Line managers and HRM: A managerial discretion perspective

AuthorJuan López‐Cotarelo
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12176
Date01 April 2018
Published date01 April 2018
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Line managers and HRM: A managerial discretion
perspective
Juan LópezCotarelo
Department of Management, London School
of Economics and Political Science
Correspondence
Juan LópezCotarelo, Department of
Management, London School of Economics
and Political Science, Houghton Street, London
WC2A 2AE, UK.
Email: j.lopezcotarelo@lse.ac.uk
Abstract
Line managers play a central role in HRM practices, but research and
theory on how their role is enacted remains underdeveloped. This
paper presents a case study of a large U.K.based fashion retailer
and uses managerial discretion theory to develop a novel
understanding of line managers' contribution to the implementation
of HRM practices. We describe three distinct ways in which line
managers engage with HRM policies and procedures, and propose
that line managers make an important contribution to the effective
implementation of HRM systems through exerting their cognitive
and political abilities to bring about decisions that are well suited
to their local situations. Moreover, we find that HR specialists
design and manage HRM policies and procedures to afford different
levels of managerial discretion in different areas of HRM.
KEYWORDS
human resource management, line managers,managerial discretion
1|INTRODUCTION
In most organisations today, line managers play a central role in the implementation of HRM practices. Whether
interviewing candidates, conducting and communicating performance appraisals, proposing merit pay increases, or
delivering onthejob training and career advice, line managers are deeply involved in shaping the outcomes of
HRM practices for their team members and in delivering those outcomes to them (Wright & Nishii, 2013). Despite
such a role being widely acknowledged in the literature, research and theory on how it is articulated remains
underdeveloped (Beer, Boselie, & Brewster, 2015). This gap is important because any consideration of the effects
of HRM needs to take into account actual practices as enacted by line managers and received by employees (Wright
& Nishii, 2013).
This paper takes a new perspective on how line managers engage in HRM practices by applying managerial
discretion theory (Hambrick & Finkelstein, 1987) to analyse data from a case study of a large retailer. Managerial
discretion scholars have examined how managers use their cognitive and political abilities to interact with contextual
constraints and influence organisational outcomes. At the middle manager levels, managerial discretion has been
deemed necessary for effective strategy implementation, enabling managers to choose the course of action that is
most appropriate to their local situation (Wangrow, Schepker, & Barker, 2015).
Received: 18 March 2016 Revised: 4 June 2017 Accepted: 13 August 2017
DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12176
Hum Resour Manag J. 2018;28:255271. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltdwileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj 255
The present research contributes to the HRM literature in two ways. First, it seeks a fuller understanding of line
managers' role in the implementation of HRM practices. Researchers have often used expressions such as bringing
HRM practices to lifeto describe the role of line managers but have provided little detail on what this might entail.
Moreover, existing research has described how line managers can detract from the effective implementation of HRM
practices, due to a lack of diligence or skill, but much less is known about how line managers may contribute to effec-
tive HR implementation. The present study seeks to address this gap by explicating how line managers contribute to
the effective implementation of HRM practices.
Second, this paper aims to provide a richer understanding of HRM decision making. HR devolution research,
which has examined the allocation of HRM responsibilities between line managers and HR specialists, has concluded
that the most common arrangement in contemporary organisations is for both to share responsibility for HRM deci-
sion making. Unfortunately, we know little detail about the arrangements behind such sharing of responsibilities. The
present study thus responds to recent calls for case study research (Brewster, Brookes, & Gollan, 2015) that investi-
gates how line managers and HR specialists share responsibility for HRM decision making.
The paper is organised as follows. First, there is a review of the HR devolution literature, followed by an introduc-
tion to managerial discretion theory. The methods used in the study are then described, followed by its main findings.
The paper concludes with Section 6, which develops a view of HRM implementation through a managerial discretion
lens, and a conclusion where the study's limitations and implications for research and practice are discussed.
2|LITERATURE REVIEW
In his early assessment of HRM adoption in the United Kingdom, Guest (1987) identified the transfer or devolution
of people management tasks from personnel specialists to line managers as one of the features that distinguished the
emerging HRM approach from traditional personnel management. A sizeable literature on HR devolutionhas since
examined the allocation of HRM tasks and responsibilities between HR specialists and line managers.
A chief contribution to this literature has been provided by Brewster and colleagues' analysis of data from succes-
sive waves of the Cranetsurvey (Brewster et al., 2015; Brewster & Larsen, 1992; Larsen & Brewster, 2003). Their
research has examined the extent to which responsibility for areas of HRM policy is assigned to line managers or
to HR specialists across firms in several, mainly European, countries. Their main findings are fourfold. First, there
are significant differences between countries in the extent to which line managers are involved in HRM: Denmark
and Switzerland are the countries where responsibilities are most devolved to line managers, whereas Italy and the
United Kingdom are the least devolved (Brewster & Larsen, 1992). Second, whereas some of the initial thrust for their
research was to document a perceived trend for increasing assignment of HRM responsibilities to linemanagers, over
subsequent waves of data, the authors found that the trend is weak, denoting considerable stabilityin line managers'
HRM responsibilities over time (Larsen & Brewster, 2003, p. 239). Third, the research found that in most cases,
responsibility is shared between HR specialists and line managers, rather than the sole responsibility of either of
the two (Larsen & Brewster, 2003). However, for some areas of HRM, greater responsibility tends to be assigned
to line managers more often than for others. Thus, of five areas of HRM, Brewster et al. (2015) found that, across
all countries, more than half the organisations gave line managers primary responsibility for workforce expansion or
reduction and for recruitment and selection, whereas fewer than one third did the same for industrial relations. Fourth
and finally, only a small portion of the variation in organisations' overall HR devolution score (R
2
of about 10%) can be
explained by firm characteristics (size, industry, public/private status, and union density) or differences in national
institutional setting (liberal vs. coordinated market economy), leading the authors to suggest that firms have substan-
tial freedomto set up distinct ad hoc arrangements (Brewster et al., 2015).
Further to these core findings, the literature has explored reasons and barriers for HR devolution. At the heart of
most discussions on reasons for HR devolution is the increasing awareness of the importance of employee behaviours
and skills for the strategic success of organisations (Barney & Wright, 1998), which has led to two important pressures
256 LÓPEZCOTARELO

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT