See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241902483

Line Manager Involvement in HRM: An Inside View

Article  in  Employee Relations · June 2003

DOI: 10.1108/01425450310475856

CITATIONS READS
150 19,779

1 author:

Douglas Renwick
Nottingham Trent University
39 PUBLICATIONS   869 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research book on Green HRM for Routledge View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Douglas Renwick on 23 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm

ER
25,3 Line manager involvement in
HRM: an inside view
Douglas Renwick
262 Management School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Received September Keywords Line management, Employee relations, Strategy, Human resource management
2002
Revised December 2002 Abstract Although line managers have always been involved in managing human resources
Accepted December 2002 (HR), it is within human resource management (HRM) that their involvement has been placed
centre-stage as a core element of an HR approach. This article reports findings from 40 interviews
with line managers on their experiences in handling HR work that has been devolved to them, from
a study of three different UK work organisations. The study finds that significant organisational
benefits and costs exist from involving the line in HR work. The article concludes that participation
of both line and HR managers in HRM needs to be re-assessed, as line involvement in HRM is a
problematic initiative for organisations to adopt.

Introduction
The involvement of line managers[1] in human resource management (HRM)
has always been noted in the literature (Guest, 1987; Legge, 1995; Storey, 1992),
but in recent years the line have been seen to play a more prominent role in
HRM due to more HR work being “devolved” to them (Brewster and Larsen,
2000; Currie and Procter, 2001; Guest and King, 2001; Storey, 1992, 2001; Ulrich,
1997, 1998, 2001). Although devolution to the line in the UK is low compared
with other European countries, and the dominant pattern across Europe is of
sharing human resouces (HR) work between HR and the line (Brewster and
Larsen, 2000), WERS ’98[2] notes that line managers outnumber employee
relations specialists in the handling of employee relations (ER) issues at British
workplaces (Millward et al., 2000, pp. 52-3). The rationale of why line
involvement in HRM has come to the fore in recent years is seen by Brewster
and Larsen (2000) to have five main elements: to reduce costs; to provide a more
comprehensive approach to HRM; to place responsibility for HRM with
managers most responsible for it; to speed up decision making; and as an
alternative to outsourcing the HR function (adapted from Brewster and Larsen,
2000, pp. 196-8).
Other authors note the different roles that line managers should now play in
organisations and the reasons for them. These include ideas that line managers
“are now expected to do more of their own HRM” and “can benefit from cross-
training in HR processes” (Mohrman and Lawler, 1998, pp. 443-4); that the line
Employee Relations “should lead the way in fully integrating HR into the company’s real work”
Vol. 25 No. 3, 2003
pp. 262-280
(Ulrich, 1998, pp. 125-6); and that the line adopt a “partnership” approach
q MCB UP Limited
0142-5455
between HR, line and employees to manage HR issues – “an HR triad” (Jackson
DOI 10.1108/01425450310475856 and Schuler, 2000, p. 25).
 The possibility of increased line manager involvement in HRM surfaced in Line manager
the British and American literature from the mid to late 1990’s on in the form of involvement in
“partnerships” being formed between HR and the line (Eisenstat, 1996; HRM
Hutchinson and Wood, 1995; Ulrich, 1997, 1998, 2001), to “add value” and
“deliver results” for organisations (Ulrich, 1997, 1998). The costs and benefits of
devolution initiatives were also detailed at this time (Storey, 2001; Storey and
Sisson, 2000)[3]. The thinking here is that the line should engage in HR
263
processes which span “boundaries outside the organisation”, where “they have
freedom to experiment rather than being excluded from decision making”
(Currie and Procter, 2001, p. 57). Other academic HR literature at the turn of the
millennium started to discuss the issues and dilemmas that surround line
manager involvement in HRM (Brewster and Larsen, 2000).

Literature review
The general background to line manager involvement in HRM in the literature
is now outlined, as is their involvement in specific aspects of HRM. In general
terms, although line managers have always been involved in managing HR at
work, changes in the organisation of work increased the power and influence of
trade unions and shop stewards in the 1960s and 1970s, giving personnel
managers greater powers to co-ordinate management’s response by
negotiating and administering collective agreements. As trade union
influence decreased in the 1980s and 1990s line managers re-asserted their
prerogative to improve organisational performance in increasingly competitive
markets. The specific findings in the literature are now examined.
Studies in this general area have historically revealed that chief production
managers thought the personnel/industrial relations (IR) activity too time-
consuming and passed it onto others like factory administrators (Marsh, 1971,
p. 22), and little evidence that managers saw themselves as “formal
negotiators” (Marsh and Gillies, 1983). Managers saw the value of having
specialists in personnel/IR, took their advice gladly, but were not keen to be
subject to their direction, although they were, in general terms, willing to accept
IR as part of their work without much resentment (Marsh and Gillies, 1983,
pp. 32, 35-6, 38).
In the operation of performance management systems, a weak link has often
been the involvement of line managers in them. Harris (2001) for example,
(quoting Gratton et al.,1999) found that managers disliked the “bureaucracy”
involved, and argues that this can lead to “abdication management” on the part
of line managers, and an unwillingness to accept responsibility for decisions
and judgements they have made (Beaver and Harris, 1996, as quoted in Harris
(2001, pp. 1190, 1182, 1187)). Redman’s (2001) findings on performance
appraisal noted that it is often done poorly by line managers, (but the line see
themselves as good at it), and is it their “most disliked managerial activity”
ER (Redman, 2001, pp. 71-2, 68). Others note the need to “kick” or “flog” managers
25,3 into doing performance management properly (Guest and King, 2001, p. 26).
In the field of training and developing the line in HRM, there are scarce
findings, the notable exceptions being Brewster and Larsen (1992) on it
occurring through experiential learning, and comment from a line manager that
training in HRM was not needed as “most of this is common sense anyway”
264 (Cunningham and Hyman, 1995, p. 18).
Much work has been done on this topic in the general area of ER where
research has focused on line attitudes to employee involvement (EI) schemes,
and handling styles in grievance and discipline cases.
On EI, Fenton-O’Creevy’s (1998) survey of HR directors/MDs/and
equivalents found that “positive outcomes of employee involvement were
lower in organizations that experienced middle management resistance”
(Fenton-O’Creevy, 1998: 67). Fenton-O’Creevy’s later (2001) study of managers’
attitudes to EI found their attitudes “to be no more negative than those of senior
managers”, and concluded that where EI schemes fail “senior managers may
simply be scapegoating middle managers”, and that middle manager resistance
to change “may be seen by the middle manager concerned as pragmatic
adaptation” (Fenton-O’Creevy, 2001, pp. 24, 38). Marchington’s (2001) work on
EI schemes found four “unintended impacts” of involving line managers,
supervisors, first-line managers and shop-floor managers in EI. These are that
they may not be committed to it, may be dubious about it, may not have the
abilities needed to work direct schemes on the ground, may have a work
overload, and may face deficiencies in training them to work schemes well
(Marchington, 2001, pp. 238-42).
Line manager involvement in grievance and discipline cases includes work
on supervisor and managerial preferred handling styles. This research found
that most organisations had tended to ask HR managers to “sit in” in these
meetings, to “police” line managers and to ensure that good outcomes prevailed
(Rollinson et al., 1996). The IRS (2001) findings on managing discipline found
that line managers were more involved than before in taking responsibility for
discipline procedures, but were still less involved than their HR counterparts in
it (IRS, 2001). Possible reasons for a lack of line enthusiasm for undertaking
grievance and discipline duties may include the complexity of work involved,
them being time-consuming activities, and/or fear of line shortcomings in this
area being exposed.
In the area of pay, Currie and Procter’s (2001) work on the National Health
Service (NHS) found that middle managers play an important role as
contributors to strategic change – “linking pins”, and that this came from the
greater discretion given to the line in “implementing” deliberate HR strategies
and their role in “synthesising information” (Currie and Procter, 2001, pp. 58-9,
63-6). On the issue of individual performance-related pay (IPRP), Harris’ (2001)
study, found “a lack of ownership of the processes of performance-related pay”
by the line, and the line viewing a “hidden agenda”[4] of HR wanting to Line manager
“change the culture; remove complacency; make managers manage; save salary involvement in
costs; reduce staffing levels; increase work-loads; [gain] more control; and focus HRM
on under-performance” (Harris, 2001, p. 1184).
In the area of absence management, Dunn and Wilkinson’s (2002) study
found that most responsibility in everyday cases rested with line managers, but
some organisations had an ad hoc approach, with unclear HR and line 265
responsibilities, producing “a case of muddling through” (Dunn and Wilkinson,
2002, p. 245). In the area of managing long-term sickness and disability,
Cunningham and James (2001) found limits occurring in line manager
involvement in it due to line stubbornness in not wanting to attend training
programmes on it; the line arguing that insufficient training was provided for
them; low line skill levels in it; the line handling some cases without specialist
(HR) help; and the line supervising “punitive sanctions” connected to it
(Cunningham and James, 2001, pp. 20-21).
Finally, the introduction of new technologies like HR shared services and
e-HR to deliver HR advice and services to the line has brought problems,
notably a questioning of the impact that such changes would have on line
manager workload, seen at British Nuclear Fuels, and the willingness of line
managers to take on more HR work, seen at Marks & Spencer (Deeks, 2000).

UK developments in context
Several issues emerge from the review above. These include the extent to which
line managers are being forced into taking on increased responsibilities in HRM
in a climate of fear and mistrust driven by HR (Harris, 2001), and the line being
“the filling in the sandwich” as HR work is “dumped” on them via devolution
(McConville and Holden, 1999). The capability of the line to learn about HR
work effectively and to use this knowledge fairly and consistently when
treating employee’s is also in question. Thus Brewster and Larsen (2000) detail
the issues of line manager’s “desire, capacity, ability, training, and
conservatism” in completing HR work.
Other issues include what happens in situations where the HR function is
small and/or understaffed and cannot intervene to promote “good practice” (as
in many SMEs), and whether owner-managers and/or line managers abuse
their position vis-à-vis employees where the HR function is absent. Lastly, we
may want to know whether decentralisation and the greater involvement of line
managers in HR decisions produces better organisational performance, as
Gibb’s (2001, p. 330) work suggests it does not.

Methodology
This paper reports findings from 40 interviews with line managers on their
experiences of, and involvement in, undertaking HR work in organisations
where devolution of some HR work to the line has occurred, which is drawn
ER from a larger study of HR-line work relations. The study investigates the issues
25,3 surrounding line manager involvement in HRM, the problems associated with
“devolving” HR work to the line, and the levels of line and HR participation in
HRM. These line managers conform to the definition give by Currie and Procter
(2001) of being “middle managers”.
Research was done in three work organisations located in the UK – a
266 foreign-owned private sector multi-divisional utility group (Utility Co.), a large
public sector local authority (Local Authority), and a foreign-owned private
sector manufacturer of switching equipment (Manufacture Co.). In addition to
data sourced from Manufacture Co., data were also drawn from four of the
divisions of Utility Co. (Power, Energy, Generation and Telecom), and two of
the departments in Local Authority (Housing, Development and Regeneration).
All three organizations had an HR director on either the top management
team or board of directors and devolution of some HR work to line managers.
The HR work “devolved” to the line included performance appraisal,
redundancy selection, pay awards, recruitment, communication with, and
counselling of, employees, sickness absence and employee development
(Utility Co.); management development, filling vacancies, performance
appraisal, re-skilling employees, grievance handling (Local Authority); and
co-ordination of an employee recognition scheme (Manufacture Co.). All three
organisations were large employers, Utility Co. employing around 50,000 FTE,
Local Authority 30,000 FTE and Manufacture Co. around 5,000 FTE
respectively.
Access to interview these managers was gained through the HR directors at
each organisation, with managers chosen for interview at random from a
company list, and all (tape-recorded) semi-structured interviews taking place
within the research period of 1998-2000. A qualitative methodology was used to
gain rich, meaningful data via case studies to develop analytical insights from
three different work contexts. Line managers in the different divisions and
departments in the three organisations were interviewed to give breadth and
depth of managerial opinion, and to increase the reliability of findings through
the use of multiple respondents to gain corroborated accounts (Yin, 1994, p. 92).
Pseudonyms have been used to protect organisational and respondent
anonymity in this sensitive area of inquiry. The findings from the case studies
are detailed (below) in the following sequence: operational, positive, negative
and general aspects.

Case study findings: perceptions of line managers

Operational aspects
Line managers had larger numbers of employees to manage than ever before:
Just over 30 people (Manufacture Co.).

The staff doubles more or less (Housing Dept, Local Authority).

This in turn meant that they had many more HR issues to handle. As one line
manager put it:
I’ve got a team of 243 people, and it’s my responsibility to look after everything for them, their
safety, productivity, and hygiene factors, down to problems at home (Power Business, Utility
Co.).
Still, the lines of responsibility between HR and the line in HRM were clear
from a line viewpoint:
HR give you the implications of the options you have, but the decisions mine that I am going
to take within the boundaries that I‘m allowed (Energy Business, Utility Co.).

Positive aspects
The line were relatively happy in completing some HR work:
I do step into personnel/HR if something needs to be done (Power Business, Utility Co.).

If there wasn’t any personnel [function] I’d need to do personnel work anyway, because it’s
my job (Power Business, Utility Co.).

[Employee recognition scheme.] There are 900 people here, and I want those people to know
that I’ve noted it [their performance], recognised it, and appreciate it. It’s great to be Santa
Claus sometimes in the year as opposed to being part of the *******. You handout a bag of
sweets instead of a P45. So I get a kick out of it I must say as well (Manufacture Co.).
This occurred even to the extent of some managers wanting to take a leading
role in HR initiatives:
IiP – I sort of champion that (Power Business, Utility Co.).
Line managers were keen to be seen to be doing HR work professionally:
[Redundancy selection.] It will be done in a way that will be professional, that we can hold our
head up internally and say we did our best for the staff (Power Business, Utility Co.).
The line were insistent that they should, and did, take their responsibilities and
accountabilities in HRM seriously:
It is important that you don’t allow line managers in terms people management to walk away
from their responsibilities (Energy Business, Utility Co.).

I will not have anybody [our line managers] calling HR, because we as a team have to deliver
to the individual (Telecom Business, Utility Co.).

[Pay awards.] You’ve got to decide what to do, and to understand what the rules are (Telecom
Business, Utility Co.).

Management is about managing people and money, and they [the line] can only achieve what
they need to achieve by managing those things correctly.
ER If the responsibility is with them [the line], they can’t accept a negative response from
personnel. They have to get a result (all Housing Dept, Local Authority).
25,3
The line acknowledged that they needed to be considerate of employees’ wishes
and interests:
[HRM.] It’s actually about making sure that we never lose sight that people are valuable to us
268 and we treat them with respect (Energy Business, Utility Co.).

I work by persuasion rather than table banging, and I think people appreciate that (Telecom
Business, Utility Co.).

[Redundancies.] We have got to allay peoples’ fears, it’s all about establishing a relationship,
about honesty, and communication (Telecom Business, Utility Co.).

People have things happen to them in their own private life and any decent group leader or
manager has got to be aware of that, that’s the way that you should be managing the teams
(Development and Regeneration Dept, Local Authority).
The line had high regard for the role HR played in helping them in HR work:
These folk have got the training, that’s their profession and I think you have got to take that
on board.

[Grievance handling] the work of the grievance is done by the line manager, but during all
this you are getting advice, comment, and support, from personnel (both Development and
Regeneration Dept, Local Authority).

Negative aspects
The line were not totally convinced that doing HR work was something they
should spend too much time on:
What you don’t want to do is dilute my focus from what my main objective’s are, which is
keeping lights on (Power Business, Utility Co.).

[Line role is] selling and to negotiate commercial transactions, not to be an expert in HRM
(Energy Business, Utility Co.).
And doing HR work was difficult as other managerial duties needed
completing as well:
Quality of product and quality of service is a given. Time and cost can be conflicting
requirements. But they are not exclusive, they all tie in. You can’t go to a customer and say
“well we gave you two out of three”, that’s ok isn’t it? (Manufacture Co.).
The line thought that doing HR work was difficult:
I’ve picked up numerous HR issues that are historical, that goes with the territory (Telecom
Business, Utility Co.).
This led to the line being reliant on receiving guidance in HR work from HR
managers:
 I rely on HR to keep us right in employment law, to protect my position as much as anything Line manager
else (Telecom Business, Utility Co.).
involvement in
The line admitted their own inadequacies in HRM: HRM
[In HRM.] What role does the line manager play? I think it depends . . . there are those who
really don’t want anything to do with it, and until there is full generation change you can
never claim that you have changed the culture (Generation Business, Utility Co.). 269
Look at sickness absence, there are those line managers that will do that without being
reminded, there are those that will do that because they care, and there are line managers that
just will not do it unless they are actually pushed into doing it. I think the more HR that we
push down to the line managers, the more uncontrolled it will become (Generation Business,
Utility Co.).

One of the main problems we have had in the past was we weren’t very selective about how
we appointed foremen or supervisors, but we are getting rid of these people gradually
(Generation Business, Utility Co.).

Devolution is generally well accepted by managers and [in HR work] how you deal with it is
really, really important. It’s difficult to do both and its not fair on the staff, but that depends
upon managers and their style, if they’re “people people” or “strategic people”.

[Management development.] A lot of effort was going managers realising that they have to
look at themselves critically (both Housing Dept, Local Authority).
Line manager inadequacy in HRM was sometimes seen to lead to problems
when the line were doing HR work:
Managers have had to deal with staff who need re-skilling much more frequently than was
the case in the past. Managers have to be much more flexible and to communicate more
readily and quickly with staff.

There are certain times of the year when your budgets have to be worked out and that just
takes absolute priority. If we had a staffing crisis then that would take priority. It’s got to be
kind of flexible.

[HR issues.] Quite often the manager doesn’t have the time to deal with the problem and he’s
maybe unaware of it. And some managers undoubtedly are strong characters and give staff a
hard time (all Housing Dept, Local Authority).
Line managers admitted that they were sometimes slack in completing HR
work:
HR are an easy target to blame [but] half the time the line has been intransigent in its own
progress.

[Performance-related pay.] There was a consistency last year but not so this year, and you ask
yourself why? That was down to the individual manager deciding on what he thought that
guy was worth, and it didn’t go down to knowledge of the individual and assessing his
performance.

[Performance appraisal scheme] The final year interview is the only contact he’s had with his
member of staff, and in certain situations it has been done over the telephone.
ER The discipline from some managers leaves a lot to be desired (all Telecom Business, Utility
Co.).
25,3
The line had many problems with HR in completing HR-related tasks:
[A slow pace of change from HR.] There is only one way to really change and that’s change
the people. We only ever go halfway.
270 [Compulsory redundancies.] There is no such thing as a compulsory redundancy. I can see the
good PR side of it, but we may be hurting ourselves . . . you don’t have power of who you
want to release really.

When we get into the areas of flexibility about what grades of cars and salary increases, at
times I’ve found myself being policed by the rule book.

The rule book won’t necessarily give you the best results, we’re fighting it and we’ll see where
we get to.

[Employee development.] The new Corporate HR guy wants to spread his wings . . . [and he
said] “only one person from the company will attend courses and come back and will write a
paper for the rest of the company to read”. It’s a load of absolute b******t (all Generation
Business, Utility Co.).
The line thought that problems in HR policy lead to poor outcomes in HRM:
The Words come out from the Executive that we are in our expansion and growth phase, but
none of the employees can actually see that.

[Management development programme.] This is a HR initiative from corporate HR, but

something is wrong. You should be developed now, not “you are not going to get there for 18
months”.

It would be very nice to have supervisors who could carry out the HR function, but you’ve got
to say well what is the price that you are paying for that? (all Generation Business, Utility
Co.).
Line managers felt that they were being flexible and adaptable in doing HR
work, but that this was not necessarily being recognised:
We can’t just keep absorbing people and turning them into the roles if we want to go forward.
I have already absorbed some people, and I think that’s a level of flexibility that I’ve shown to
the company (Generation Business, Utility Co.).

[Performance appraisals] That can be a fairly time consuming process if you have to sit down
with at least a dozen people (Housing Dept, Local Authority).
The line had conflicts with HR:
If you really fall out – you try to give them a doing and it depends how well they defend
themselves (Housing Dept, Local Authority).

General aspects
Line managers acknowledged a requirement to cater to business needs in the
HR work they did:
 We as line managers, are in fact the shareholder’s agents. Line manager
I do believe its important that you have proper annual appraisal processes, and give your involvement in
people as broad a training as possible (both Power Business, Utility Co.). HRM
The line saw that engaging in HR work could provide a boost to their careers:
[Line managers.] If they don’t know what the future is, they are looking at [HR work] as a
development activity, “another string in my bow” (Development and Regeneration Dept,
271
Local Authority).

I’m quite happy to partake in any particular initiative that they [HR] have got, because it can
only enhance your working life (Telecom Business, Utility Co.).
The line were aware of their responsibilities in HRM, but saw that HR needed
to show a reciprocal commitment to line in general management work also:
I think the HR issues are too important for us to abdicate the throne to a group of HR people,
equally so I think the business is too important for the HR people to abdicate the throne to us.
I think we have to mix the oil and water together, and give the jug a good shake (Manufacture
Co.).

Summary
To summarise, when looking across these cases several issues emerge, and are
detailed below:
(1) Positives:
.
The line are taking on responsibility and accountability in HR work.
.
Flexibility is forthcoming from the line to do HR work.
.
The line are keen to take part on doing HR work.
.
The line are managing large numbers of employees.
.
The line take a professional and serious attitude to doing HR work.
.
Line managers are relatively happy doing some HR work.
. The line are considerate of employee needs and wishes.
.
The line see HR as positive helpers in HR work.
. The line see career benefits for them in doing HR work.
(2) Negatives:
.
The line have many duties, and lack time to do HR work well.
.
The line do not see themselves as experts in HRM.
.
Doing HR work dilutes the line’s generalist managerial focus.
.
Significant line inadequacies in handling HR work.
.
Tensions between line and HR over transfer and completion of HR
duties.
.
The line need to reflect and be critical of their performance in HR work.
ER .
The line are reliant on HR to do HR work properly.
25,3 .
Differing line commitment and discipline levels to doing HRM.
.
The line have responsibility and accountability in HRM, but little
authority.
.
Little appreciation of line flexibility in doing HR tasks from firms.
272 (3) General:
.
The line detail their role as shareholders agents.
.
The line want reciprocity from HR to deliver business targets if the
line do HR work.

Discussion
When reflecting back on the case findings with the themes in the literature,
several interesting issues emerge. These are now detailed in turn. This study
confirms the findings made in Brewster and Larsen’s (2000) work, as the line
managers here acknowledge that they shared the completion of HR work with
HR (in grievance handling for example), that there was a drive to reduce costs
(in the line managing more employees than before) and that a more
comprehensive approach to HRM occurred (as the line did handle HRM). There
was also a drive to place responsibility for HRM to the line, an in using attempt
to increase the speed of decision making, and using the line as an alternative to
outsourcing the HR function.
However, there were also mixed results, as the line proved inadequate in doing
some HR work, took decisions in HRM that were later blocked by HR, and the
line acknowledged that HR specialists were needed. Thus the line lacked
capability and responsibility when doing some HR work, tried to increase the
speed of decision making by wanting to by-pass procedure, and therefore
demonstrated the need for an expanded HR function, not for HR to be outsourced.
When compared with the theories of Morhman and Lawler (1999), Ulrich
(1997, 1998, 2001) and Jackson and Schuler (2000), the line gave us mixed
messages. For example, the line were expected to do more HR on their own,
they did integrate HR work with the organisation’s other work (“we have to
mix the oil and water together”), they worked with the intent of forming a
“partnership” with HR and employees, and tried to add value and deliver
results for their organisations.
However, partnerships seemed to fall apart as the line had significant
conflicts and tensions with HR (over awarding salary increases and allocating
company cars for example), and were seen to “lack discipline” when conducting
performance appraisals – hardly a “partnership” ethos. Whether the line
“added value” and “delivered results” could be argued either way from the
cases, but the line were keen to take on the responsibility to do more HR work
(add value), and produced mixed results in terms of doing parts of it well
(delivering results).
 A frustration for the line was that they needed HR advice (as per Brewster Line manager
and Larsen (2000)), but when it came it was often seen as unhelpful to them (as involvement in
per Guest et al. (2001, p. 67)), as the line felt they were being “policed by the rule HRM
book”. Findings from this study confirm the anecdotal evidence in Brewster
and Larsen (2000) that the line do not accept devolution willingly and neither
do HR.
If we look at the work of Marsh and Gillies (1983) and replace “personnel/IR”
273
in their work with “HR” today, then we can see similar results to their findings.
The line thought that doing HR work was time consuming when other
priorities were pressing (customers, time, quality of product), but that the line
did see the value of having HR, for “advice, comment and support”. The line
were keen to take HR advice, but not to be subject to their direction – “HR give
you the implications of the options”, but “the decisions mine” – and there was a
willingness to accept HR work as line work, as “devolution is generally well
accepted by managers”.
If we shift our focus to look at specific HR initiatives, there is no data in the
study to compare with the literature on performance management, employee
involvement, discipline, local pay, absence management, disability and HR
shared services/e-HR mentioned in the literature review. However, we can
comment on the other specific HR areas that were in operation at these
organisations.
In performance appraisal for example, the findings from Redman (2001) that
the line dislike this activity are confirmed, as it was sometimes done “over the
phone” by them, seen as “time-consuming”, and something that the line lacked
“discipline” in. But Cunningham and Hyman’s (1995) comment from a line
manager that HR work was “common sense” was not confirmed. Line
managers in this study saw HR work as a specialist activity, which they (the
line) needed HR advice on. However, the line were willing to give HR work a
try, and this perhaps raises notions of the line as “gifted amateurs” or “ungifted
professionals” in HRM, depending how you read the data here.
The line were enthusiastic about employee recognition, and if we compare
our findings to those of Fenton O’Creevy (1998, 2001) on EI, there was little
comment from the line of resisting it, nor of them as “scapegoats” in its
operation if it went wrong. In grievance handling, the line did see an element of
HR “policing” them (Rollinson et al.,1996), but the line seemed to welcome this
as it kept them on the right track, especially when it came to matters
concerning employment law.
There was little notion of the line being subject to a hidden agenda when
operating individual performance-related pay schemes (Harris, 2001), but the
line did acknowledge that they were not happy with it as it was seen as
inflexible. Neither was there a lack of ownership by the line in the schemes
operation, (Harris, 2001), although the line were keen to have control over
salary decisions, but did not use this control professionally and consistently
ER when making pay awards. In sickness management (see Dunn and Wilkinson,
25,3 2002), the line commitment to monitoring it varied, and the line thought that if
more work like this being pushed down onto them, the more “uncontrolled” it
would all become.
If we shift our focus back up from the specifics to the general level, a series of
mixed results emerged in relation to the other issues raised in the literature. On
274 Harris’ (2001) notions of the line being forced into doing HR work, this study’s
findings support both a “yes” and “no” position. Yes, in the sense that the line
were not keen in doing HR work as it diluted their focus, did not want to be
experts in HRM, and saw a price to be paid in making supervisors do HRM. But
no, in the sense of the line being keen to do some HR work as part of their job. A
similar series of results emerged when examining McConville and Holden’s
(1999) notions of the line having HR work “dumped” on them, and the line being
“the filling in the sandwich”. A “yes” position is supported in that the line were
managing more employees than before on a day-to-day basis, but was
contradicted by the line seeing a need to do HR work “as it’s my job anyway”,
and acting as the champions of IiP for example.
Whether the line are “capable” in HRM (Brewster and Larsen, 2000) we can
again argue a “yes” and “no” position from this study’s findings. Yes, in the
sense that the line did manage to complete some HR work (in employee
recognition, redundancy selection and sickness absence), but no in the sense
that not all of this work was done well. “No” also in the sense that the line were
not reflective about their performance in HR work, may not have the time to do
it, and were perhaps unaware of all it entailed when doing it. This is perhaps
maybe one reason for their self-description of themselves being “intransigent in
their own progress” when it came to HRM.
Finally, on the issue of whether the line treated employees fairly and
consistently that was raised earlier, again both cases can be made. This study
confirmed that that the line were aware of the need to treat employees with
respect, conduct appraisals for them, and be professional in employee relations
work (like they did in redundancy selection). But the study also showed that the
line can be “strong characters”, “give staff a hard time” and see themselves as
“shareholders agents” rather than as the agents of all the organisational
stakeholders.
The general analytical conclusions from this study are that (see Brewster
and Larsen, 2000) the line do have the “desire” to do HR work, and may have
both the “capacity” and the “ability” to do it well if adequately trained and
assisted by HR, but not if they try do it without significant HR help.
Concern over line manager involvement in HRM does not simply contain
issues of low line skill levels in it and their “conservatism” in falling back on
what they know and using it to produce differing results (see Brewster and
Larsen, 2000). It also contains perhaps an acknowledgement of the lack of
judgement that the line exercise when doing HR work. A consequent feeling
(from the findings in this study) is that although the line appreciate that HR Line manager
work is a specialist area, they (the line) feel that they can still “do it”, and are involvement in
keen to demonstrate their skills in it, whether their skills in it are imaginary or HRM
real. It could be argued that they are making HR work seem mentally a simple
common-sense exercise, even though their lived experience of doing it is
perhaps that it is not.
275
Line manager commitment to HRM
In terms of a scorecard, this study on line manager involvement in HRM
provides us with some mixed results. Positive outcomes for employees depend
on line managers being skilled in HRM as they are the interpreters of HR policy
(Tyson and Fell, 1992, Marchington, 1999), and that these managers are
committed to HR practices per se. But this study reinforces the themes in the
literature that such axioms cannot necessarily be assumed to be delivered in
practice (Budhwar, 2000; Cunningham and Hyman, 1999; Marchington, 1999).
Although the line were considerate to employees needs, wishes and
concerns, there were still questions on whether line managers carried out HR
work fairly. The findings here reinforce the impression in the literature of line
managers acting as a barrier to professional people management (Cunningham
and James, 2001; Harris, 2001; Redman, 2001). Perhaps it is time that
organisations seriously considered re-centralising HR work, or using more
(independent) HR specialists, if the line cannot, or will not, complete “their” HR
work in a professional and consistent manner?

Limitations
The limitations of this study are that it only reports the views of line managers
on the issue of their experiences being involved in HR work from research
undertaken in three case study work organisations located in the UK.
Statistical generalisation cannot be made, and only (limited) analytical
generalisations can be made as well. Because of the random sample we cannot
be certain whether “better” line management practice in HRM exists or not, but
neither can we ascertain whether “worse” line practice in it exists either. Still,
the benefits of this study are that it has given an inside view from the line on
their involvement in HRM across a number of HR work areas, and that they
have been fairly critical of their own conduct in it – which is not necessarily
guaranteed in self-reports by managers of themselves.

Conclusions
This paper has sought to outline some of the issues involved in line manager
involvement in HRM. All three of the organisations studied were large
employers, and had adequate resources to develop line managers in HRM.
However, questions were still apparent about the capability and commitment of
ER the line in HR work in these organisations. There is therefore the possibility
25,3 that poorer HR practice is being carried out by line managers in SMEs.
In the light of the findings of this study, the main implication for academics,
practitioners and policy makers are that the issue of “trust” in HRM is back on
the agenda, but with a new twist to previous foci (i.e. Sparrow and
Marchington, 1998). Line manager involvement in HRM raises the issue of
276 whether employee’s trust the motives of line managers to look after their well-
being, and the motives of HR managers in seeking to “devolve” HR work to the
line.
The problems surrounding line manager involvement in HRM can be seen to
be fairly reflective of debates on the future of work (see Sparrow, 2003). A
structural hole may arise if organisations adopt a “devolved” HR approach – as
people management is not completed properly either by the line or HR. “Trust
deficits” may emerge between managers and employees as they question the
motives of each other. The willingness of HR to share their knowledge of HR
work with the line is called into question, as this contains the seed of HR’s own
redundancy if they lose all control over operational HR knowledge.
The assumed split between HR taking a “strategic” HR role and the line
doing “operational” (perhaps devolved) HR work seems a false one. The
findings from this study indicate that greater participation is needed when
devolution of HR work to the line occurs, not less, to ensure that good outcomes
in HRM arise (particularly in employee relations). Hence work organisations in
the UK still seek to employ large numbers of line managers to handle employee
relations work (seemingly the largest group doing this at present), but are
increasing their numbers of employee relations specialists here too (both trends
as per findings in WERS ’98). That the latter development occurs has long been
a case put forward by Gennard and Judge (1999) that organisations should
consider. Maybe these increased numbers of employee relations specialists are
employed to handle this need for greater contact between HR and the line in
HRM (and not just to manage EU and employment law issues). Certainly, the
findings from this study suggest that the continued involvement of line
managers in HR work is not an unproblematic initiative for work organisations
in the UK to adopt.

Notes
1. Line managers are defined here as middle and junior level managers that undertake general
management work for the organisation, and are not specialists in any functional area, e.g.
HR, marketing, sales etc. (Legge, 1995). Although it is accepted here that distinctions can be
made between line managers and supervisors (as per Currie and Procter, 2001, p. 54), front-
line and first-line managers and supervisors are also seen to have a key role to play in day-to-
day HRM (Storey, 1992; Marchington, 2001). However, the line managers interviewed in this
study conform to the definition of line managers given by Currie and Procter (2001, p. 54), of
being “middle managers”.
2. WERS ’98 refers to the 1998 Workplace Employee Relations Survey.
 3. Benefits of line involvement in HRM – HR problems are solved at source; better change Line manager
management is achieved; increased speed of decision making; more scope for HR managers
to focus on strategic HRM; HR issues receive a business focus; line managers own HR issues, involvement in
are aware of them and thus cannot ignore them; line managers being more likely to be HRM
committed to their own HR decisions; promotes local management accountability and
responsibility for HR issues; reduces costs; promotes the case that HRM cannot always be
transferred to specialists; enables employee relations decisions to be tailored to suit local
circumstances – “best fit”; shorter lines of communication. Costs of line involvement in 277
HRM – increased pressure to train and/or re-skill line managers in HRM; a need for strict HR
auditing; problems in maintaining consistency in decision making; risk of falling standards,
or abuse of position (discrimination); problems in maintaining balance of power between line
and specialists; potential for HR/IR role to be marginalized; low line capability/commitment
of managers to HR work; little time for line to perform HR duties well due to other
operational demands on them; risks of job overload/stress as line manager workloads are
increased; extra training costs and potential costs from tribunal cases (adapted from
Brewster and Larsen (2000), Budhwar (2000), Currie and Procter (2001), Harris (2001),
Marchington (1999), Sisson and Storey (2000), Sparrow (1999), Thornhill and Saunders
(1998)).
4. Line handling of IPRP – “Organizational constraints, workforce values and their personal
experiences of what motivated the majority of employees led the managers to have a far
greater belief in the importance of demonstrating trustworthy behaviours as a means of
encouraging employee commitment than paying for individual performance. In addition,
perceptions of fairness among the managers were frequently more closely related to those of
the employees they supervised than the principles reflected in the systems they had to apply.
Although there had been considerable attempts to demonstrate fairness in the reported PRP
systems, most of the processes were so individually focused and transacted that the scope
for lapses in procedural justice ‘both alleged and real’ were considerable. Many of the
managers seemed intuitively aware of these pitfalls. Yet, at times, their attempts to avoid
taking any risks in their decision making which might reflect badly on their personal
integrity or judgement could result in systems that were viewed with considerable cynicism
and even as rather pointless in terms of their final outcomes. Finally there was evidence that
the trend towards decentralization had limited the integration of pay processes with other
HR strategies as it relied heavily on line managers undertaking a co-ordinating role for
which they neither had the time nor the inclination (Thornhill and Saunders, 1998). It is
argued that a far more significant contribution that line managers can make to shaping HR
policies may lie in communicating their sense of the values and beliefs of employees, but
there was little evidence in the study that this had been a consideration or that it had been
reflected in the design and implementation of organizational performance-related pay
systems” (Harris, 2001, p. 1191).

References
Brewster, C. and Larsen, H.H. (1992), “Human resource management in Europe: evidence from
ten countries”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 3 No. 3,
pp. 409-34.
Brewster, C. and Larsen, H.H. (Eds) (2000), Human Resource Management in Northern Europe:
Trends, Dilemmas and Strategy, Blackwell, Oxford.
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.
ER Cunningham, I. and Hyman, J. (1995), “Transforming the HRM vision into reality: the role of line
managers and supervisors in implementing change”, Employee Relations, Vol. 17 No. 8,
25,3 pp. 5-20.
Cunningham, I. and Hyman, J. (1999), “Devolving human resource resonsibilities to the line:
beginning of the end or a new beginning for personnel?”, Personnnel Review, Vol. 28
No. 1/2, pp. 9-27.
278 Cunningham, I. and James, P. (2001), “Line managers as people managers: prioritising the needs
of the long-term sick and those with disabilities”, British Academy of Management
Conference Paper, Cardiff University.
Currie, G. and Procter, S. (2001), “Exploring the relationship between HR and middle managers”,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 53-69.
Deeks, E. (2000), “Self-service is hard work”, People Management, Vol. 26 No. 23 November, p. 9.
Dunn, C. and Wilkinson, A. (2002), “Wish you were here: managing absence”, Personnnel Review,
Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 228-46.
Eisenstat, R.A. (1996), “What corporate human resources brings to the picnic: four models for
functional management”, Organizational Dynamics Autumn, pp. 7-22.
Fenton-O’Creevy, M. (1998), “Employee Involvement and the middle manager: evidence from a
survey of organizations”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 67-84.
Fenton-O’Creevy, M. (2001), “Employee Involvement and the middle manager: saboteur or
scapegoat?”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 24-40.
Gennard, J. and Judge, G. (1999), Employee Relations, 2nd ed., Chartered Institute of Personnel
and Development, London.
Gibb, S. (2001), “The state of human resource management: evidence from employee’s views of
HRM systems and staff”, Employee Relations, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 318-36.
Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P. and Truss, C. (1999), Strategic Human Resource
Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Guest, D. (1987), “Human resource management and industrial relations”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 24, pp. 503-22.
Guest, D. and King, Z. (2001), “HR and the bottom line”, People Management, 27 September,
pp. 24-9.
Guest, D., King, Z., Conway, N., Michie, J. and Sheehan-Quinn, M. (2001), Voices from the
Boardroom, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
Harris, L. (2001), “Rewarding employee performance: line manager’s values, beliefs and
perspectives”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 7.
Hutchinson, S. and Wood, S. (1995), Personnel and the Line: Developing the New Relationship,
Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
IRS (2001), “Managing discipline at work”, IRS Employment Trends, No. 727, pp. 5-11.
Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S. (2000), Managing Human Resources: A Partnership Perspective,
7th ed., International Thomson Publishing, London.
Legge, K. (1995), Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities, Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
McConville, T. and Holden, L. (1999), “The filling in the sandwich: HRM and middle managers in
the health sector”, Personnel Review, Vol. 28 No. 5-6, pp. 406-24.
Marchington, M. (1999), “Professional qualification scheme: core personnel and development
exam papers and examiners’ reports May 1999”, paper given to the IPD Professional
 Standards Conference, University of Warwick, July, Institute of Personnel and Line manager
Development, pp. 1-12
involvement in
Marchington, M. (2001), “Employee involvement at work”, in Storey, J. (Ed.), Human Resource
Management: A Critical Text, Thomson, London, 2nd ed., pp. 232-52. HRM
Marsh, A.I. (1971), “The staffing of industrial relations management in the engineering
industry”, Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 14-24.
Marsh, A.I. and Gillies, J.G. (1983), “The involvement of line and staff managers in industrial
279
relations”, in Thurley, K. and Wood, S. (Eds), Industrial Relations and Management
Strategy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 27-38.
Millward, N., Bryson, A. and Forth, J. (2000), All Change At Work? British Employment Relations
1980-1998, as Portrayed by the Workplace Industrial Relations Survey Series, Routledge,
London.
Morhman, S.A. and Lawler, E.E. II (1999), “The new human resources management: creating the
strategic business partnership”, in Schuller, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (Eds), Strategic Human
Resource Management, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 433-47.
Redman, T. (2001), “Performance appraisal”, in Redman, T. and Wilkinson, A. (Eds),
Contemporary Human Resource Management, Pearson Education, Harlow, pp. 57-95.
Rollinson, D., Hook, C., Foot, M. and Handley, J. (1996), “Supervisor and manager styles in
handling discipline and grievance: part two – approaches to handling discipline and
grievance”, Personnel Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 38-55.
Sisson, K. and Storey, J. (2000), The Realities of Human Resource Management, Open University
Press, Buckingham.
Sparrow, P. (1999), “Is HRM in crisis?”, in Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (Eds), Strategic Human
Resource Management, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 416-32.
Sparrow, P. (2003), “The future of work? Practical and theoretical considerations”, in Holman, D.
(Ed.), The New Workplace: People, Technology and Organization, Wiley, London
(forthcoming).
Sparrow, P.S. and Marchington, M. (1998), Human Resource Management, Financial
Times/Pitman, London.
Storey, J. (1992), Developments in the Management of Human Resources, Blackwell, Oxford.
Storey, J. (2001), “Human resource management today: an assessment”, in Storey, J. (Ed.), Human
Resource Management: A Critical Text, Thomson, London, pp. 3-20.
Thornhill, A. and Saunders, M.N.K. (1998), “What if line managers don’t realize they’re
responsible for HR?”, Lessons from an organization experiencing rapid change, Personnel
Review, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 460-76.
Tyson, S. and Fell, A. (1995), Evaluating the Personnel Function, 2nd ed., Stanley Thomes,
Cheltenham.
Ulrich, D. (1997), Human Resource Champions: The Next Agenda for Adding Value and
Delivering Results, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.
Ulrich, D. (1998), “A new mandate for human resources”, Harvard Business Review, January-
February, pp. 124-34.
Ulrich, D. (2001), “The evolution of a professional agenda”, Financial Times, Mastering People
Management, Vol. 15, pp. 2-3.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research, 2nd ed., Sage, London.
ER Further reading
25,3 Armstrong, M. (1998), Managing People: A Practical Guide for Line Managers, Kogan Page/The
Industrial Society, London.
Brewster, C., Harris, H. and Sparrow, P. (2001), “On top of the world”, People Management,
25 October, pp. 37-42.
Buckingham, M. (2001), “What a waste”, People Management, 11 October, pp. 36-40.
280 Drucker, P. (1999), Management: Tasks, Responsibilities and Practices, Butterworth-Heinemann,
Oxford.
Hope-Hailey, V., Gratton, L., McGovern, P., Stiles, P. and Truss, C. (1997), “A chameleon function?
HRM in the 90’s”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 5-18.
IRS (2000), “Human resources consulting: friend or foe?”, IRS Employment Trends, No. 698,
pp. 7-11.
Kelly, J. and Gennard, J. (2001), The Effective Personnel Director: Power and Influence in the
Boardroom, Routledge, London.
Marchington, M. and Wilkinson, A.W. (2002), People Management and Development, 2nd ed.,
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London.
Richbell, S. (2001), “Trends and emerging values in human resource management: The UK
scene”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 261-8.
Scullion, H. and Starkey, K. (2000), “In search of the changing role of the corporate human
resource function in the international firm”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 1061-81.

View publication stats