Strong HRM processes and line managers' effective HRM implementation: a balanced view

• Published date: 01 November 2015
• Date: 01 November 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12088

Strong HRM processes and line managers’effective

HRM implementation: a balanced view

Caroline Gilbert,Sophie De Winne, Luc Sels, Departmentof Work and Organisation

Studies, Faculty of Economics andBusiness, KU Leuven

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 25, no 4,2015, pages 600–616

Exploring a unitarist and pluralist Human Resource Management (HRM) perspective, we propose a more

nuanced view on Bowen and Ostroff’s (2004) concept of strong HRM processes. More specifically, we investigate

whether strong HRM processes contribute positively or negatively to line managers’effective HRM

implementation. The results of a multi-level model with data from 125 line managers and 899 employees of five

organisations show a complex picture. In line with unitarist thinking, we find a positive indirect effect of strong

HRM processes on HRM implementation effectiveness via line managers’ability. In accordance with pluralist

thinking, we find a negative direct relationship between strong HRM processes and HRM implementation

effectiveness. We discuss the tensions in HRM that might explain these ambiguous findings.

Contact: Dr Caroline Gilbert, Departmentof Work and Organisation Studies,Faculty of Economics

and Business, KULeuven, Leuven, Belgium. Email: caroline.gilbert@kuleuven.be

Keywords: unitarist and pluralist HRM perspective; strong HRM processes; line managers; HRM

implementation

INTRODUCTION

I

n 2004, Bowen and Ostroff (2004: 204) drew attention to human resource management

(HRM) processes, ‘the features of an HRM system that send signalsto employees that allow

them to understand the desired and appropriate responses and form a collective sense of

what is expected’. Strong HRM processes –characterised by distinctiveness (HRM stands out

in the environment), consistency (HRM messages and their effects are the same across

modalities and time) and consensus (individuals’views on HRM messages and their effects

are similar) –make sureemployees make clear attributionsof the signals sent and understand

their role in the organisation. This better understanding should lead to better employee and,

subsequently, firm performance. Up till now, Bowen and Ostroff’s (2004) work has been cited

523 times in Web of Science. Both scale development and empirical studies based upon their

framework emerge (for an overview,see Sanders et al., 2014). Yet, not all of the research findings

convincingly underpin the theoretical arguments of Bowen and Ostroff (2004). Some authors

fail to provide evidence of the hypothesised positive relationships with employee and

organisational outcomes (e.g. Guest and Conway, 2011); others find relationships opposite to

the expected (e.g. De Winne et al., 2013), and still others have shown that the relatio nships ar e

contingent upon other variables, such as, for example, climate strength (e.g. Li et al., 2013).

The purpose of this article is to provide argumentsfor both a positive and negative scenario

regarding the influence of strong HRM processes. More specifically, we test whether line

managers’perceptions of strong HRM processesare positively or negatively linked withtheir

perceived ability, motivation and opportunity (AMO; Appelbaum et al., 2000) to perform a

Human Resource (HR)role, and whether this subsequentlyenhances or lowers line managers’

effective HRM implementation as perceivedby their subordinates. We use matcheddata from

125 line managers and 899 employees of five Belgian organisations.

HUMAN RESOURCEMANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL25, NO 4, 2015 600

© 2015 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.

Pleasecitethis articlein press as: Gilbert,C., De WinneS., and Sels, L..(2015) ‘StrongHRM processesand line managers’effectiveHRMimplementation:a

balancedview’.HumanResource ManagementJournal 25: 4, 600–616

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12088

bs_bs_banner

Line managers are considered a crucial factor in understanding the relationship between

HRM and performance as they bring HR practices to life. In doing so, they influence

employees’perceptions about the HRM system in place as well as their attitudes, behaviour

and performance (Purcell and Kinnie, 2007). From this point of view, the effectiveness of line

managers’HRM implementation is of crucial importance to employees and organisations

(Nishii and Wright, 2008). Further, similarlyto Robbins and Judge (2007: 146), whostated that

‘The world as it is perceived is the world that is behaviourally important’,our interest is not in

the actual situation but in the situationas perceived by individuals, because perceptions drive

attitudes and behaviour.

Our arguments forpositive and negative relationships are based on the opposite views of a

unitarist perspective (stating that organisational and individual objectives can be aligned by

good organisational practices) andpluralist perspective (statingthat reconciling organisational

and individual objectives by means of organisational practices is impossible as different

stakeholders have different preferences and conflicting interests) (Godard and Delaney, 2000).

The contributionof this article is twofold. First,HRM implementation as well as thepivotal

role of line managersin it have been under-researched. With our study, webuild knowledge on

both issues, which is essential for academics to fully understand the HRM performance link

and for practitioners to create the necessary conditions under which line managers can make

a difference in HRM. Second, we take a critical stance towards the concept of strong HRM

processes, thereby contributing to the debate on the added value of the concept, and its role

in creating competitive advantage.

UNITARIST VERSUS PLURALIST THINKING IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

According to Godardand Delaney (2000), unitarist thinking ensuedfrom the human relations

traditioninspired by Mayo (1923).Although human relations advocatesrecognise the existence

of conflicting objectives between managers and employees, they also postulate that these

conflicting goals can be resolved by introducing the right organisational practices. This

reasoning has inspired strategic HRM literature to which the HRM performance paradigm is

central. In this paradigm, high commitment work practices are believed to align employee

and organisational goals and subsequently enhance both employee and organisational

performance. Since the work of Huselid (1995), a huge amount of articles has been published

on this topic (Combs et al., 2006; Jiang et al., 2012). The work of Bowen and Ostroff (2004) fits

in this research tradition as it also emphasises the alignment between organisational and

individual objectives. Yet, the authorsdo not focus on how HRM content helps to achievethis

alignment, but on how HRM processes do.

This strategic HRM research tradition has been criticised by several authors (e.g. Keenoy,

1999; Francis and Keegan, 2006). It is said to be too managerial, normative and prescriptive.

Moreover,Godard and Delaney (2000)state that it is too simplistic as it neglects the complexity

of employmentrelationships.They criticise the HRM performanceparadigm from an industrial

relations and pluralist perspective, in which conflicts between management and employees

exist, are notnecessarily bad and cannotbe resolved by solely introducing new work practices.

Accordingly, the alignment between organisational and individual goals might be more

difficultthan it is hinted at in strategicHRM literature, and the roleof institutional forces,trade

unions andlaw is completely overlooked. Moreover, theyargue that HR practicesmight indeed

contribute to organisational performance, but at the expense of employees by inciting work

intensification and job insecurity. In conclusion, rather than pushing forward a mutual gains

CarolineGilbert, Sophie De Winne andLuc Sels

HUMAN RESOURCEMANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL25, NO 4, 2015 601

©2015 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.