Explaining Effective HRM Implementation: A Middle Versus First-Line Management Perspective
| Author | Annie Hondeghem,Sophie Op de Beeck,Jan Wynen |
| DOI | 10.1177/0091026018760931 |
| Date | 01 June 2018 |
| Published date | 01 June 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2018
Article
Public Personnel Management
2018, Vol. 47(2) 144 –174
Explaining Effective
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
HRM Implementation: A
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091026018760931
DOI: 10.1177/0091026018760931
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppm
Middle Versus First-Line
Management Perspective
Sophie Op de Beeck1, Jan Wynen1,2,3,
and Annie Hondeghem1
Abstract
In this article, we explore one of the key underlying mechanisms that mediates
the human resource management (HRM)–performance link, namely, the (effective)
HRM implementation by line managers. In particular, the purpose of our study is to
compare middle and first-line managers’ experiences of their human resource (HR)
role and the factors explaining effective HRM implementation at each managerial
level. By employing survey data of two Belgian federal government organizations, we
examine the effect of a number of organizational, individual and interpersonal factors
on the effectiveness of line managers in HRM implementation. Results indicate that
both middle and first-line managers’ HRM implementation effectiveness is related
to organizational support, autonomous motivation, and coworker support. For the
group of first-line managers, specifically, age and local office position are important
in the execution of their HR tasks. For the group of middle managers, however,
personnel red tape, length of service, and supervisory experience contribute to their
HRM implementation effectiveness. As a result, an organization’s HR department
can create the internal organizational conditions necessary to facilitate successful
HRM implementation by the line. At the same time, it is worth adapting the approach
according to the different managerial levels.
Keywords
line management, HRM implementation effectiveness, middle managers, first-line
managers, HR devolution, strategic HRM
1KU Leuven, Belgium
2University of Antwerp, Belgium
3Tilburg University, Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Sophie Op de Beeck, KU Leuven, Faculty of Social Sciences, Public Governance Institute, Parkstraat 45,
Bus 3609, Leuven 3000, Belgium.
Email: Sophie.OpdeBeeck@soc.kuleuven.be
Op de Beeck et al.
145
Introduction
In the field of strategic human resource management (HRM), several theoretical per-
spectives and models have been proposed in trying to understand the relation between
HRM and performance. One of those perspectives in the literature has pointed toward
the critical role of line managers mediating the HRM–performance relationship (e.g.,
Alfes, Truss, Soane, Rees, & Gatenby, 2013; Harney & Jordan, 2008; Purcell &
Hutchinson, 2007). Specifically, Wright and Nishii’s (2013) process model of strategic
HRM has drawn attention to the distinction between intended HRM (policies devel-
oped by decision makers), actual HRM (implemented human resource [HR] practices),
and perceived HRM (employee perceptions of HR practices). The overall idea is that
line managers are in charge of actually implementing the intended HR practices in
order that they influence the attitudes and behaviors of employees, which in turn results
in individual and organizational performance outcomes (Wright & Nishii, 2013). In
other words, through performing their HR role, line managers are crucial in translating
the HR policy to the workplace. All in all, this highlights the importance of line manag-
ers’ HRM implementation in explaining the overall HRM–performance link.
Despite increased (research) attention for line managers’ role in HRM, the effec-
tiveness of HRM implementation by line managers still remains to be seen (Guest &
Bos-Nehles, 2013). Where the earlier studies mainly focused on delineating line man-
agement’s role in HRM implementation (e.g., Hall & Torrington, 1998; McGovern,
Hope-Hailey, & Stiles, 1997), some of the more recent work looks at the effectiveness
of this implementation and factors explaining successful HRM implementation by the
line (e.g., Bos-Nehles, Van Riemsdijk, & Looise, 2013; Gilbert, 2012). From these
studies, it appears that a simple, seamless transfer of HR responsibilities from HR to
the line is difficult to achieve. For that reason, several authors emphasize the need for
more research on HRM implementation effectiveness (Becker & Huselid, 2006; Guest
& Bos-Nehles, 2013). We, therefore, study the conditions under which HRM imple-
mentation by line managers is likely to be effective, focusing on the impact of various
organizational, individual and interpersonal factors.
In addition, we find that existing research on the HR role of line managers mainly
focuses on first-line management (e.g., Hutchinson & Purcell, 2003; Lowe, 1992), and
only in some occasions middle management (e.g., Currie & Procter, 2001). However,
all line managers (first-line, middle, and to some extent also top managers) have a
certain amount of HRM responsibilities (Hall & Torrington, 1998; Stanton, Young,
Bartram, & Leggat, 2010), although distinctions can likely be made dependent on dif-
ferent considerations at different levels of management (Currie & Procter, 2001).
Although current research largely ignores the existence of (possible distinctions
between) these managerial levels, the topic has sparked our interest. With this article,
we, therefore, contribute to the literature by focusing on the comparison between mid-
dle and first-line managers’ experiences of their HR role and which factors explain
effective HRM implementation at each managerial level.
By employing survey data of two Belgian federal government organizations, we
examine the effect of a number of organizational, individual, and interpersonal factors
146
Public Personnel Management 47(2)
on the perceived effectiveness of line managers in HRM implementation. More spe-
cifically, we compare the different effects of these factors across both middle and first-
line managers. This allows us to answer our main research questions:
Research Question 1: Which organizational, individual, and interpersonal factors
affect middle and first-line line managers’ HRM implementation effectiveness?
Research Question 2: How does the influence of these factors on HRM implemen-
tation effectiveness differ across middle and first-line management?
Explaining Effective HRM Implementation
The implementation of HRM is regarded as an important factor in unraveling the
HRM–performance link. As such, the effective implementation of HRM may eventu-
ally lead to an increase in both individual and organizational performance (Wright &
Nishii, 2013). The reference to HRM implementation was primarily adopted from
Wright and Nishii’s (2013) distinction between intended, actual, and perceived HRM
(cf. supra). The authors describe HRM implementation (actual HRM) as the applica-
tion and translation of the HR policy and practices designed or intended by the deci-
sion makers (intended HRM) in the workplace with the ultimate goal to elicit the
desired employee reactions and behaviors. This is where line managers are assigned a
major responsibility, holding a vital position between the HR decision makers and the
employees (Harris, Doughty, & Kirk, 2002). It is now widely acknowledged, both in
academia and among practitioners, that line managers have a key and increasing role
to play in the implementation of HRM, a trend that is also referred to as “HR devolu-
tion.” Hence, line management’s involvement in HRM may positively affect employee
commitment and overall organizational performance (Hutchinson & Purcell, 2003;
Thornhill & Saunders, 1998). Many researchers believe though that line managers
have failed in their HR role (McGovern et al., 1997), indicating that the mere involve-
ment of line managers in HRM does not necessarily mean that policies are imple-
mented effectively and consistently. Even well-designed HR practices may become
ineffective if they are not properly implemented (Khilji & Wang, 2006). Despite the
large body of literature on line management’s role in executing HR tasks, however,
only little attention has been paid to (the factors explaining or constraining) the effec-
tiveness of implementation.
Given the importance of effective HRM implementation, several factors constrain-
ing line managers’ execution of HR tasks are identified in the (devolution) literature.
This is where the theory on role dynamics by Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal
(1964; also adapted by Gilbert, 2012) provides an interesting framework. Their model
distinguishes between three sets of factors that may influence an individual’s role
behavior (i.e., HR role performed by line managers): organizational, individual, and
interpersonal factors. As such, it states that a person’s role behavior is determined by the
broader organizational conditions surrounding and defining that person’s role.
Furthermore, it says that a person’s predispositions (individual factors) will act as con-
ditioning variables in relation to that person’s role behavior. Finally, they account for
Op de Beeck et al.
147
the patterns of interaction between a person and his or her role senders and how these
relationships may affect that person’s role behavior (Kahn et al., 1964).
Organizational Factors. First, several organizational factors, describing the interface
between individual employees (i.e., line managers) and their organization (Muchinsky
& Morrow, 1980), may affect...
To continue reading
Request your trial