When good HR gets bad results: exploring the challenge of HR implementation in the case of workplace bullying

• Date: 01 January 2014
• Published date: 01 January 2014
• Author: David E. Guest,Chris Woodrow
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12021

When good HR gets bad results: exploring the

challenge of HR implementation in the case of

workplace bullying

Chris Woodrow, NIHR King’s Patient Safety & Service Quality Research Centre,

King’s College London

David E. Guest, Department of Management, King’s College London

Human Resource Management Journal, Vol 24, no 1, 2014, pages 38–56

Research on the relationship between HRM and organisational performance has highlighted a gap

between intended and implemented HR practices. However, this gap has rarely been explored

systematically, and the consequences of the effectiveness of the implementation process for relevant

outcomes remain poorly understood. This article addresses this issue by examining the process and

quality of HR implementation. Drawing on a model of HR implementation, it presents a detailed case

study of the implementation of HR practices relating to workplace bullying. Findings reveal that while

the policy reflected best practice, implementation was uneven, resulting in persisting high levels of

bullying which negatively affected staff well-being and performance. The results indicate that it is

misleading to look just at HR practices, and that even ‘best HR practices’ are unsuccessful unless

implemented effectively. It is argued that a greater focus on HR implementation will improve our

understanding of the HRM – performance relationship.

Contact: Prof David E. Guest, Department of Management, King’s College London, London,

UK. Email: david.guest@kcl.ac.uk

This article presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health

Research (NIHR). The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not

necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR or the Department of Health.

INTRODUCTION

The association between HRM and organisational performance has been well established

(Boselie et al., 2005; Combs et al., 2006). However, the process whereby this link operates

remains unclear, leading to calls to open up the ‘black box’. Researchers have responded

by focusing on the mediating processes whereby HR practices can affect employee attitudes

and behaviour, typically based either on the ability, motivation, opportunity model or a human

capital model (Subramony, 2009; Jiang etal., 2012). However, these models continue to link the

presence of specific HR practices to employee attitudes and behaviour without explicitly

considering the quality of these practices and of their implementation. Recognising this, Wright

and Nishii (2013) have called for a greater focus on implementation, and Khilji and Wang

(2006), among others, have reported a gap between intended and implemented HR practices.

Furthermore, Becker and Huselid (2006) have argued that the ability to implement HR strategy

and HR practices is an important source of competitive advantage.

Despite some recognition of the importance of the implementation rather than simply the

presence of HR practices, there has been limited attention to effective implementation processes

and how employees respond to them. The aim of this article is therefore to address the process

of HRM implementation and its relationship with employee responses. This is achieved

bs_bs_banner

doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12021

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 24 NO 1, 201438

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Woodrow, C. and Guest, D.E. (2014) ‘When good HR gets bad results: exploring the challenge of HR

implementation in the case of workplace bullying’. Human Resource Management Journal 24: 1, 38–56.

through a detailed case study analysis of one particular practice, concerning the management

of workplace bullying and harassment. The research draws on a conceptual model developed

by Guest and Bos-Nehles (2013). By focussing on the influence of HR implementation on

employee attitudes and behaviour, it makes a distinctive contribution by helping to explain the

role of employee responses in the link between HRM and outcomes. By adopting a case study

approach within a specific analytic framework, it extends previous research by providing a

fuller understanding of how and why implementation of HR practices can succeed or fail, as

well as considering some of the consequences.

HR PRACTICES AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION

Following previous studies indicating a gap between intended and implemented HR practices,

Guest and Bos-Nehles (2013) have proposed a novel framework setting out four stages in the

implementation process. This framework forms the basis for the research reported here. They

suggest that HR implementation begins with the decision to adopt a particular HR practice, for

example, the decision to use psychometric testing in selection or an attitude survey to seek

employees’ views. Most research studies report considerable variation in the number of

practices in place across organisations, reflecting variations in the decision to adopt specific

practices. The second stage concerns decisions about the quality of the HR practice. For

example, a decision to use psychometric testing may be followed by the adoption of more or

less valid tests. The third stage involves a decision about whether to make use of the practice.

Regular appraisals may be required but line managers have to decide whether or not to

undertake them. The fourth and final stage concerns the quality of implementation. For

example, line managers may agree to appraise their staff but, perhaps because of time pressures

or because they view appraisals as unhelpful, they conduct poor quality appraisals. According

to Guest and Bos-Nehles (2013), a full analysis of implementation needs to consider each of

these stages because a line manager’s decision about whether to undertake serious appraisals

depends on prior decisions about the presence of the appraisal system and its quality.

The Guest and Bos-Nehles model additionally highlights the need to consider who is

responsible for implementation and who is likely to evaluate its effectiveness. Turning first to

responsibility for implementation, they suggest that HR managers are likely to have an

important role in the first two stages of the implementation process, often with the support of

the top management team, but thereafter line managers increasingly take centre stage (Brewster

and Larsen, 2003). With respect to evaluation of the quality of implementation, a range of

stakeholders can be identified including senior managers, line managers, HR managers and,

perhaps crucially, employees (Tsui, 1987).

Huselid et al. (1997) found that line managers’ perceptions of the quality and effectiveness

of HR practices are associated with firm performance. Moreover, Guest and Conway (2011)

have shown that the assessments of HR effectiveness by both senior HR managers and chief

executive officers are associated with performance and that HR effectiveness has a stronger

association than the more conventional measure of the presence of HR practices. Nevertheless,

employees who are on the receiving end of the HR practices may be best placed to judge the

extent and effectiveness of their implementation. There is evidence that employees are less

likely than HR managers to report the presence of HR practices (Liao et al., 2009; Guest et al.,

2010), reflecting the gap between intended and implemented practices. However, like Nishii

et al. (2008) have indicated, it is not only the presence of a practice but the attributions

concerning its purpose that can affect how employees respond. The major distinction drawn by

Nishii et al. concerned employees’ perception about whether a practice takes sufficient account

Chris Woodrow and David E. Guest

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL, VOL 24 NO 1, 2014 39

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.