Devolvement as a Strategy in Human Resource Management - Essay Example

Devolvement as a Strategy in Human Resource Management Human Resource Management has evolved from its origins to include a wider scope of responsibility and a multitude of functions. A trip down memory lane reveals that it was initially the accounting department which took care of administrative transactions that concerned personnel. However, when recruitment, selection, industrial relations and terms of employment became acquired tasks, special departments were given the responsibility of handling them, usually under the name Personnel Department. (Van Marrewijk & Timmers, 2003). As organizations grew, a need for more knowledgeable, flexible and innovative workers was felt, causing a new trend called Human Resource Management (HRM). HRM has since been ascribed an essential role in achieving the goals of organizations. Its rise had important implications on the recognition of workers. The competencies of employees have been given more notice in recruitment and selection as well as in training and development (Van Marrewijk & Timmers, 2003). Its strategic position as a sounding board for top management and facilitator and change agent in the restructuring and transformation processes of the company is equally balanced with its role as an important partner for employees. “Thus, the HRM function positions itself in two ways: as the architect of new organizational structures and work systems, and as coach in management development processes and companion of employees in turnaround processes” (Van Marrewijk & Timmers, 2003, p.174) Movement from traditional personnel management towards HRM is caused by factors such as “increased level of competition, less availability of trained workforce, less committed workforce, rapidly changing technology, increased level of downsizing and restructuring of organizations” (Budhwar, 2000, p. 143). Further, the increased importance and interest in HRM may be enhanced by the introduction of the National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs), Investors in People (IIP) standards, increased pressure on training and enterprise councils (TEC) and the “welfare to work” projects. The ever-increasing functions of HRM have given birth to two practices – integration and devolvement. Brewster and Larsen (1992) define integration as “the degree to which HRM issues are considered as part of the formulation of the business strategy” and devolvement as “the degree to which HRM practices involve and give responsibility to line managers rather than personnel specialists.” (p. 411-412). This paper will focus on the practice of devolvement. Unloading some responsibilities to line managers is beneficial to HRM, especially in the face of never-ending tasks set in the achievement of company goals (Budhwar & Sparrow, 2002). There are certain issues which may be too complex for top management to understand alone and sharing the burden with those directly involved may ease it. It results in more motivated employees and more effective control of some issues and concerns. It helps improve organizational effectiveness. Devolvement to local managers is a wise move since they can respond faster and maybe even better to local problems and conditions which central HRM is not as familiar with. Most routine problems can be resolved at the ‘grassroots level’, and getting personnel specialists from HRM to investigate it will take more time to perform strategic functions. Line managers would be in a better position to take charge. In doing so, it practices their decision-making skills, preparing them for more responsibilities in the future. Also, devolvement helps reduce costs by redirecting the traditionally central bureaucratic personnel functions (Budhwar & Sparrow, 2002). A study by Budhwar (2000) involving in-depth interviews of topmost personnel specialists was conducted in UK in 1994-1995. It was reported that the positive outcomes of devolvement include more problems being solved at a lower level, better change management, more responsible line managers, improved efficiency of employees and more freedom for specialists to move away from routine activities, allowing them to concentrate on central organizational HR functions. On the other hand, negative outcomes include increased pressure to train line managers, problems of maintaining consistency in the system due to differences in standards, the need for strict HR auditing and the problem of maintaining a balance of power between line managers and personnel specialists (Budhwar, 2000). In order to succeed working as a team, organizations must be aware of relational power, or the give and take of power and knowledge. Hence, this would involve knowledge transfer from individuals who possess it to those who do not. Indeed, companies that are more effective at knowledge transfer have been shown to have a greater likelihood of organizational survival and higher levels of productivity (Dart et al., 1995; Dyer & Nobeoka, 2000; Galbraith, 1990). It just proves how knowledge is a critical organizational asset. In the case of devolvement, this includes policies and procedures HR expects line managers to implement to employees. Despite a growing understanding of the importance of knowledge transfer, the sharing of information within organizations remains a challenge. Burgess (2005) reasons that “one impediment to developing successful knowledge transfer initiatives seems to be the tendency of practitioners and researchers to focus on tools (e.g., technology) and tasks (e.g., routines), with less attention paid to knowledge-transfer among people (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Huysman & de Wit, 2003). However, because a significant amount of knowledge is embedded in individual employees, communication of knowledge among members is a critical aspect of knowledge transfer. Richmond & McCroskey (2005) defines organizational communication as “the process by which individuals stimulate meaning in the minds of other individuals by means of verbal or nonverbal messages in the context of a formal organization.” There are six functions that seem to dominate communication in the organizational context. The functions are to inform, regulate, integrate, manage, persuade, and socialize. HR and line managers need to practice all six. Much of the informative communication in organizations is conducted in a written format. This is an effective method to disseminate information quickly. On the other hand, HR may decide to call a meeting once each week (or month) with line managers primarily of an informative nature.” (Richmond & McCroskey, 2005). Line managers must be prepared to raise questions regarding their concerns which need more information for them. The function of regulating is usually directed toward regulatory policies within the organization or messages about maintenance of the organization. “The integrative function of communication is focused on coordination of tasks, work assignments, group coordination, or the fusing of work units toward a common goal. In other words, it is communication directed at getting people to work together and have tasks coordinated so that the "left hand knows what the right hand is doing." It is an attempt to get people to work together and make things run more smoothly.” (Richmond & McCroskey, 2005). The management function of communication is focused on getting line managers to do what is needed, learning information about employees to know them better, and establishing relationships with these employees. Basically, if a manager is successful in these three, then he has better chances of gaining employee respect and support. The persuasive function enables one to influence another to do something in particular, sort of cajoling a co-worker to do something like covering for him when he fumbles at work. “The socialization function of communication in the organization is the one that can determine whether an individual survives well, or not at all, in an organization. Socialization doesn't mean being "buddies" with everyone. It means being integrated into the communication networks in the organization.” (Richmond & McCroskey, 2005) Communication can either go horizontally, or across co-workers who are considered equals in terms of position in the organization, and vertically, indicating a hierarchy in position that either goes upward towards higher management or downward, towards rank and file. Downward communication from management to the employees usually involves job instruction, rationale, ideology, information and feedback. Job instruction includes directions mandated by management such as direct orders, written memos, workshops on how to do the job, and so on. Rationale is the rationalization or explanation of a duty or assignment and how it is compatible with what the personnel are already doing. Ideology is the philosophy of the organization that managers expect their employees to share. If they do believe in the same views, then communication would flow much easier within the organization. Feedback is the manager's way of giving employees information about how they are doing. This is usually expressed as praise, recognition, salary increase, criticism, a frown or a termination notice. Managers should provide feedback to their employees so that they would be guided well enough in their work performance. Each worker should be able to feel that he is part of a great team that sets high goals and successfully attains them. “Creating the conditions that engender knowledge transfer entails significant structural and cultural changes by top leadership, which will require leaders to be convinced that the benefits of knowledge transfer outweigh the costs. In the absence of this commitment, it is unlikely that attempts to increase knowledge flow will succeed. Leaders (HR managers or line managers) should be cautious about publicly touting the virtues of "knowledge sharing" without a substantive commitment to change, as this may result in the failure of well-intentioned knowledge transfer initiatives, bringing with it lowered employee morale and the potential for resistance against future knowledge-transfer initiatives.” (Burgess, 2005) Aside from effective communication and knowledge transfer between HR and line managers, many other factors need to be considered in analyzing the success of devolvement. Among these are leadership potential of line managers; motivation to implement the policies and procedures passed on by HR; and the performance appraisal of line managers by HR. . Leadership may be defined as a “process in which a leader attempts to influence his or her followers to establish and accomplish a goal or goals.” (from http://www.answers.com/leadership#top). It may be as simple as coming up with a group decision or as complex as establishing a group culture. Leadership is a continuous process wherein a leader tries to move from accomplishing one goal to another for the good of the whole group. A leader, such as a line manager, is stereotypically known to possess positive qualities and capabilities. However, in a research reported by French, Simpson and Harvey (2001), a good leader is also equipped with ‘negative capability’. “The underpinning image of leadership is based on knowing and is manifested through activity, work and achievement. There is, however, a quite other dimension of leadership, based on not knowing, on not doing, on being-done-to, and on being no longer in control of one’s own situation.” (French, Simpson & Harvey, 2001). This may be interpreted as being humble enough to admit when one doesn’t really know instead of putting up a façade of being all-knowing. This peculiarly human capacity to live with and tolerate ambiguity, of being content with half knowledge is quite a refreshing concept. “It implies the capacity to engage in a non-defensive way with change, without being overwhelmed by the ever-present pressure merely to react. It also indicates empathy and even a certain flexibility of character, the ability ‘to tolerate a loss of self and a loss of rationality by trusting in the capacity to recreate oneself in another character or another environment’ (Hutter, 1982). Thus, humility at admitting if one is mistaken or needs help and more information from HR is one desirable human characteristic of a good line manager. Both HR and line managers need to be aware of and fulfill employee needs. In every employment, employees consciously or unconsciously expect a kind of “psychological contract” apart from the expectations the job usually presents – benefits and compensation for a particular job description. This psychological contract usually includes open and honest communication, managerial support and challenging and interesting work. Employees are becoming increasingly aware of the non-monetary rewards that companies can provide them. It is generally important that the job not only fulfills their economical needs, but their socio-emotional needs as well. “This implies that recruiters need to go beyond a discussion of compensation and benefits and highlight aspects of their organization that job candidates will find intrinsically satisfying.” (Lester, Clair & Kickul, 2001, n.p.) Line managers, left on their own, must be cognizant of and responsive to their subordinates’ perception of their psychological contracts with the company. Things such as meaningful work, recognition, creative freedom and opportunities for personal growth are desired by all employees. Management must maintain open and honest communication with employees, bearing in mind their socio-emotional needs and concerns, and being encouraging enough to boost their self-esteem. Lack of communication is ultimately problematic because it suggests to employees that management may be susceptible to perceived psychological contract breaches across a variety of areas because the basic issue of communication is not met. Managers must be able to invest more time developing and strengthening healthy relationships with their employees so they are kept abreast of their progress in both personal and professional areas. For HR, the evaluation of line managers’ performance allows them to check that strategic business objectives are valid, being successfully communicated throughout the organisation and being achieved. Appraising and managing performance are critical management responsibilities and vital part of the organisation strategic management process. Cheatle (2001) sees Performance Appraisal (PA) as an essential tool in Human Resource Management. Traditionally, it has been associated with assessing the performance of individuals against the organization’s set objectives to ensure that they are making the contributions required of them. In recent years, this has evolved to include goals such as systematically developing individuals to make sure their contributions are maximized while being fulfilled in their jobs, that they have adequate skills required to develop in their roles in the organization, and to aid the retention of these individuals in the organization. Stone (2002) defines it as a vital tool for strategy execution by “providing a dynamic link to employee recruitment, selection, training and development, career planning, compensation and benefits, safety and health and industrial relations” (p.264). Further, Stone explains: It signals to managers and employees what is really important; it provides ways to measure what is important; it fixes accountability for behaviour and results; and it helps in improving performance. Finally, performance appraisal is necessary to defend the organisation against individuals who legally challenge the validity of management decisions relating to promotions, transfers, salary changes ,and, termination.(p. 264) The literature offers a wealth of information that highlights the advantages of PA. Aside from the obvious purpose of evaluating the performance of individuals within the organization, and if they are at par with the set standards, PA’s facilitate communication (Schraeder, Becton and Portis, 2007). In the case of devolvement, PA’s are tools of HRM that may provide feedback to and from line managers. On the other hand, failure to provide feedback can have negative implications for line managers, and keep them in the dark as to what step to take next. The communication received through PA feedback is important in encouraging line managers to continue with the positive things they have been appraised with or to guide them to fill in the gaps in their problem areas. The existence or lack of trust among the members of an organization affects performance (Argyris, 1964). Distractions such as behaviors, thoughts or issues reduce task performance and ability to focus on activities that contribute to the achievement of organizational goals. Performance appraisals, properly structured and applied, can be used to help minimize environmental distractions (Mayer and Gavin, 2005), promoting an increased level of trust within the organization. Another benefit of PA, according to Schraeder, Becton and Portis (2007) is goal setting/reinforcement of desired behavior or performance. Knowing what the organizational goals are creates certainty on line manager’s job-related expectations (Pettijohn et al, 2001). At the same time, PA helps set goals for the line manager himself. Such collaborative effort by HRM and line managers in goal setting is desirable because it results in greater acceptance and satisfaction with appraisal results. Numerous studies have reported positive relationships between human resource management (HRM) practices, including performance appraisal and organizational performance. PA is key in the determination of training needs. Selden et al (2001) argue that the key to an effective performance appraisal system is providing individuals with an opportunity to pursue training and development directly related to problem areas identified in the appraisal. Globalization necessitates devolvement, especially to companies that cater to international markets. Cross-cultural practices must be considered in training and preparing personnel for different national and international assignments. Managers from different cultures may hold entirely different views on HR practices, and devolving policies and procedures down to their staff may affect the standards set by the company. “Devolvement is seen as an inevitable consequence of the economic liberalization process and a strategy whose time has come. It is seen as a necessity in order to improve industrial relations and enable the management of change. The shift away from a fire-fighting role, the creation of more structured HRM policies and practices, and the professionalization of line managers are seen as by-products of this opportunistic, but requisite strategy” (Budhwar & Sparrow, 2002, p. 618) . References Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 150-169. Argyris, C. (1964) Integrating the Individual and the Organization, Wiley. 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. 141-161 Budhwar, P.S. & Sparrow, P.R. (2002) Strategic HRM through the Cultural Looking Glass: Mapping the Cognition of British and Indian Managers. Organisation Studies 2002, 23/4 599-638 Burgess, D. (2005) What Motivates Employees to Transfer Knowledge outside Their Work Unit? The Journal of Business Communication. Volume: 42. Issue: 4 Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E. F. (2002). Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies, 23, 687-710. Cheatle, k. (2001). Mastering human resource management. New York: Palgrave. Dart, E., Argote, L., & Epple, D. (1995). The acquisition, transfer and depreciation of knowledge in service organizations: Productivity in franchises. Management Science, 41, 1750-1762. Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge- sharing network: The Toyota Case. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 345-367. French, R., Simpson, P. & Harvey, C. (2001), ‘Negative capability’: the key to creative leadership. Presented at the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations 2001 Symposium. Retrieved on May 11, 2008 from www.sba.oakland.edu/ispso/html/2001Symposium/french.htm Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (1), 82-111. http://www.answers.com/leadership#top Hutter, A.D. (1982) Poetry in psychoanalysis: Hopkins, Rosetti, Winnicott. International Review of Psycho-Analysis 9, 303-16. Huysman, M., & de Wit, D. (2003). A critical evaluation of knowledge management practices. In M. S. Ackerman, V. Pipek, & V. Wulf (Eds.). Sharing expertise: Beyond knowledge management (pp. 27-55). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Isaacs, W.,(n.d.) Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics Jones, D.S. (2006) Expanding our Influence. Professional Safety. September 2006 Lester, S. Clair, E, Kickul, J. (2001) Psychological Contracts in the 21st Century: What Employees Value Most and How Well Organizations Are Responding to These Expectations. Human Resource Planning. Volume: 24. Issue: 1. Mayer, C.M. and Gavin, M. B. (2005) "Trust in Management and Performance: Who Minds the Shop While the Employees Watch the Boss?" Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48, No. 5, pp. 874-888. Mishra, J., & Morrissey, M. A. (1990). Trust in employee/employer relationships: A survey of West Michigan managers. Public Personnel Management, 19.4, winter 1990, 443-463. Pettijohn, L.S., Parker, R. S., Pettijohn, C. E. and. Kent, J. L, (2001) "Performance Appraisals: Usage, Criteria, and Observations," The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 20, No. 9/10, pp. 754-771. Richmond, V.P. & McCroskey, J.C. (2005) Organizational communication for survival: making work,work. Retrieved July 17, 2008 from http://www.ilstu.edu/~llipper/com329/mccroskey_chapter.pdf Schraeder, M., Becton, J.B. and Portis, R.(2007) A Critical Examination of Performance Appraisals: An Organization's Friend or Foe? The Journal For Quality & Participation Spring2007 Selden, S.C., Ingraham, P.W. and Jacobson W. (2001), "Human Resource Practices in State Government: Findings From a National Survey," Public Administration Review, Vol. 61, No. 5, pp. 598-607. Stone, R. J. (2002). Human resource management (4th ed.). Sydney and Melbourne: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. Van Marrewijk, M. & Timmers, J.(2003) Human Capital Management: New Possibilities In People Management. Journal of Business Ethics 44: 171-184. Read More