journal or
publication title
International review of business
number
19
page range
87-105
year
2019-03
1. Introduction
Since the late 1990s, there has been much debate over the positive relationship between human resource management (HRM) and performance, with scholars attempting to identify a mechanism through which HRM systems affect a variety of individual and organizational outcomes (Boselie et al. 2005; Combs et al. 2006; Guest 2011). In doing so, it has been argued that both organizational and individual factors mediate this relationship, adopting a multi-level perspective that emphasizes the sequential influence of HRM on the employee attitude which, in turn, affects the organizational outcomes (Paauwe 2009; Bowen and Ostroff 2004; Takeuchi, Chen and Lepak 2009; Wright and Nishii 2013). In fact, previous studies provided a useful conceptual framework that describes the complex causal mechanism (e.g. Boxall and Purcell 2011)
While research on HRM-performance linkage highlights the importance of inducing the desired behavior from its members through the enactment of a deliberate HRM system that is in line with organizational strategy and objectives, their perception, attitude, and behavior toward the same HRM system are inevitably divergent (Purcell and Hutchinson 2007). This is largely due to the gap between intended and implemented HRM (Truss 2001; Gratton and Truss 2003; Boxall and Purcell 2011; Wright and Nishii 2013). While intended HRM refers
Strategic Change and the Role of the Line Manager:
Evidence from Japanese MNCs in Germany
Shuichi MORITANI*
Abstract
This article attempts to uncover the role of the line manager, who is recognized as a crucial actor for strategic change. Through defining their role behaviors during HRM reform at Japanese MNCs operating in Europe, this paper identified four types of roles: budgeting, task implementation, complementing, and information providing. While two antecedents for HRM involvement of line managers are recognized from previous studies, the author argues that these antecedents are connected with each role.
Keywords: Strategic Role, Line Manager, Strategic Change, HRM Devolution, MNCs
to the HRM system that is planned or formulated by HR professionals, implemented HRM is the system that is actually applied to the workplace by managers (Wright and Nishii 2013). To recognize the gap between them means that line managers play a crucial role in the process through which intended HRM contributes to the outcomes.
The basic premise of these studies is that line managers would take on the responsibility for managing people as a result of the devolution of HRM-related tasks from HRM specialists (Legge 1995; McGovern et al. 1997). However, although research that deals with the devolution of HR has examined what the devolution of HR tasks means for both parties and the whole organization, detailed discussion of the various roles played by line managers is lacking. McConville (2006) points out because a line manager’s position is ambiguous and specifying its boundary within the hierarchy is difficult, less attention has been paid to identifying the HR role of line managers. If we attempt to gain a deeper understanding of how the devolution of HRM tasks to the line functions, the question of what types of roles a line manager plays should be addressed.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. Firstly, previous studies on HR devolution are reviewed. As a result of literature review, This study demonstrates that studies on this issue have mainly focused on specifying the personal and interpersonal characteristics that encourage and inhibit line managers from being effectively involved in HRM activities. Based on the examination of previous studies, we seek to identify the research gap that has not yet been fully addressed. While most studies tend to pay attention to the context in which line managers play the role of managing their subordinates, clarification is limited regarding the types of activities they engage in. That is, these studies are based on the premise that line managers solely implement HRM policies and practices. In order to fill this gap, four types of HRM roles played by line managers are identified, namely budgeting, task implementation, complementing, and information providing. In order to describe each role in detail, line managers’ activities are observed through the detailed examination of a Japanese multi-national enterprise operating in Germany. Combining the theoretical proposition with empirical findings, the author concludes the discussion.
2. Line managers’ involvement in HRM: literature review
2.1 Line manager as a crucial actor of HRM
The debate over the role of the line manager is closely related to the concept of devolution. The basic premise behind it is that some HR tasks are supposed to be delegated from HR professional or departments toward line managers so that they can fulfil their role.
The devolution of HRM activities to the line manager can be described as the “allocation of people management responsibilities between line management and the specialist personnel function” (Hall and Torrington 1998, p.42) and more specifically “movement of
both the decision making and the activity of personnel management from the HR department to the business” (Hope-Hailey et al. 1997, p.11).
While it has been confirmed that organizations in the U.K and America tend to pay significant attention to the discussion on the delegation of HRM tasks to line managers (Larsen and Brewster 2003), the reasons that lie behind this movement are divergent. Scholars argue that organizational change such as the introduction of change-driven HR activity (e.g. quality enhancement, performance management and empowerment), reform of tasks (Papalexandris and Panayotopoulou 2005), and movement toward an employment relationship based on numerical, functional, and financial flexibility (Brewster and Soderstrom 1994). Other studies highlight the benefit generated by devolution such as reducing costs and faster decision making (Breswter and Larsen 2000; Sheehan 2012). As such, the debate on HRM devolution has become central to HRM research.
A number of studies on this topic have attempted to understand the antecedents that enable or inhibit line managers’ involvement in HRM, mainly focusing on two angles: (1) line managers’ individual characteristics and (2) social relationships between line and HR managers.
2.2 The antecedent of line managers’ involvement in HRM: individual aspect
Previous studies revealed that the devolution of HRM tasks to line managers leads to both positive and negative perception of taking responsibility for HRM (Renwick 2003). Several studies observed that line managers are willing to tackle HRM activities (McConville and Holden 1999; McConville 2006; Conway and Monks 2010) In addition, Hutchinson and Purcell (2003) noted that the line manager displayed commitment toward the HR-related role. Moreover, Bos-Nehles et al. (2006) stressed that they have a high level of desire to take on HRM roles. At the same time, however, other studies provided evidence on the negative feelings toward taking the responsibility for managing people. For example, while some argue that line managers tend to be unwilling to perform HR-related tasks (Renwick and MacNeil 2002; Papalexandris and Panayotopoulou 2005), others noted that they may even feel a sense of resistance towards HRM tasks, which, in turn, leads to negative employee outcomes (Fenton-Ocreevy 1998). That is, one of the difficulties inherent in HRM devolution is whether line managers accept taking on HRM tasks (Watson and Maxwell 2007).
It is not only emotional aspects such as motivation or willingness of line managers but also the ability or competence that matters when considering HR devolution. For example, several studies suggested that the lack of competence or ability to handle HRM inhibits the line manager from effectively implementing HRM policies and practices (Renwick and MacNeil 2002; Whittaker and Marchington 2003; McGuire, Stoner and Mylona 2008; Bos-Nehles et al. 2006).
Furthermore, heavy workload and short-term job pressure could be one of the crucial barriers to line managers’ involvement in HRM (McGovern et al. 1997; Bos-Nehles et al. 2006; Maxwell and Watson 2006). In a similar vein, McGuire, Stoner, and Mylona (2008) suggested that these conditions would be inhibitors for line managers to take on HRM-related responsibility. Thus, an adequate level of devolution needs to be secured for line managers to effectively implement HRM. The excess workload may lead to the line manager’s perception that they do not possess enough competence to complete HRM tasks, resulting in reluctance to tackle these tasks (Brewster and Soderstrom 1994). Thus, the devolution must be carefully undertaken by the organization considering the right amount of HRM tasks for line managers.
Overall, these findings indicate that the successful devolution and effective HRM implementation depend on the ability, motivation, and opportunity that line managers possess when they are involved. This is in line with the argument in AMO theory proposed by several SHRM researchers for the purpose of unlocking the HRM-performance relationship (Appelbaum et al. 2000; Purcell et al. 2003; Harney and Jordan 2008), which focuses on the condition within which individual employees can achieve high performance and emphasizes that these three characteristics are essential for the mechanism through which HRM contributes to individual performance. AMO theory can be applied to the discussion of HR devolution in a manner that line managers’ performance of HRM implementation depends on their ability, motivation, and opportunity.
2.3 The antecedent of line managers’ involvement in HRM: relational aspect
It is not only the individual aspects that encourage or inhibit the effectiveness of HRM implementation, but also the quality of the relationship between line managers and the HR manager or department. It is widely acknowledged that the partnership between them is crucial for successful HRM implementation because line managers and HR professionals are increasingly likely to share responsibility rather than simply delegating it to line managers (Op de Beeck et al. 2016). For example, Papalexandris and Panayotopoulou (2005) observed the tendency toward the collaborative aspect of HRM execution between HR and line managers. Moreover, empirical evidence such as that of Chen, Hsu, and Yip (2011) supported the importance of the collaboration with the argument that it leads to the improvement of future performance. For the partnership to be effective, they further argue that the HR department needs to be rated as effective by line managers. This result can be interpreted as highlighting the importance of trust-based close relationships between them (McGuire, McGuire, and Sanderson 2011). Jackson and Schuler (2003) extended the layer of this relationship by adopting an HR triad approach, which emphasizes cooperation among the HR department, line managers, and employees. Similarly, Bos-Nehles et al. (2006)
found that a variety of actors (e.g., senior managers) could provide the necessary support for line managers to tackle HR issues. That is, while the partnership between HR and line managers is crucial for line managers to handle HRM policies and practices, other actors are also involved in HRM implementation.
Furthermore, recent studies tend to recognize HR’s support as a basis for establishing sophisticated partnerships (Bos-Nehles et al. 2006; Watson and Maxwell 2007; McGuire, Stoner and Mylona 2008; Kuvaas, Dysvik, and Buch 2014; Op de Beeck et al. 2016). Clear guidance and communication from the HR department will help line managers tackle HR tasks (Bos-Nehles 2010; Den Hartog el al. 2013). However, it has been argued that establishing partnerships is not an easy task mainly because of the perceptual differences regarding HRM-related issues such as the amount of devolution of HRM between HR and line managers (Op de Beeck et al. 2016; Maxwell and Watson 2006). Whittaker and Marchington (2003) argued that line managers tend to face the dilemma of competing priority between business and HRM issues. Other studies also stressed that line managers are usually dominated by short-termism, apart from achieving long-term HRM objectives because they are focused on providing products and service (Tsui 1987; McGovern et al. 1997). The lack of shared understanding of HR-related issues would impede a close relationship between HR and line managers.
3. Multiple HRM roles of line managers: identification of the research gap
3.1 The importance of line manager’s strategic behavior
As previously mentioned, the discussion on line managers’ involvement in HRM revolved around both individual and interpersonal aspects that encourage or inhibit successful HRM implementation. These are not mutually exclusive but related in a way that, for example, the high quality of HRM training for line managers conducted by HR department leads to their sense of support and autonomy (Kuvaas, Dysvik, and Buch 2014).
While debate on the line managers’ involvement in HRM and HR devolution provided insight into the condition in which line managers effectively handle HR-related issues, what roles line managers would actually play is still not clear. That is, we tend to simplify their actual role behaviors and ignore the multi-dimensionality of HRM roles adopted by them. In fact, only a few studies have addressed this issue, identifying several types of HRM devolution or involvement. Cascón-Pereira, Valverde, and Ryan (2006) and Cascón-Pereira and Valverde (2015) examined multiple types of devolution and suggested that HR devolution could be classified into four types: task implementation, decision-making power, financial power, and knowledge (Cascón-Pereira and Valverde 2015). Similarly, Azmi and Mustaq (2015) suggested that line managers’ involvement includes decision-making, process activities, and budgeting.
Based on the understanding that line managers’ involvement in HRM entails multi-dimensionality, the present study seeks to propose various types of roles of line managers, specifically highlighting on their autonomous role behavior.
Strategic management literature has long recognized the line manager as a crucial actor who plays a variety of strategic roles through exercising both upward and downward influence (Floyd and Wooldridge 1992;1996). According to their typology, the downward influence includes traditional roles of “strategy implementation,” which is related to realization of current strategy and “facilitating adaptability,” which is concerned with line managers’ activities that encourage organizational members to engage in learning and idea generation. Meanwhile, upward influence consists of two dimensions, namely championing and synthesizing. While the former role emphasizes line managers’ strategic thinking that helps upper management reshape the concept of strategy, the latter is concerned with interpreting information and channeling it to upper managers.
3.2 HRM as reciprocal process between HR and line manager
When taking these findings in into account, line managers have the potential to have an impact on upper management through strategic activities that are closely related to crucial decision making. For example, the issue-selling role of line managers helps formulate strategic overcast by influencing which issues top management should focus on (Dutton and Ashford, 1993; Dutton, Ashford, O’Neil, and Lawrence, 2001). These findings are in line with the concept of emergent strategy, which sheds light on line managers’ autonomous behavior that leads to strategy formation (Mintzberg and Waters 1985; Burgelman 1983).
However, while organizational members themselves are potentially a source of competitive advantage (Wright, McMahan, and McWilliams 1994), line managers’ autonomous behavior that has strategic importance tends to be ignored when it comes to HRM roles. That is, we have yet to fully understand the HRM role of line managers that is potentially inherent in their daily management activity. The lack of attempt to address this issue may stem from the fact that HR roles of line managers are discussed from an HR perspective by using the term “delegation” or “devolution,” which is defined as “reallocation” of tasks to line managers (Azmi and Mushtaq 2015). This implies that line managers are supposed to handle HRM tasks in a way that is exactly consistent with HR’s expectation, which results in less emphasis on their autonomous role behavior. In fact, Cascón-Pereira and Ryan (2006) suggested that HR devolution entails multi-dimensionality and suggested that they did not take line managers’ autonomy into account. Furthermore, although studies so far tend to shed light on the context in which line managers’ involvement in HRM is enabled or inhibited, little attempt has been made to explain how the results of HRM implementation by line managers are utilized by the HR side through feedback. Thus, the present study
seeks to explore the HRM role of line managers taking autonomous aspects into account. Building on the findings of previous studies, the following four types of roles were identified.
1. Budgeting
2. Task Implementation 3. Complementing 4. Providing Information
4. Roles of line managers in HRM process
Budgeting
Several studies on HRM devolution highlight that financial power is delegated to line managers (McConville and Holden 1999; Whittaker and Marchington 2003; Cascón-Pereira, Valverde, and Ryan 2006; Cascón-Pereira and Valverde 2015; Azmi and Mustaq 2015). According to McConville (2006), one of the obstacles that impede line managers’ performance to elicit employee effort is the lack of control of financial resources. Thus, line managers are expected to play a role of allocating budget regarding HRM issues. Considering budgeting as a crucial HRM role of line managers is consistent with the argument by Brewster and Soderstrom (1994) that devolvement of HRM tasks to line managers is encouraged by the movement toward securing numerical, functional, and financial flexibility of employment relationships, which means that line managers are expected to tackle financial aspects of HRM issues.
Task implementation
The second role is concerned with the enactment of formal HRM practices in the actual workplace. Several studies on specific aspects of HRM observed that line managers play a role of realization of HRM practices that are planned or formulated by HR professional. These areas include pay (Hope-Hailey et al. 1997), training and development (Budhwar 2000), objective setting (Whittaker and Marchington 2003), team briefing, and communication (Watson, Maxwell and Farquharson 2006).
The enactment of formal HRM practices is a crucially important role since line managers are supposed to enact HRM practices by sending a message of how the organization expects the organizational members to work. This means that, in doing so, line managers take on the responsibility for creating organizational climate (Bowen and Ostroff 2004; Purcell and Hutchinson 2007) and the amount of employee satisfaction and commitment depends on their behavior regarding the application of HRM to the actual workplace (Kuvaas, Dysvik and Buch 2014).
Complementing
The third role, complementary aspects of line managers’ behavior, is based on the understanding that line managers are required to respond to the expectation of managing people from both senior managers or HR professionals and employees (Caldwell 2003). Jackson and Schuler (2003), adopting an HR triad approach, emphasize cooperation among the HR department, line managers, and employees in dealing with HR tasks; line managers are perceived as a buffer acting like as “filling in the sandwich” (McConville and Holden 1999). Thus, line managers are characterized as having ambivalence in the organization. For example, Conway and Monks (2011) revealed that line managers are involved in the organizational change both as a resistor of top-down change and change initiator from below. This finding implies that it is not appropriate to capture the role of line managers simply as taking responsibility for enacting HRM in line with HR department’s initial intention. Rather, when formal HR practices do not fit with reality of the workplace in which line managers take on responsibility for the operation, line managers may play a role of complementing or modification of HRM practices in their autonomy. Several researchers have implicitly or explicitly referred to their autonomous behavior regarding this role. Harney and Jordan (2008) observed line managers’ discretional effort to mitigate negative aspects of formal HRM practices that had been formulated by top management with the intervention of a major client. Currie and Procter (2001) noted that local pay systems are flexibly applied to the workplace depending on the operational issues that each exist in each workplace. In summary, line managers play a role for complementing the content of HRM as a result of taking the reality of how employees engage in the work in the workplace into account.
Providing Information
The fourth role is concerned with the exchange of information with respect to managing people between HR professionals and line managers. Strategic management literature described line managers as a crucial actor who is engaged in information sharing activities (Floyd and Wooldridge 1992; 1996). Because line managers tend to have rich information on employee responses or behaviors due to their proximity, they are expected to play a central role in middle-up-down management (Nonaka 1988). Moreover, given the fact that employees show discretional behavior that is not necessarily captured by HR professionals, the role of line managers as information providers is crucial to the HRM outcomes of the organization. Overall, the role of information providing characterizes line managers as upward communicators of rich information they gathered through their HRM related tasks.
In summary, it is assumed that expression of these four types of roles would be encouraged and/or inhibited by both individual and relational aspects. In the following
section, the author attempts to explore these roles by empirically examining the detailed line managers’ HRM activities.
5. Research Design
5.1 Method
Qualitative methodology was selected as the most appropriate method for exploratory and descriptive purposes (Patton 1990; Gephart 2004; Yin 2009) and it is suitable for understanding the deeper process of what an individual experiences (Bluhm et al. 2011). In addition, a single case study method was chosen as the best method for providing a broader and more holistic view of HRM implementation.
5.2 Sample
Japanese MNCs and HRM implementation
Japanese multi-national companies (MNCs) operating in Europe were chosen as the study sample for several reasons. First, since it is traditionally recognized that HR departments in Japanese companies tend to have more power and autonomy over the formulation and implementation of HRM than that of overseas companies (Ichimori 2016), the role of top management and HR managers in the HRM process has been emphasized, which means there is a lack of examination of HRM from the viewpoint of line managers. However, in terms of the overseas subsidiary, such a Japanese style of allocation of tasks may not fit with the local context due to cultural and institutional distance (Paauwe and Boselie 2003) and overseas managers may be forced to reform their management style considering line managers as crucial actors of HRM. Thus, we need to pay closer attention to HRM-related activities in terms of the positive role of line managers in an overseas subsidiary of a Japanese company. The second reason stems from the growing interest in the training of local employees at overseas subsidiaries. Japanese companies are facing a lack of qualified employees, which means that it is difficult for them to recruit and retain employees with rich knowledge and skills in Japan. That is, employees from the local country must be recruited, developed, and retained so that they can perform well in the subsidiary in which they operate Furusawa 2009). Thus, subsidiary managers would be required to treat local employees as crucial resources to achieve business goals, encouraging the involvement of line managers in HRM activities. Finally, related to the second reason, enhancing the quality of communication between Japanese staff and local employees is one the most crucial management issues at overseas subsidiaries (Shiraki 2006). In order to solve this, line managers are increasingly perceived as crucial actors of HRM because they play strategic roles, exercising both upward and downward influence in the organization (Floyd and Wooldridge 1992;1996; Wooldridge, Schmid and Floyd 2008). As Bowen and Ostroff
(2004) argue, HRM policies as a message of how the organization wants the employees to work are translated into the organizational climate. Whether HRM policies are clearly and adequately applied to the workplace and contribute to the creation of ideal organizational climate depends on line managers (Purcell and Hutchinson 2007). Thus, line managers are expected to enhance the quality of communication by applying and utilizing HRM polices in the workplace.
We gained access to a Japanese MNCs that has its overseas subsidiary in Germany. This company is a high-technology company mainly dealing with medical and science systems, electric devices, and machinery for social and industry infrastructure. This study is best examined by focusing on hi-tech industry, which is characterized by a turbulent environment (e.g., rapid development of technology) since such an environment leads to line managers’ adaptive behavior, which highlights their active and strategic role. The author conducted semi-structured interviews with five managers including one senior manager from Japan, two HR managers from Japan and Germany, and two line managers from Germany. The duration of the interviews ranged from one and a half to two hours. All the dialogues were recorded and transcribed.
Organizational background and the introduction of new HRM policies and practices
Founded in 1947 in Japan, the high-technology company established a European overseas subsidiary headquartered in Germany in 1964. The firm employs more than 9,000 employees including both domestic and international staff.
Because they utilize highly advanced technology in the manufacturing process, most factories and production facilities are mainly centered on Japan, partially retaining the manufacturing function for low-end production in China. Thus, the European subsidiary is expected to cover the whole of Europe regarding sales and services functions. In particular, service function is essential for its business since selling high technology products means that the company has to provide service after selling to customers to keep products working properly in the long term.
The European subsidiary has introduced new types of HRM policies and practices over two years as a part of strategic change. The largest change comes from its parent company in Japan, which has introduced new HRM policies toward globally integrated HRM systems that enable them to manage their employees from a worldwide perspective. These include, for example, global standardized position grading, employee surveys to understand what employees expect their managers and the organization to do, and global performance management that encourages goal setting among employees. The European subsidiary also introduced these HRM policies in line with the parent company’s aims and objectives. Meanwhile, the European subsidiary is facing its own issues regarding managing employees.
Because less appropriate HRM policies have been adopted for a long period of time without any improvement, it faces a lack of consistency between overall strategy and HRM. Thus, this subsidiary has introduced new HRM policies such as development of new training program and a bonus system. Overall, this European subsidiary has introduced new HRM policies as a result of the influence of both the parent company and its organizational context.
6. Findings
As previously mentioned, four types of HR roles of line management were identified in the process of introduction and application of new HRM policies and practices.
Budgeting
Making a budget plan is one of the most crucial roles of line managers. In this subsidiary, line managers have been given the almost full autonomy for allocating their financial resources. Thus, they are expected to take greater responsibility for each department’s profit and loss. When it comes to their budgeting role related to HRM, line managers take significant responsibility for the decision regarding the number of employees they employ on the given budget. Thus, they have considerable autonomy regarding hiring and firing, which is closely related to determining how many people they need for their business. A line manager from the subsidiary noted.
We try to plan strategy, then we put the people in place for what we want to achieve. This information gets sent to the HR department and HR sends it to accounts and get the information back regarding how expensive this is. What we need to do is to manage this, not going negative. We may then alter the plan such as reduce the head count. (Line manager 1)
In a similar vein, they have full autonomy for deciding which subordinates would have an opportunity to receive the training. Because the cost of training depends on the type of training they receive, line managers are expected to decide the amount and the type so that employees can achieve their business goals.
These budget-related behaviors of line managers are summarized as budgeting role as a part of HR roles.
Task implementation
Task implementation is referred to as the enactment of delegated HRM tasks in the actual workplace. These tasks include both the formal HR polices and leadership behaviors that
affect employees’ emotion and behavior.
Line managers in this subsidiary play a crucial role for most aspects of managing employees including recruitment and selection, job design, training and development, and performance management. While both HR and line managers are involved in the recruitment and selection process, the latter has more power for the selection. Regarding new HRM policies, an HR manager provide guidance not only about how to complete tasks, but also why the organization restructured them. Based on the guidance and instruction from HR managers, training and appraisal were implemented.
Complementing
While task implementation is mainly related to the enactment of HR tasks that are expected to achieve the initial intention described by HR managers, line managers displayed complementary behavior, initiating their own policies and practices to make HRM more effective. For example, line managers initiated a specific training program that is related to the specific departmental skills. Although HR managers understand the existence of this initiative, they have nothing to do with the decision on the contents of this training policy.
This role indicates that line managers seek to make use of both formal HRM policies provided by the organization or HR managers and HRM policies initiated by themselves. Because the recognition of what training employees hope to receive is one of the most important HR roles of line managers, they displayed discretionary complementary behavior to satisfy their needs.
Providing information
The informative role of line managers is referred to as their behavior to report, propose, and sometimes complain about HRM policies and practices to HR managers. During the first phase of HRM reform, HR managers conducted an interview with business leaders including line managers for the purpose of grasping their business. In doing so, line managers provided them with a variety of information that is utilized for the formulation of new HRM policies. Information provided ranges from employee-related issues such as what types of training they need to general business issues such as their business strategy.
In addition to the information related to policy making, line managers take responsibility for regularly reporting the result of new HRM policies and practices via both formal and informal channels. For example, when global performance management was introduced as a major transformation of the way to set goal, obtain training opportunities, and conduct appraisals, the basic tool for conducting these tasks, the SAP system, experienced some problems with handling data. This imposed line manager with more time to perform these tasks. Line managers, then, both formally and informally, reported the negative aspects
inherent in the system to HR manager. In a similar vein, line managers were expected to display their opinion on a list of training programs referred to as a “training catalogue.” This catalogue has been recently introduced as part of HRM reforms and line managers discussed how they utilize this catalogue with the HR department. While line managers perceived the training catalogue as a useful means for training for their subordinates, the HR department received reports from line managers regarding the outcome of the training catalogue. For example, the HR department and line managers informally and formally exchanged opinions about what types of training are usually adopted (or not adopted) in the catalogue. This information is taken as beneficial for the HR department because it could be utilized to refine the content of the catalogue.
Overall, line managers exhibited influence over HR managers through the manifestation of the opinion about how to manage their employees.
7. Discussion and implication
The present study focused on describing the line managers’ HRM role. What do these roles imply for the improvement of understanding line managers’ involvement in HRM? How are these roles related each other?
First, consistent with previous studies, several factors that enable or inhibit line managers’ involvement were identified. Line managers perceive the HRM role as a primary task they need to engage in, which indicates that they naturally accept HRM tasks and are proud of being involved in them. In terms of HR support, line managers regularly receive guidance from the HR department on how they should handle new HRM policies and practices. In addition, close relationships between HR and line managers were observed as a line manager noted that HR is always supportive and helpful, and place emphasis on the importance of line managers.
Moreover, as a result of HRM reform, line managers have become increasingly involved in HRM since it encouraged them to understand how the organization and senior managers place HRM issues at the heart of achieving strategic objectives. This implies that drastic transformation of HRM creates the role expectation of active engagement in HRM for line managers, leading them to focus on strategic and long-term HRM issues and mitigate the sense of short termism.
Secondly, while basic conditions that enable line managers to deal with HRM are observed, this study revealed that these factors are related to the expression of each role. Both the budgeting and the task implementation role were expressed in relation to partnership based on HR support and frequent communication, which implies that partnership aspects HRM involvement are crucial for exercising these roles. Meanwhile, complementary roles are concerned with personal aspects of enabling (e.g., ability and
motivation), rather than depending on the quality of partnerships. Because the enactment of complementary roles depends on whether line managers can understand what needs to be done regarding managing people beyond mere implementation of initially stated HRM policies and creating an action to fill the gap between the ideal and reality, this implies that line managers’ personal conditions such as ability, motivation and opportunity are more crucial enablers of these roles than partnership between HR professionals and line managers. That is, the complementary role reflects their autonomous behavior that seeks the improvement of the quality of HRM in the actual workplace. In terms of the information providing role, while the close relationship between HR professionals and line managers are primary factors that encourage them to exchange information, it is different from the other since it sheds light on the upward influence that they exercise, which would not necessarily be observed in the other roles. This indicates that although previous findings on line managers’ involvement in HRM emphasized the support toward line managers from the HR side, line managers also provide the HR side with support by providing information that has not been grasped by HR but is useful and beneficial for the continuous improvement about HRM systems. Thus, the identification of these four roles reveals the relationship between HR professionals and line management from a reciprocal viewpoint.
8. Conclusion and future research
The present study attempts to address the detailed role played by line managers as crucial actors is in charge of HRM activities. It is argued that line managers’ HRM roles are not limited to mere implementation of HRM tasks, but they enjoy autonomous roles such as initiating local HRM practices and have an upward influence toward the HR department through the feedback regarding the result and reality of newly adopted HRM policies and practices.
All research has its limitations and the present study has its theoretical and methodological limitations. First, the limited number of interviewees may undermine the validity of our findings. There is a need to compile a more robust dataset in terms of the number of participants and firms. In addition, although this study took a sample of the European subsidiary of a Japanese MNC, no reference has been made to the specific characteristics of line managers’ role when comparing with that of parent company. The content and process of HRM are largely influenced by institutional and cultural settings (Paauwe and Boselie 2003) and it is worth examining the differences in the enactment of HRM from the viewpoint of international comparison.
References
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P. and Kalleberg, A. L. (2000) Manufacturing Advantage: Why High Performance Work Systems Pay Off, Cornell University Press.
Azmi, F. T. and Mushtaq, S. (2015) ‘Role of Line Managers in Human Resource Management: Empirical Evidence from India’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.26, No.5. pp.616-639.
Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W. and Mitchell, T. R. (2011) ‘Qualitative Research in Management: A Decade of Progress’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.48, No.8, pp.1866-1891.
Boselie, P., Dietz, G. and Boon, C. (2005) ‘Commonalities and Contradictions in HRM and Performance Research’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol.15, No.3, pp.67-94.
Bowen, D. E. and Ostroff, C. (2004) ‘Understanding HRM-Firm Performance Linkage: The Role of the “Strength” of the HRM System’, Academy of Management Review, Vol.29, No.2, pp.203-221.
Boxall, P. and Purcell, J. (2011) Strategy and Human Resource Management: Management, Work and Organisations, 3rd ed., Palgrave Macmillan.
Bos-Nehles, A. C. (2010). The Line Makes the Difference: Line Managers as Effective HR Partners, Zutphen, CPI Wohrmann Print Service.
Bos-Nehles, A., van Riemsdijk, M., Kok, I. and Looise, J. K. (2006) ‘Implementing Human Resource Management Successfully: A First-Line Management Challenge’, Management Revue, Vol.17, No.3, pp.256-273.
Brewster, C. and Lasen, H. H. (2000) Human Resource Management in Northern Europe: Trends, Dilemmas and Strategy, Blackwell, Oxford.
Brewster, C. and Soderstrom, M. (1994) ‘Human Resources and Line Management’, in Brewster, C., Hegewisch, A. (Eds) Policy and Practice in European Human Resource Management, Routledge. Budhwar, P. S. (2000) ‘Evaluating Levels of Strategic Integration and Development of Human Resource
Management in the UK’, Personnel Review, Vol.29, No.2, pp.141-157.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983) ‘A Process Model of Internal Corporate Venturing in the Diversified Major Firm’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.28, No.2, pp.223-244.
Caldwell, R. (2003) ‘The Changing Roles of Personnel Managers: Old Ambiguities, New Uncertainties’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.40, No.4, pp.983-1004.
Cascon-Pereira, R. and Valverde, M. (2015) ‘HRM Devolution to Middle Managers: Dimension Identification’, Business Research Quarterly, Vol.17, pp.149-160.
Cascon-Pereira, R., Valverde, M. and Ryan, G. (2006) ‘Mapping Out Devolution: An Exploration of the Realities of Devolution’, Journal of European Industrial Training,Vol.30, No.2, pp.129-151.
Chen, Y. P., Hsu, Y., and Yip, F. W. (2011) ‘Friends or Rivals: Comparative Perspectives of HR and Line Managers on Perceived Future Firm Performance’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.22, No.8, pp.1703-0722.
Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A. and Ketchen, D. (2006) ‘How Much Do High-Performance Work Practices Matter? A Meta-Analysis of Their Effects on Organizational Performance’, Personnel Psychology, Vol.59, No.3, pp.501-528.
Conway, E. and Monks, K. (2010) ‘The Devolution of HRM to Middle Managers in the Irish Health Service’, Personnel Review, Vol.39, No.3, pp.361-374.
Currie, G. and Procter, S. (2001) ‘Exploring the Relationship between HR and Middle Managers’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol.11, No.3, pp.53-69.
Den Hartog, D. N., Boon, C., Verburg, R. M. and Croon, M. A. (2013) ‘HRM, Communication, Satisfaction, and Perceived Performance: A Cross-Level Test’, Journal of Management, Vol.39, No.6, pp.1637-1665.
Dutton, J. E. and Ashford, S. J. (1993) ‘Selling Issues to Top Management,’ Academy of Management Review, Vol.18, No.3, pp.397-428.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M. and Lawrence, K. A. (2001) ‘Moves that Matter: Issue Selling and Organizational Change’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.44, No.4, pp.716-736.
Fenton-O’Creevy, M. ‘Employee Involvement and the Middle Manager: Evidence from a Survey of Organizations’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.19, No.1, pp.67-84.
Floyd, S. W. and Wooldridge, B. (1992) ‘Middle Management Involvement in Strategy and Its Association with Strategic Type: A Research Note’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol.13, No.5, pp.153-167. Floyd, S. W., and Wooldridge, B. (1996) The Strategic Middle Manager: How to Create and Sustain
Competitive Advantage, Jossey-Bass.
Furusawa, M. (2009) ‘A Study on Global Human Resource Management of Japanese Corporations: The Case of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.’, The Osaka Shogyo Daigaku Ronshu, Vol.5, No.1, pp.217-234. (In Japanese)
Gephart, R. P., Jr. (2004) ‘Qualitative Research and the Academy of Management Journal’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.47, No.4, pp.454-462.
Gratton, L. and Truss, C. (2003) ‘The Three-Dimensional People Strategy: Putting Human Resources Policies into Action’, Academy of Management Executive, Vol.17, No.3, pp.74-86.
Guest, D. E. (2011) ‘Human Resource Management and Performance: Still Searching for Some Answers’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol.21, No.1, pp.3-13.
Hall, L. and Torrington, D. (1998) ‘Letting Go or Holding on: The Devolution of Operational Personnel Activities’, Human Resource Management, Vol.8, No.1, pp.41-55.
Harney, B. and Jordan, C. (2008) ‘Unlocking the Black Box: Line Managers and HRM-Performance in a Call Centre Context’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol.57, No.4, pp.275-296.
Hope-Hailey, V., Gratton, L., McGovern, P., Stiles, P. and Truss, C. (1997) ‘A Chameleon Function? HRM in the ’90s’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol.7, No.3, pp.5-18.
Hutchinson, S. and Purcell, J. (2003) Bringing Policies to Life: The Vital Role of Front Line Managers. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Hutchinson, S. and Wood, S. (1995) ‘The UK Experience’, in Hutchinson, S. and Brewster, C, (eds.) Personnel and the Line: Developing the New Relationship, IPM, Wimbledon.
Ichimori, Y. (2016) Japanese Employment Systems in Transition: HR-Line Work Relations, Keio University Press. (In Japanese)
Jackson, S. and Schuler, R. (2003) Managing Human Resource through Strategic Partnerships, (8th ed.,
South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH).
Kuvaas, B., Dysvik, A. and Buch, R. (2014) ‘Antecedents and Employee Outcomes of Line Managers’ Perceptions of Enabling HR Practices’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.51, No.6, pp.845-868. Larsen, H. H. and Brewster, C. (2003) ‘Line Management Responsibility for HRM: What is Happening in
Europe?’, Employee Relations, Vol.25, No.3, pp.228-244.
Legge, K. (1995) Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities, Macmillan Press.
Maxwell, G.A., Watson, S. (2006) ‘Perspectives on Line Managers in Human Resource Management: Hilton International’s UK Hotels’, International Journal of Human Resource Management Vol.17 No.6, pp.1152-1170.
McConville, T. (2006) ‘Devolved HRM Responsibilities, Middle-managers and Role Dissonance’, Personnel Review, Vol.35, No.6, pp.637-653.
McConville, T. and Holden, L. (1999) ‘The Filling in the Sandwich: HRM and Middle Managers in the Health Sector’, Personnel Review, Vol.28, No.5, pp.406-424.
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.
McGuire, F., McGuire, D. and Sanderson, M. (2011) ‘Between a Rock and a Hard Place: An Exploration of Line Manager Partnership Working with Trade Unions and the HR Function’, University Forum for Human Resource Development. Online: http://www.ufhrd.co.uk/wordpress/mcguire-f-mcguire-d-and-sanderson -m-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-an-exploration-of-line-manager-partnership-working-with-trade-unions-and-the-hr-function/
McGuire, D., Stoner, L. and Mylona, S. (2008) ‘The Role of Line Managers as Human Resource Agents in Fostering Organizational Change in Public Services’, Journal of Change Management, Vol.8, No.1, pp.73-84.
Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. A. (1985) ‘Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent,’ Strategic Management Journal, Vol.6, No.3, pp.257-272.
Op de Beeck, S., Wynen, J. and Hondeghem, A. (2016) ‘HRM implementation by line managers: explaining the discrepancy in HR-line perceptions of HR devolution’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 27, No. 17, pp.1901–1919.
Paauwe, J. (2009) ‘HRM and Performance: Achievements, Methodological Issues and Prospects’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.46, No.1, pp.129-142.
Paauwe, J. and Boselie, P. (2003) ‘Challenging ‘Strategic HRM’ and the Relevance of the Institutional Setting’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol.13, No.3, pp.56-70.
Papalexandris, N. and Panayotopoulou, L. (2005) ‘Exploring the Partnership between Line Managers and HRM in Greece’, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol.29, No.4, pp.281-291.
Patton, M.Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.) SAGE.
Purcell, J. and Hutchinson, S. (2007) ‘Front-line Managers as Agents in the HRM-performance Causal Chain: Theory, Analysis and Evidence’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol.17, No.1, pp.3-20. Purcell, J., Kinnie, N., Hutchinson, S., Rayton, B. and Swart, J. (2003) Understanding the People and
Performance Link: Unlocking the Black Box, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Renwick, D. (2003) ‘Line Manager Involvement in HRM: An Inside View’, Employee Relations, Vol.26,
No.3, pp.262-280.
Renwick, D. and MacNeil, C. M. (2002) ‘Line Manager Involvement in Careers’, Career Development International, Vol.7, No.7, pp.407-414.
Sheehan, M., (2012) ‘Devolvement of HRM and Perceived Performance within Multinational Corporations (MNCs)’, European Journal of International Management, Vol.6, No.1, pp.101-122.
Shiraki, M. (2006) A Comparative Analysis of International Human Resource Management: From the View Point of “Multi-national Internal Labor Markets” , Yuhikaku. (In Japanese)
Takeuchi, R., Chen, G. and Lepak, D. P. (2009) ‘Through the Looking Glass of a Social System: Cross-level Effects of High-Performance Work Systems on Employees’ Attitudes’, Personnel Psychology Vol.62, No.1, pp.1-29.
Truss, C. (2001) ‘Complexities and Controversies in Linking HRM with Organizational Outcomes’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.38, No.8, pp.1121-1149.
Tsui, A. S. (1987) ‘Defining the Activities and Effectiveness of Human Resource Department: A Multiple Constituency Approach’, Human Resource Management, Vol.26, No.1, pp.35-69.
Watson, S. and Maxwell, G. A. (2007) ‘HRD from a Functionalist Perspective: The Views of Line Managers’, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol.9, No.1, pp.31-41.
Watson, S., Maxwell, G.A. and Farquharson, L. (2006) ‘Line Managers’ Views on Adopting Human Resource Roles: The Case of Hilton (UK) Hotels’, Employee Relations, Vol.29, No.1, pp.30-49. Whittaker, S. and Marchington, M. (2003) ‘Devolving HR Responsibility to the Line: Threat, Opportunity
or Partnership?’, Employee Relations, Vol.25, No.3, pp.245-261.
Wooldridge, B., Schmid, T. and Floyd, S. W. (2008) ‘The Middle Management Perspective on Strategy Process: Contributions, Synthesis, and Future Research’, Journal of Management, Vol.34, No.6, pp.1190-1221.
Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. and McWilliams, A. (1994) ‘Human Resource and Sustained Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based Perspective’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.5, No.2, pp.301-326.
Wright, P. M. and Nishii, L. H. (2013) ‘Strategic HRM and Organizational Behaviour: Integrating Multiple Levels of Analysis’, In Paauwe, J., Guest, D. E. and Wright, P. M. (Eds.) HRM and Performance: Achievements and Challenges, John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
