HR and the line: how can front line managers manage? Authors: Sue Hutchinson and Stephanie Tailby

Abstract:

The growth in the business partnership model in recent years has been influenced by the prescriptive literature which has espoused the value of this approach with promises of a more strategic role for HR, together with improvements in service efficiency and reduced costs. This literature, however, ignores the impact of this new model on line managers, and the research which identifies the crucial role of these managers in delivering HRM. This paper addresses these shortcomings by examining the impact of the business partnership model on line managers in a large public sector organsisation. The paper argues that the ideal strategic model has considerable limitations, failing to recognize the importance of line managers and the context within with the model operates. Organisations adopting the business partnering model need to provide HR and senior management support for line managers to improve HRM and organisational effectiveness. Failure to do so risks undermining the success of the business partnering approach and the credibility of the HR function.

1

HR and the line: how can front line managers manage?

Introduction The substantial literature on how HR professionals can make a more strategic contribution and improve organisational effectiveness has been largely dominated by debates concerning the re-organisation and redefinition of the HR function. One serious area of neglect has been the impact of these new structures on line managers, who are expected to take on greater responsibility for HR activities as a consequence of these changes. This omission is noteworthy given that the success of new models of HRM delivery are reliant on how effectively line managers deliver their people management roles and how well they are supported in these activities.

This paper seeks to address these shortcomings by providing insight into the way front line managers are managed, setting the debate within the context of the reshaping of the HR function. The paper reports on the findings of research carried out in a large public sector organisation which has restructured the HR function in the face of demands for cost reductions and greater service efficiency.

The changing HR function For well over a decade the HR function has undergone considerable change, as HR professionals have sought to demonstrate their contribution to organisational performance by focusing on the more strategic aspects of their role (e.g. Francis and Keegan, 2006). The business partnership model, inspired by Ulrich (1997) which encompasses 3 distinct areas - HR shared services, centres of expertise and HR business partners - is one 2

manifestation. The prescriptive literature would have us believe that, in addition to HR becoming more strategic, the model promises improved service efficiency and consistency, reduced costs, and increased business focus (IDS, 2009). It is no surprise then that we have witnessed a considerable growth in this ‘three legged stool’ model. A recent survey commissioned by the CIPD (Reilly et al, 2007) found that this was the most common HR function structure; 58% of respondents reported they had introduced the model in full or partially. Although slower to evolve in the public sector there is evidence that this model (in particular the shared services leg) is now rapidly taking root in response to increasing demands for financial savings and greater efficiency (e.g. Brockett, 2009).

Despite the enthusiastic adoption of this model, however, there are few detailed empirical studies on its operation and impact (Reilly et al, 2007; Storey 2007), although there is some evidence that implementation takes a variety of forms and that there is confusion as to what the model means in practice (Caldwell, 2008). Crucially, however, research is beginning to emerge which suggests that the anticipated benefits have not always materialised leading some commentators to question whether HR have succeeded in enhancing their strategic contribution (Truss, 2009). Reduced quality of service, lack of clarity of HR ownership, lack of communication with HR, and a distancing of the relationship between HR and their clients are some of the difficulties identified (Reilly et al 2007; Lee Cooke, 2006). These problems may be exacerbated in the public sector where additional factors are at play including the multiplicity of stakeholders, targets and control mechanisms and a heritage of ‘traditional administrative’ HR roles (Bach and della Rocca, 2000; Truss 2009). 3

Devolution of HR tasks to the line One clear consequence of the new strategic HR model has been to transfer responsibility for day to day HR work to the line manager, and proponents of this approach emphasise the importance of a partnering relationship between HR and the line to deliver HR goals and activities. Although devolution of HR activities is now well documented, little is known about the impact of HR re-structuring on this group (in contrast to the mounting literature on the consequences for HR roles, practitioner experiences and competencies). We do know, however, that line management involvement in HRM is problematic and that issues of role conflict, work overload, lack of HRM skills and knowledge, inadequate training and pressure to focus on short term priorities are common barriers to successful devolvement (Maxwell & Watson, 2006; Hutchinson and Purcell, 2010).

The shift in responsibility for HR activities to the line has two important implications. First, there is growing theoretical and empirical evidence to show that line managers, (particularly those at the lower levels of management) play a key role in determining the HR-performance link and influence employee attitudes and behaviour by the way in which they deliver HR policies and practices (Truss, 2001; Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007). Thus their effectiveness in HRM is vital for individual and organisational effectiveness. Second, as translators of HRM goals and policy, line managers must be critical to the success of these new models of HR delivery (Teo and Rodwell, 2007) and ultimately the status and credibility of the HR function. Distortion of HR policies as evidenced by the gap between espoused and enacted HRM (Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007; Khilji and Wang, 2006) and ineffective delivery of HR activities can undermine the contribution of HR strategy to organisational performance. The success of the new 4

strategic HR model thus relies on line managers delivering HR policies and practices effectively and as intended.

In order to improve HRM and organisational effectiveness it is vital that HR professionals focus on the implementation of HRM within their organisation. This means a shift in focus from the design of HR policy and re-structuring of HR roles to how well policies are applied and the roles of line managers. This area has been neglected in both the academic and practitioner literature. In particular we need to understand the nature of the HR/line interface and the supportive conditions that are necessary to help line managers improve their effectiveness in HRM.

This paper aims to provide insight into the way front line managers are managed and sets the debate within the context of the restructuring and reshaping of the HR function. It reports on the findings of a study carried out between 2009 and 2011 in a large public sector organisation, that focused on the relationship between the changing HR function, HR policies and practices and line management activities in HRM. The research was part of an on-going study which explores the role of front line managers in delivering effective HRM.

Organisational Context The case study organisation was completing a major change management programme at the time of the research. This was prior to the public expenditure cuts of the Coalition Government that currently are forcing a further reduction in headcount. The change management programme aimed to improve organisational capability in delivery and to 5

achieve efficiency savings. Facilities were progressively concentrated on to one main site. A policy of flexible resourcing was designed to improve labour utilisation, through temporary re-assignments of staff across projects and teams to meet work-load volumes and priorities. A new ways of working policy that emphasised up-skilling (defined to include behaviours as well as technical skills) and a ‘new deal’ (built on the principles of employee engagement) was launched to enable flexible resourcing, and its development was one of three priority areas for the now lean central HR policy team. The other two were leadership and line management.

HR reform was driven to a substantial degree by the government department in London and, in turn, by the Cabinet Office quest under New Labour for demonstrable improvement in public sector efficiency. The HR function had been organised along traditional lines; centrally run although with administrative teams in the various operational departments, responsible for day to day HR and case work. HR delivery was centralised from 2006, with the establishment of a shared service facility. Managers and staff had access to ‘transactional services’ via an intra-net site and a call centre and from there to ‘expert business’ advisors and (for complex cases) subject matter experts in the ‘back office’. There was some re-development of the intra-net portal over 2009, to make access to the service more user-friendly. Interviewees ascribed the shared service initiative variously: to the search for cost-efficiency savings (the HR headcount was reduced by a third) or service quality improvement (standardisation).

The transition to the HR business partner model from 2008 was locally led in the sense that a stimulus was change in the organisation’s role and increased focus on 6

commissioning. Projects had to achieve assurance approval, in respect to HR procedure and employment law among other dimensions. HR business partners joined the management board of the operating department to which they were assigned, and much of their work was project-related. They were identified by the central HR policy team as key agents in the management of change that included the devolution of operational HR to line management, supported by the shared service. That is to say they were encouraged to promote the policy. There might be inclination on the part of line managers to seek out their HRM expertise, but formally this was not part of the business partner remit.

The government department authored rules and guidelines that defined for organisations within it the line manager’s role and responsibility for operational HR and a guide to managing people manual. At the case study organisation HR placed emphasis on leadership, for managers at all levels, and for line managers a more pro-active approach to people performance management (aiding individual’s continuous development and addressing any under-performance). The HR and senior managers interviewed characterised the organisation as having been output-orientated. They also argued that because the route to promotion was through management, there were managers who had been promoted on the basis of technical expertise as opposed to people management competence. In other words there was some suggestion that line managers’ motivation to embrace their extended remit was the issue. Our research findings are interesting in this light.

7

Method   The research focussed on two large sub units of the organisation (operating centres). Data were gathered primarily through qualitative interviews (semi- structured) and an on-line questionnaire survey. Interviews were conducted with a range of senior managers at corporate level, including HR, and key players in the units. This helped set the business and local context and provided some insight into perceptions of the line manager role at senior management level. In late 2010/early 2011, a structured questionnaire survey of line managers was conducted and in total 617 managers responded from the first and middle management level. It should be noted that the survey took place at a time of considerable uncertainty in the public sector, when this organisation, like others, was faced with having to make considerable financial savings partly through job cuts.

In the following section we report on the findings of the questionnaire survey since it is line managers’ perceptions that we are interested in exploring here. Three key areas are considered: how are line managers roles defined; the support they are provided in HR management; managers’ attitudinal and behavioural outcomes.

Findings Line manager profiles Respondents to the questionnaire were mostly male (74%), full time, (92%), in permanent posts (93%) and long serving. Eighty six per cent had ten years or more service in the organisation, and half had worked in their department for 5 years or more. However, length of time in the role was considerably shorter: 22% had been in their 8

current position for less than a year. Two thirds (67%) were from the lower management pay bands. This profile reflected workforce composition and mirrored that of the management population as a whole and is therefore considered representative of the organisation.

Three quarters of respondents managed teams of between 1 and 5 people. Just 7% managed teams of over 21 people. These spans of control are significantly smaller than those generally found. Hale’s study (2005) of 135 organisations across a range of sectors found that in 30% of organisations, junior managers have spans of control greater than 10. Our own earlier research on front line managers showed most teams comprise between 5 and 20 people (Hutchinson and Purcell, 2003). ACAS guidelines suggest successful teams to be mostly made up of between 6 and 15 members.  Discussions with more senior managers revealed a range of reasons for these historically narrow spans of control, including the fact they it enabled managers to focus on the functional aspects of their role, and provided career opportunities.     How line managers roles are defined in HR work

Before examining managers’ roles in HRM, it is necessary to consider not only their people management responsibilities but their roles more widely. Previous research (Hutchinson and Purcell, 2010) has shown that lack of role clarity and role ambiguity is a key barrier to effective delegation of HRM, and that there are frequently tensions and conflict between multiple management responsibilities.

Others have questioned the

willingness and motivation of line managers to carry out HR work (McGovern et al, 9

1997; Renwick and MacNeil, 2002). Here we examine managers’ views about their job as a whole, including their people management responsibilities, and satisfaction with the HR activities they are expected to undertake.

In contrast to other research, there appeared to be little ambiguity for line managers in the nature of their role. Eight five per cent felt clear about their role as a whole and a similar proportion (83%) felt clear about what was expected of them as a line manager (Table 1). There was also strong identification with corporate and departmental goals which is important if managers are to implement HR strategy effectively. Eighty five per cent 80% understood how their work contributed to the objectives of their Operating Centre and a slightly lower proportion, 77%, understood how their work contributed to the organisation’s strategy.

Table 1: Managers’ perceptions of job role

I am clear about what my roles and responsibilities are in my job I understand how my work contributes to the objectives of my Operating Centre I understand how my work contributes to the organisation’s strategy and long term goals I am clear about what is expected of me as a line manager I manage people well I give enough emphasise to the people management aspects of my job

Strongly agree % 24

Agree % 61

8

5

Strongly Disagree % 2

23

62

8

5

2

1

16

61

16

5

2

-

13

70

10

4

1

2

9

58

28

2

-

3

8

53

25

10

1

3

10

Neutral %

Disagree %

Don’t Know % -

Lower proportions (although still the majority) felt they managed people well (67%) and gave enough emphasis to the people side of the role (61%). On these questions a significant proportion of respondents (at least a quarter) neither agreed nor disagreed with these statements. Half of those respondents choosing this neutral category managed very small teams. One possible explanation, then, is that managers did not feel they had sufficient experience to assess their performance in these areas.

The findings in Table 2 provide some further insight into these views.

Table 2: Other aspects of the line management role Strongly agree % I have the tools I need to do my role as a line manager effectively I have the information I need to do my job as a line manager well I cannot meet all the demands on my time in my role as a line manager The policy rules and guidance on managing people are clear I have received adequate training to undertake my role as a line manager

Agree %

Neutral %

Disagre e %

7

57

22

10

Strongly Disagre e % 2

Don’t Know %

6

54

26

11

2

2

6

29

34

26

4

2

4

45

28

14

6

3

5

54

25

10

4

2

2

A barrier to effective involvement in HR activities appears to be time; only 30% of respondents agreed that could meet all the demands on their time in their role as a line manager. One manager elaborated that:

The role of the line manager (LM) has become progressively loaded over recent years, with various specialist functions (most notably HR) becoming the responsibility of the LM with only the barest of training and backup. Most LMs 11

now have a full time 'day job’ as well as their LM role, so at best we scrabble to find the time to do proper LM and often resort to managing on an exception basis.

This concurs with other research (e.g. Hutchinson and Purcell, 2003), which finds that the transfer of HR work to the line has occurred without managers relinquishing former roles, thus increasing their workload. What makes these findings particularly noteworthy, however, is that most managers manage small teams and in such circumstances we might expect additional time to be less of an issue.

More positive responses were given in respect of tools needed to do the role effectively (64% agreed with this statement), information (60% agreed they had information to do the job well) and training (59% felt they received adequate training to perform their role as a line manager) although, again, a significant proportion was neutral or disagreed with these statements.

Satisfaction with HR role The interest and satisfaction that managers show in taking responsibility for HR activities is critical to their effectiveness in HRM. Opinion was sought on managers’ satisfaction with their involvement in 17 activities which reflected the full range of their HR responsibilities. Table 3 provides a breakdown of the results.

The majority were satisfied with all but two of these activities, suggesting that for most there was a willingness or at least acceptance to undertake HR work. Again, this contrasts with other research (Renwick and MacNeil, 2003) which has questioned managers’ 12

motivation and willingness in HRM. Highest levels of satisfaction were expressed for communicating with the team, dealing with individual’s personal concerns, involving the team in work based decisions, helping staff achieve a good balance between work and home life, and building an effective. There was less satisfaction with recruiting to the team (the shared service had an aggrandised role), or with managing poor performance, handling disciplines and grievances, rewarding and providing recognition for achievement and managing sickness absence. Many of these are conflict based issues, and this concurs with other research which finds that line managers dislike having ‘difficult conversations’ with staff and frequently struggle with managing poor performance.

Table 3: Satisfaction with involvement in people management Very Satisfied %

Satisfied %

Recruiting to your team

5

38

36

16

Strongly Dissatisfied % 5

Inducting new people to your team Managing your team’s performance Completing training and development plans for staff Undertaking development reviews for staff Managing poor performance Rewarding and providing recognition for achievement Managing sickness absence Developing your team Communicating with your team Involving your team in work based decisions Building an effective team Dealing with individual’s personal concerns Health and safety issues Handling disciplines and grievances Managing flexible working arrangements Helping staff achieve a good balance between work and home life

5 7 8

56 61 54

29 26 28

8 5 9

2 1 1

7 4 7

59 44 47

25 36 28

8 12 14

1 3 3

5 8 15 15 12 12 10 5 10 10

56 58 66 64 60 66 59 48 58 64

29 27 15 16 23 17 26 38 24 21

8 7 3 4 4 3 4 6 6 5

2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1

How satisfied do you feel with your involvement in the following aspects of your job?

13

Neutral %

Dissatisfied %

A high percentage responded ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ to some questions. Again, this neutral response may partly reflect the size of teams and frequency with which managers dealt with HR activities, as this manager explains:

Years can pass for a line manager without having to deal with HR issues like recruitment, grievance, inefficiency, disability etc., so when you need to handle these issues it is unfamiliar territory and in the past we would turn to our HR colleagues in the organisation for advice. ……If you are coming across issues for the first time, it can take a significant effort to get up to speed in order to manage the situation effectively.

Managers’ views were also sought on how helpful they felt the organisation was in giving them support in their HR tasks, and there was a strong positive correlation between perceived helpfulness and satisfaction. Generally, those activities that managers were most satisfied with were the same as those that they felt the organisation was most helpful in providing support.

Supporting line managers in HRM How well line managers perceive they are supported in their people management role will inevitably impact on the way they themselves manage, and their effectiveness in delivering HR work. Managers’ opinions were sought on a range of sources of support, including different areas of the HR function (Table 4). Highest levels of satisfaction were with other work colleagues (76%) and their own line manager (74%). Lowest levels of satisfaction included HR case advisors, located in the shared service centre (21%), and 14

then senior managers (23%). Just 45 % were satisfied with the HR shared services centre, and half were satisfied with the HR policy rules and guidance.     Table 4: Managers’ satisfaction with support Thinking about your role in managing people, how satisfied do you feel with the support you receive from: HR Shared Service Centre HR Case Advisors HR Business Partners HR policy rules and guidance Your line manager Other work colleagues Senior managers The organisation as a whole

Very Satisfied %

Satisfied %

4 2 7 3 19 13 2 1

41 19 30 47 55 63 21 24

Neutral %

39 69 54 35 19 23 64 62

Dissatisfie d %

Strongly Dissatisfie d%

13 7 7 11 5 1 8 9

3 3 2 3 2 5 4

  More comments were made by respondents on support (or lack of support) from the HR function than any other aspect of the survey, reinforcing the need for greater support from HR. Particular concerns were raised about the quality of HR advice, lack of consistency in support, lack of training for line managers, lack of clarity in the procedures and the bureaucracy. Many, however, recognised these difficulties were exacerbated by the reductions in HR staff and (perhaps as a consequence) the lack of professional HR staff. For example:    

In general, the transition from an organisation with a large HR staff to almost none has not been accompanied by an effective program of training and support to line managers. Advice from those HR sources that do remain has, in my experience, been not only poor but demonstrably incorrect on significant issues.

With the continuing reductions in HR support, line managers are being expected 15

to take on more and more actions, for which there is not adequate support. ....The general impression is that we have a plethora of frequently changing and unhelpfully bureaucratic procedures with remarkably little attention given to what should be an obvious need - the training and advice necessary for such procedures to be effectively implemented. The pressured line manager is left with the feeling that those few HR staffs who remain appear to see their job as to continually tinker with and change the procedures and rules rather than to find helpful ways to assist busy line managers with applying those rules.

Whilst the organisation attempts to provide rules and guidance to support the line manager, it is lacking in providing professional assistance from HR trained staff in addressing everyday issues. The (shared service centre) provides 'rules based' instruction but not real time help and advice in unique situations and where the rules do not fit, reverts to policy. This is not helpful and the reduction in HR trained staff is not helpful. HR Business partners are not sufficiently experienced in personnel issues and tend to be little more than Operating Centre Business change managers and statistics collectors. The relationship between line manager and staff is a close contact one and the loading of more and more HR responsibility onto individual line managers without proper tools and support to undertake this work will lead to a deterioration of the relationship and simple issues becoming more difficult to resolve with a breakdown in communication and trust.

16

Satisfaction with Employment Practices

Another form of HR support are HR policies and practices. Crucially, it is the way these policies are actually applied and perceived by managers that will influence their attitudes and behaviour (Wright and Nishi, 2004).

Opinions were sought on levels of satisfaction with 10 employment or HR practices (Table 5). Majorities were satisfied or very satisfied with four out of the ten practices: flexible working arrangements (81%), training and development (62%), opportunity to express grievance and personal concerns (60%) and their performance appraisals (56%). Table 5: Satisfaction with employment practices Neutral %

Dissatisfied %

Strongly Dissatisfied % 9

How satisfied are you with the following aspects of your job?

Very Satisfied %

Satisfied %

Recruitment and selection process for your grade

3

38

30

20

Training and development you receive in your present job Your performance appraisal Your current career opportunities The pay you receive The total benefits package The overall recognition you receive for your performance The information you receive to do your job well The opportunity to express grievances and raise personal concerns The flexible working arrangements

9

53

19

15

4

7 1 3 4 4

49 20 38 35 36

26 33 34 34 30

13 31 19 20 23

5 16 7 7 7

2

40

37

18

4

6

54

27

9

4

25

56

16

2

1

A substantial proportion was neutral on many policies, in particular information, pay and total benefits. Nonetheless, just under half (47%) were dissatisfied with their current career opportunities and only 39% were satisfied with their total benefits, 40% with the 17

overall recognition they receive for their performance, and recruitment and selection to the grade, 41% with pay. The very low satisfaction with career opportunities – possibly influenced by the context of headcount reduction - is of particular concern given that career opportunity has been shown to be particularly important for the motivation and engagement of professional workers.

Managers’ attitudinal and behavioural outcomes There is growing research to show that positive attitudes are connected to positive work behaviours and ‘create value’ for the organisation (Gerhart, 2005). We were interested in exploring managers’ attitudes and behaviours, and the relationship between these outcomes and perceptions of their role in HR, since this might indicate what supportive conditions are necessary in order to improve line management behaviour in HRM. Managers’ attitudes were sought on a range of measures but here we just report on two: commitment and organisational citizenship behaviour (OCBs).

Most managers felt committed, despite the significant changes being experienced in the organisation (Table 6). Some 72% felt loyal to the organisation, 63% shared many of the values of their employer and 59% felt proud to tell people who they work for which suggests a high level of commitment, even if it rarely extended to turning down another job with more pay in order to stay with the organisation (16% agreed with this statement).

18

Table 6: Managers’ commitment

I share many of the organisation I feel loyal to my organisation I am proud to tell people who I work for I would turn down another job with more pay in order to stay with the organisation

Strongly agree % 10 18 15 5

Agree %

Neutral %

Disagree %

53 54 44

27 17 23

3 9 13

Strongly Disagree % 1 2 4

11

29

29

22

Don’t Know % 6 4

It could be argued that the real test of loyalty and commitment is the extent to which employees exhibit OCBs (Eisenberger et al, 2002), a form of positive discretionary effort. Managers exhibited very high levels of OCB (Table 7). Nearly all (93%) indicated that they would volunteer to help others as they need it, and 84 % said they would volunteer to do tasks outside their normal job description. A large majority (80%) said they usually worked overtime or extra hours when required and just under three quarter (73%) were willing to work harder than they have to in order to help the organisation succeed.

Table 7: Organisational Citizenship Behaviour

I volunteer to help others as they need it I usually work overtime or extra hours when required I volunteer to do tasks outside my normal job description I am willing to work harder than I have to in order to help this organisation succeed

Agree %

Neutral %

Disagree %

Don’t Know % -

67

5

1

Strongly Disagree % -

27

53

14

5

2

-

26

58

13

1

-

-

23

50

19

5

2

-

Strongly agree % 26

The final analysis was to test for associations between these outcomes and other measures and this revealed some interesting findings. Strong positive correlations where 19

shown between OCBs and satisfaction with involvement in HR activities, job role, support from line manager, senior managers, work colleagues, HR function, and HR policies. The strongest association was with involvement in HR work.

Discussion

The HR business partnering model has been upheld in both the academic and practitioner literature as an opportunity for the HR function to enhance its strategic contribution, improve service delivery and reduce costs.

Despite the widespread advocacy (and

adoption) of this approach the model has some serious limitations. Crucially, it fails to consider the affect on line managers, who are expected to take on greater responsibility for transactional HR work as a consequence of this new strategic approach. This neglect is important for two reasons. First, recent research shows that line managers play a vital role in organisations by the way in which they ‘bring HR policies to life’ (Hutchinson and Purcell, 2003), influencing employees attitudes, behaviours, and ultimately performance. Second, there is mounting evidence that devolution of HRM to the line is problematic.

One of the critical questions for organisations seeking to adopt the business partnering model of HR is what are the key supports which enable line managers to deliver their role in HRM effectively? The evidence presented in this study finds that HR and senior management support for line managers in their role as people managers was lacking. Nevertheless, most managers understood and were satisfied with their role in HR work suggesting a willingness, or at worst an acceptance to undertake HR activities. This 20

contrasts with previous research, and indeed the views of some more senior managers in the organisation (including HR) who questioned managers’ motivation to embrace HRM. Line managers were also commitment to the organisation and displayed high levels of organisational citizenship behaviour, despite threats to job security and perceived lack of support. Our analysis showed that the more satisfied managers were with their involvement in HR work, and the support provided, the higher the levels of commitment and organisation citizenship behaviour. This emphasises the importance of focusing on all areas of HR support including, the HR policies that are applied to this group of managers.

The evidence presented here also highlights the need to consider the context, and this is another limitation of the model.

In the public sector the adoption of the business

partnering model has been driven by the need to make cost efficiency savings, in addition to improving HR’s strategic contribution. However, as illustrated in this case study financial savings in HR costs can constrain the successful development of the model.

In conclusion, failure to focus attention on supporting line managers in their role as people managers has potentially negative implications for HR practice, employee performance and the successful development of the strategic partner model. Ongoing reductions in HR costs can only serve to hinder this process.

Recommendations for practice will be explored further in the presentation.

  21

                                                                                                                                                                                     References Bach, S., and della Rocca, G. (2000). The Management Strategies of Public Service Employers in Europe, Industrial Relations Journal, 31, 2, 82-96

Brockett, J. (2009). More councils look to shared services to keep them afloat, People Management, 26 February. www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/articles/2009/02

Caldwell, R (2008) HR business partner competency models: re-contextualising effectiveness. Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 18, no 3, pp275-294.

Cooke, F.L. (2006) Modeling an HR Shared Services Center: Experience of an MNC in the United Kingdom, Human Resource Management, 45(2), pp211-277

Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vanderberge, C., Sucharski, I. and Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organisational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 3, 565–573. Francis, F. and Keegan, A. (2006). The changing face of HRM: in search of balance. Human Resource Management Journal, 16: 3, 231–249.

Gerhart, B. (2005). Human Resources and Business Performance: findings, Unanswered Questions and an Alternative Approach, Managed Review, 16/2: 174-85.

Guest, D. (2011) Human Resource management and performance: still searching for some answers, Human Resource Managed Journal, Vole 21, pp3-13

Hales, C. (2005). Rooted in supervision, branching into management: continuity and change in the role of first line manager. Journal of Management Studies, 42: 3, 471–506.

Hutchinson, S. and Purcell, J. (2010) Managing ward managers for roles in HRM in the 22

NHS: overworked and under-resourced. Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 20, No 4.  

Hutchinson, S. and Purcell, J. (2003). Bringing Policies to Life: The vital role of line managers. London: CIPD.

Hutchinson, S. and Purcell, J. (2007). The role of line managers in reward, and training, learning and development. Research Report: CIPD.

IDS (2009). Centralising HR Service Provision, HR Study 888, February

Khilji, S. E. and Wang, X. (2006). ‘Intended and implemented HRM: The missing linchpin in strategic international human resource management research’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 7: 1171-1189.

Maxwell, G. A. and Watson, S. (2006). Perspectives on line managers in HRM: Hilton International’s UK Hotels, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17: 6, 1152-1170.

McGovern, F., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P. and Truss, C. (1997). Human Resource Management on the line? Human Resource Management Journal, 7: 4, 12-29

Purcell, J. and Kinnie, N. (2007). ‘HRM and business performance’, in P. Boxall, J. Purcell and P.Wright (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource Management, Oxford: Oxford University

Purcell, J., and Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front-line managers as agents in the HRM– performance causal chain: theory, analysis and evidence, Human Resource Management Journal. Vol 17, No 1.

23

Reilly, P., Tamkin., P. and Broughton, A. (2007). The changing HR Function: transforming HR? London: CIPD

Renwick, D. And MacNeil, C.M. (2002) Line Manager Involvement in Careers, Career Development International, 7(7): 407-14

Storey, J (2007). Human Resource Management: A Critical Text: Thomson Learning.

Teo, S.T.T. and Rodwell. J.J. (2007). To be strategic in the new public sector, HR must remember its operational activities, Human Resource Management, 46, 2, 265-284

Truss, K. (2001). Complexities and controversies in linking HRM with organizational outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 38: 8, 1121–1149.

Truss, C. (2009). Changing HR Functional forms in the UK public sector, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(4), pp717-737.

Ulrich, D (1997). Human Resource Champions, Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. new mandate for human resources, Harvard Business Review, Jan – Feb

Wright, P., and Nishi, L. (2004). Strategic HRM and Organisational Behaviour: Integrating Multiple Level Analysis. Paper presented at the ‘What Next for HRM’ conference, Rotterdam.

24