Human Resource Management as an Integral Part of the Work of Everyone in a Managerial Post - Assignment Example

Human resource management is an integral part of the work of everyone in a managerial post and therefore line managers are the key drivers of people management practices and systems Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………………………3 Drivers of Change………………………………………………………………………..3 The New Role for Line Management…………………………………………………….5 Advantages of the Increased Line Managers’ Role………………………………………7 Problems with the Increased Role of Line Managers…………………………………….7 Areas that need to be addressed to Improve New Line Managers’ Role………………...10 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….14 References………………………………………………………………………………..15 Introduction The Human Resource Management off late has been witnessing several strategic changes and one of the most important and significant one of those have been the prominence gained by the line managers in interacting and performing some of traditional HR roles. The HR responsibility traditionally executed by the line managers was to improve and encourage teamwork among employees. The changing times have seen line managers playing a more prominent role and some of the responsibilities include carrying out performance appraisal, planning the training and development of employees (Gennard and Kelly 1997). Several of the drivers that have resulted in managements restructuring the role played by line managers include reduced cost, first hand knowledge of the day to day operational activities. Being directly involved with employees make the line managers better equipped to deal with conflicts and improving work motivation. Along with advantages, there though are a few disadvantages of this approach because of problems that could arise due to conflicting nature of work of HR and line managers, increased work load for the line managers, and lack of support from employees and HR. Drivers of Change Gennard and Kelly (1997) point out that the HR function’s evolution and changes in the modern organisational culture and structure attracted devolution of some administrative functions of HR to the Line Management (Gennard and Kelly 1997). The debate regarding benefits and drawbacks of this approach intensified in the 1990’s as the process of devolution started to gain momentum (Hall and Torrington 1998). There is some disagreement about the ways in which such change started; Storey (1992) suggesting that this devolution was a function of the overall instability of organisations during the 90’s when a period of unprecedented change led to many corporate change initiatives being communicated to employees by Line Managers, who thus took on an HR role (Brandl et al 2009). This can be seen both as a move forward, since the line managers always had some sort of HR responsibilities in terms of encouraging teamwork for example (Gibb 2003, MacNeil 2002), however, the new HR functions would include more HR-specific responsibilities, such as carrying out performance appraisal, planning the training and development of employees. In addition to this approach, a range of other possible change drivers in HR function have been suggested; most important of them is cost. Companies are always aware of the financial implications of the way they do business, and including some simpler HR responsibilities in Line Management duties can reduce costs (Papalexandris and Panayotopoulou 2005). Moreover, a trend towards cost-centric management has led to a need to integrate LM with HR on a day-to-day basis (Larsen and Brewster 2003). Other drivers include technological changes within HR. Advances in computing and IT mean procedures can be simplified and speeded up and hence line managers being more suitable to take over some of HR’s functions. With devolution, decisions are being made quickly and efficiently by Line Managers rather than having to refer even the simplest personnel matter to HR (Papelexandris and Panayotopoulou 2005). The day-to-day operational HR tasks (“recruitment, appraisal, pay, health and safety, training and development and discipline” (MacNeil 2003, p. 295)) should be carried out by people who actually deal with and supervise staff on a daily basis – that is, Line Managers (Papalexandris and Panayotopoulou 2005). These recent changes in the marketplace have led to a change in function of HR with the traditional administrative part of the HR process being passed on to Line Managers (Kulik and Perry 2008). The New Role for Line Management Research indicates that the line managers play an increasingly important role in making the difference between a successful company and a mediocre one, specifically by implementing HR policies in a satisfactory way (Brown and Purcell 2007). Line managers have traditionally had functions including setting objectives, organisation and administration as well as measurement, but off-late they also take on a range of people-focused tasks including motivation and communication. One feature of the Line Managers’ role is that they are an interface between management levels above themselves and the employees they manage directly. This gives them a unique and specialised knowledge of day-to-day relations with employees and hence, an insight into some functions previously assumed to be the province of HR (MacNeil 2003). The move towards devolution then simply highlights the importance of these ‘people skills’ in order to boost their integration into the LM role. According to Baron (2003) through devolution the line managers are becoming faced with the challenges of motivating and leading the teams effectively. The so-called “people-skills” are a pre-requisite for successful leadership and employee motivation; the term “people skills” refers simply to the soft skills. The soft skills of the line managers have always been a substantial part of the job and have been now connected to motivation with the emergence of the devolution approach to management. Various components and the scope of Line Managers can be seen first as incorporating Learning and Development (L&D) issues: helping others learn and progress. This is a wide area and includes training, performance management, leadership as well as assessment and knowledge management (Gibb 2003). Perhaps the best way to characterise the new role is by the increased emphasis upon ‘people skills’. This can be seen as a shift away from integrating the principles of classic Fayol or Taylorian style management with its emphasis upon rigid systems, bureaucracy and lack of development of individuals to one which integrates the awareness, growing since the 1950’s, of the role people can play in an organisation. As the Line Managers would be better capable of being able to motivate their employees through effective leadership and communication is especially important (Baron 2003); they therefore has to take on the role of facilitator and communicator as much as ‘boss’ or ‘decision maker’. The LM role opens up to allow him or her to connect with employees. As ‘people’ skills have always been part of the LM job, it is more an expansion of current capabilities than a new departure (Papalexandris and Panayotopoulou 2005). The need for more involvement with people is therefore clear. It has further been suggested that people become dissatisfied with their jobs not because they are unhappy with pay or conditions but because they become frustrated with lack of organisational recognition or with the lack of opportunity for development in terms of their skills and experience (Gibb 2003). It therefore becomes clear now that job satisfaction and motivation under the new conditions need to be maintained in employees and this function is now being justifiably passed on to the Line Managers. Therefore, it is important to describe the Line Management’s role to increase motivation among employees. Advantages of the Increased Line Managers’ Role The role of a Line Manager involves many new functions and responsibilities and thus, bring along various advantages and disadvantages. From the view point of HR, Line Management involvement can allow the HR specialist to concentrate on a strategic approach. Overall, responses to HR challenges can be more immediate if handled by LM and can be more specific to location (Whittaker and Marchington 2003, Brandl et al 2009). Line Managers’ people management skills improve as a result, helping them become better at creating good teams, managing teamwork, and interpersonal skills. This will in turn benefit the organisation as a whole (Gibb 2003). It has also been suggested that Line Managers can provide effective inputs into organisational change with their enhanced role and ability to communicate to all team members. Baron (2003) has also suggested that the LM have a lot of impact on employee motivation. Problems with the Increased Role of Line Managers On the contrary, a number of problems with the new tasks and responsibilities of Line Managers have been noted, although the point that is worthy noting here are that these problems can even be understood as possible improvement areas. Problems fall into a number of distinct areas. Difficulties in communication These can appear in different ways. The Line Manager may fear disputes with their staff regarding decisions made about performance, pay and career development. They may be reluctant to take on role of learning facilitator, and personality clashes might impact upon employee training. Relationships between employees and management may not be as neutral as is possible with a dedicated PR department (Gibb 2003). Problems are also common between HR and LM. Cunningham and Hyman (1999) found that there was evidence for poor leadership from HR and a low quality of advice given to LM. Training was also poor, with little ongoing development to help LM integrate personnel aspects into their role (Cunningham and Hyman 1999). Further tensions arose because of conflicts between line and HR over the precise lines drawn between their functions (Renwick 2003). Lack of Integration Despite extensive debate, there is evidence that the degree of line involvement is not as extensive as it might be (Papalexandris and Panayotopoulou 2005). This is confirmed by a study by Cunningham and Hyman (1999). Increase in Work Load and Pressure for Line Management The LM work load will increase with new responsibilities and the need to balance other demands of the job with new role. This can lead to a resentment of HR and reluctance to get involved with HR work (Papalexandris and Panayotopoulou 2005). Maxwell and Watson also identify heavy work loads and job pressure as a major source of problems with devolution (Maxwell and Watson 2004) as does Renwick (2003). Whittaker and Marchington (2003) suggest that time constraints mean that LM do not have time to attend in full to ‘people management’ issues, tending rather to concentrate on the day-to-day running of their department and solving problems as they appear. Conflict in Approach HR and LM operate from fundamentally distinct viewpoints with different priorities, which can also lead to conflict and problems. Line Managers are typically very involved in the day-to-day running of the department, reacting to issues as they arise. They can resent the need for staff to take time off for training and resent the need to take such a personal viewpoint, perhaps dealing with their own problems with home life for example. The characteristic LM approach can mean less opportunity for staff development. While a dedicated HR department is focused upon learning and staff training, line managers have more than one focus, so, for example, if the department is short-staffed any training and development might be put to one side. There would be a pressure to deal with short-term problem rather than address the long-term solution (Gibb 2003). Lack of Support There is some evidence that Line Managers feel less supported by HR than they would ideally like (Papalexandris and Panayotopoulou 2005). Some LM perceive HR specialists to be out of touch with reality, both in terms of LM function and with the business as whole, feeling that they base their decisions on principles that have little to do with either the nature of the industry or the problems faced by the line. Lack of Skills A further area of concern is skills. LM lack the specialist skills of the HR department (Whittaker and Marchington 2003) also Renwick (2003). Hence, the quality of training in the organisation might fall. Neither are line managers as good at evaluating training materials or delivery (Gibb 2003). Difference of HR and Line Managers’ Perceptions Perceptions of the new role of LM can further vary between HR and LM. It has been suggested that HR managers are more positive than line managers about the benefits of devolution for the organisation in terms of both employee satisfaction and motivation and overall organisational performance. There is also a difference between the way LM and HR see the reasons for devolution, with HR seeing the benefits for individual departments while LM seeing the exercise as primarily one to cut costs (Kulik and Bainbridge 2006). Further, LM perceive their skill set very differently than do HR, a study showing, for example, that Line Managers viewed themselves as good at all aspects of HR including recruitment, personal relations, training and appraisals, while HR saw the line managers as much less able in all respects (Cunningham and Hyman 1995). Areas that need to be addressed to Improve New Line Managers’ Role The previous section has shown that there are some problem areas which occur in the instantiation of the new role of Line Management. These problems in turn suggest some needs that could be addressed in order to improve performance. Training Training is one area that needs attention. Often, managers are left to forge their own pathway and develop their own ideas about best practice. This leads to irregularity and lack of fit between HR and other departments regarding working conditions and personnel policies. It is therefore a good idea to train management to take on the new functions (Brandl et al 2009). Maxwell and Watson’s (2004) study suggests that most line managers who feel there is a barrier which stops them carrying out their role as they should also feel that training would remove this barrier. These needs are further collaborated by Brown and Purcell (2007). They report a recent survey suggesting that 88% of HR managers think Line Managers are insufficiently trained at performance appraisal for example. Their own study of 535 organisations by questionnaire, and further in-depth studies with 5 organisations suggested that lack of skills on the part of Line Management is the biggest barrier to the successful implementation of a reward strategy (Brown and Purcell 2007). Communication Most organisations, in fact, fail to take into account the experiences and input of line managers when attempting to develop a strategy for the best way to deliver HR plans. This has led to a ‘vicious circle’ in which HR, finding LM inadequate to the tasks devolved to them, attempt to claw back more functions into their control. This in turn underlines the need for training (Brown and Purcell 2007). Role Definition and Ownership Line Managers need to ‘own’ their new role in order to get the best from their staff (McConville 2006). Responsibilities for LM and HR should be clarified and ‘hot potatoes’ (jobs that neither department really want to take on) should not be ignored. LM should be supported in owning their new roles by HR (Kulik and Bainbridge 2006). Equally, LM need to be able to foster a sense of responsibility and ownership amongst the staff they manage in order to get the best from them, through enhancing their motivation by all means. There has been found to be a strong correlation between job autonomy, sense of achievement and job challenge amongst employees; this can be boosted by the way Line Managers are perceived, including their leadership and motivational abilities and the way they carry out HR practices. Commitment amongst employees is boosted if they perceive LM as handling HR satsifactorily (McConville 2006). The crucial element is the ‘perception’ – there can be a significant gap between actual HR policy in the organisation and employee perceptions, which may be created by the employees’ relationship with the LM (Purcell and Hutchinson 2007). Motivation and Teamwork Personal motivation is important for a Line Manager to work well. He or she should believe in the need for HR in order to integrate it fully into his or her practice (Brandl et al 2009). LM should fully understand the notion and nature of teamwork and employee motivation and if necessary be trained in this area. Line Managers generally seem to acknowledge the importance of teamwork and the consequent need for training (Brandl et al 2009). A study by McConville suggests that Line Managers believe that being free to manage their own staff is necessary in order to promote teamwork and cohesion (McConville 2006). Partnership Working Perhaps the most overriding need to improve LM performance of HR roles is the need to instigate a partnership working approach. Line Managers particularly express a need to work towards a partnership (Whittaker and Marchington 2003). Partnership working involves a unified and coherent HR strategy (Renwick 2000). Integrating a partnership between the two departments will allow increased co-ordination and the ability to tie outcomes to practice.  A partnership model would actually allow an increased input from LM into strategy considerations. Research Suggestions The above consideration of the current needs and areas for improvement in the LM role can be used to shape the research study, in particular the emphasis upon a partnership approach. Existing research seems to support the need for a ‘partnership’ approach throughout the various levels of devolution. A study in 2003 looked at the devolution of HR processes as part of an overall company plan to increase productivity and boost branding. The study found that 13 senior LM’s embraced the new HR aspects of their function, had no fear of their new role, liked the idea of being more involved in performance, and felt that the strategic issues should remain with HR. One notable finding was the demand for more partnership between HR and LM. HR should be less remote, and there should also be a two-way communication process between the two functions (Whittaker and Marchington 2003). While it should be noted that this research was conducted within a healthcare framework, which might produce a very specific set of results which cannot be generalised to other areas, these and other studies do seem to underline the demand for more partnership. Renwick (2000), also pursuing the ‘partnership’ approach, underlines the need to investigate the dialogue between HR and LM. He suggests that further research is necessary on the attitudes and motivations of both HR and LM by examining the relationship between the two. He recommends the use of theories, like Ulrich’s (1998), which emphasise the consensual nature of the relationship as powerful tools for explaining the relationship between HR and LM (Renwick 2000). Ulrich (1998) proposes a new vision of HR which embraces the strategic viewpoint as well as a partnership one. Ulrich (1998) discusses the idea of the strategic partnership between HR professionals and Line Managers. Line Managers have ultimate responsibility for management of people (Ulrich 1998) and the efficiency of people management together with various soft skills required for the role lead to the increased motivation of employees (Baron 2003). Conclusion Having done a detailed investigation of the changing corporate structure and prominent roles being played by the line managers, it can be concluded that the changes in the work structure have been observed for the betterment of organizations as well as the employees at various levels. People Skills and employee motivation are two huge tasks that have gained increased attention from all quarters and there is no denying the significance and importance of role played by delegating some of the HR responsibilities to the line managers in the wake of improving the work culture. There are some disadvantages of having the line managers carrying out the bulk of HR responsibilities, the shortfalls and shortcomings can be dealt effectively through adequate training practices, improved communication, clear role definition and partnership working at the workplace (Brown and Purcell 2007). The line managers thus are the key drivers of people management practices and systems in the modern business and corporate world. References BARON, A (2003) ‘Motivation linked to line managers’, People Management, 9:24, 10-16 BRANDL, J, MADSEN, M T and MADSEN, H (2009) “The perceived importance of HR duties to Danish line managers” Human Resource Management Journal, 19:2, 194–210 BROWN, D and PURCELL, J (2007) “Reward Management: On the Line”, Compensation Benefits Review 39, 28-35 CUNNINGHAM, I and HYMAN, J (1999) “Devolving HR responsibilities to the line – beginning of the end or a new beginning for personnel?”, Personnel Review, Vol. 28 No. 1-2, pp. 9-27 GENNARD, J and KELLY, J (1997) “The unimportance of labels: the diffusion of the personnel/HRM function”, Industrial Relations Journal, 28:1, 27-42 GIBB, S (2003) “Line manager involvement in learning and development Small beer or big deal?”, Employee Relations, 25:3, 281-293 HALL, L and TORRINGTON, D (1998) “Letting go or holding on – the devolution of operational personnel activities”, Human Resource Management Journal, 8:1, 41-55 KULIK, C T and PERRY, E L (2008) “When less is more: The effect of devolution on HR’s strategic role and construed image”, Human Resource Management, 47:3, 541-558 LARSEN, H H and BREWSTER, C (2003) “Line management responsibility for HRM: what is happening in Europe?”, Employee Relations, 25:3, 228-244 MACNEIL, C M (2003) “Line manager: facilitators of knowledge sharing in teams”, Employee Relations, 25:3, 294-307 MCCONVILLE, T (2006) “Devolved HRM responsibilities, middle-managers and role dissonance”, Personnel Review, 35:6, 637-653 PAPALEXANDRIS, N and PANAYOTOPOULOU, L (2005) “Exploring the partnership between line managers and HRM in Greece”, Journal of European Industrial Training, 29:4, 281-291 RENWICK, D (2003) “Line manager involvement in HRM: an inside view”, Employee Relations, 25:3, 262-280 ULRICH, D (1998) “A New Mandate for Human Resources”, Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 1998, 124-135 WHITTAKER, S and MARCHINGTON, M (2003) “Devolving HR responsibility to the line – threat, opportunity or partnership?”, Employee Relations, 25:3, 245–261 Read More