The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

http://www.emerald-library.com

HR-line work relations: HR-line work

relations:
a review, pilot case and a review

research agenda
Douglas Renwick 179
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland Received December 1999
Revised/Accepted
Keywords Human resource management, Line management, Conflict, Theory January 2000
Abstract States that in respect of organizations' attempts to devolve operational HR
management to line managers, and the reconfiguration of HR work in general, one area of HR
work that has received relatively little attention is the state of work relations between HR and
line managers involved in the operation and execution of HR policy. Any research that has been
done has often been a-theoretical. Reviews the literature in the field and examines the themes
raised by means of an exploratory pilot case study. The case findings are that conflictual
relations are seen to exist, but are seen to be negated by moves towards more consensual
relations by both parties. Concludes that it is useful to seek to derive a wider research agenda
than that which presently exists for HR-line work relations (especially the need for further case
work), and to stress the need for further theory development in the field, so as to examine
consensual theories' explanations of why such developments are occurring.

Introduction
Existing theory in the field of HR-line work relations has often been
a-theoretical, and narrowly focused to what we might describe as conflictual
perspectives in the work on staff-line conflict (Dalton, 1959), the tension/
ambiguity inherent in the personnel role (Watson, 1977), personnel adopting
innovatory practices (Legge, 1978), and personnel/HR operating in a pragmatic
or opportunistic manner in organizations (Sisson, 1989; Storey, 1992). But often
the bulk of recent work lacks this base, as it examines what HR work HR and/
or line managers do in organizations (Torrington and Hall, 1996; Poole and
Jenkins, 1997), or the prospects of survival of the personnel/HR function in the
context of devolving HR work to the line and the outsourcing of some HR
activities (Cunningham and Hyman, 1995, 1999).
Some organizations like Marks & Spencer have always prided themselves
on their determination to have few rigid distinctions between line and
personnel managers because ``good human relations is something that cannot
be left to the personnel department'' (Tyson and Fell, 1992). Such approaches
have been described as ``sophisticated HRM''' with a management style labelled
as ``organic'' (Turnbull and Wass, 1998). Turbulence in the corporate
environment has led firms to seek innovations in HRM to compete effectively
on a global basis. Such a shift emphasises the ability of HR professionals to
manage a network of different forms of work relationships (Tyson and Fell,
1992), which includes domestic and global benchmarking and learning from
management practice spread across several national boundaries (Hendry, Employee Relations,
Vol. 22 No. 2, 2000, pp. 179-205.
1991). # MCB University Press, 0142-5455
Employee Literature review
Relations The HR role[1]
22,2 The role of the personnel specialist in the literature has been described as a peer
among managers; in the middle; an altruistic role; a representative; an expert,
and their history as one of a ``struggle for status'' (Anthony and Crichton, 1969).
Watson's study (1977) of personnel specialists argued that they did not achieve
180 integration into management fully, leaving them in a position at work where it
was probable for them to experience ``considerable ambiguity and tension''. An
abundance of identities was seen in the personnel management occupation
which was part self-inflicted by personnel specialists' inability to ``articulate an
identity'' and clearly state their contribution to organisational objectives
(Tyson and Fell, 1992).
Tyson and Fell (1992) presented a conceptual classification of three models
of personnel management ranging from a 1960s ``clerk of works'' (``routine''
administrative), a 1970s ``contracts manager'' (`interpretative'' industrial
relations) and 1980s ``architect'' (``business manager'' planning)[2]. Authority in
the first two models is vested in line managers with the architect exercising
control through personnel and line managers moving to widespread
integration, with architects seeking dialogue with their colleagues involving
open power-broking and, on occasions, managing conflicts. Tyson and Fell saw
that difficulties arise for personnel managers when they want to change their
role and when senior managers do not share their own perception of their role.
They concluded that personnel managers were ``facilitators'' enabling other
management work to occur, whose ``principal skills'' lay in their timing of
applying techniques, and their ability ``to sell their services to client line
managers/top executives''.
Storey (1992) overlaid Tyson and Fell's ``intervention/non-intervention''
dimension with a strategic/tactical axis, identifying four main types of
personnel practitioner; first ``advisers'' (internal consultants), second
``handmaidens'' (reactive, client/contractors of line managers), third
``regulators'' (interventionists monitoring the observance of employment rules),
and fourth ``changemakers'' (who favoured engendering employee
commitment), the latter being ``most in tune'' with HRM initiatives. However,
Storey noted that of the 15 cases he studied ``no more than two'' of them
contained personnel specialist teams which were similar to the changemaker
type. He concluded:
The findings overall thus indicate that personnel in the mainstream companies had not been
the main drivers of the new paradigm . . . In so far as the regulators still outnumbered the
changemakers in most of the companies, part of the explanation might be sought in the
traditional opportunism which Sisson (1989) had traced to the institutional and structural
characteristics of the British scene as a whole and which derive from particular historical
circumstances (Storey, 1992, pp. 186-7).

The line role

Dalton (1959) sees the role of the manager as containing a series of dilemmas
where the ambiguity inherent in the job seems to select managers who are best
able to absorb, or resolve/utilise conflict for both personal and organisational HR-line work
ends. Drucker (1974) views the management job consisting of five basic relations:
operations: a review
(1) setting objectives;
(2) organising;
(3) motivating and communicating; 181
(4) measurement; and
(5) people development.
For Mintzberg and Quinn (1998), a manager's general work involves
performing regular duties like ritual and ceremony, negotiations, and the
processing of soft information. Within the field of industrial relations (IR),
Marsh and Gillies (1983) considered day-to-day personnel and industrial
relations activities inevitably to lie with line and staff managers and
subordinate supervisors, although many personnel and industrial relations
specialists felt that such managers had only modest competence in IR, a view
reflected by many managers themselves. Hence, they concluded that managers
are willing to accept the advice of specialists, but not subject to their direction,
as managers regarded IR as part of their jobs. However, Leicester (1989) found
line managers failed to take responsibility for employee development and few
managers trained in interpersonal skills, as managers considered them
unnecessary or were placed in charge of subordinates without such
responsibilities being made explicit to them.
Line manager engagement in IR work is traceable to Edwards' (1987) study
of factory managers[3], but what is new in terms of the line manager role is as
the delivery mechanism for new employee relations approaches, and as their
designer and driver (Storey, 1992). McGovern et al. (1997) charted how this
change came from general changes in labour management, and line manager
assertiveness. More evidence of line manager involvement in HR comes from
Legge (IRS, 1995), and from Hutchinson's (1995) study that line managers are
increasingly involved in recruitment, discipline and training decisions. Storey
(1992) concedes that possible bias from line managers has to be considered in
their claims to produce exceptional outcomes arising from their involvement,
but he nonetheless sees such developments as definitely threatening for
personnel managers. An opportunity for line managers to increase their role
and status therefore emerges under devolved management and HRM as a new
role for middle-level line managers is created ± that of the ``business manager'',
who is both subject to and more involved in the new practices of people
management. However, Storey indicates that at senior management levels these
changes seem to involve ``a more active role for line and general managers'' to
set HR policy direction, but such arrangements are limited as they do not take
into account the full complexities of personnel/IR. Nevertheless, he concluded
that line managers reacted to these new responsibilities (including people
management) emerging ``as a pretty satisfied lot'' overall.
Employee General relations
Relations Descriptions in the literature of the personnel role have often been pejorative,
22,2 notably: Drucker's question ``Is personnel management bankrupt?'' and his
assertion that it often lacks a clear sense of direction and purpose (Drucker,
1961). Line managers labelling personnel as ``chair-warmers'' (Dalton, 1959),
Petrie's (1965) question ``Personnel `professionals' ± who needs them?''[4].
182 Skinner's (1981) critique of American HR departments as ``Big hat, no cattle''.
Storey's (1992) portrayal of personnel as ``foot-draggers'' rather than ``active
change agents''. Eisenstat's (1996) question, what can HR ``bring to the picnic''?
and Cunningham and Hyman's (1999) picture of personnel work being removed
from departments and devolved to line managers, as personnel have
``consistently failed to achieve results in the past'' (1999). The reforming of HR
and line work has been further heightened by changes in the corporate
environment, e.g. via privatisation and globalisation (Hutchinson, 1995). As the
HR profession does not control access to personnel jobs, non-HR managers can
become HR managers when employers decide so (Anthony and Crichton, 1969).
Such changes and lack of control by personnel/HR over its own destiny provide
avenues for non-HR specialists to have a say in the organisation of HR work,
giving power and authority to senior managers over the set-up of HR and line
functions, and considerable scope to general/line managers to interpret and
implement HR policy at the operational level.

The HR-line set-up

Stewart (1963) defines line functions as those having direct responsibility for
achieving company objectives, whereas staff activities are those that provide
advice and services. Such arrangements produce many benefits to senior
managers including the ability to draw on expert services; to reduce their need
for detailed knowledge; and to make middle and lower line officers less
dependent on them. Nevertheless, there are pitfalls, as line officers often lack
skills in translating staff advice into effective working practice (Dalton, 1959).
Some authors are hostile to any form of staff-line set-up. Drucker (1961) for
example considers them to be ``undesirable'', as they give authority without
responsibility.
That the HR-line set-up has radically altered in recent years has been
documented in WIRS, WERS (4) and CLIRS. WIRS 1 found general managers
or administrators were the main executors of personnel work (Daniel and
Millward, 1983), a finding reflected also in WIRS 2 (Millward and Stevens,
1986). WIRS 3 confirmed a ``broadly stable picture'' of the proportion of
establishments with specialist personnel managers when compared to WIRS 1
and 2 ± ``designated'' personnel managers specialised in personnel/IR work, but
not at the expense of excluding ``other activities'', while non-personnel
specialists reported ``a small but noticeable increase'' in time allocated to
personnel tasks (Millward et al., 1992). WERS (4) found nearly ``nine out of ten''
workplace managers claiming primary responsibility for employee relations
matters with managers spending on average 35 per cent of their time on them,
while a majority of managers from branch sites followed policy set at a higher HR-line work
level (Cully et al., 1999). CLIRS 1 found that in companies with decentralised relations:
bargaining structures establishment managers were unlikely to have sole a review
discretion on decisions over key matters, as they had the poorest performance
levels. Hence, higher level involvement occurred (Marginson et al., 1988). CLIRS
2 found the presence of a personnel director improved the relative influence of
the personnel function compared to finance, and a greater role arising for 183
personnel the bigger the department (Marginson et al., 1993). It revealed the
median policy from UK head office on establishments' autonomy over IR being
to ``instruct'' them, aside from training and development which was held at
business unit level. But it also found large firms with large personnel
departments had functional differentiation and specialisation and were less
able to integrate cross-functionally (Marginson et al., 1993).
In current HR-line set-ups, line groups possess significant power. If, as
Allen (1991) found, line managers do not appreciate the personnel role,
personnel face problems. One problem (as Tyson and Fell (1992) argue), is
that the viability of organisations changes on personnel's co-equal
contribution to other functions; hence organisations giving line managers
general responsibility over employee relations rather than personnel
specialists (Marsh, 1982). The HR-line set-up has been further complicated by
``first line managers'' playing a part in HRM (Storey, 1992), with WERS (4)
documenting that, although 90 per cent of workplaces had some supervisory
employees' duties containing people management, these employees did not
have the authority ``to make final decisions on them'' (Cully et al., 1999).

HR-line work relations: the current context

General evidence of consensual relations between HR and line is limited.
Hutchinson (1995) examined involvement and found that HR managers do
consult line managers, with some managers even seeing them both working
in ``partnership''. Empirical evidence from the Hutchinson and Wood (1995)
study contains examples of joint working between personnel and line
managers[5] with an increased role for line managers in the personnel
function, most managers being ``optimistic'' about this change and little
evidence that it caused ``tension''. Other research indicates a looser
arrangement, where HR-line communication involves HR participation,
``with'' the line, or ``alone'' (Torrington and Hall, 1996), or a ``sharing of
responsibilities'' (Poole and Jenkins, 1997).
The general trend to increased line manager involvement in HR work was
noted in Cunningham and Hyman's (1995) study, which found a ``sizeable
minority'' of their 45 cases reporting a reallocation of duties over the last three
years. One personnel manager saw that line managers welcomed change but
noted that ``with this responsibility comes accountability''. But their study
noted problems, foremost of which were that different departments varied as to
how receptive they were to these initiatives, and from line managers, a degree
of resistance to empowerment initiatives; an inability to see the benefits of
Employee changes; and a view from personnel respondents that line managers do not
Relations possess people management skills. IRS (1995) reported HR professionals as still
22,2 designing and implementing new HR policies for organisations, but that they
may operate as an ``internal consultant'' in climates where traditional HR
activities have been devolved to line managers. The main rationale for
devolution was to improve the accountability of local management, rather than
184 cost-reduction. Evidence from the ``Saratoga''[6] study suggested that the extent
of line manager involvement in HR tasks was extensive with the line doing
``around a third'' of core HR department roles (IRS, 1995).
Torrington and Hall (1996) found personnel specialists' involvement in HR
strategy was executed ``mostly through partnership'' with line managers. The
personnel function was seen to be involved in strategy ``to a significant extent''.
and developed that strategy ``with the line'' in all of the 13 areas surveyed. They
concluded, however, that the approach was ``piecemeal rather than holistic''.
characterised by a generally reactive rather than proactive stance by personnel.
Torrington and Hall cited several examples as to ``how'' joint working took place
in strategy development. Some line managers were involved at the start or used
``cross-functional semi-permanent groups'' to debate personnel issues, or ``away
days and policy conferences'' with line managers. In other cases the processes
were less formal and focused, or had a ``partnership'' approach within the
business to operate in a ``cross-functional way'', with personnel sometimes as ``the
integrating factor across all functions''. As to the impact of devolution of
personnel work to the line, some line managers supported the move, but others
thought it created ``people problems'' which they felt belonged ``to personnel''.
Difficulties were seen in line managers not having ``skills to take on these new
tasks''; or being reluctant to take on personnel responsibilities, and in personnel
staff letting them ``go'' to the line. Hence, Torrington and Hall concluded, ``if
business circumstances changed, the role of personnel would be reconsidered''
and the chief executive's mindset appeared critical in this respect.
IRS (1996) found half its respondents had devolved responsibility in the last
two years for one or more personnel duties to business unit or line managers.
The main reasons given for this were to:
. increase local management accountability;
. improve the speed of decision making;
. introduce policies more appropriate to the locality; and
. cut costs.
Only 50 per cent of them said the effect was ``cost neutral'', with 31 per cent
arguing a ``reduced costs'' position and 17 per cent reporting costs had
``increased''. Overall, IRS (1996) found the majority of organisations that had
decentralised personnel duties claiming it had resulted in personnel taking a
more ``advisory, monitoring and policy-making function''. The main benefits of
such devolution were increased local accountability with a more strategic role
for personnel; improved understanding of HR issues and better employee
relations. The most common problem was a lack of consistency, but others HR-line work
included ``inadequate training and support'' for line managers, and getting both relations:
personnel and line ``to understand the extent and limits of their devolved a review
responsibilities''. All these are themes reflected in devolving HR work to line
managers in the public sector as their professional power base has declined
(Oswick and Grant, 1996).
Poole and Jenkins (1997) examined the extent of line management responsibility 185
for HR practices, concluding that line managers were ``far more responsible
than might have been supposed'' with a ``central pattern'' of line dominance in
operational responsibility on most personnel/HR matters. This was even the
case in larger firms where a bigger role for the personnel department would be
expected (see CLIRS 2). But Poole and Jenkins concluded:
the shift of responsibility to the line as opposed to personnel departments has been
overstated. To be sure, at least in respect of actual practice, the pattern in Britain at least
seems to be typically one of line dominance, but this has almost certainly been historically the
case rather than it representing a new wave or a new movement associated with the rise of
HRM itself (Poole and Jenkins, 1997, pp. 353-4).

McGovern et al.'s (1997) study of line management practice found some

managers reluctant in taking on personnel responsibilities ± viewing it as an
illegitimate part of their job and belonging to personnel. As a result, ``many HR
departments were reluctant to devolve responsibilities to the line'', as the line
were found lacking in knowledge and ability to take these responsibilities on.
Further prospects for devolution to the line were seen as ``bleak'' because of
short-term business pressures on managers, and ``a low educational and
technical skill base amongst supervisors''. McGovern et al. saw a model of line
managers ``directly involved in HR activities supported by a specialist HR
function'' as the dominant one. Key issues emerged like consistency of
implementation of policy, quality of practice by line managers, limited
reinforcement institutionally of HR practices, short-term managerial
approaches and de-layering. In respect of the factors motivating managers to
become involved in personnel activities, their ``personal motivation'' was the
largest category, then ``business targets''. Problems were encountered with
developing managerial commitment and expertise, producing results where
managers felt they had limited incentives to devote much time to HR activities
as their return on effort was not immediately quantifiable. Thus their
involvement in the career management and managing of career expectations of
junior staff becomes ``a problem area''. McGovern et al. concluded:
the prospects for full-blown devolvement to the line are not promising given the current
priorities of these businesses. Attempts to devolve HRM to the line may be possible but only
if accompanied by increased monitoring on the part of the HR specialists (McGovern et al.,
1997, p. 26).

Gennard and Kelly (1997) report the existence of joint working arrangements
between HR and other directors at director level, and between line and
personnel managers at subsidiary company levels. This resulted in their
Employee depiction of ``a business driven partnership to improve performance'' deriving
Relations from a number of factors that make HR directors more influential (Kelly and
22,2 Gennard, 1998)[7]. Other studies found clear barriers remaining to the adoption
of general joint arrangements within organisations due to empowerment
initiatives and managerial responses to them (Denham et al., 1997), general
issues of ``whether line managers realise they're responsible for HR'' (Thornhill
186 and Saunders, 1998), and issues of functional flexibility among HR managers,
i.e. do HR want to stop being specialists and become general managers instead?
(see Clarke, 1998).
The most extreme scenario in how HR work is being reconfigured in
organisations is raised by Thornhill and Saunders (1998) as the complete
devolution of responsibility for HR to line managers ± a scenario of the
absentee specialist, where little integration between line and top managers has
``negative implications'' for successful HR outputs. They found that line
managers were left to develop employees ``as they believed appropriate'',
resulting in a ``hard'' HRM approach used. Such scenarios contrast with the
findings of Yarnall (1998), who found that employees did not necessarily
need their manager's support ``to encourage them to participate in voluntary
career development activities''. Cunningham and Hyman (1999) argued that
overall, personnel functions remained ``vulnerable'', although line manager
shortcomings in managing subordinates might help personnel's presence ``as a
discrete, if less than strategic function''. They conclude the prospects for
personnel becoming the latter may be ``exceptionally difficult to attain'' as their
role is diminished compared to finance.
However, there is the opposite possibility that extensive participation
between HR and line managers may emerge, with mutual benefit arising for
both of them as they jointly contribute to solving business problems (Gennard
and Kelly, 1997), by offering added value to senior management in doing so.
Still, the dilemmas for senior managers of how to configure HR and line work
remain, as Marchington indicates:
leaving too much responsibility over HR work to line managers runs the risk of HR issues not
being handled either properly or professionally, of them not receiving sufficient priority, of
inconsistencies and a lack of specialist expertise. Conversely, retaining too much with
personnel and development specialists runs the risk, inter alia, that problems will not be
owned by line managers, that they will lack a business focus, and that they will be ignored
(Marchington, 1999).

Emerging themes
Within the current context that HR-line work is configured in organisations, we
can see at least four main themes arising from the literature. These are:
(1) the power and strategies managers can exercise in their dialogue with
each other;
(2) conflicts resulting from the use of these power-bases and strategies;
(3) prospects of partnership working to resolve these conflicts; and
 (4) the choices and considerations that senior managers must make in HR-line work
reconfiguring HR work to produce more effective organisational relations:
outcomes. a review
We shall now address these themes in turn.
1. The power and strategies managers can exercise. Dalton (1959) argues that
staff groups need to access, and call on, different power bases and strategies to 187
handle organisational contingencies, as line managers can reject their ideas.
These bases and strategies include strengthening ties with top line managers,
avoiding trouble down the line that could reach a senior level, compromising
with the line below top levels, or forming random cliques to cut through chaotic
situations. The latter point is raised by Watson (1977) who saw that individuals
can engage in conflict and competition and ``get together in informal cliques
and cabals to protect and further shared interests''. A similar perspective is
offered by Tyson and Fell (1992) who argue that power and authority in the
personnel domain ``is usually exercised on an interpersonal scale'' to cope with
organisational ``juntas and cliques'', and as such is not absolute, but variable
dependent on colleagues' support and ``the importance of the issue to the
organisation''.
Legge (1978) notes the possibility of managerial ``coalitions'' forming, which
are not necessarily consistent with the policies which other coalitions are
pursuing. This situation produces a ``political reality'' which is that personnel
needs to consider involving managers from other functions in personnel work,
as ``much of the personnel function is necessarily in the hands of line
management''. This produces a situation of ambiguity at the operational level
over the execution of personnel work, with personnel deriving ``intra-
organisational power'' from their ``expertise'' as personnel managers, and most
line managers tending to operate in an ``ad hoc manner''. Pfeffer (1981) argues
that people have a variety of cross-cutting multiple memberships and interests
but that power is most usually activated from situations of conflict, i.e. over
critical or important issues. The power that accumulates to organisational
actors is dependent on their ability to provide ``a critical resource for
organisations'' and being actors ``who can't be readily replaced''. For those
wishing to challenge others' expertise and/or capability. Pfeffer that argues they
need to ``share a common perspective'' so as to ``act and speak in a consistent
manner''[8]. He concluded that it is ``certainly normal'' that managers behave as
politicians and ``it is even better that some of them are quite effective at it''.
Purcell (1989) argues that decentralisation of HR work from corporate
centres and plc boards to divisional business units had led personnel issues to
become ``third order, downstream'' strategy, which ``positively encourages
different approaches to employee relations in different segments of the
business''. Storey (1992) argues that devolved management in strategic
business units has given rise to a ``loosening'' of central uniform rules as to how
human resources are deployed and utilised. The opposite case ± that current
changes are positive for HR ± has been made by Lowe (1992) who argued that
Employee the rise of HR at a strategic level may reflect ``a further weakening of line
Relations management's responsibility for the human resource'', while the shift of HR
22,2 practices from corporate to divisional level has been noted by Tyson (1997) as
placing functional strategies closer to business strategy, ``which helps to
integrate HRM with line management'' (IRS, 1995).
2. HR-line conflict. Dalton (1959) noted how line and staff functions conflict
188 over both methods and authority used in their work[9], while Strauss and
Sayles (1960) saw that this favoured staff functions, as ``they give advice that is
almost impossible to ignore''. Conflict may also revolve around the use of
personnel's function as the unofficial ``eyes and ears'' of senior management
(Tyson and Fell, 1992), or as the ``cops'' of the organisation (Eisenstat, 1996).
Storey (1992) noted that relations between personnel and line can be helped if
HR policies are embraced by the line managers' ``own superiors'', but that:
the frequency of reorganization in many of these companies was the source of massive
ambiguity concerning the appropriate level at which a ``general manager'' should assume
responsibility for human resource management (Storey, 1992, pp. 213-4).

Such findings raise the issue of role conflict and ambiguity (Kahn et al., 1964) in
HR work, as conflicts may arise from the split in responsibilities and
accountabilities between HR and line that may be presently fluid between
them. Allen (1991) found that personnel fell short of line managerial
expectations, lacking ``interpersonal skills'' in particular, while Clark (1993) has
identified that line managers lack HR ``management capabilities'' on issues of
technical change.
3. Partnership approaches. Tyson and Fell (1992) saw that, because
management and employees do not clearly articulate their requirements of their
personnel function, this produces an opportunity for personnel ``to act as
partners with senior line managers to produce orderly changes''. Such a role is
akin to that which Storey (1992) described as a ``full-team member'' where
personnel shares the running of the business with line managers. However,
Storey noted CLIRS 1 suggested that this kind of HR planning ``is very
exceptional'', and found data from his own research to ``broadly confirm that
finding''.
``Partnership'' working between HR and line has been a prominent theme of
the North American literature. Tomlinson (1993) defines partnerships as being
where HR need to ``become more involved in supportive, collaborative
relationships with managers''. Eisenstat (1996) saw HR managers working in
partnership with other managers directed by corporate HR executives to
address HR tasks ``critical to the success of the business''. To build such a
partnership HR executives had to create consensus on corporate HR agendas,
then to ``orchestrate organisational learning across operating units'' on how
best to address that agenda[10]. Schuler and Huselid (1997) state the linking of
a partnership approach between HR executives and line managers as an ``ideal
situation'', but note that it is ``not happening in all companies'', even though
CEOs and personnel/HR managers thought that ``more partnering was needed
by the year 2000''. The idea of HR professionals acting as strategic ``business HR-line work
partners'' with other senior line managers has been raised by Ulrich (1997), ``to relations:
identify HR practices that accomplish business strategy''. In doing so, Ulrich a review
sees HR as the responsibility of the ``HR community whose membership and
balance can vary'' (i.e. HR and line together), and where line managers ``review,
monitor, and hold HR accountable''. The overriding imperative is that:
line managers or HR professionals acting in isolation cannot be HR champions; they must
189
form a partnership. Line managers bring authority, power, and sponsorship and have overall
responsibility for the HR community. HR professionals bring technical expertise [and] a
domain of final necessary competency credibility (Ulrich, 1997, pp. 236-7).

But, as Tyson and Fell (1992) argued, the problem for personnel is that their
power derives from a lateral source, revealing that ``they tend to act on behalf of
others'' which leads to ``a problem in establishing credibility''. For both HR and
line to move towards partnership working involves work being reorganised in
terms of ``intellectual or knowledge flows instead of authority flows'' (Quinn et
al., 1998). So an element of what Bleeke and Ernst (1994) describe as a
``collaborative style'' is required between HR and line ± a situation to which it
cannot necessarily be assumed they will both subscribe, bearing in mind their
history.
4. The reconfiguration of HR work. In noting future changes to the personnel
role, Tyson and Fell (1992) saw a series of transitions occurring ± through
empowerment and HR development:
. issues of commitment;
. restructuring;
. flexible policies;
. organisational learning; and
. moving into more collaborative international arrangements.
But coping with such transitions does not necessarily mean the end for HR
itself as a function. Adams (1991) found that:
the increasing reliance on market forces to ensure efficiency cannot simply be explained in
terms of straightforward externalisation of the function. Nor is there evidence that
externalisation is the overwhelming trend even for particular activities of personnel
functions. . . . What the survey does suggest, however, is a considerable increase in the
fragmentation of the personnel function into discrete elements, each requiring different kinds
of specialist expertise ± what is happening in the increasing ``balkanisation'' of the personnel
function. This is importantly linked to the way senior managers appear to be increasingly
experimenting with different methods of delivering elements of the personnel function
(Adams, 1991, pp. 41, 40).

Adams' research indicated that innovations in people management occurred

``where personnel is decentralised to line managers'', and argued that the
increased specialisation of HR work raises questions about how personnel
professionals are trained, as there is an increased demand for specialists ``in
a wider range of different areas''. Storey (1992) found the changes occurring
Employee to HR managers meant that even when a job arises that is people-based ``it
Relations cannot be assumed now that personnel specialists will be seen as the
22,2 appropriate people to do it''. Clark's research (1993) raised the question of
whether HR specialists wanted to expand their role or instead ``to follow the
recent UK trend of retreating into ever narrower technical specialisms''.
Ulrich (1997) sees changes to the HR role as being connected to the shape of
190 the organisations of the future, as:
The boundaries of the firms of the future may be based less on legal and geographic
definitions than on knowledge and values. By answering governance questions, firms create
HR functions with a dramatically different look. The function might become very small and
serve as a broker of services. It may be split into distinct roles, such as centers of expertise,
generalists, and service centers, that work with each other to create value. A third possibility
would be an HR function housed under one strong central body but with responsibility for
ensuring company responsiveness to local needs (Ulrich, 1997, p. 249).

Such scenarios pose a general ``threat'' to HR managers (Storey, 1992) in

terms of diminishing their role. Still, other threats apply to all managerial
jobs in the current context of the IT revolution, as software prototypes are
designed to replicate the ``information'' roles of middle managers by
gathering data on their technical expertise (Harvey et al., 1997), and firms
are using virtual communications to negate the high costs of face-to-face
interaction. The implications of such changes mean that all managers may
need to bridge current skills gaps in their portfolios if they are to remain
employable. Leicester (1989) has found few managers in the non-market
sector who are ``trained in interpersonal skills'', and Allen (1991) has
detailed how line managers wish HR professionals to better apply their
knowledge ``to the business as a whole'', including ``a strategic management
input allied to professional knowledge to apply the strategy'', but found that
they were ``frequently disappointed in their expectations of the function''.
Placing emphasis on strategic management input raises the need to assess
HR managers' interpersonal behaviour, which does not necessarily mean
that personnel will prevail. As Tyson and Fell argue, one outcome could be
as follows:
It does seem likely that increasingly top line managers will be appointed into these senior
human resource roles, which can combine both their business acumen and their management
expertise ± in the decade to come the extent to which human resource management has
become too important to be left to the specialist may well decide the issue in favour of
managers with senior experience outside the function (Tyson and Fell, 1992, p. 135).

But the question arises whether HR or line emerges in the stronger

organisational position, as senior managers reconfigure operational HR work to
suit organisational needs.

Conclusion
This review of the literature has raised four main themes emerging as detailed:
the power bases and strategies open to HR and line managers to exercise at
work, the emergence of conflictual work relations, the emergence of partnership
work relations, and the reconfiguration of HR work by senior management HR-line work
teams. These themes raise several study questions that need to be answered relations:
through empirical research, and it is to these matters that we now turn. a review
A pilot case study: NHS Trust[11]
Case method
Few studies in the literature ask both HR and line managers to chart work 191
relations between them in their work organisations. Those that do lean heavily
towards either an HR or line perspective, or ask a different group (employees)
to detail their views of HR-line managerial work. The main study questions for
the pilot case emerging from the literature are:
(1) To what extent were the themes of managerial power and strategy,
conflictual and partnership relations, and the reconfiguration HR work
prevalent in practice?
(2) Were wider themes also raised?
(3) How and why did HR and line managers relate to each other in the ways
they did at work?
A pilot case study was undertaken to answer these questions, by asking both
HR and line managers in the same organisation to detail the state of their work
relations. This was done via 19 unstructured interviews, of which one-third of
the respondents were HR, and two-thirds line. The method used was of an
exploratory pilot case study in a complex organisation as this method is useful
in finding answers to such ``how'' and ```why'' questions (Yin, 1994). The
interviews were conducted with HR and line managers in NHS Trust[12] (a
pseudonym), which gave the researcher preliminary data so as to engage in
construct exploration. Access to the organisation to conduct the research was
granted by the personnel director ± who also identified the interviewees the
researcher could use in the study. Interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes
each and follow-up visits and telephone calls were made in some cases to check
points raised. All managers were asked to provide copies of relevant
documents to issues that were discussed, with the result that, while the sample
was indeed small, a large amount of data was gathered. The data were
analysed using an iterative approach tightly linked to data, with the objective
of deriving theory development from data interrogation and analysis (see
Eisenhardt, 1989).

Case background
NHS Trust achieved Trust status in 1994, and set up 11 clinical directorates
served by personnel, which had previously been a centralised function. The
Trust has ten clinical directorates who are part of the Trust management
group, including one from HR. Clinical directors are the heads of directorate
teams, and appointed on a three-year basis, and their job is to run the
directorates working in a line management role along with the operations
Employee managers. HR managers support the delivery of programmes within their own
Relations directorates. However, there is no full devolution of HR responsibilities, as
22,2 directorates do some of their own recruitment and selection and training and
development, with HR support. The directorates are stand-alone businesses,
with a total budget between them of £140 million employing around 5,000
people. Four HR managers are responsible for roughly 1,200-1,300 people, and
192 operate across two or three directorates as four business managers. The Trust
is currently merging with other partners and will have a new merged Trust
budget of approximately £400 million and 8,000 employees, making it a major
employer. The pressures on the organisation are multiple: economic (reduce
costs, raise efficiency and productivity levels), political (increase bed through-
put, reduce waiting lists), social (avoid closures, care for vulnerable groups),
and are backed by key players in each area ± the taxpayer, central government,
the BMA and local community groups. The Trust is therefore a highly complex
organisation for all of its managers to manage.

Case findings
The HR-line set-up. Differences in opinion existed between HR and line
managers as to the general effectiveness of the current HR-line set-up. From the
line perspective, one clinical director (CD) stated that he worked ``as a team''
with HR, with responsibility and accountability being ``two key factors in
making the relationship work''. Another CD thought that, while CDs had got
the art of recruiting doctors ``nailed down'', they ``do not have the kind of
knowledge involved'' to do the same for recruiting nurses, and were reliant on
HR for help. He saw the chief executive's positive orientation to people
management was important for generating close ties between HR and line, but
having an HR manager on the same site was also ``extremely valuable'' on a
day-to-day basis. One operations manager said HR are ``a resource'' for their
knowledge on employment laws and procedures and policies, and described the
state of work relations between HR and line as ``a good, flexible one''.
From the HR standpoint, one HR manager thought the Trust's general
problem was that ``the edges'' between what is HR and what is line managers'
work ``have always been blurred'' and, as some HR work has been devolved
to the line, ``a lot of them do their own''. She thought this left HR in the position
of still doing basic HR work but put it down to ``a lack of confidence rather
than a lack of ability'' on the part of line managers as to why they did not
do more HR work alone. Another HR manager stated that the director of
nursing had reported favourably on HR's representation on cross-functional
workgroups[13], and did not see ``much tension'' between HR and line on them.
Another HR manager commented that CDs needed HR input in the directorate
teams to function more effectively and stressed the benefits of generating an
informal working relationship with the line through ``interpersonal contact''.
Conflictual relations. Although the general view from both HR and line
was that the current HR-line set-up produced satisfactory work relations,
conflicts were apparent on a number of issues. From the line, one CD
thought the new performance appraisal system being introduced by HR HR-line work
would be ``too time-consuming'', and reminded him of his ``old view'' of HR ± relations:
that they were ``slow, inefficient and made mistakes, they were awful, a review
just absolutely awful''. Still, he added, after HR had moved into the
directorates, ``the days of us and them'' had ``largely gone''. Another
CD commented that relations between the HR director and the chief
executive had been ``certainly strained'', but this had altered and they now 193
``get on very well, and think highly of each other'', while another CD viewed
conflicts between HR and line originating in a questioning of HR's
competence by senior managers and the impatience of CDs when dealing
with HR in general, ``as CDs think automatically that they should be the
leader''. One operations manager thought HR engaged in ``a duplication and
triplication of information'' and ``promised information that is not
delivered''. She saw HR as ``a very formal organisation, which is very
centrally controlled'', and that, in general terms, HR ``are providing fewer
services to us''. Another operations manager felt gaining pay increases for
her high-performing staff was a ``key area of contention'' between her and
HR, as HR resisted them on several occasions. She thought information
given to the line from the HR workforce audit system, ``is not accurate'', and
concluded ``I do not have much confidence in HR as a whole''. She wanted HR
to remove their training and development ``policyitis'', and wished to gain
``more autonomy'' for CDs, as on some training matters ``we could have done
it better ourselves''.
Unsurprisingly, few HR managers detailed examples of conflict with the
line. However, one that did revealed ``a variable response'' from line managers
in devolving HR work to them, as some of the managers ``had a very negative
view'' of HR. However, she suffered frustration by her own limited room for
manoeuvre on issues such as the allocation and deployment of HR resources to
directorates, as ``it is a `Catch 22' situation. I cannot provide the services to them
they wish as I do not have the resources myself to give''.
Consensual relations. To state that conflict between HR and line existed
did not mean that such conflicts could not be overcome. From the line
viewpoint, one CD commented: ``by and large I have been happy with HR
over the last two years'', and he now got ``excellent service'' from HR. The
key factor for him in the turnaround was that he thought HR ``were
empowered'', which he felt ``was absent before''. He described work relations
between himself and HR as ``a service going into a partnership''. One CD
raised the issue of grievance and discipline handling as a ``good example'' of
``partnership'' working, while another thought the influence of the chief
executive was important in generating good HR-line work relations as the
chief executive ``sees HR as a friend rather than a foe''. Another CD saw HR
as a ``business manager'' along with operations and finance managers in
directorate teams, with the specific role ``to support the implementation of
change programmes'', because ``clinicians do not have a view on the
capabilities of people''. He saw HR acting as a ``constant companion'' to
Employee medical people, as the deputy HR director had been ``marching along by the
Relations shoulder'' of another CD on several directorate issues. An operations
22,2 manager felt she needed ``HR advice and skills'' to introduce change in the
directorates, and described HR's contribution as ``excellent'' overall. Her
only wish was for ``a more strategic approach'' to the training and
development of all staff, ``as I do not necessarily have the expertise to do it
194 myself''. Another operations manager saw HR as a ``valuable information
service'', moving from a ``disaster'' to ``excellent'' performance in ``two-and-a-
half to three years''. He pointed to HR acting proactively regarding bank
nurse recruitment, and he did not think his directorate was ``unique'' in
having a close relationship with HR, as ``we all bring different things to the
team''. He concluded that the HR and line work relationship was a ``50-50
partnership''.
From the HR viewpoint, one HR manager pointed to HR representation on
the operations managers forum as ``a `positive move' for HR as it involved
working closely with line managers on three initiatives''[14], and led to a
``partnership working arrangement'' between HR and line. Another HR
manager noted the contribution that unit and general managers made to HR in
the early days at the Trust in setting up directorate teams: ``it worked largely
because I had their support''. Another HR manager stated that the reason some
directorates worked well was ``because everybody respected each other's
professionalism'', including HR's and, because HR and line had already been in
the directorates, it meant that HR were viewed ``as an integral and valued part
of the team''. But she added that HR had grasped the partnership idea ``better
than the line'', as line managers' commitment to it ``varies''.
Reconfiguring HR work. The way in which HR work was being
reconfigured was subject to intense debate among managers. From the line
standpoint, one CD commented that the hospital had a ``cultural web'' which
had ``inhibited the way they do things'', resulting in ``a blame culture''. He
felt that this was disappearing as ``people are realising nobody owes them a
living'', and argued that the ``geography'' of HR-line relations ``would make a
large difference'' to what the working relationship was like between HR and
line, as HR was needed on-site; ``otherwise the whole thing will just grind to
a halt''. Another CD argued that it was not ``feasible'' to outsource all of the
HR function, as HR would be needed ``the most'' over the next five to ten
years, and the cost savings made in doing so ``would probably be
insignificant''. He pointed to ``things'' going ``very negative'', as ``there may
not be clinical directors as such'' after the merger, but that ``joint-working''
between HR and line was ``vital'' as it ``could produce joint benefit for both
HR and line''. Yet another CD commented that, in terms of re-organising HR
in the NHS, ``the NHS management executive are coy about the resources
they attach to it'', though he still thought there would be a ``principal'' role
for HR ``in making things work'', but considered that ``the relationships
between staff will have to be of the best ``if we are to make our anticipated
changes''.
 One operations manager stated that they were thinking of using an HR-line work
employment agency to recruit bank nurses as the present system ``took up an relations:
awful lot of time'', and were looking to work closer with HR to help deliver a review
changes in service delivery. Another operations manager warned of HR going
back to being ``a remote information service'' if the directorate structure is
replaced, ``which is a total waste''.
From the HR view, one HR manager stated: ``there is pressure on the HR 195
department to become smaller, and for me to reduce HR costs'', but this
pressure was offset by the opportunity for HR to ``redefine its role'' in the new
organisation. Her preferred option was for HR to become ``a slimmed down
operation'', and ``for absolute devolution to the line to occur, with HR being a
core group of specialist advisers at the centre''. She concluded that ``there is
definitely a role for HR and it varies in the Trust, as it depends on the
relationship HR people have with their clinical directors''.

Conclusion
Within the pilot case, evidence is apparent that HR and line managers exercise
their power, expertise and strategic positions to engage in both conflictual
and consensual work relations, and are emerged in a dialogue on reconfiguring
HR work between them. The key themes emerging from the literature are
therefore confirmed. What is surprising is that the theme of consensual
relations emerged strongly, seeming to contain elements of team-working
and reciprocal exchange of information. This was achieved through managers
working together in cross-functional work groups, with their rationale seeming
to be a need to both resolve organisational issues and to ensure their
own survival. Both HR and line emerged strongly. The line have used their
expertise and knowledge to state how the Trust's operational work needs to be
executed, and HR have aligned themselves with the concerns of senior
managers as to how services can best be delivered through people at an
affordable cost.

Case limitations
The limitations of the case are that it is one case only, of a public sector
organisation in transition. It is not representative of all workplaces. Thus,
no statistical generalisations are able to be offered. Instead, the case reveals
that some limited analytical generalisations can be offered, namely: that
conflictual work relations exist but do not necessarily occur at the expense
of more consensual relations, which can replace previous conflictual relations.
Moreover, it is indeed the existence of consensual relations that seem to have
the greater power in explaining both HR and line managers' actions at
work. Thus, the main contribution to theory from this case is that consensual
theories are useful in explaining HR and line managers' actions in their
relations at work. However, such findings need to be explored in a series of
further case studies to see if such results are the exception to the rule or the
norm.
Employee Conclusion: towards a research agenda
Relations In terms of research in the field of HR-line work relations, generating
22,2 findings regarding the dialogue between the two groups is important. The
outcomes for both HR and line managers from this process are useful to
chart, in terms of an increase or decrease in their respective numbers,
influence and status in organisations[15]. If we add these findings to those
196 we already know about ``what'' areas of HR work line managers do, and on
``how many'' occasions, we are able to draw a picture of the current
reconfiguration of HR-line work within organisations. To date, these
concerns have been the focus of current research. But such work does not
necessarily explain why HR and line managers relate to each other in the
ways they do, as it does not ask for the rationale and/or motivations behind
their actions (a theoretical explanation). The main advance in theory
development has come from the McGovern et al. (1997) study, but this
looked at line manager motivation to undertake HR work. Hence, it is
important for us to develop research on the attitudes and motivations of
both HR and line managers through studying their work relations ± so as to
better explain the reasons for their actions.
The findings from our pilot case illustrate the need to move towards a
wider research agenda than that currently used so as to stress the role of
further theory development in the field. In particular we need to move
beyond investigating HR-line work relations using existing conflictual
theories only but also to consider theories of a more consensual nature (like
those of partnership) which seem (at least in the case of NHS Trust) to
provide more power in explaining HR and line managerial actions in
practice. Certainly, findings from the NHS Trust case indicate a need to
explore other theories as well. For example, we could consider theories of
managerial action as ``functionalism'' in action (Gibb, 1995; Ulrich, 1997),
manager-to-manager working arising from ``organic relations'' in
organisations (Turnbull and Wass, 1998), reciprocity and the role of ``social
exchange'' at work (Brehm and Kassin, 1993), ``communitarianism'' within
workplaces (Etzioni, 1995) and the effects of high and low ``trust'' societal
relations permeating work organisations (Fukuyama, 1995). A further series
of case studies is therefore needed to see if the findings from the NHS Trust
case are replicated or not, and if further contributions to theory
development in the field can be made ± as it is in the pursuit of
understanding HR and line managers' actions at work that will produce
findings of interest to academics and practitioners alike.

Notes
1. The author uses the terms ``HR'', ``personnel'' and ``people'' management synonymously and
implicitly accepts the empirical position regarding the ``unimportance of labels'' put
forward by Gennard and Kelly (1997).
2. The conception of personnel specialists being generalists is traceable to Anthony and
Crichton (1969), and Guest and Horwood (as quoted in Tyson and Fell, 1992).
 3. But, as McGovern et al. (1997) indicate, Storey comments that Edwards' survey-based HR-line work
analysis of managers' roles in labour relations provides limited information on the actual
practices of line managers. relations:
4. Anthony and Crichton (1969). a review
5. The report suggests that, although devolution is likely to mean a smaller personnel
function, ``this should not be associated with marginalising the role of personnel. On the
contrary, by giving personnel a more proactive role this was seen to enhance its status and 197
credibility'' (IRS, 1995, p. 6).
6. Benchmarking specialists ± Personnel Today, September 1995.
7. The factors that have enabled personnel/HR directors to become more ``influential'' have
been identified by Kelly and Gennard as: ``the orientation of the chief executive/managing
director and top management team towards the people management function''; ``proactive
activities on the part of HR directors, such as good interpersonal and group skills, business
acumen, technical/professional competence, and their ability as players in a senior team''
(Kelly and Gennard, 1998, p. 4).
8. ``Among the critical skills which are needed by managers who are filling administrative
roles in organisations in which power and politics play an important part, are a tolerance
for uncertainty and ambiguity and the ability to confront and manage conflict and
advocacy . . . [but] even if power positions are recognised, organisational actors may
choose not to employ their power'' (Pfeffer, 1981, pp. 354, 48-9).
9. Dalton highlighted four main ``social background differences'' between staff and line
groups, ``education, age, professional consciousness, and social distinctions'' which seemed
to ``discourage easy informal ties'', to ``prevent staff people from getting close to situations''
and to ``dispose both groups to draw unflattering stereotypes of each other'' (Dalton, 1959,
pp. 93-4), while ``from what is known of personnel managers, they usually come from a
middle-class background'', and ``would seem to have a bureaucratic, instrumental
attachment to work'' (Tyson and Fell, 1992, p. 84).
10. Integrating managerial activity together ``between departments at different levels''
was also a concern for Legge, but co-ordination could be made via the use of ``problem/
task oriented project teams'' with the personnel department providing the integration
between ``all levels, in a range of project teams'' (Legge, 1978, pp. 132-3). For Legge,
such a level of integration on the part of personnel requires project team leaders to
act as ``integrators'' requiring the personnel manager to have a ``strong self-image and
self-esteem'' so as to ``withstand the inevitable stresses of such a position''. To alleviate
this they could ``apply the techniques of the organisational diagnostician'' to their
own role, i.e. to ``choose an innovatory strategy'' (Legge, 1978, p. 133). For personnel to
take on such a role she saw that they had to be ``expert in more than one field of
the organisation's (function's) work; be able to handle role ambiguity, incompatibility,
and conflict without letting the role pressure turn into strain; have good interpersonal
skills; be highly committed to the organisation'' (Legge, 1978, p. 133).
11. A pseudonym has been used to protect Trust anonymity.
12. The case explored is that of NHS Trust, an NHS Trust in a city-centre location, and is part
of a wider research project funded by Strathclyde University.
13. Like the vacancy review group, operations managers forum.
14. Ward closures, reviewing vacancies and tackling the financial deficit.
15. Thus, the following scenarios may need to be explored. A reduced role for HR is produced
(where we look to the work of Cunningham and Hyman (1995, 1999) as its best exponent);
an increased role for HR (with Gennard and Kelly, 1995, 1997) as its best exponent);
Employee partnership for both parties (with Eisenstat (1996) as its best exponent); an increased role
for line management (with the work of Poole and Jenkins (1997) as its best exponent); a
Relations decreased role for line management (with the work of Lowe (1992) as its best exponent); or
22,2 a situation of no change for both parties (with the work of Legge (1989) as its best
exponent).

References
198 Adams, K. (1991), ``Externalisation versus specialisation: what is happening to personnel?'',
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 4, Summer, pp. 40-54.
Allen, K.A. (1991), ``Personnel management on the line: how middle managers view the function'',
Personnel Management, June.
Anthony, P. and Crichton, A. (1969), Industrial Relations and the Personnel Specialists, Batsford,
London.
Bleeke, J. and Ernst, D. (1994), ``Collaborating to compete'', Directors and Boards, Winter issue, in
Mintzberg, H. and Quinn, J.B. (Eds) (1998), Readings in the Strategy Process: Concepts,
Contexts, Cases (3rd international ed.), Prentice-Hall, NJ, pp. 174-8.
Brehm, S. and Kassin, S. (1993), Social Psychology, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Clark, J. (1993), ``Line managers, human resource specialists and technical change'', Employee
Relations, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 22-8.
Clarke, M. (1998), ``Can specialists be general managers? Developing paradoxical thinking in
middle managers'', Journal of Management Development, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 191-206.
Cully, M., Woodland, S., O'Reilly, A. and Dix, G. (1999), Britain at Work, Routledge, London.
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 responsibilities to the line:
beginning of the end or a new beginning for personnel?'', Personnel Review, Vol. 28 No. 1/2,
pp. 9-27.
Dalton, M. (1959), Men Who Manage: Fusions of Feeling and Theory in Administration, John
Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Daniel, W.W. and Millward, N. (1983), Workplace Industrial Relations in Transition: The DE/PSI/
SSRC Survey, Heinemann, London.
Denham, P., Ackers, P. and Travers, C. (1997), ``Doing yourself out of a job? How middle
managers cope with empowerment'', Employee Relations, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 147-59.
Drucker, P. (1961), The Practice of Management, Mercury Books, London.
Drucker, P. (1974), Management, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Edwards, P. (1987), Managing the Factory, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), ``Building theories from case study research'', Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Eisenstat, R.A. (1996), ``What corporate human resources bring to the picnic: four models for
functional management'', Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, pp. 7-22.
Etzioni, A. (1995), The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian
Agenda, Fontana, London.
Fukuyama, F. (1995), Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity, Penguin, London.
Gennard, J. and Kelly, J. (1995), ``Human resource management: the views of personnel directors'', HR-line work
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 15-32.
relations:
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.
a review
Gibb, S.J. (1995), ``The lead body of personnel management'', Human Resource Management
Journal, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 60-71.
Harvey, C.F., Smith, P. and Lund, P. (1997), ``Evaluating InfoVine: a system to enhance corporate 199
memory'', OnLine & CD ROM Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 149-60.
Hendry, C. (1991), ``International comparisons of human resource management: putting the firm
in the frame'', The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 2 No. 3,
December, pp. 415-39.
Hutchinson, S. (1995), ``Variations on the partnership model'', People Management, November,
pp. 38-9.
Hutchinson, S. and Wood, S. (1995), Personnel and the Line: Developing the New Relationship,
Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
IRS Employment Trends (1995), ``Changes in personnel'', No. 598, December, pp. 4-9.
IRS Employment Trends (1996), ``The changing world of personnel'', No. 604, March, pp. 4-11.
Kahn, R.L., Wolfe, D.M., Quinn, R.P. and Snoek, J.D. (1964), Organizational Stress, Studies in Role
Conflict and Ambiguity, John Wiley & Sons, London.
Kelly, J. and Gennard, J. (1998), ``The effective personnel director'', Employee Relations Review,
Spring, pp. 17-24.
Legge, K. (1978), Power, Innovation, and Problem Solving in Personnel Management, McGraw-
Hill, London.
Legge, K. (1989), ``Human resource management: a critical analysis'', in Storey, J. (Ed.), New
Perspectives on Human Resource Management, Routledge, London.
Leicester, C. (1989), ``The key role of the line manager in employee development'', Personnel
Management, March, pp. 53-7.
Lowe, J. (1992), ``Locating the line: the front-line supervisor and human resource management'', in
Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (Eds), Re-assessing Human Resource Management, Sage
Publications, London, pp. 148-68.
McGovern, P., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P. and Truss, C. (1997), ``Human resource
management on the line?'', Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 12-29.
Marchington, M. (1999), ``Professional qualification scheme: core personnel and development
exam papers and examiners' reports: May 1999'', Institute of Personnel and Development,
paper given to the IPD Professional Standards Conference, University of Warwick, July.
Marginson, P., Armstrong, P., Edwards, P., Purcell, J. and Hubbard N. (1993), The Control of
Industrial Relations in Large Companies: An Initial Analysis of the Second Company Level
Industrial Relations Survey, Papers in Industrial Relations, No. 45, IRRU, University of
Warwick, Coventry.
Marginson, P., Edwards, P.K., Martin, R., Purcell, J. and Sisson, K. (1988), Beyond the Workplace:
Managing Industrial Relations in the Multi-Establishment Enterprise, Basil Blackwell,
Oxford.
Marsh, A. (1982), Employee Relations Policy and Decision Making, Gower, Aldershot.
Employee 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
Relations Strategy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 27-38.
22,2 Millward, N. and Stevens, M. (1986), British Industrial Relations 1980-1984: the DE/ESRC/PSI/
ACAS Surveys, Gower, Aldershot.
Millward, N., Stevens, M., Smart, D. and Hawes, W.R. (1992), Workplace Industrial Relations in
200 Transition: The ED/ESRC/PSI/ACAS Surveys, Dartmouth Publishing, Aldershot.
Mintzberg, H. and Quinn, J.B. (1998), Readings in the Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases
(3rd international ed.), Prentice-Hall, NJ.
Oswick, C. and Grant, D. (1996), ``Personnel management in the public sector ± power, roles and
relationships'', Personnel Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 4-18.
Pfeffer, J. (1981), Power in Organizations, Pitman, London.
Poole, M. and Jenkins, G. (1997), ``Responsibilities for human resource management practices in
the modern enterprise'', Personnel Review, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 333-56.
Purcell, J. (1989), ``The impact of corporate strategy on human resource management'' in
Storey, J. (Ed.), New Perspectives on Human Resource Management, Routledge, London,
pp. 67-92.
Quinn, J.B., Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S. (1998), ``New forms of organizing'', in Mintzberg and
Quinn (Eds), Readings in the Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases (3rd international
ed.), Prentice-Hall, NJ, pp. 162-74.
Schuler, R. and Huselid, M. (1997), ``HR strategy in the United States ± examples of key issues
identification and execution'', in Tyson, S. (Ed.), The Practice of Human Resource Strategy,
Pitman, London, pp. 174-203.
Sisson, K. (Ed.) (1989), Personnel Management in Britain, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Skinner, W. (1981), ``Big hat, no cattle: managing human resources'', Harvard Business Review,
September-October, pp. 106-14.
Stewart, R. (1963), The Reality of Management, Heinemann, London.
Storey, J. (1992), Developments in the Management of Human Resources, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Strauss, G. and Sayles, L.R. (1960), Personnel: The Human Problems of Management, Prentice-
Hall, NJ.
Thornhill, A. and Saunders, M.N.K. (1998), ``What if line managers don't realize they're
responsible for HR? Lessons from an organization experiencing rapid change'', Personnel
Review, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 460-76.
Tomlinson, J. (1993), ``Human resources ± partners in change'', Human Resource Management,
Vol. 32 No. 4 , pp. 545-54.
Torrington, D. and Hall, L. (1996), ``Chasing the rainbow: how seeking status through
strategy misses the point for the personnel function'', Employee Relations, Vol. 18 No. 6,
pp. 81-97.
Turnbull, P. and Wass, V. (1998), ```Marksist' management: sophisticated human relations at a
high street retail store'', Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, June, pp. 98-111.
Tyson, S. (Ed.) (1997), The Practice of Human Resource Strategy, Pitman, London.
Tyson, S. and Fell, A. (1992), Evaluating the Personnel Function (2nd ed.), Stanley Thornes,
Cheltenham.
Ulrich, D. (1997), Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for Adding Value and HR-line work
Delivering Results, Harvard University Press, Cambridge and Boston, MA.
relations:
Watson, T. (1977), The Personnel Managers: A Study in the Sociology of Work Employment,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
a review
Yarnall, J. (1998), ``Line managers as career developers: rhetoric or reality?'', Personnel Review,
Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 378-95.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, 201
London.
Employee
Relations Abstracts from the wider
22,2 literature
``HR-line work relations:
202 a review, pilot case and research agenda''
The following abstracts from the wider literature have been selected for their special relevance to
the preceding article. The abstracts extend the themes and discussions of the main article and act
as a guide to further reading.
Each abstract is awarded 0-3 stars for each of four features:
(1) Depth of research
(2) Value in practice
(3) Originality of thinking
(4) Readability for non-specialists.
The full text of any article may be ordered from the Anbar Library. Contact Debbie Brannan,
Anbar Library, 60/62 Toller Lane, Bradford, UK BD8 9BY. Telephone: (44) 1274 785277; Fax:
(44) 1274 785204; E-mail: dbrannan@mcb.co.uk quoting the reference number shown at the end
of the abstract.

Letting go or holding on ± the devolution of operational personnel

activities
Torrington, D.
Human Resource Management Journal (UK), Vol. 8 No. 1 98: p. 41 (15 pages)
Investigates if the rhetoric surrounding the devolution of day-to-day personnel
matters to line managers in the UK is being translated into action on the
ground, and if this is happening, the form this takes. Reviews the literature on
devolution and human resource management and the critiques that have been
made of it. Reports research which asked just over 200 senior human resource
managers about their organizations' intentions to devolve personnel activities
to line managers, the reasons for doing so and the progress made with these
plans. Concludes that there is a conscious effort to devolve these activities to
line managers and that this is being resisted in only a few cases. However finds
that progress in devolving the activities is uneven and suggests that line
managers may need more support from their organizations than they currently
receive if they are to be able to carry out some of the personnel functions being
devolved to them. Considers the implications of devolution for the role of
personnel managers and the way the personnel issues are handled within the
organization. Argues that this still needs to be thought through by many
organizations.
Survey HR-line work
Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: ** relations:
Originality: * Readability: ** Total number: ******* a review
Reference: 27AF619
Cost: £18 (+ VAT)

203
Competitive pressures and engineering process plant contracting
Clark, I.
Human Resource Management Journal (UK), Vol. 8 No. 2 98: p. 14 (15 pages)
Studies the restructuring, caused by competitive pressures, that took place at a
leading international project management firm involved in engineering process
plant contracting. Describes the restructuring which focused on making the
human resource function a full strategic partner in project management with
responsibility for management development and for monitoring corporate and
divisional performance. Sees this case study as significant because the
company's attempt to make the human resource function more strategic
involved centralizing responsibility for human resources rather than devolving
it to line managers, and because the company measured the impact of these
changes on the financial performance. Follows the progress of the restructuring
and analyses its success. Concludes that in this case study organization a clear
link can be found between a strategically repositioned corporate human
resource function and the firm's financial performance. Contends that this
finding indicates that human resource functions can operate as a centralized
function effectively.
Survey
Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: **
Originality: ** Readability: *** Total number: *********
Reference: 27AM643
Cost: £18 (+ VAT)

Best practice and best fit: chimera or cul-de-sac? (human resource

management)
Purcell, J.
Human Resource Management Journal (UK), 1999 Vol 9 No 3: p. 26 (16 pages)
Evaluates the claims made for a ``best practice'' approach to human resource
management, often called high commitment management, that promote it as
being universally applicable and likely to result in improved organizational
performance. Questions the research that is used to back these claims,
discussing the flaws in the arguments that link human resource management
to organizational performance and business strategy. Identifies the limitations
within the research, suggesting that it neglects the other organizational
processes that might also be at work within organizations and fails to identify
Employee the organizational circumstances in which particular human resource
Relations management practices are successful. Also criticizes the contingency/best fit
22,2 approach that links human resource systems to operational strategies. Sees the
search for best practice as a cul-de-sac and the idea of contingency/best fit as a
chimera. Instead, identifies the analysis of how and when human resource
factors affect organizational change as a more fruitful line of research.
204
Wholly theoretical
Indicators: Research implications: *** Practice implications: *
Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ********
Reference: 28AY995
Cost: £24 (+ VAT)

Devolving human resource responsibilities to the line: beginning of

the end or a new beginning for personnel?
Hyman, J.
Personnel Review (UK), 1999 Vol. 28 No 1/2: p. 9 (19 pages)
Reports that, in recent years, many organizations have devolved personnel
responsibility for the workforce to line managers. Attributes this to increased
competition, delayering and downsizing, as well as doubts about the
contribution a personnel department actually makes to an organization's
performance. Questions the future viability of personnel management, putting
forward an optimistic and a pessimistic hypothesis for the personnel function.
Focuses on four Scottish organizations (two NHS Trusts, a manufacturing
company, and a distribution and delivery service), which have devolved
personnel responsibility to line managers (with personnel specialists playing
an advisory and consultancy role) and recounts their experiences. Provides
some background information on each organization and outlines the
methodology used in conducting the research (interviews with senior
executives, personnel specialists, line managers, and trade union officials, and
questionnaires ± 401 replies were received from non-management employees).
Finds that the workload of line managers increased but that the majority were
happy about taking on extra employee relations responsibilities. Indicates that
line managers were dissatisfied with services provided by personnel ±
particularly their lack of direction, lack of leadership, and willingness to offer
advice only on marginal issues. Notes that, in one organization, line managers
were particularly unhappy with the preparation and training they received in
relation to taking on extra employee relations responsibilities. Investigates
employees' reactions to devolved responsibility of personnel matters to line
managers and finds decreased commitment, lowered morale, and accusations
of weak people management and poor communication. Points out that total
quality management programmes tend to operate at the cost of people and
often fail to deliver results. Emphasizes that the drive to cut costs overrides all
ideas of people as valuable strategic assets within an organization.
Case study HR-line work
Indicators: Research implications: * Practice implications: * relations:
Originality: *** Readability: *** Total number: ******** a review
Reference: 28AC591
Cost: £30 (+ VAT)

205
The role of the human resources manager: strategist or conscience
of the organization?
Robinson, I.
Business Ethics: A European Review (UK), Apr 1999 Vol. 8 No. 2: p. 88
(11 pages)
Looks at the development of the HR role over the last 45 years, highlighting the
move from primary responsibility for worker welfare to business and
management orientation and consequent ambiguity in role. Explores the
current challenges for HR professionals emanating from organizational and
employment management changes, and current trends in human resource
management practice. Discusses the ethical implications, suggesting that
ethical considerations are increasingly being sidelined. Sees the main challenge
for HR professionals as securing employee commitment. Details research
among HR professionals to explore these themes. Finds that most respondents
fell between the two extremes of highly ethical, or principally, bottom-line
oriented; but their experience generally leads them to conclude that the needs of
employees are subsidiary to company interests and that concern with ethics
could damage their credibility.
Survey
Indicators: Research implications: ** Practice implications: **
Originality: ** Readability: ** Total number: ********
Reference: 28AL843
Cost: £24 (+ VAT)