HRM Activities and People Management Are the Responsibility of All Line Managers - Coursework Example

A critical analysis of the statement “HRM activities and people management is the responsibility of all line managers who have the responsibility for managing people in the workplace” Name Course Tutor’s Name Date: Introduction Line managers are increasingly being given the responsibility of handling human resource management (HRM) activities and people management. Whether the responsibilities are genuinely meant to be handled by line managers is still a point of discussion among many analysts and authors. This paper will critically analyse a statement that indicates that HRM activities and people management are the responsibility of line managers. The paper borrows widely from published literature (books and journals) and concludes that the statement being analysed is arguably stretching the truth a bit too far. Theoretically, line managers are said to perform well when they have the dual responsibility of HRM activities and people management. In reality however, line managers are not always able to take up the responsibilities of managing people and implementing HRM activities. Additionally, they may not always have the motivation or the opportunities to take up the responsibilities. Discussion According to Armstrong (1996), the traditional roles of managers still apply to date. Those roles include “planning, organising, motivating and controlling” their subordinates (Armstrong 1996, p. 6). In his later work, Armstrong (2006, p. 95) indicates that in addition to the traditional roles of management, line managers have the responsibility of “getting things done through people”. Since people make up the human resource for any company, one can then infer from the foregoing quotation that line managers directly manage human resources (people) in order to get things done. On their part, Harris, Brewster and Sparrow (2003) indicate that the line managers’ main role is handling daily work responsibilities and organising work for their subordinates. Additionally, line managers are charged with the responsibility of overseeing the progress of people working under them (Harris et al. 2003). However, it is worth noting that most organisations have dedicated human resource departments and specialists. According to Armstrong (2006), the human resource (HR) department’s role is to oversee the consistent implementation of HR policies in an organisation. Additionally, the HR department has the responsibility of ensuring that organisations implement employment law consistently. Armstrong’s (2006) argument suggests that the HR department oversees the implementation of HR activities, but it does not actually implement. Instead, those charged with the responsibility to implement HR strategies and activities are the line managers. Since they interact directly with employees, line managers are arguably in a better position to address grievances or discipline issues arising from the people they manage. According to Armstrong (2006), people matters are strictly a responsibility of line managers who deal with the same people. However, the line managers can always solicit for advice from HR specialists. On their part, HR specialists should be more forthcoming with advice to the line managers as opposed to dictating what they should do. Armstrong (2006) further notes that in cases where HR specialists take up the role of handling people and implementing all HRM activities, line managers do not act or think for themselves when they encounter different issues while handling people. Instead, they choose to refer the issues to the HR specialists. Such shifting of responsibility leads to time losses and inefficiencies, which are occasioned by the reluctance by line managers to act. Ideally, line managers should: get things done; make things happen and maintain momentum; find out what is happening in an organisation; react to problems or new situations; and respond to requests or demands by the workers. All the aforementioned factors imply that line managers interact with their subordinates frequently and as such, could be responsible for HR activities and people planning in their respective organisations. Before making a conclusive argument about HRM activities and people management being the responsibility of line managers, it is important to consider the definition of HRM activities. According to the International Personnel Management Association (2002, p. VI), HRM activities include “recruiting, hiring, classification, compensation, promotion, transfer, redeployment, attrition, retention, succession planning, and employee training and developing”. Clearly, some of the functions mentioned in this quotation are not the responsibility of the line managers. Recruiting, hiring, succession planning and employee development are roles that are best handled by the HR specialists. In this case therefore, one could argue that not all HRM activities fall within the ambit of line managers’ responsibilities. Alfes et al. (2013) identify employee skills, motivation and empowerment as the three most vital HRM activities that affect employee performance. In all the three activities, line managers play a critical role through their interaction with employees. It is important to note at this point that employees perceive line managers as representatives of the organisation. How the manager interacts or treats them is therefore interpreted as coming from the organisation’s management (Alfes et al. 2013). Based on this observation, it is safe to say that not all HRM activities are the responsibility of line managers. Much as analysts would like to emphasise that line managers have a responsibility to implement HRM activities and people management in an organisational setting, Armstrong (2006) indicates that in some cases, line managers are not even well equipped with the knowledge and skills needed to implement the HRM activities. Therefore, according to Armstrong (2006), it could be that line managers are theoretically charged with the responsibility of implementing some HRM activities, but in reality, some do not possess the knowledge, skills or experience needed to implement the HRM activities effectively. Armstrong (2006) thus suggests that line managers need training in order to prepare them fully for the HRM activities-related and people management-related activities. According to Hailey, Fandale and Truss (2005), some line managers are simply not capable of implementing HRM activities. Others on the other hand, lack the motivation to implement the HRM activities. In similar findings, Bos-Nehles, Riemsdijk and Looise (2013) found out that some line managers have the ability to implement HRM activities. However, how such managers implemented the HRM activities was affected by motivation and opportunity. Without motivation, line managers were found to be reluctant in implementing HRM activities. Bos-Nehles et al. (2013) underscored the fact that ability and the possession of skills and knowledge were prerequisites in the implementation of HRM activities by line managers. As well, Bos-Nehles et al. (2013) indicate that the willingness to implement the HRM activities by the line managers is another prerequisite factor. Notably, line managers can be motivated to take the responsibility of implementing HRM activities and people management roles through adequate rewards. For example, line managers should be compensated accordingly for their work. Finally, Bos-Nehles et al. (2013) note that the working environment should provide line managers with the opportunities for implementing HRM activities and people management responsibilities. This means that in addition to being given the responsibility of managing people and implementing HRM activities, line managers need the organisation to support them in their duties (Bos-Nehles et al. 2013). Bos-Nehles et al. (2013) further suggest that without ability, line managers cannot effectively implement HRM activities and people management responsibilities irrespective of their motivation or the opportunities that come their way. This argument is supported by Hailey et al. (2005) and Maxwell and Watson (2006). The two sets of authors argues that without the necessary competencies needed to implement HRM activities, line managers are incapable of handling any HRM-related responsibility given to them. Brewster and Larsen (2000) further found out that a significant percentage of line managers do not understand HRM issues such as the relationship that exists between employees and trade unions, and legislations that affect employees. It goes against wisdom, therefore, to give HRM-related activities to line managers who do not have proper understanding of all relevant HRM issues. As De Winne, Delmotte, Gilbert and Sels (2013) indicate, line managements are just one among several stakeholders of the HR department. Therefore, if there is insight or knowledge about relevant HRM issues that need to be transferred to line managers, HR specialists need to be responsible for it. Additionally, the HR department ought to identify the weak links that exist in their line managers and therefore plan on how best to train and empower them. Up to this point, this paper has established that not all HRM activities are the responsibility of line managers. Additionally, the paper has established that line managers need some kind of empowerment (through training) in order to develop the ability to implement HRM activities and people management responsibilities. As people who interact directly with employees, the statement being analysed in this paper is not entirely accurate in its claim that HRM activities and people management is the responsibility of line managers. However, the statement has some element of truth in that line managers (especially front line managers) are the first point of contact that employees have with a company. Further, as Purcell and Hutchinson (2007, p.3) note, line managers need “well designed HRM practices to use in their people management activities in order to help motivate and reward employees and deal with performance issues”. In other words, in addition to [some] HRM activities being the responsibility of line managers, they are also essential for the good performance of employees in a specific organisation. Based on the foregoing argument, one can say that line managers do not have the luxury of not understanding or using HRM activities because how effective they are in people management depends on it. Theoretically, the responsibility of HRM activities and people management is best handled by line managers because, as Armstrong (1996, p.12) observes, such responsibilities enable line managers to “take full responsibility for their major resource, the people they lead and manage”. Armstrong (1996) further notes that as a business-oriented philosophy, HRM has made significant contributions to the HRM-related responsibilities that have been given to line managers. This is because the same managers are encouraged to do whatever is necessary to attain a competitive advantage. Where line managers have the full responsibility of HRM activities and people management responsibilities, they are in charge of: organisation, recruitment, selection, performance management, training and development, and remuneration of employees. Given that line managers are also involved in people management, some of the aforesaid activities may become an extra burden to them, in which case, HR specialists may come in to help. This is because reports by line managers determine which employees will receive particular HRM interventions. For example, a line manager in company Y may identify the need for further training among his subordinates. Notably, the line manager may not have the resources or the knowledge to conduct training. In that case, he would need to work with HR specialists who would then organise training and ensure that the training fills the knowledge gaps identified by the line managers. As Harris et al. (2003) note, the role of HR specialists is not to implement HRM activities or people management responsibilities. Rather, they provide support and advice to the line managers, who then are responsible for using people (employees) to achieve the organisational objectives. Harris et al. (2003) further indicate that the function of HRM is to act as a catalyst and a coordinator between line managers and the people (employees). However, as noted elsewhere in this paper, there is a distinction between what line managers can do and what is clearly beyond their capacity to handle in as far as HRM activities and people management activities are concerned. Harris et al. (2003) for instance indicate that training and trade union matters should be activities that are handled purely by human resource practitioners. It is becoming more evident that line managers are able to accomplish organisational objectives by taking up specific HRM activities and people management responsibilities (Harris et al. 2003). Based on this observation, it has been argued that line managers need to receive more training, guidance and support from the HR department. Notably, some line managers have no training or knowledge on how best to manage people or on HRM activities. Charging them with the dual responsibility of managing people and implementing HRM activities is like hypothetically throwing them into the deep end of a swimming pool when they can rarely swim in the shallow end. Before concluding this paper, it is important to note the distinction between people management responsibilities and HRM activities. According to the Centre for Intelligent Information Retrieval (2005), people management includes such things as selection and recruitment, staff development, performance management, health and safety, equal opportunities, terms and conditions of employment, and grievance procedures. Just like HRM activities, good people management practices are contained in HRM policies, which fall under the scope of the HR department (Harris, Doughty & Kirk 2002). However, the roles of HR specialists in a HR department are to advice and monitor the implementation of the HRM policies and activities, while line managers are often charged with the responsibilities of implementation. Conclusion This paper has analysed the statement “HRM activities and people management is the responsibility of all line managers who have the responsibility for managing people in the workplace”. From the analysis, it is apparent that not all HRM activities and people management roles are the responsibility of line managers. Whereas line managers interact with people (employees) more than HR specialists do, it has emerged that in some cases, the line managers lack the capability to handle HRM-related responsibilities well. Additionally, there are cases where line managers lack the motivation or the opportunities to take on the HRM-related responsibilities. Additionally, while the statement which is the subject of analysis has some theoretical truths, especially since it has been argued that line managers need to motivate, plan, and coordinate their subordinates to enhance organisational performance, it is not entirely true. The claim is informed by the argument that while line managers can take up some activities in HRM and people management, some aspects of these responsibilities can only be handled by HR specialists who well understand the HR legislations and policies. References Alfes, K, Truss, C, Soane, E, Rees, C & Gatenby, M 2013, The relationship between line manager behaviour, perceived HRM practices, and individual performance: examining the mediating role of engagement’, Human Resource Management, vol. 52, no.6, pp. 839-859. Armstrong, M 1996, Managing people: a practical guide for line managers, Kogan Page Publishers, London. Armstrong, M 2006, A handbook of human resource management practice, Kogan Page Publishers, London. Bos-Nehles, A, Van Riemsdijk, M & Looise, J 2013, ‘Employee perceptions of line management performance: applying the AMO theory to explain the effectiveness of line managers’ HRM implementation’, Human Resource Management, vol. 52, no.6, pp. 861-877. Brewster, C & Larsen, H 2000, Human resource management in Northern Europe, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Centre for Intelligent Information Retrieval 2005, ‘Capacity building for local NGOs: a guidance for good practice’, Learning Network on Capacity Development, viewed 13 March 2015, . De Winne, S, Delmotte, J, Gilbert, C & Sels, L 2013, ‘Comparing and explaining HR department effectiveness assessment: evidence from line managers and trade union representatives’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 24, no.8, pp. 1708-1735. Hailey, V, Farndale, E & Truss, C 2005, ‘The HR department’s role in organizational performance’, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 15, no.3. pp. 49-66. Harris, H, Brewster, C & Sparrow, P 2003, International human resource management, CIPD Publishing, London. Harris, L, Doughty, D & Kirk, S 2002, ‘The devolution of HR responsibilities – perspectives from the UK’s public sector’, Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 26, pp. 218-229. International Personnel Management Association 2002, Workforce planning resource guide for public sector human resource professionals, IPMA, Alexandria, VA. Maxwell, G & Watson, S 2006, ‘Perspectives on line managers in human resource management: Hilton international’s UK hotels’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, vol. 17, pp. 1152-1170. Purcell, J & Hutchinson, S 2007, ‘Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causal chain: theory, analysis and evidence’, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 17, pp. 3-20. Read More