Devolution of HRM activities to line managers

Author: Iloka Benneth Chiemelie

Published: 9th of March 2014

Evaluate the devolution of HR activities to line managers as described in the reading in relation to its impact on the HR profession and for organisational effectiveness.

Evaluate the devolution of HR activities to line managers

For the past years, there has been an immense speculation about how advisable it is to devolve human resource management (HRM) activities to line managers (Hall and Torrington, 1998; Ulrich, 1998; Gratton et al., 1999). The argument from one hand is that HR resides properly under the care of people directly responsible for staffs’ supervision, whose main purpose is to manufacture products, sell goods and equipment, or provide services (either public or private). Although there might be problems with ensuring that these line managers do have needed knowledge and skills for effective and consistent supervision of staffs, the fact still remains that line managers are in the best positions to adopt most appropriate HR styles and practices (Cunningham and Hyman, 1999; Sisson and Storey, 2000; Cooper, 2001). From a different angle, claims exist with the notion that effective HRM cannot be delivered via line managers whose main responsibilities are on different focus such as meeting service or production goals, and who have less regards for learning ways of getting the best from their staffs. The argument emanating from such view is that line managers will inevitably need continuous and systematic support with trainings from HR specialists in order to ensure that they don’t make costly mistakes in the course of delivering such HR activities (Earnshaw et al., 2000; Renwick, 2000; Marchington and Wilkinson, 2002).

In generally, the devolution of HR activities to line managers is basically the transfer of activities normally done by HR personnel to line managers, thus eliminating HR personnel while maintaining HR activities. Although two arguments emerge from the above discussion, the focus should be on understanding how HR activities can be devolved to line managers effectively.

Impact on the HR profession

Changes in the means of competition, privatization of firms, higher rate of unemployment and poor press reviews has forced HR managers to seek new, strategic and innovative means of maintaining competitive advantage (IRS, 1995; Gennard and Kelly, 1997; Renwick, 2000). A good example of such innovation is the ‘metamorphosis of HRM’ (Cunningham and Hyman, 1999, p. 10), in an attempt to re-emerge following its “sinking into irrelevance” (Keenoy, 1990, p. 3). Thus, the devolution of HR activities to line managers is changing the HRM profession with new curriculum and training developed to equip HR managers and personnel with management skills of the same standards as line managers. Such change is broadening both the training and practical scope of HR profession.

Impact on organizational effectiveness

Such activity as the devolution of HR activities to line managers has positive impact on organizational effectiveness. This is because line managers do understand their staffs better with respect to competence and delivery speed; and are better positioned to assign them the right tasks (Marchington and Wilkinson, 2000). Additionally, their direct contact with staffs ensures for faster and flexible decision making with respect to job descriptions, ensuring effective delivery.

Conclusion

The above discussions has heightened understanding on the devolution of HR activities to line managers, with impact on organizational effectiveness justifying earlier view that the focus should be on understanding how HR activities can be effectively transferred to line managers as a result of the associated positive outcome.

References

Cooper, C. (2001), “Win by a canvas”, People Management, 25 January.

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.

Earnshaw, J., Marchington, M. and Goodman, J. (2000), “Unfair to whom? Discipline and dismissal in small establishments”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 62-73.

Gennard, J. and Kelly, J. (1997), “The unimportance of labels: the diffusion of the personnel/HRM function”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 27-42.

Gratton, L., Hope Hailey, V., Stiles, P. and Truss, P. (1999), Strategic Human Resource Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hall, L. and Torrington, D. (1998), “Letting go or holding on – the devolution of operational personnel activities”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 41-55.

IRS (1995), “Changes in personnel”, IRS Employment Trends, No. 598, pp. 5-9.

Keenoy, T. (1990), “HRM: a case of the wolf in sheep’s clothing”, Personnel Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 3-9.

Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. (2000), “Direct participation”, in Bach, S. and Sisson, K. (Eds), Personnel Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice, Blackwell, London.

Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A. (2002),People Management and Development: HRM at Work, CIPD, London.

Redman, T. (2001), “Performance appraisal”, in Redman, T. and Wilkinson, A. (Eds), Contemporary Human Resource Management, FT/Prentice-Hall, London.

Renwick, D. (2000), “HR-line work relations: a review, pilot case and research agenda”, Employee Relations, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 179-205.

Sisson, K. and Storey, J. (2000),The Realities of Human Resource Management, Open University Press, Buckingham.

Ulrich, D. (1998), “A new mandate for HR”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 124-34.