and Lawler, E.E. II (1999), The new human resources management: creating the strategic business partnership, in Schuller, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (Eds), Strategic Human Resource Management, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 433-47. Redman, T. (2001), Performance appraisal, in Redman, T. and Wilkinson, A. (Eds), Contemporary Human Resource Management, Pearson Education, Harlow, pp. 57-95. Rollinson, D., Hook, C., Foot, M. and Handley, J. (1996), Supervisor and manager styles in handling discipline and grievance: part two approaches to handling discipline and grievance, Personnel Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 38-55. Sisson, K. and Storey, J. (2000), The Realities of Human Resource Management, Open University Press, Buckingham. Sparrow, P. (1999), Is HRM in crisis?, in Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (Eds), Strategic Human Resource Management, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 416-32. Sparrow, P. (2003), The future of work? Practical and theoretical considerations, in Holman, D. (Ed.), The New Workplace: People, Technology and Organization, Wiley, London (forthcoming). Sparrow, P.S. and Marchington, M. (1998), Human Resource Management, Financial Times/Pitman, London. Storey, J. (1992), Developments in the Management of Human Resources, Blackwell, Oxford. Storey, J. (2001), Human resource management today: an assessment, in Storey, J. (Ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text, Thomson, London, pp. 3-20. Thornhill, A. and Saunders, M.N.K. (1998), What if line managers dont realize theyre responsible for HR?, Lessons from an organization experiencing rapid change, Personnel Review, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 460-76. Tyson, S. and Fell, A. (1995), Evaluating the Personnel Function, 2nd ed., Stanley Thomes, Cheltenham. Ulrich, D. (1997), Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for Adding Value and Delivering Results, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA. Ulrich, D. (1998), A new mandate for human resources, Harvard Business Review, JanuaryFebruary, pp. 124-34. Ulrich, D. (2001), The evolution of a professional agenda, Financial Times, Mastering People Management, Vol. 15, pp. 2-3. Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research, 2nd ed., Sage, London.

Line manager involvement in HRM 279

ER 25,3

280

Further reading Armstrong, M. (1998), Managing People: A Practical Guide for Line Managers, Kogan Page/The Industrial Society, London. Brewster, C., Harris, H. and Sparrow, P. (2001), On top of the world, People Management, 25 October, pp. 37-42. Buckingham, M. (2001), What a waste, People Management, 11 October, pp. 36-40. Drucker, P. (1999), Management: Tasks, Responsibilities and Practices, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Hope-Hailey, V., Gratton, L., McGovern, P., Stiles, P. and Truss, C. (1997), A chameleon function? HRM in the 90s, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 5-18. IRS (2000), Human resources consulting: friend or foe?, IRS Employment Trends, No. 698, pp. 7-11. Kelly, J. and Gennard, J. (2001), The Effective Personnel Director: Power and Inuence in the Boardroom, Routledge, London. Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A.W. (2002), People Management and Development, 2nd ed., Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Richbell, S. (2001), Trends and emerging values in human resource management: The UK scene, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 261-8. Scullion, H. and Starkey, K. (2000), In search of the changing role of the corporate human resource function in the international rm, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 1061-81.

You might also like