From Bipartite to Tripartite Devolved HRM in Professional Service Contexts: Evidence from Hospitals in Three Countries

• Author: Aoife M. McDermott,Louise Fitzgerald,Nicolette M. Van Gestel,Mary A. Keating
• Published date: 01 September 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21728
• Date: 01 September 2015

Human Resource Management, September–October 2015, Vol. 54, No. 4. Pp. 813–831

© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com).

DOI:10.1002/hrm.21728

Correspondence to: Aoife M. McDermott, Senior Lecturer in Human Resource Management, Cardiff

Business School,Cardiff University, Colum Drive, Cardiff, CF10 3EU, Wales, UK. Phone: +44 (0)29 2087 5065,

E-mail: mcdermotta@cardiff.ac.uk

FROM BIPARTITE TO TRIPARTITE

DEVOLVED HRM IN PROFESSIONAL

SERVICE CONTEXTS: EVIDENCE

FROM HOSPITALS IN THREE

COUNTRIES

AOIFE M. MCDERMOTT, LOUISE FITZGERALD,

NICOLETTE M. VAN GESTEL, AND MARY A. KEATING

This article explores the devolution of HRM in a hospital context. Based on

secondary data and 128 interviews conducted in nine hospitals across three

European countries (Ireland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom), we

examine roles and responsibility for HRM under devolution and coordination

between those delivering it. Findings challenge bipartite conceptions of devo-

lution, identifying a tripartite model with (1) HR practitioners, (2) line manag-

ers, and (3) senior professionals (managers and specialists) implementing HRM.

Involving senior professionals in HRM refl ects long-standing concern regarding

managerial legitimacy in overseeing professional work. In the tripartite relation-

ship, each party has scope to contribute to people management: HR practitioners

to formulate a strategic framework, HR practices, and provide advisory services;

line managers to implement HR practices and interface between HR and front-

line professionals; and senior professionals to act as line managers’ advocates

and provide expert knowledge and credibility to inform people-related decision

making. However, lack of role clarity and tensions in coordination relate to the

differing goals of, and distance between, the HR function, line managers, and

senior professionals. Our theoretical reframing of devolution notes potential for

tripartite relational involvement to enhance HR performance in professional serv-

ice contexts, the contingencies affecting this, and potential implications for the

HR architecture. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: human resource management, devolution, professional service

organization, hospitals, line manager

814 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, SEPTEMBER–OCTOBER 2015

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Focusing on the

operational practice

of HRM enables

consideration

of whether the

implementation

challenges that

line managers face

in devolution go

beyond poor practice.

Findings lead to

discussion of how

the HR architecture

and tailored HR

support can enable

the delivery and

improvement of

health and other

professional services.

“devolution” and accepted as “received wisdom”

(Larsen & Brewster, 2003). However, there is debate

regarding the specific roles HR and line manag-

ers should undertake under devolution (Harris,

Doughty, & Kirk, 2002; Teo & Rodwell, 2007), the

appropriate distribution of influence between HR

and the line (Dany, Guedri, & Hatt, 2008), and

insufficient knowledge regarding what supports

effective collaborative working relationships in

their execution of HRM (cf. Khilji & Wang, 2006;

McGovern, Gratton, Hope-Hailey, Stiles, & Truss,

1997; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). A specific defi-

cit of empirical knowledge exists on the practice

of devolution in professional service contexts—

and particularly in health care settings—where

the expert knowledge of professionals requires

that managers have legitimacy and understand-

ing to manage their work (Raelin, 2011). In health

care, one practical response has been an increas-

ing emergence of “hybrid” clinical managers

(Llewellyn, 2001), who undertake both clinical

and managerial roles (e.g., clinical nurse manager,

clinical director). However, there has been little

systematic consideration of who should under-

take people management roles in health care, and

the influence of professional reporting hierarchies

and the managers and specialists within them

(e.g., medical director, director of nursing), on the

implementation of HR (cf. Townsend, Bartram,

& Wilkinson, 2011). The aim of the article is to

address this gap by exploring how the day-to-day

practice and devolution of HRM operates in pro-

fessional health care workforces across interna-

tional contexts.

The research questions addressed in this arti-

cle are therefore: Who is involved in the provi-

sion of devolved HRM in hospital organizations,

what do they do, and how do they coordinate

their roles? Our findings contribute to the HRM

literature on devolution in both an empirical

and a theoretical way, and add to the limited

research on the organization and delivery of HRM

in health care (cf. Bartram & Dowling, 2013). To

date, research has predominantly focused on the

use, implementation, and effectiveness of hospital

HR practices (see Bartram & Dowling, 2013; West

etal., 2006). In contrast, we adopt a relational lens

(cf. Mossholder, Richardson, & Settoon, 2011),

considering the roles and collaboration of the

people involved in implementing HRM. This adds

to previous work on devolution from the perspec-

tive of the HR department (Valverde etal., 2006)

and line managers (Renwick, 2003; S. Watson,

Maxwell, & Farquharson, 2007) and addresses

calls for insight into the distribution of HR roles

(Dany etal., 2008). Our empirical contribution is

strengthened by strong similarities in the findings

Human resource management (HRM) can

help organizations to survive and pros-

per by delivering strategic, managerial,

and operational value, through people

management (Boxall & Purcell, 2011;

Valverde, Ryan, & Soler, 2006). HRM has par-

ticular potential to contribute in the high-impact,

human-capital-intensive, multiprofessional, and

multinational milieu of health care. If HRM is to

enhance the performance of health care organi-

zations, it will do so by supporting the delivery

and improvement of services, and

the ability, motivation and opportu-

nity to perform of the workers who

provide them (cf. Boxall & Purcell,

2011). Yet despite its potential,

HRM in health care has been found

to be underdeveloped and lacking

credibility and capacity (Fitzgerald

etal., 2006; Hyde etal., 2007; Hyde,

Harris, Cortvriend, & Boaden, 2009;

A. McDermott & Keating, 2011).

Nonetheless, health care organiza-

tions, including the hospitals we

consider here, do provide complex

services, and actively engage in

service improvement— suggesting

that the operational management

of people does occur—even if not

always proactively led by the HR

function (A. M. McDermott &

Keating, 2014). To date, a majority

of research has focused on the role of

the HR function (Hyde etal., 2009;

A. McDermott & Keating, 2011)

and on the design of HR practices

(cf. West, Guthrie, Dawson, Borrill,

& Carter, 2006) within extant hos-

pital structures. We explore the

enacted practice of HRM in hospi-

tals, to understand who is involved

in delivering HRM in healthcare,

what they do, and how they coor-

dinate their roles. Focusing on the

operational practice of HRM enables

consideration of whether the imple-

mentation challenges that line managers face in

devolution go beyond poor practice. Findings

lead to discussion of how the HR architecture and

tailored HR support can enable the delivery and

improvement of health and other professional

services. To enable this, we focus on the enacted

practice of HRM in hospitals, to understand who

is involved in delivering HRM in health care, what

they do, and how they coordinate their roles.

Operational responsibility for HR is typically

passed to line managers, a practice known as