There has been a lot of research on the link between Human Resource Management (HRM) and the company's performance. Many of these studies have shown that there is a positive relationship between the two, but not one of them showed why and how performance is affected by the implementation of hr practices (Purcell, 2003). Boselie et al. (2005) also state that studies of HRM and performance pay almost no attention to the linking mechanisms between the two, also known as the 'HRM black box'. The critical link in this black box is formed by the way hr practices are influencing the attitudes of employees and ultimately improve the performance of the organization through the improvement of the employees performance.
The rising of Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) has changed several aspects of HRM within firms. Boxall and Purcell (2003) argue that business strategy has to be integrated with HR strategy in order for a company to become strategic. In order to integrate the two, two things have to be changed. One development is the shifting of operational HR responsibilities from the HR managers to the line managers. The HR managers are then able to focus more on the strategic direction of HRM. This shift of the implementation of hr practices from the personnel specialists to the line managers is called 'devolution' (Brewster & Larsen, 1992). In addition, line managers should be integrated into the HRM process to make the integration of strategy and HRM possible. Guest (1987) pointed out that this process of sharing HRM with line managers was already going on in the late eighties.
In 2007, Purcell and Hutchinson brought out a study on the link between HRM and performance and argue that line managers play an important role in implementing the hr practices onto the organizations' employees. Purcell and Hutchinson (2007) state that these line managers can play a big role in the experiences of the hr practices by the employees, because most HR practices need to be communicated in steps to the employees which make line managers perfect for the job because of their direct relationship with the employees. The main point of this Front Line Manager (FLM) theory is that line managers are the ones who stand closest to the employees and thus have the direct responsibility over the employees.
Throughout the years, it almost became normal that line managers are interfering with HRM practices. Several studies have been done on the role of line managers in the HR system, with positive as well as negative results. Apart from the question if the role of line managers adds something to the HR system, it is important to know what the role of line managers in HRM exactly is and how this can be of any value to the firm. Therefore it is important to know everything about the link between HR practices and the role of the line managers in communicating the HR practices to the employees.
(2) What the HR system would look like (i.e. describe its characteristics), and how and why it is supposed to lead to higher performance.
The implemented HR system would exist of the HR practices that are designed by higher level managers who's task it is to instruct the line managers. The line managers, and especially the front-line managers, are then responsible for the transfer of the HR practices to the employees. This is because the front-line managers are the one to whom the employees usually report (Hales, 2005), which makes it easier for the line managers to communicate the HR practices thoroughly to the employees. Communicating HR practices in this way can increase the understanding of the employees. Their experience of people management can affect the attitude towards the firm. This can be explained by the social exchange theory, developed by Homans (1985). This theory describes an interaction between the employee and the organization. Because of the fact that the employees have a better interpersonal relationship with their direct managers, the attitude of the employee towards the firm may improve. Uhl-Bien et al. (2000) describe this as the so-called 'Leader Member Exchange'. They argue that the improved attitude towards the firm can improve the individuals' functioning. Hannah and Iverson (2004) point out that the HR practices are now seen as a more personal commitment to the company, which results in a more positive behavior. Brown (2005) agrees on the assumption that the improved attitude towards the firm can be explained through the willingness of the employees to give something in return for what they received. Ostroff and Bowen (2000) state that this positive effect of communicating the HR practice this way can be credited to the fact that the goals of the individuals and their direct managers are becoming more balanced in a way.
As Uhl-Bien et al. (2000) pointed out, the improvement of the employees' attitude towards the company can lead to the increasing of individual functioning and this, in turn, can lead to better firm performance. Purcell (2007) showed that the increased satisfaction of employees with HR practices is related to the improved level of job experience and job commitment by the employee. This indicates that the role of the line managers in communicating the HR practices to the employees is of great importance. Liden et al. (2004) argue that the first line manager, who is the immediate supervisor and contact of the employee, plays an important role in forming the employees' perception of the firm. Tekleab and Taylor (2003) even describe the Leader Member Exchange and the role of line managers as a critical part of the people management process.
(3) How you would evaluate/measure the effectiveness of your approach for the company.
Boselie, Dietz and Boon (2005) state that, in most research aimed at the link between HRM and performance, HRM is formed by a set of HR practices which are developed by the responsible HR department. It is likely that these HR practices have its impact on the organization. That is, when the practices are implemented in the right way. Wright and Nishii (2006) point out that there are differences between the intended, implemented and perceived HR practices. Because of several influences, the HR practices can be perceived differently than was intended, or can be differently implemented than intended (Gilbert, De Winne & Sels, 2010). One major factor that can be of influence on the implementation of HR practices is the line manager. Capabilities of the line manager, level of competence, commitment, motivation and opportunities are just some of the aspects that can influence the way HR practices are implemented by the line manager (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). One might think that the line managers themselves should be asked about their satisfaction and overall experience with the implementation of the HR practices, but this is not the right way according to Bowen and Ostroff (2004) and Purcell and Hutchinson (2007). He argues that the effectiveness of HR practices should be measured through asking the line managers' subordinates about the way the line managers implement these practices. This is because of the fact that the employees' experience of implemented HR practices and the way that these practices will affect them are the most important factors in determining the behavior of the employees towards the company (Khilji & Wang, 2006). This behavior is an important factor in the performance of the organization, that is why the implementation of the HR practices should be done well.
Purcell and Hutchinson (2007) also emphasize the fact that it is important to also take the leadership behavior of line managers, and the relationship between the line managers and their subordinates into account. This is because these two factors are able to influence the employees assessment of the line managers performance. Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995) suggested to use the Leader-member exchange (LMX) approach, which measures the quality of the line manager-subordinates relationship.
By not considering the leadership behaviour of line managers (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007), and the relationship between line managers and their subordinates, we do not know whether the HR implementation effectiveness of line managers is evaluated positively because line managers apply HR practices well, or because they treat their subordinates well. A way to overcome this limitation would be to also measure the relationship between line managers and their subordinates, for example by applying a leader-member exchange (LMX) approach (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Schriesheim, Castro & Cogliser, 1999; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997; Wayne, Shore & Liden, 1997), which measures the quality of the manager-employee relationship, or the perceived supervisor support (PSS) approach (Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski & Rhoades, 2002; Rhoades Shanock & Eisenberger, 2006), which measures the degree to which supervisors value employees' contributions and care about their well-being. By using LMX and/or PSS as control variables, we could draw clearer conclusions on the way line managers apply HR practices and therefore whether they implement HRM effectively or not.
This term can be explained through five justifications: (1) certain issues are too complex for top management to comprehend; (2) local managers are able to respond more quickly to local problems and conditions; (3) it leads to employees being motivated and effective control, as line managers are in constant contact with employees; (4) it helps to prepare future managers (by allowing middle managers to practice decision-making skills); and (5) it helps to reduce costs (Budhwar and Sparrow, 1997). Line management is thus understood to be the appropriate place in the organisation to locate HR responsibilities: because they can reduce employees' operating costs and because they can add value to other resources by motivating and committing the workforce.
This is then related in the causal model to employee discretionary behaviour,
sometimes referred to as organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB), and thence to
measures of organisational or employment unit performance. The HR practices
perceived or experienced by employees will, to a growing extent, be those delivered
or enacted by line managers, especially front-line managers (FLMs) with direct
supervisory responsibility. It is often observed that there is a gap between what
is formally required in HR policy and what is actually delivered by FLMs. The
way FLMs undertake their HR duties of selecting, appraising, developing,
communicating, involving, etc., is inextricably linked to a wider set of what are
increasingly called leadership behaviours, which aim to influence employee attitudes
and behaviour and give direction. These two aspects of FLMs' roles can be brought
together in the term 'people management'.
http://doc.utwente.nl/71866/1/thesis_A_Bos-Nehles.pdf
Wat wordt er bedoeld met performance?
Financial? Organizational level? Employee outcomes?
Front line managers make sure that the HR practices are communicated thoroughly to the staff. Because this heightens the job commitment and the job satisfaction, which leads to better firm performance. Employee reactions are typically assessed attitudinally in levels of job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment. Employee outcomes are observable responses seen in task behavior, discretionary behavior as a form of OCB and attendance(or turnover and absence). It is these behaviours which influence organizational effectiveness, and ultimately, firm financial or economic performance.
Thus LMX and the influence of line managers, especially FLMs form a key part of people management and the immediate supervisor plays a critical role as a key agent of the organization through which members form their perceptions of the organization.
The second point concerns the question of responsibility for ensuring the delivery of effective outcomes from HR interventions. The HR department might be responsible for the design and evaluation of employee management policy and practices, but in many cases - and certainly in many normative models of strategic HRM - implementation is left to direct supervisors and frontline managers (Purcell et al, 2003). For HR professionals, this means that the quality of what Boselie and Paauwe (forthcoming) call 'HR delivery' is vital to success: aligning HR strategy with the overall business strategy ('strategic contribution'), convincing line managers of the value of the
organisation's HR practices ('personal credibility') and simultaneously co-ordinating the implementation effectively (being an 'administrative expert'), including proper training, coaching and support for immediate line managers.
