Hidden in plain sight? The human resource management practitioner's role in dealing with workplace conflict as a source of organisational–professional power

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12311
• Author: Ian Roper,Paul Higgins
• Date: 01 November 2020
• Published date: 01 November 2020

Received: 24 May 2018

-

Revised: 12 June 2020

-

Accepted: 23 June 2020

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12311

SPECIAL ISSUE

Hidden in plain sight? The human resource

management practitioner's role in dealing

with workplace conflict as a source

of organisational–professional power

Ian Roper

1

|Paul Higgins

2

1

Essex Business School, University of Essex,

Colchester, UK

2

Faculty of Business and Law, Anglia Ruskin

University, Chelmsford, UK

Correspondence

Ian Roper, Essex Business School,

University of Essex, Wivenhoe Park,

Colchester, Essex CO4 3SQ, UK.

Email: I.Roper@essex.ac.uk

Abstract

This article examines the perceived importance of human

resource (HR) practitioners' role as ‘organisational pro-

fessionals’ at national and organisational levels. Informed

by institutionalist theory and drawing upon interviews at

national and organisational levels, a dissonance is identified

in the degree to where HR's non‐substitutable expertise

lies. It is concluded that HR's role in dealing with workplace

conflict is under‐recognised at national level as it does not

fit with the proactive ‘strategic’ narrative seen to be what

HR needs to achieve to be influential. At organisational

level, however, conflict management is a source of power

because, unlike many other HR roles—valued as they may

be—conflict management is the role that can least be

substituted by non‐specialist HR practitioners because of

its unpredictability.

KEYWORDS

conflict, HR function, HR profession, institutional theory

Abbreviations: CIPD, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development; ET, employment tribunal; HR, human resource; HRM, human resource

management; MNC, multinational corporation; RBV, resource‐based view; TUC, Trades Union Congress; UK, United Kingdom.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and

reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2020 The Authors. Human Resource Management Journal published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

508

-

Hum Resour Manag J. 2020;30:508–524. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj

1

|

INTRODUCTION

Much has been written about the role that human resource (HR) practitioners should perform in organisations

(Kochan, 2007; Ulrich, 1998); the role that they actually perform in organisations (Legge, 1978; Watson, 2002) and

the dissonance between these two positions (Legge, 2005; Thompson, 2011; Vincent & Hurrell, 2020). Still others

have written about HR and the institutional power resources it deploys to promote its interests at a national level

(Paauwe & Boselie, 2007); and many more such studies that consider the power dependency relationships existing

for HR practitioners at organisational level (Farndale & Hope‐Hailey, 2009). To understand the role of HR fully in its

social and economic context, however, it would be useful to consider how these prescribed and actual roles play out

at national and organisational levels simultaneously. This article critically evaluates the content of HR practitioners'

work in their national and organisational contexts in the United Kingdom (UK). What emerges is empirically novel:

that the role that appears as irreplaceable at organisational level is out of sight at national level.

Drawing cascaded evidence from policy documentation, national‐level interviews and two comprehensive

organisational UK case studies, we find that while HR's role in dealing with day‐to‐day workplace conflict is in plain

sight at organisational level; it is absent in national‐level strategists' and opinion‐formers’ narratives. The disjuncture

has theoretical implications. In attempting to demonstrate legitimacy, the HR function faces different institutional

forces at national level than it does at organisational level. The split generates an institutional complexity for the HR

function, whereby a gap emerges between the national and organisational ontological domains. By reframing an

institutionalist theory of professions spanning both national‐level articulations and organisation‐based practices, our

paper's significance lies in appropriating the most important, non‐substitutable, aspects of HR activity. Three inter-

related research questions guide our analysis. First, what non‐substitutable activity defines HR as a profession?

Second, how is HR professionalisation manifested at national level and organisational level? Third, how might we

reconcile any substantive differences between manifestations observed at these levels?

Practitioner notes

What is currently known about the subject matter?

1. Human resource management (HRM) is identified as an ‘organisational profession’—as opposed to an

‘occupational profession’

2. In the United Kingdom, the HR profession is successfully led by the Chartered Institute of Personnel

and Development which defines the occupation by defining the knowledge and behaviours of would‐be

entrants to the profession

What this paper adds to this?

1. This article asks what are the core non‐substitutable resources that qualified HR professionals call on

to justify their position

2. Empirical research conducted at national and organisational levels identify a mismatch with what is

deemed essential

3. At organisational level, expertise in dealing with workplace conflict is identified as the most important

resource held by HR professionals, while this is downplayed at national level

Implications of the study findings for practitioners

1. This article raises a practical question about the extent to which HR practitioners may be undervaluing

an important aspect of their HR work

ROPER AND HIGGINS

-

509