Distributing HRM

responsibilities: a classification
of organisations
Mireia Valverde and Gerard Ryan
Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Business,
Avinguda Universitat, Tarragona, Spain, and
Ceferı´ Soler
ESADE, Avinguda Pedralbes, Barcelona, Spain
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the paper is to show that HRM is not the sole
responsibility of HR
departments, but also of other agents inside and outside the organisation, such as
top and line
managers, and external HRM service providers. This paper seeks to examine how
organisations
distribute HRM activities and responsibilities among these agents. The study
attempts to classify
organisations according to agent distribution and to explore whether a number of
internal and external
context characteristics affect this distribution.
Design/methodology/approach – The survey in the paper shows the methodology chosen
in order
to collect and analyse factual data about the participation of different agents in
HRM activities and the
characteristics of the organisations and their context. The questionnaire obtained
a valid sample of 231
Spanish companies. A multiple correspondence analysis approach was taken in order
to cluster the
organisations.
Findings – The analysis of the data in this paper clearly produced seven groups,
each involving
organisations that allocated responsibilities to the various agents in a similar
fashion. However, no
common contextual characteristics were found among the companies in each of the
seven categories.
Research limitations/implications – The main limitations in the paper are related
to the length of
the questionnaire, the adequacy of the respondents related to the unit of
observation; and the relative
newness of the techniques used.
Originality/value – The main contribution of the paper consists of the
incorporation of existing
partial areas of study in the field of HRM (roles of the HR department, devolution
to line management,
and outsourcing of the HR function) into an integrated study.
Keywords Human resource management, Responsibilities, Devolution, Outsourcing,
Spain
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The management of people occurs in all organisations, whether in a formal,
informal or
even unconscious manner. Because of this, people management materialises in a wide
range of forms and is performed by a number of different agents, depending on the
organisation, its environment and other characteristics. However, the focus of HRM
studies has traditionally centred on the HR department rather than on the HR
function
as a whole.
In this paper, the HR function is not understood simply as the set of activities
performed by the HR department, but as all managerial actions carried out at any
level
regarding the organisation of work and the entry, development and exit of people
in the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
PR
35,6
618
Personnel Review
Vol. 35 No. 6, 2006
pp. 618-636
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/00483480610702692
organisation so that their competencies are used at their best in order to achieve
corporate objectives (Valverde, 2001a, p. 19).
In this sense, agents other than the HR department may be involved in the
management of people in organisations, mainly:
. Top management, who make strategic decisions (including HRM strategic
decisions), establish the organisation’s values and philosophy (Schuler and
Jackson, 1999) and influence its whole approach to managing people (Sisson and
Storey, 2000).
. Line management, who traditionally have been given responsibility for some
operational aspects of managing people, but whose role in this function has
continued to increase since the advent of HRM (Storey, 1992; Lowe, 1992).
. External HR agencies, usually contracted by organisations to provide
administrative HRM services or professional, specialised HRM solutions (Cook,
1999). The outsourcing of these activities has also been found to be on the
increase (Hall and Torrington, 1998b)[1].
The HR roles of these agents inside and outside the organisation have been
thoroughly
examined in the extant literature on an individual and separate basis. This is
particularly true for the literature on the HR department, but also for studies on
the
devolution of HRM activities to line management and on outsourcing the HR function
to external specialist agencies. However, the simultaneous examination of all
agents
that have an input in the HR function has not been previously undertaken.
If our goal is to understand new directions in the roles and responsibilities of
the
HRM function, a good starting point might be to redress some of the imbalance
between focusing on specific agents in isolation instead of the HR function (its
activities and responsibilities) as a whole.
Thus, the interest of the authors was precisely to investigate how HR activities
and
responsibilities are distributed among the agents responsible for HRM (the three
outlined above and the HR department). The absence of previous theories, or
models, of
HR agents, in the literature, lead to an exploratory approach to this study. This
would
have implications for the methodological design but also for the revision of the
literature. The approach taken to revise the relevant literature consisted of
observing
what had been written about each agent or actor and their responsibilities in HR.
However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to summarise the extensive
literature on
the four agents. Rather, we summarise below the main characteristics of this
literature.
The literature is more prescriptive or normative than descriptive. Thus, we find
greater emphasis on what various agents should do to manage people, as opposed to
establishing what they actually do (Gratton et al., 1999). Often this literature
lacks a
strong empirical evidence (Jackson and Schuler, 1999). Also, there is a tendency
to
concentrate on the wider concept of “role” (including activities,
responsibilities, power
relationships, influence and position, etc.) with little focus on specifying which
particular responsibilities are allocated to each agent (Legge, 1995).
Descriptions and
classifications tend to concentrate on the study of just one of the agents (e.g.
classifications of HR department roles, as in Ulrich et al., 1997; Tyson and Fell,
1986; or
Labelle and Dyer, 1992) or, at most, on how two agents distribute responsibilities
between themselves (e.g. the study of the devolution to the line of
responsibilities
assumed to pertain to the HR department as in Cunningham and Hyman, 1999; or Hall
Distributing
HRM
responsibilities
619
and Torrington, 1998a; or the study of the use of external HR specialist agencies
as in
Redman and Allen, 1993). There is no developed literature incorporating the study
of
all four agents.
Even in the very few instances of studies that examine more than two HR agents),
these have not attempted to integrate the distribution of all HR responsibilities.
As a
consequence, the non-explained aspects of these partial studies (e.g. what makes a
HR
department adopt a specific role) are often assumed to be caused, by the actions
of
other actors in the organisation. The lack of an integrated approach to the study
of
actors and their responsibilities in HR management is clear.
The idea of HRM as a partnership of multiple agents or stakeholders is beginning
to
be more widely employed. However, this trend appears mainly in textbooks rather
than
in research publications (for example, Jackson and Schuler, 2000). Additionally,
partnership is seen as involving two or at most three HRM agents (as in Mohrman
and
Lawler, 1999).
The main reasons for the weaknesses that characterise the literatures dealing with
the roles and responsibilities of different HRM agents lie, on one hand, in the
complexity of the phenomena being studied. On the other hand, they are caused by
the
large amount and lack of clear identification of factors that intervene in
producing
variability in phenomena such as the degree of devolution to the line, strategic
or
administrative roles of the HR department, or the amount of HRM tasks being
outsourced. However, previous research has identified factors, which influence HRM
practice in organisations. These are largely related to organisational context,
both
external (social, economic, political, etc.) and internal (size, structure,
culture, etc.)
(Gunnigle and Moore, 1994; Truss et al., 2002). These must be taken in
consideration
when addressing the study of the agents involved in HRM.
Purposes of the research
This paper presents the results of the second part of a larger research project
investigating how HRM responsibilities are spread or distributed among agents and
the extent to which this distribution differs among organisations in Spain. Put
simply,
we address the question of “who does what” in HRM.
The specific objective of this part of the project was to classify Spanish
organisations’ behaviours according to the distribution of agents involved in
different
HRM activities at different levels (strategic, operational, administrative,
technical, etc.).
The grouping of these organisations could provide a map or taxonomy of HRM types
or models. A secondary objective was to identify the influence of contextual
factors on
the adoption of a specific HRM type or model.
In order to achieve the general and specific objectives set by the research
project and
to operationalise the questions it poses, the study put forward two propositions
to be
explored empirically.
P1. The exact distribution of who does what, in other words, which agents carry
out various HRMactivities, is different for each organisation. In this sense, the
configuration of the HR function is unique to each organisation. However, it
may be possible to identify common patterns of behaviour among
organisations, thus identifying different types, groups or models of HR
functions according to the distribution of agents carrying out HRM activities.
PR
35,6
620
P2. As the internal and external contexts of organisations shape their
management practices, similar types of HR functions will be found in
organisations with similar contextual characteristics.
Methodology
As stated in the introduction, the topic of research is exploratory as there are
no
previous theories to be tested. Therefore we are presented with a case of theory
building, where the issue needs to be mapped or discovered (Layder, 1993). In many
cases, exploratory research is carried out using qualitative research methods
(Alverson
and Sko¨lberg, 2000). However, the fact that the phenomena under study involved
the
collection of factual, non-subjective information in order to obtain the
classification and
profiling posed by the research propositions, an objectivist epistemology was
deemed
more appropriate (Burrell and Morgan, 1979), and thus a quantitative methodology
(the
survey) was chosen. Furthermore, and given that the second proposition of the
study is
related to the impact of organisational context, a contingency approach was taken.
Contingency theory, stemming from general systems theory addresses the existence
of
fit between organisational variables (mainly size, structure and strategy) and
organisational outcomes (Donaldson, 2001). In this study, the contingency approach
is
relevant as the second proposition searches for the relationship between
organisational
contingencies and models of HRM.
Data collection and sample
The primary research was based on a questionnaire that was included in a larger
survey of HRM practices, namely the Spanish node of the Cranet-E project (Cranet
Survey, 2000; Brewster et al., 1991). The Cranet-E project is an ongoing project
involving a network of universities gathering survey data on HRM practice in
Europe.
The sample frame used in Spain comprises all organisations that employ more than
200 employees and which are members of the main Spanish employer association (from
where the database was extracted).
In addition to company size, an additional requirement for accepting the
questionnaire was that the organisation had a HR department. This was to ensure
the
comparability of data for analytical purposes. The results of the primary research
reflect the responses of 231 organisations (10.5 percent of the 2,200
questionnaires
posted) in the private sector employing more than 200 employees and having a HR
department.
Tool and measures
The data collection tool consisted of a questionnaire, which gathered information
on
two main aspects of the organisations sampled:
(1) Participation in HRM activities. The main part of the questionnaire outlined
52
typical HRM activities. This list included activities at the various levels of HRM
decision-making (strategic, policy, operational, administrative) and across a
wide range of HRM areas (resourcing, training and development, change
management, etc.). Respondents were asked to identify which agent was
responsible for each activity in their organisation. They were also asked to
allocate a percentage representing the proportion of responsibilities that were
shared by more than one agent, as illustrated in Appendix 1 (Figure A1). The
Distributing
HRM
responsibilities
621
list of 52 HRM activities was generated from the revision of the literature as
well
as from the results of two focus groups comprising representatives of the four
agents studied (HR managers, managing directors, line managers and
owners-managers of HR service providers).
(2) Contextual variables. The contextual variables used in the questionnaire were
necessary in order to explore P2. Information was obtained for a considerable
number of these variables, including traditional contingent variables and other
characteristics of the internal and external context of the organisation typically
observed in HRM studies (e.g. Tayeb, 1987; Mayne et al., 1996; Jackson and
Schuler, 1999, etc.). The operationalisation of these variables is summarised in
Appendix 2 (Tables AI and AII). The main variables are also outlined in the
results section. It is important to highlight that some of these variables were
already included in the standard parts of the Cranet-E survey (mainly typical
organisational details such as size, sector, ownership, etc. and some HR related
measures such as employee turnover and absenteeism, degree of formalisation
and centralisation of HR policies and strategies, etc.). Others were added in the
specific part of the questionnaire, such as organisational structure, culture, and
other organisational characteristics not included in the Cranet-E survey. Both
parts of the questionnaire were pre-tested and subsequently minor changes
were incorporated into the final version.
Previous classification of HRM activities
A previous phase in this project (Valverde et al., 2003) allowed the grouping of
the 52
HRM activities into seven meaningful clusters or types of HRM activities. These
types
of activities constituted the starting point for our analysis, and were labelled
as follows:
. Strategic decision making and leadership, including activities such as deciding
on
a major staff reduction, taking final decisions in collective bargaining,
instigating and promoting change, designing the organisational structure, etc.
. Operational decisions and daily people management, including activities such as
deciding on hiring a new full-time employee, identifying training needs, carrying
out performance appraisals, deciding salary changes based on performance
appraisal, etc.
. Service delivery, with activities such as acting directly as trainers or
interviewing
candidates.
. Policy making and diagnostic, with activities such as establishing a flexible
contracts policy, defining criteria for career development or analysing the
organisation’s labour market.
. Monitoring and follow-up activities, with activities such as evaluating the
results
of training activities or monitoring the established procedures to ensure health
and safety.
. High level specialist HRM, with activities such as aligning the HR strategy with
corporate strategy, establishing the general framework for labour relations in the
organisation or advising on courses of action in case of conflict.
PR
35,6
622
. Administrative and technical activities, with activities such as administering
contracts, storing and handling employee related information or organising
means and resources for training activities.
This classification of activities also provided a general profile of distribution
of HRM
responsibilities among the four agents considered, as shown in Figure 1. This
graphical illustration depicts a profile of who is responsible for each of the
seven types
of HRM activities. For example, it is possible to observe in Figure 1 that
strategic
activities are mainly the responsibility of top management (first profile), while
the
responsibility for administrative and technical HRM tasks is given mainly to the
HR
department (last profile). Other types of activities, such as operational and
daily people
management activities or service delivery activities are more spread among the
various
agents. It is important to understand that the profiles presented in Figure 1
represent
Figure 1.
Agents’ profiles in the
seven clusters of activities
Distributing
HRM
responsibilities
623
the average behaviour of the 231 organisations of the sample, and the objective of
this
study is to identify behaviours that are significantly different from this average
profile.
Analysis
Further considerations were made with regard to the possibilities for data
analysis.
One of the reasons for the non-existence of similar studies in the past was
limitations,
both in computer power and relevant statistical techniques. The use of new data
mining methods in the present project highlights promising possibilities for the
simultaneous study of large numbers of variables in future HRM research. The
specific
tool that permits the study of this sort of relationships is multiple
correspondence
analysis, which is an extension of correspondence analysis to allow for the
simultaneous analysis of large numbers of variables. It is an interdependence
technique highly adequate for dimensional reduction and perceptual mapping
(Greenacre, 1989), both of which are objectives of this study. It is based on the
search
for associations between objects (groups in our case), and their illustration
through a
set of descriptive characteristics, which will assist in profiling the
relationships (Hair
et al., 1998). The main advantage of this technique is the possibility of plotting
rows
and columns in one same two-dimensional space (data matrix). Also, it does not
limit
itself to a simple recount of occurrences but also takes into consideration the
weights of
each category. This permits the calculation of statistically significant
relationships.
From the analysis of the data matrix made based on the 231 cases and the
classification of seven types of HRM activities, the objective was to group or
cluster the
organisations. The general process was:
. A principal component analysis in order to work with non-orthogonal data; and
. The clustering of organisations.
Results
This section outlines the results produced by the analysis of the data. It is
structured
around the two propositions outlined earlier. For each proposition, the results of
the
analysis are described and interpreted.
In order to carry out the analysis, the organisations were clustered according to
the
contribution of each agent to each of the seven types of HRM activities outlined
in the
methodology section. The clustering process aimed at identifying profiles of
behaviour
that were significantly different from the average profile for the whole sample
(see
Figure 1), and significantly different from each other.
The dendrogram obtained from the clustering process suggested that it would make
statistical sense to cut the tree graph in three, five or seven groups. The final
choice
was the seven-group partition as this preserved the greatest amount of statistical
information and provided a richer picture of the reality of HRM in the companies
studied.
The seven resulting groups of organisations and their characteristics will now be
described.
Group 1: HR as a shared function among internal agents
In this group, the data point to an even distribution among the three internal
agents,
implying a sharing of most HR activities between these agents in this cluster of
18
organisations (7.8 percent of the sample). To reflect this we use the label HR as
a shared
PR
35,6
624
function among internal agents. In this cluster, with the exception of strategic
decision-making and leadership activities, where top management has a distinct
input,
our data reveal that responsibility for all other types of HR activities are
rather evenly
distributed between the other three internal agents.
Remarkably, in this group of organisations, our analysis suggests that top
management is not only involved in HR activities that could be considered the
responsibility of “every manager” (such as operational decision making and daily
people management) but is also involved in other activities, such as delivering
training,
monitoring and follow-up activities, and to a lesser extent even in administrative
and
technical activities. Similarly, line managers are involved in day-to-day
activities, as
one would expect (such as operational decisions and day to day management of
people). However, they are also involved in more specialist HR activities.
This group of organisations is also characterised by the very limited use of
outsourcing. There is only a barely noticeable presence of external providers in
the
delivery of training and in administrative and technical activities.
Group 2: HR as a shared function lead by top management
Turning to the profile of the second group of organisations, a slightly different
picture
emerges from our analysis. At one level this group is not very different from the
first
group. The similarity lies in the fact that the three internal agents (top
management,
line management and HR department) have a significant input in most HRM
activities.
However, group 2 presents one key difference, namely, the significantly stronger
involvement of top management in almost all HRM activities – hence our label HR as
a
shared function led by top management.
Indeed, the top management in these 60 organisations (26 percent of the sample) is
a
significant actor in the majority of activities: First, it has a predominant input
in
strategic and leadership activities. Top management input in these types of
activities is
high on average (57 percent) across our whole sample, but much higher in this
specific
group of organisations (72.3 percent). This leaves little room for line management
and
the HR department to be involved in strategy making (10.4 and 11.6 percent
respectively). Second, top management is also the differentiating agent in
activities
that would be generally considered the tasks of HRM specialists. The relatively
high
involvement (21 percent) of top management in administrative tasks, such as
deciding
the types of contracts to be used, organising means and resources for training
activities, or developing processes to cater for the personal needs of employees,
is also
noteworthy.
Top management is also the differentiating agent in more generalist activities:
operational decisions and daily people management, and Policy making and
diagnostic. In both of these types of activities, the distribution of agents is
quite evenly
spread among internal agents, with top management having a slightly higher input
in
activities such as acting as change agents, implementing changes in work processes
or
generating employee commitment. This would suggest that top management is
heavily involved in day-to-day people management. Finally, group 2 makes very
little
use of external agencies for most HR activities, with the exception of training
delivery.
Distributing
HRM
responsibilities
625
Group 3: HR function, an agent for each job, a job for each agent
In organisations in group 3, there is no one single agent, which can be identified
as the
HRM protagonist. Instead, our data would suggest that a specific agent has a
highly
prominent input in each set of activities. This suggests a clear-cut
differentiation of
activities within HRM, and the subsequent allocation of specific agents to take
care of
separate sets of HRM responsibilities. Hence, the label HRM, an agent for each
job, a
job for each agent.
The activities in which an agent has a highly salient input in this group are:
strategic decision-making and leadership, with top management’s input of over 70
percent; service delivery, an area that is highly outsourced (by 76.9 percent);
high level
specialist HRM; and administrative and technical activities, where the HR
department
plays a central role (60.8 and 77.5 percent respectively).
The input from line managers in group 3 is also worth noting (ranging between 10
and 35 percent), but they do not feature any more significantly in any specific
activity.
Finally, this group is also unique in its significant use of external providers
(33.8
percent for monitoring and follow-up activities, which, in this case, is shared
with the
HR department). Group 3 is a relatively small group, made up of 19 organisations
(8.2
percent of the sample).
Group 4: Partial outsourcing of a wide range of HR activities
The most common characteristic linking organisations in group 4 is the fact that
for
almost all types of activities there is a distinct and manifest presence of
external
provision. This does not mean that the degree of use of outsourcing is very high
(as it is
never larger than 20 percent), but that it extends to a wide range of HR
activities.
Hence, the label Partial outsourcing of a wide range of HR activities. All the
organisations contained in this small group (six in total) use external providers
both for
activities where it would normally be expected, such as training delivery (19.6
percent)
and administrative and technical activities (5.4 percent), and for activities
where it is
less expected, such as strategic decision making and leadership (5.6 percent) or
operational decisions and daily people management (10.9 percent). Some of these
activities could be included in the category of outsourcing high level consulting
as
identified in the literature (Cook, 1999), such as the use of consultants to
assess a
change process, to re-design organisational structures (strategic activities), or
to
develop specific HR policies (high level specialist HR).
In any case, group 4 is not to be dismissed because of its size, as it appears
early on
in the statistical analysis and is very stable, meaning that the behaviour of
these six
companies is very similar and consistent. Thus, the tendency towards outsourcing a
wide range of HR activities is clear but limited to this smaller number of
organisations.
Group 5: Outsourcing specialised activities and sharing generalist
responsibilities
Group 5 is characterised by that fact that the engagement of external providers is
directed at specific types of HR activities. They mainly outsource administrative
and
technical activities (12.2 percent), training delivery (19.6 percent), and many
high level
specialist HRM activities (16.8 percent). These are all specialised activities
within the
HR function.
The outsourcing of these activities is counteracted by a smaller intervention of
the
HR department in these areas with the consequence that for this group, it is
possible to
PR
35,6
626
talk about the pursuit of a leaner HR department (Griffiths, 1993). On the other
hand,
the three internal agents (top management, line management, and HR department)
share the activities related to managing people from a more generalist point of
view
(such as operational decisions and daily people management, leadership, etc.).
Group 6: HR function as the exclusive domain of the HR department
Because of the strong predominance of the HR department in all types of
activities, this
group of 30 organisations has been labelled HR function as the exclusive domain of
the
HR department. Indeed, the values of participation of this department range from
70 to
90 percent in five of the seven types of activities explored in our analysis.
It is fair to question whether there is a relationship between the prominent role
for
the HR department and the fact that HR specialists were the respondents to the
questionnaires. However, an erroneous self-attribution from respondents would have
resulted in an indiscriminate allocation of high values, regardless of the
activity.
Instead, the two most generalist activities (strategic decision making, and
operational
decisions and daily people management) have attained smaller values for the HR
department and larger values for top and line management. This supports the
validity
of the findings. In summary, this group of 30 organisations reflects a powerful
and
pervasive HR department, with little by way of a role for external providers among
these.
Group 7: HR function as the domain of the HR department supported by the line
The profile of the final group, comprising 86 organisations (over one third of
respondents), is, in part, similar to the previous group with one major exception
i.e. the
prominent role of Line management in certain activities. Thus in this group HR
department is the main agent in four types of activities and the differentiating
agent in
strategic activities, just as in the previous group. However, there are two types
of
activities where line management is the protagonist: operational decisions and
daily
people management, and service delivery.
In this regard, the HR department counts on the support of the line for the
implementation and dissemination of personnel policies at operational level (such
as
carrying out performance appraisals or deciding salary changes based on the
results of
performance appraisal) and, particularly, for the delivery of training. The role
of the
line in this group of organisations is as executors of established policies. Hence
the
label, HR as the domain of the HR department, supported by the line.
The fact that it was possible to meaningfully segment and group the organisations
in our data set leads us to suggest that there is support for P1. The multiple
correspondence analysis identified seven clusters or groups of organisations
according
to the relative involvement of the four HR agents in the seven types of HRM
activities.
Thus, the groups obtained reflect different approaches to distributing the work
involved in carrying out HRM activities among the HR department, top and line
management and external agencies.
The second proposition essentially addresses the question of whether there are any
contextual characteristics that are common to the organisations in each of the
seven
groups identified. The introductory section of this paper considered the
importance of
the organisational context in the study of management models in general and of HRM
in particular. Whether from a “fit”, contingency, or configurational perspective,
the
Distributing
HRM
responsibilities
627
variables that make up the internal and external organisational context are
assumed to
play an important role on the determination of HRM models and practices (Duberley
and Burns, 1993; Delery and Doty, 1996; Wright and Snell, 1998).
Thus, a number of variables indicating internal and external dimensions of the
organisations studied were measured to examine whether each group had similar
contextual characteristics.
The statistical identification of these possible common characteristics is
normally
referred to as characterisation or profiling of groups (Hair et al., 1998) and it
usually
represents the final step in a clustering process. The process simply involves the
comparison of clusters (the seven groups of organisations obtained in the multiple
correspondence analysis) on the basis of relevant contextual illustrative
variables.
The comparison of average values of these illustrative variables across clusters
can
be obtained through:
. The observation of the values of the illustrative variables in the results of
the
multiple correspondence analysis (MCA).
. Carrying out basic cross tabulations.
The results of the MCA showed surprisingly few illustrative variables appearing as
significantly different among the seven groups. In fact, no one single contextual
variable (for example, sector) appeared in the outputs of significant differences
for all
groups. This was a clear indication that, if differences were found, they would
probably be slight and not statistically significant.
Therefore, it was necessary to turn to the running of crosstabs, knowing from the
outset that any differences that we might find would not be robust. With the
crosstabs
carried out, virtually no differences were found. Thus, the remainder of this
section will
simply outline the variables measured (more details in Appendix 2) in order to
facilitate
possible replication of the study:
. Sector. Even though the variable sector is often cited as a determinant of types
of
HRM (cf. Andrews, 1986; Brewster et al., 1996), it is not clear which models are
more likely to predominate in a given sector (Labelle, 1992). In this study,
sector
was one of the contextual variables that did produce some differences, but only
in a limited number of groups. In particular, there was a higher proportion of
organisations in the service sector among the Shared among internal agents
group, while the Agent for each job, job for each agent group were more likely to
be in the industry sector.
. Organisational size. Even though the survey was directed to organisations of 200
or more employees (in order to maximise the possibility of finding organisations
with a HRM department), differences were nevertheless sought on the basis of
their size (medium: 200-499 employees; large: 500-1,999 employees; very large:
2,000 or more employees). No relationship was found between an organisation
belonging to a particular group and its number of employees.
. Structure. Structure was operationalised as more than one variable: first,
organisations were asked to choose which type of structure was most similar to
theirs (simple, functional, matrix, etc.). Second, a number of measures were taken
on a semantic scale regarding the degree of centralisation, formalisation of
PR
35,6
628
policies and procedures, communication channels and hierarchical levels. No
relationship was found for any of the variables related to structure.
. Technological system. Also measured on a semantic scale, no relationship was
found for either the degree of standardisation or the complexity of processes
undertaken in the organisation.
. History. The history of the organisation was operationalised into two groups of
variables: First, the age of the organisation. For this, no relationship at all
was
found for most groups, except in group 1 (HRM as a shared function), which
contained younger organisations. Second, organisations were asked whether
they had been involved in acquisitions, mergers or takeovers during the last
three years. No relationships were found regarding these measures.
. Employee characteristics. No relationship was found with regard to the level of
turnover, their degree of unionisation or the proportion of workers with
university education. A very faint relationship was found regarding work
intensity, with groups 1 and 2 being more work intensive.
. Environment. Four measures were taken on the characteristics of the
environment. However, no relationship at all was found with the degree of
uncertainty facing organisations, or for the speed of change (dynamic),
complexity or hostility they are subject to.
. Culture. Although there are comprehensive and well tested questionnaires for the
measurement of culture, the survey design meant that a shorter format was
needed. Thus, the decision was made to produce a summarised description of
cultural orientations (Valverde, 2001b) according to the classification by
Harrison (1972). Respondents were then asked to read these descriptions and
allocate 100 points distributed according to the similarity between the culture in
their organisation and the descriptions provided. No differences were found for
three types of culture (power, achievement, and role). Only people culture
distinguished some groups, with Group 1 (HR as a shared function) including
more organisations with people oriented cultures and Group 6 (Exclusive domain
of the HR department) including many organisations with no people culture at
all. Because these results on people oriented culture are not statistically
significant, caution should be placed in making inferences about them.
. Characteristics of the HR function. A number of measures were taken to
operationalise the characteristics of the HR function. Among them, no
relationship was found regarding the size of the HR department, the presence
of the HR manager on the board of directors, nor the existence of a HR strategy.
As seen in this summary of the profiling results, the analysis of the internal and
external contextual variables was not successful in differentiating the groups
with
regards to their characterisation. This finding means that P2 is not confirmed.
This is
discussed in the conclusions section.
Discussion
The analysis of the data produced seven groups, each involving a number of
organisations. The distribution of HR activities was similar among the
organisations
within each of the seven groups (and thus different to the distribution of HR
activities
Distributing
HRM
responsibilities
629
of the organisations in the other groups). Therefore, each of the seven groups of
organisations was labelled according to their main traits, as shown in Table I.
This
confirms P1.
The two larger groups in the sample reflect the two major tendencies in terms of
the
contribution of each agent to HRM. Group 2 (26 percent of the organisations in the
sample) is an example of the tendency of shared involvement by different agents.
Group 7 (37.2 percent of the organisations in the sample) represents the tendency
towards a higher input of the HR department in all activities. It is also
interesting to
observe in detail the arrangements of the smaller groups. The occurrence of this
type of
distribution may be less common but more innovative than the groups with more
representation. Indeed, this may be an interesting development in terms of
revealing
possible new directions in arranging the responsibilities of the agents in HRM.
In order to find potentially common characteristics among the organisations in
each
group (P2), information was obtained for a number of contextual factors as well as
specific characteristics of the HR function. Unexpectedly, among the organisations
in
each of the seven groups, no common contextual characteristics of any significance
were identified. Thus, P2 is not confirmed. The research did not identify any
relationship between the contextual characteristics of the organisations and
particular
ways of managing HR. In each group it is possible to find examples of different
sectors,
sizes, degree of unionisation, structures, etc. for all contextual factors
measured.
Little evidence of similar findings is available in the HRM literature. Rather,
this
literature suggests that HRM policies and practices are determined by contingent
variables (e.g. Jackson and Schuler, 1999; Mayne et al., 1996). However, Budhwar
(2000), in a study on strategic integration and devolution to the line, found that
organisational contingencies were not related to specific levels of integration or
devolution. Moreover, Poole and Jenkins (1997), when also studying devolution,
found
some sector and size effects, but acknowledged that “they do not generally
indicate a
highly contrasting pattern” (p. 353). Further investigation of these results is
therefore
necessary.
A number of limitations for this study must be outlined in order to understand its
scope and guide future research.
With regard to the questionnaire: in general, the measurement instrument took too
long to answer. At this stage of theory development this was a necessary evil, as
it
would not have been rigorous to reduce further the 52 items (which were the result
of a
previous reduction from a longer list) without having tested them first with an
Group Label No. org. Percent org.
1 HR as a shared function among internal agents 18 7.8
2 HR as a shared function led by top management 60 26
3 HR function, an agent for each job, a job for each agent 21 9.1
4 Partial outsourcing of a wide range of HR activities 6 2.6
5 Outsourcing specialised activities, sharing generalist
responsibilities
7 3
6 HR function as the exclusive domain of the HR department 33 14.3
7 HR function as the domain of the HR department supported by the
line
86 37.2
Total 231 100
Table I.
Labels and sizes of the
final groups of
organisations
PR
35,6
630
extensive sample. However, it is important to highlight that the reduction of
items
should be possible from now on, given the satisfactory results of this first
round.
With regard to the unit of observation: perhaps the most important limitation of
this
study is the fact that the HR manager was chosen as the representative of the
organisation (unit of observation) to respond to the questionnaire. Indeed, asking
HR
managers about their own function involves measuring a partial perception of
reality.
It has long been identified that HR managers tend to overestimate their
contribution to
HR activities (Ritzer and Trice, 1969; Mintzberg, 1978). Thus, even though HR
managers are adequate respondents because of their knowledge of the topic, a
multiple
respondent approach, including representatives of the four agents studied, could
have
added richness to the results of the study.
With regard to the analytical techniques: even though new data mining techniques
offer significant opportunity for the exploration of large amounts of data and
variables,
it must be said that not all statisticians consider these techniques to be fully
developed
(Aluja Banet and Morineau, 1999).
The main contribution of the study consists of the incorporation of existing
partial
areas of study in the field of HRM (roles of the HR department, devolution to line
management, outsourcing of the HR function) into an integrated study. This
represents
a new and more holistic approach to the study of HRM.
Conclusion
The results of the study empirically confirm the first proposition that the
authors
originally set out to explore, producing a classification of ways of arranging the
participation of agents in HRM. However, the second proposition with regard to
common characteristics among the organisations of each group was not confirmed.
An alternative explanation may explain this result: that the model of HR function
adopted by an organisation may not be contextually determined, but instead it is a
matter of corporate choice. That is, companies actually choose what type or model
of
HRM they want and distribute the responsibilities of their various agents
accordingly,
rather than being determined by organisational contingencies. If this assertion is
true,
it poses a number of questions in regard to future investigation. For example, who
makes this corporate choice, a specific person (and if so, who: director general,
HR
manager, etc.) or a dominant coalition? Does the presence or influence of a single
person affect the choice (for example, a HR manager with certain competencies,
experience, etc.) or does the configuration of agents in the HR function follow
traditions
within the organisation? And even, is there any relationship between the
distribution of
HR responsibilities and the distribution of responsibilities in other management
areas?
It is important to highlight that the concept of choice has been dealt with in the
literature as the opposite of situational or environmental determinism (Poole,
1990).
However, the idea of HRM policy or strategic choice, based on the notion that
managers
can exert considerable discretion when making HRM choices (Flood, 1998; Gunnigle,
1991), always seems to be juxtaposed with a range of internal and external
constraints
and limitations to these choices (Kessler et al., 2000). Since the present study
found
none of the variables observed to be determinants of the distribution of HRM
responsibilities between different agents, the idea of choice proposed here is
even more
open (more management discretion), and it challenges the notion that discretion
must
be juxtaposed with contingent constraints.
Distributing
HRM
responsibilities
631
Finally, the closing of an exploratory research project must involve putting
forward
the next set of questions to be studied in order to prepare the ground for the
continuation of the research (Gill and Johnson, 1991). Bearing in mind the results
of this
study, together with the limitations outlined above, a number of suggestions are
made
in order to indicate the focus that further research might adopt.
The study of a large number of organisations has proved very useful in identifying
a wide range of behaviours in the distribution of HR responsibilities. More
research
along the same line (even straight replication) is needed in order to consolidate
the
results of this study. Further, since the study was carried out in only one
country, it
would be interesting to see whether the involvement of HR agents in the various
types
of activities is similar for different countries.
Another area of further development is related to the measurement instrument and
collection procedures. In this sense, the questionnaire should be refined and
shortened
by using the results of the reduction of variables obtained in this project and by
carrying out consecutive rounds of data collection in order to assess validity and
reliability. Also, regarding data collection procedures, it would be valuable to
incorporate the views and perceptions of HRM agents other than HR managers. This
would be achieved by including top and line managers, and representatives of
external
agencies as respondents.
Perhaps the most interesting and potentially fruitful area of further research is
that
related to P2, that is, the effect of contextual variables on the adoption of one
of the
seven types of HRM according to their distribution of HR activities among agents.
The
alternative explanation put forward in this paper (that is, the arrangements of
HRM
agents being a matter of management choice) needs to be explored empirically
(perhaps with more in-depth methodologies) and contrasted with alternative
explanations such as environmental determinism and strategic HRM choice.
Note
1. For example, in Europe, Hall and Torrington (1998b) measured the role of the HR
department, their involvement in strategy making, outsourcing and devolution to
the line in
one extensive study, and in the USA the Corporate Leadership Council (1995)
studied the
dissolution of traditional HR, the HR department as service to the line, and the
use of
consultants.
References
Aluja Banet, T. and Morineau, A. (1999), Aprender de los datos: el ana´lisis de
componentes
principales. Una aproximacio´n desde el data mining, Ediciones Universitarias de
Barcelona
(EUB), Barcelona.
Alverson, M. and Sko¨lberg, K. (2000), Reflexive Methodology, Sage, London.
Andrews, J.R. (1986), “Is there a crisis in the personnel department’s identity?”,
Personnel Journal,
Vol. 65 No. 6, pp. 86-93.
Brewster, C., Hegewisch, A. and Lockhart, J.T. (1991), “Researching human resource
management: methodology of the Price Waterhouse Cranfield Project on European
Trends”, Personnel Review, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 36-40.
Brewster, C., Tregaskis, O., Hegewisch, A. and Mayne, L. (1996), “Comparative
research in HRM:
a review and an example”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.
7
No. 3, pp. 585-604.
PR
35,6
632
Budhwar, P.S. (2000), “Evaluating levels of strategic integration and devolvement
of human
resource management in the UK”, Personnel Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 141-61.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organisational
Analysis,
Heinemann, London.
Cook, M.F. (1999), Outsourcing the Human Resources Function: Strategies for
Providing
Enhanced HR Services at Lower Cost, AMACOM, New York, NY.
Corporate Leadership Council (1995), Vision of the Future. Role of Human Resources
in the New
Corporate Headquarters, The Advisory Board Company, Olympia, WA.
Cranet Survey (2000), Estudio Cranfield-ESADE: gestio´n estrate´gica de recursos
humanos, una
de´cada de investigacio´n. Informe de conclusiones 2000, ESADE, Barcelona.
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
Nos 1/2,
pp. 9-27.
Delery, J.E. and Doty, D.H. (1996), “Modes of theorizing in strategic human
resource
management: tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance
predictions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 802-35.
Donaldson, L. (2001), The Contingency Theory of Organizations, Sage, London.
Duberley, J.P. and Burns, N.D. (1993), “Organizational configurations:
implications for the human
resource/personnel management debate”, Personnel Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 26-34.
Flood, P. (1998), “Is HRM dead? What will happen to HRM when traditional methods
are gone?”,
in Sparrow, P. and Marchington, M. (Eds), Human Resource Management: The New
Agenda, FT Pitman, London.
Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (1991), Research Methods for Managers, P. Chapman,
London.
Gunnigle, P. (1991), “Personnel policy choice: the context for human resource
development”,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 15 No. 3.
Gunnigle, P. and Moore, S. (1994), “Linking business strategy and human resource
management:
issues and implications”, Personnel Review, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 63-84.
Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P. and Truss, C. (1999), “Linking individual
performance to
business strategy: the people process model”, in Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E.
(Eds),
Strategic Human Resource Management, Blackwell, Oxford.
Greenacre, M.J. (1989), Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis,
Academic Press,
London.
Griffiths, W. (1993), “A leaner, fitter future for HR?”, Personnel Management,
October, pp. 36-9.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data
Analysis,
5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hall, L. and Torrington, D. (1998a), “Letting go or holding on – the devolution of
operational
personnel activities”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 41-55.
Hall, L. and Torrington, D. (1998b), The Human Resource Function. The Dynamics of
Change and
Development, FT-Pitman Publishing, London.
Harrison, R. (1972), “Understanding your organization character”, Harvard Business
Review,
May-June.
Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S. (1999), “Understanding human resource management
in the
context of organizations and their environments”, in Schuler, R.S. and Jackson,
S.E. (Eds),
Strategic Human Resource Management, Blackwell, Oxford.
Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S. (2000), Managing Human Resources: A Partnership
Perspective,
7th ed., South-Western College Publishing (Thomson Learning), Cincinnati, OH.
Kessler, I., Purcell, J. and Coyle Shapiro, J. (2000), “New forms of employment
relations in the
public services: the limits of strategic choice”, Industrial Relations Journal,
Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 17-34.
Distributing
HRM
responsibilities
633
Labelle, C. (1992), “A role-based taxonomy of human resource organizations”,
Cornell University,
PhD thesis, New York, NY.
Labelle, C. and Dyer, L. (1992), A Role-based Taxonomy of Human Resource
Organizations,
working paper, Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies, Cornell University,
New York, NY, pp. 92-35.
Layder, D. (1993), New Strategies in Social Research, Polity Press, London.
Legge, K. (1995), Human Resource Management Rhetorics and Realities, Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
Lowe, J. (1992), “Locating the line: the front-line supervisor and human resource
management”,
in Blyton, P. and Turnbull, P. (Eds), Reassessing Human Resource Management, Sage,
London.
Mayne, L., Tregaskis, O. and Brewster, C. (1996), “A comparative analysis of the
link between
flexibility and HRM strategy”, Employee Relations, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 5-24.
Mintzberg, H. (1978), “Patterns in strategy formation”, Management Science, Vol.
24 No. 9,
pp. 934-48.
Mohrman, S.A. and Lawler, E.E. III (1999), “The new human resources management:
creating the
strategic business partnership”, in Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (Eds),
Strategic Human
Resource Management, Blackwell, Oxford.
Poole, M. (1990), “Editorial: human resource management in an international
perspective”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Poole, M. and Jenkins, G. (1997), “Responsibilities for human resource management
practices in
the modern enterprise: evidence from Britain”, Personnel Review, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 333-56.
Redman, T. and Allen, P. (1993), “The use of HRM consultants: evidence from
manufacturing
companies in the north-east of England”, Personnel Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 39-
55.
Ritzer, G. and Trice, H.M. (1969), An Occupation in Conflict: A Study of the
Personnel Manager,
Cornell University, New York, NY.
Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (1999), Strategic Human Resource Management,
Blackwell,
Oxford.
Sisson, K. and Storey, J. (2000), The Realities of Human Resource Management.
Managing the
Employment Relationship, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Storey, J. (1992), Developments in the Management of Human Resources, Blackwell,
Oxford.
Tayeb, M. (1987), “Contingency theory and culture: a study of matched English and
the Indian
manufacturing firms”, Organization Studies, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 241-61.
Truss, C., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P. and Zaleska, J. (2002),
“Paying the piper: choice
and constraint in changing HR functional roles”, Human Resource Management
Journal,
Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 39-63.
Tyson, S. and Fell, A. (1986), Evaluating the Personnel Function, Hutchinson,
London.
Ulrich, D., Losey, M.R. and Lake, G. (1997), Tomorrow’s HR Management, Wiley, New
York, NY.
Valverde, M. (2001a), “Mapping the HRM function: an exploratory study of
responsibilities and
agents in the managing of people”, doctoral thesis, Universitat Rovira i Virgili,
Reus.
Valverde, M. (2001b), Introduccio´ a la gestio´ de recursos humans, Ediuoc,
Barcelona.
Valverde, M., Quijano, S. and Soler, C. (2003), “HRM as a shared function: an
exploratory study of
responsibilities and agents in the managing of people”, paper presented at the IV
International Workshop on Human Resources, Cadiz, May.
Wright, P.M. and Snell, S.A. (1998), “Toward a unifying framework for exploring
fit and
flexibility in strategic human resource management”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 756-73.
PR
35,6
634
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Summary of context variables Tables AI and AII.
Figure A1.
Fragment of questionnaire
to illustrate its structure
Sector Sector Categories
Size Size as indicated by number of employees Data
History Organisation involved in mergers, acquisitions and
takeovers
Age (as indicated by the year when organisation was
founded)
Y/N
Employee characteristics Employee turnover
Employee absenteeism
Data
Data
Proportion of labour costs as percentage of operating
costs (as indicator of labour-intensive organisations)
Proportion of trade union membership among
employees
Data
Data
HR function characteristics Degree of formalisation of HR policies
Degree of formalisation of mission and strategy
SD
SD
Degree of centralisation-decentralisation of HR
policies
SD
Presence of an HR department Y/N
Size of HR department. Basic measure to be turned
into a ratio of number of HR professionals for every
100 employees
Data
Presence of the HR manager in the board of directors Y/N
Degree of involvement of the HR manager in
strategy development
SD Table AI.
From the Cranet-E survey
Distributing
HRM
responsibilities
635
From the Cranet-E survey
From the specific questionnaire
More details of the questionnaire construction, variable operationalisation and
final primary
research design may be obtained from the authors by contacting Mireia Valverde at:
mireia.valverde@urv.cat
Corresponding author
Mireia Valverde can be contacted at: mireia.valverde@urv.cat
Structure Which of these organisational structures resembles
more that of your organisation?
Categories
Centralised to decentralised SD
Emphasis on vertical/horizontal communication
channels
SD
Hierarchical levels SD
Centralised/decentralised decision making SD
Technology Work processes simple/complex SD
Technology simple/complex SD
Environment Certain/uncertain environment SD
Speed of environmental change SD
Degree of environment complexity SD
Degree of environment hostility SD
Culture Harrison (1972) cultural orientations Categories
Notes: SD ¼ Semantic differential; Y/N ¼ Yes/No; categories requires to choose one
among more than
two categories; data requires respondent to enter a number or proportion
Table AII.
From the specific
questionnaire
PR
35,6
636
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints