Exploring the power dimensions of the human resource function

• Author: Helen De Cieri,Robert Brooks,Brian Cooper,Cathy Sheehan
• Date: 01 April 2014
• Published date: 01 April 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12027

Exploring the power dimensions of the human

resource function

Cathy Sheehan,Helen De Cieri and Brian Cooper, Department of Management,

Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University

Robert Brooks, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics, Faculty of

Business and Economics, Monash University

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 24, no 2, 2014, pages 193–210

While a large body of literature has investigated the content of human resource management (HRM)

practices, this research explores the process through which the HRM function impacts on organisational

performance. Specifically, the research explores the reasons for the success or failure of HRM initiatives

that have been associated with organisational outcomes and classifies the reasons as dimensions of HRM

power. Based on 26 interviews conducted in Australia with senior HRM executives, top management

team (TMT) executives and two management consultants, we found that, in order to contribute to

organisational performance, HRM professionals can effectively utilise three dimensions of power, namely

power of resources, power of processes and power of meaning. The findings offer new insights to the

relationship between dimensions of HRM power and organisational performance.

Contact: Associate Professor Cathy Robyn Sheehan, Department of Management, Monash

University, P.O. Box 197, Caulfield East, Vic 3145, Australia. Email: cathy.sheehan@monash.edu

INTRODUCTION

Acentral argument of resource-based theory is that organisational resources, notably

human resources, have the potential to deliver sustained competitive value to the

organisation by enabling the development and deployment of employees who represent

rare, inimitable and non-substitutable organisational resources (Barney et al., 2011).

Resource-based theory does not, however, explain how an organisation can develop and

support the human resources it needs for competitive advantage (Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010;

Foss, 2011). The HRM literature has provided extensive evidence that HRM practice and policy

design can impact on organisational performance, but there remains a lack of consensus on the

HRM practices to be included (Wright et al., 2005; Subramony, 2009). In recognition of the

wide variety of HRM practices necessary for improved organisational performance, other

commentators have suggested the need to consider factors outside of HRM practice design and

look at the broader context in which HRM operates (Becker and Gerhart, 1996; Bowen and

Ostroff, 2004). Welbourne and Cyr (1999) for example have highlighted the role of HRM

professionals working within the HRM function as an important determinant of organisational

performance that should be considered alongside the development of well-designed HRM

practices. Guest and King (2004), in their review of Karen Legge’s (1978) analysis of the power

of the HRM function, also note the importance of the HRM role in research into the link

between HRM and performance. In response to these observations, our research focuses on

how the HRM function can enhance the context within which HRM practices are implemented.

The research draws primarily from a discussion of the power of the HRM function based on

the dimensions delineated by Lukes (1974, 2005) in his seminal essay in political sociology,

and brought into the organisational field by Hardy (1996). The overall aim of the research is,

bs_bs_banner

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12027

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 24 NO 2, 2014 193

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Sheehan, C., De Cieri, H., Cooper, B. and Brooks, R. (2014) ‘Exploring the power dimensions of the human

resource function’. Human Resource Management Journal 24: 2, 193–210.

with reference to Hardy’s power dimensions, to analyse how power is used by those working

within the HRM function to impact on organisational performance. The following section

draws from Lukes (1974, 2005) and Hardy (1996) to review dimensions of power in

organisations and their relevance to the HRM function’s capacity to make a difference within

organisational dynamics.

DIMENSIONS OF HRM POWER

Lukes (2005: 30) suggests that the common element in all talk of power is the notion ‘.. . that

A in some way affects B’. More specifically, Lukes contributes to the explanation of power by

showing that power is not only confined to observable interactions but to less observable

dynamics as well. He argues that power is made up of three dimensions centred around the

concept of interests. A one-dimensional view of power focuses on overt behaviour between

different actors when decisions are being made. The discussion of preferences, conflict and

resolution are apparent. Although this dimension of power is useful when reviewing who

dominates and why, Lukes, drawing from the work of Bachrach and Baratz (1970), explains

that power can be evident in processes that underpin non-decision making: dynamics that

determine what does, and does not, get onto the agenda in the first place. A second

dimension of power therefore incorporates those dynamics that thwart or suppress challenges

to the decision makers, effectively suffocating voice by restricting access to decision-making

arenas. Although Lukes (1974, 2005) considers that the second dimension of power represents

a major advance over the one-dimensional view, he argues that it is still too committed to the

study of overt behaviour. He therefore proposes a third dimension of power that describes

the situation where actors are deluded about their own interests. This dimension is concerned

with the shaping of perceptions, cognitions and preferences in such a way that actors accept

their position, either because they cannot see an alternative view, or they have been

manipulated into thinking that the stated option has value. Overall, Lukes’s distinctions of

power go beyond explanations that rely on observing behaviour to considering aspects of

power that are not accessible to observation, and in so doing contributes to the debate around

the unconscious exercise of power connected with powerlessness and domination (Lukes,

2005).

One of the criticisms of Lukes’s (1974, 2005) work is that it concentrates too much on ‘power

over’, or the domination of one actor or group over another (Edwards, 2006). Hardy (1996),

who draws from Lukes’s (1974, 2005) dimensions of power, suggests that power be defined in

more neutral terms, as a force that affects outcomes. She uses Lukes’s distinctions to explain

mechanisms for effective change, pointing out that a negative view of power drives researchers

away from a deeper study of political dynamics. Similarly, Giddens (1984) in his theory of

structuration has criticised the assumption of power as inherently negative. Instead, Giddens

treats power in terms of transformative capacity, that is, the capability of actors to ‘make a

difference’ or intervene in a course of events. Such an approach emphasises power ‘to’, or the

productive side of power, and allows us ‘to achieve outcomes we could not achieve alone’

(Hardy, 1996: S3).

We similarly argue that an analysis of the coercive power of those working within the HRM

function would be inadequate. The devolution of much of the HRM function’s authority to

other organisational stakeholders, and the interactions of HRM professional with top

management team (TMT) executives and line managers who now take shared responsibility for

the uptake of HRM initiatives, is more consistent with power ‘to’ create rather than power

connected with coercion. The devolution of HRM responsibilities such that HRM is everyone’s

Power dimensions of the human resource function

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 24 NO 2, 2014194

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.