Change agency in occupational context: lessons for HRM

• Published date: 01 January 2014
• Date: 01 January 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12028

Change agency in occupational context: lessons for

HRM

Nick Wylie, Oxford Brookes Business School, Oxford Brookes University

Andrew Sturdy, Department of Management, University of Bristol

Christopher Wright, Discipline of Work & Organisational Studies, University of

Sydney

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 24, no 1, 2014, pages 95–110

Change agency is seen as a key route to reducing the occupational vulnerability of human resource

management (HRM). However, few look outside of the HRM context to consider change agency more

broadly in organisations. Drawing on a study of change agency units in British organisations, we argue

that challenges to occupational credibility and competing jurisdictional claims have wider implications

for the role of HR practitioners. In particular, change agency is better seen as replaying rather than

resolving the ambiguity of HRM’s role and identity in organisations.

Contact: Dr Nick Wylie, Business and Management, Oxford Brookes University, Wheatley

Campus, Oxford OX33 1HX, UK. Email: nwylie@brookes.ac.uk

INTRODUCTION

Studies of the human resource (HR) function have stressed the need to overcome

occupational insecurity by establishing a strategically significant role within

organisations. A central theme here has been the development of a more explicit role for

the HR function as a ‘change agent’ (Storey, 1992; Ulrich, 1997). Change agency has long had

a place within HRM and personnel management (Legge, 1978), and there is evidence that it has

become an increasingly important part of the practice and occupational identity of HRM

(Buyens and De Vos, 2001; Caldwell, 2001). Empirical research into HR change agency typically

focuses on different role types based on varying change contexts (Alfes et al., 2010). While there

is some recognition of the complexity of HR change agency roles when performed alongside

traditional HRM activities (Caldwell, 2001), the extent to which these new roles can be

understood in terms of broader issues facing change agency itself is largely neglected.

Moreover, there is little attempt to draw on the experiences of change agents more widely to

understand how they seek credibility in their work roles. This would appear to be very relevant

for those HR managers who view change agency as a key route for increased occupational

status.

This article seeks to address these issues through a study of change agents operating within

specialist change management/internal consulting units in British organisations. Drawing on

developments in the sociology of professions, such as the focus on corporate professionalisation

(Muzio et al., 2011), we explore two characteristics of these units which are essential to their

functioning. First, we suggest that change agents operate within a congested domain in which

different managerial occupations claim jurisdiction. Second, such claims require both units and

individual change agents to demonstrate credibility through developing relationships, clearly

articulating their expertise and establishing positive perceptions of their ability to ‘add-value’

to the organisation. Paradoxically, these very characteristics have been identified as important

for the HR profession as a whole (e.g. Armstrong, 1989) and yet have rarely been explored

bs_bs_banner

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12028

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 24 NO 1, 2014 95

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Wylie, N., Sturdy, A. and Wright, C. (2014) ‘Change agency in occupational context: lessons for HRM’. Human

Resource Management Journal 24: 1, 95–110.

empirically. Our finding of significant challenges to the credibility of change agents in general,

suggests that the notion of HR change agency needs to be developed further, in a broader

occupational context.

The article is organised as follows. First, we consider how change agency has become a

feature of attempts to resolve the concerns of the HR function, and we draw parallels with

the study of change agency outside the HR domain. We then show how theories of

professionalisation and the concept of credibility are relevant to a discussion of change agency.

After outlining our empirical study, we examine these issues through an analysis of change

agency units. Finally, we consider the broader implications of our findings for HR change

agency and the HR function.

HRM AND CHANGE AGENCY IN OCCUPATIONAL CONTEXTS

The HR function

An established theme within literature on the HR function (and personnel management before

it) is its precarious position – a poor cousin among management occupations (Bresnen and

Fowler, 1996). This has fuelled a preoccupation with enhancing the function’s professional

status, with HR managers seeking to resolve the problems of role ambiguity and low credibility.

Legge (1978, 1995) for example, argued that personnel managers historically lacked credibility

because their role was ambiguous in terms of comprising both a generic and a specialist

activity, having uncertain outcomes and representing both managerial and employee interests.

A number of mechanisms for resolving these issues have been proposed, suggesting a

re-evaluation of the core values, roles and responsibilities of the HR function. Options range

from focusing on boardroom representation (Guest and King, 2004; Caldwell, 2011);

outsourcing routine roles (Cooke et al., 2005); (re) establishing the function’s social legitimacy

(Kochan, 2007); and building reputational and structural forms of social capital (Truss and Gill,

2009). Arguably, the most influential re-evaluation has been the ‘Ulrich’ model for restructuring

the HR function (Ulrich and Brockbank, 2005). Ulrich (1997) has proposed a number of means

through which strategic influence (and therefore occupational status) can be enhanced, such as

embedding HR within business divisions (e.g. business partnering), adopting a ‘shared-services’

model (e.g. HR service centres and centres of excellence) and, our particular focus, pursuing a

change agency role.

There remains debate about the extent to which the HR function has resolved ambiguities

through such re-evaluation. For example, some studies suggest that the adoption of HR change

agency roles and the Ulrich model remains limited (Guest and King, 2004; CIPD, 2007; Younger

et al., 2011). And yet it also seems clear that the goal of strategic influence has substantially

altered the way in which the HR function understands its core values (Caldwell, 2003a; Roche

and Teague, 2012). For example, Francis and Keegan (2006) show how the language of strategic

partnership has begun to marginalise the traditional welfare or employee-oriented focus of

the HR function (see also Peterson, 2004). Nevertheless, continuing uncertainty about the

knowledge base of HRM (Thompson, 2011), and its ability to add value persists (e.g. Guest,

2011). Indeed, such uncertainty may even have become an accepted part of the HR identity

(Roche and Teague, 2012).

For some, these concerns fuel a long-standing view of change agency as the solution to the

HR function’s role ambiguity and low credibility. As Caldwell (2001: 50) argues:

“Change agent roles certainly offer the prospect of a way out of the traditional

debate on marginalisation versus the overblown ambitions of a profession

constantly seeking to secure its professional status and legitimacy”.

HR change agency

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 24 NO 1, 201496

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.