Line manager involvement in careers
Douglas Renwick
Keywords
Line management, Careers,
Employee development
Abstract
Within the general human
resource management (HRM)
literature, the devolution of HR
tasks to line managers is often
seen as a core element of an HR
approach with a series of costs
and benefits arising. However,
concerns have arisen on the ability
and willingness of line managers
to carry out HR tasks properly
including developing employees in
their careers, the demands such
changes make on line managers
themselves, and how such
changes alter their own career
patterns. This article maps out a
consideration of aspects of career
development given the trend to
line manager involvement in
careers. The implications for
employee career development are
explored, as are those for line
managers and HR professionals.
Received: April 2002
Revised: August 2002
Accepted: August 2002
Career Development
International
7/7 [2002] 407±414
# MCB UP Limited
[ISSN 1362-0436]
[DOI 10.1108/13620430210449939]
The Management School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Christina M. MacNeil
The Business School, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
Introduction
This article outlines developments in
devolving HR work to line managers[1], the
implications for the development of employee
careers that arise from this initiative, and
the costs and benefits of line involvement in
employee career development. It concludes
by discussing the implications for the
changing careers of both line managers and
HR professionals.
Dominant themes and context in
the HR, line management and
careers literature
An HRM approach to people management
indicates a key role for line managers (Guest,
1987; Storey, 1992). Storey (1992), for example,
argues that it consists of three main
elements: of general/business/line managers
coming to the fore in completing these tasks,
of them providing facilitation (a prized skill),
and delivering transformational leadership
in work organisations. Other authors have
noted the key role that line managers play in
HRM (Brewster and Larsen, 2000; Currie and
Procter, 2001; Guest and King, 2001; Ulrich,
1997, 1998, 2001). Brewster and Larsen (2000)
indicate five ``overlapping reasons'' why line
involvement in HRM has come to the fore in
recent years: the development of cost-centre
or profit-centre based approaches; a need for
a comprehensive approach to people
management; the growing influence of the
service industries with decisions having to
be made in front of the customer; that
decisions are increasingly made in real time;
and changes in philosophy and
organisational structure ± an alternative to
outsourcing the HR function (Brewster and
Larsen, 2000, pp. 196-8).
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters
Within the issue of increased line manager
involvement in HRM, the dominant themes
in the HR literature have focussed on three
areas. First, Ulrich (1998) outlines the
rationale for line involvement in HRM ± as
the line create product/service, and work
value, and therefore ± ``it follows that they
should lead the way in fully integrating HR
into the company's real work'', achieved
through ``working in partnership with them
and holding HR more accountable in
delivering organizational excellence''
(Ulrich, 1998, pp. 125-6). Second, the need for a
``partnership'' approach between HR, line
and employees to manage HR issues ± ``an HR
triad'' of line managers, HR managers and
employees ± defined as ``partnership roles
and responsibilities for managing human
resources'' (Jackson and Schuler, 2000, p. 25).
Third, the preconditions for middle manager
strategic influence to be exercised ``when
they are able to span boundaries outside the
organisation'', and that they are given
``authority as well as responsibility so that
they have freedom to experiment rather than
being excluded from decision making''
(Currie and Procter, 2001, p. 57).
Devolution of HR work in the UK
On the issue of whether organisations are
devolving HR work to the line or not the
literature has produced mixed messages.
Some authors like Hall and Torrington (1998,
cited in Currie and Procter, 2001) argue that
progress in devolution initiatives is limited;
Hutchinson and Wood (1995) that both HR
and the line do HR work (with different
balances in different areas); and Hope-Hailey
et al. (1997, as quoted in Currie and Procter,
2001, p. 54) that HR still retain responsibility
for recruitment and selection, but in an
overall climate of increased devolution. On
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm
[ 407 ]
Douglas Renwick and
Christina M. MacNeil
Line manager involvement in
careers
Career Development
International
7/7 [2002] 407±414
[ 408 ]
the other hand, alternative findings seem to
point in the opposite direction, and point to
more line manager involvement in HRM
occurring (Cunningham and James, 2001;
Currie and Procter, 2001; Harris, 2001; Poole
and Jenkins, 1997; Procter and Currie, 1999;
Redman, 2001; Storey, 1992, 2001). Although a
question mark still remains as to the exact
extent and scope of line manager
involvement in HRM, the Workplace
Employee Relation Survey of 1998 (WERS '98)
revealed that line manager involvement in
employee relations was extensive:
Generalists continue to account for almost
half of all ER managers and line managers
outnumber ER specialists. Furthermore, ER
specialists feature in only one in eight of the
workplace employing fewer than 100 people,
which make up three quarters of the
workplaces in our sample (Millward et al.,
2000, pp. 52-3)[2].
The literature of the 1970s and 1980s found
that chief production managers found
industrial relations (IR) activity too time-
consuming and passed it onto others like
factory administrators (Marsh, 1971, p. 22),
and Marsh and Gillies (1983) found managers
willing to accept IR as part of their work
without much resentment (Marsh and
Gillies, 1983 pp. 36, 38). In the mid- to late-
1990s and beyond ideas of ``partnerships''
being formed between HR and the line were
seen in the literature (Eisenstat, 1996;
Hutchinson and Wood, 1995; Ulrich, 1997,
1998, 2001), to deliver results for
organisations (Ulrich, 1997). More recent
literature in HRM includes notions of line
managers being increasingly involved in
specific HR areas, and, as a result, in the
career development of staff that goes along
with them. We now note these developments.
Line managers have been seen as a weak
link in the operation of performance
management systems, where they ``blamed
any inconsistencies in their decision making
on the vagaries of the system rather than
their own judgements'' (Beaver and Harris,
1996, as quoted in Harris, 2001, p. 1190).
Redman's (2001) findings on performance
appraisal were that ``most managers are not
naturally good at conducting performance
appraisals'', with many of the judgements
made on ``gut feelings'', and being subject to
``political'' manipulation by managers, i.e. ``to
show who's the boss, to clear the ground for
terminations, to punish a difficult and
rebellious employee and even to `scare' better
performance out of the appraisee'' (Redman,
2001, pp. 71-2).
Although human resource development
(HRD) is a responsibility which has
traditionally been passed to line managers in
organisations (Walton, 1999), there is a need
to understand how line managers learn about
HR work ± particularly whether most of their
knowledge, skill and ability in it derive from
learning/coaching from/by HR managers,
experiential learning (Brewster and Larsen,
1992) or off-the-job exercises. However,
findings from Cunningham and Hyman
(1999) were that line managers saw that HR
work was ``common sense''. MacNeil's (2001)
work on how supervisors[3] facilitate
informal learning in work teams found a lack
of support from general management for this
initiative; cost-cutting; low priority given to
new initiatives; and a reluctance from
supervisors to change to a new role.
In line handling of grievance and discipline
cases, the literature notes that organisations
had tended to ask HR managers to ``sit in'' in
these meetings, not only to ``police'' line
managers, but also to ensure those good
outcomes prevail (Rollinson et al., 1996). In
employee involvement (EI), Marchington
(2001) found four ``unintended impacts'' of
involving line managers, supervisors, first-
line managers and shop-floor managers in EI
schemes. First, that these groups may not
share the same commitment to EI as senior
managers or that they may be dubious about
EI itself. Second, they may not have the
abilities needed to work direct EI schemes
``face-to-face'' (i.e. them not feeling totally
comfortable in such settings). Third, an
overload in their work, and fourth, of
deficiencies in training them to work EI
schemes (Marchington, 2001, pp. 238-42). In
line handling of employee relations (ER)
issues there are several potential areas of
abuse of line management power and
authority when the line take on more ER
work. These include restricting employee
promotions and pay awards, restricting
access to development opportunities,
engaging in workplace discrimination,
intensifying work, and off-loading duties to
junior staff. A question is whether due to
their poor handling of ER issues, line
managers curtail the development of staff
careers.
Within the literature on line involvement
in pay initiatives, Currie and Procter (2001)
argue that middle managers play an
important role in contributions to strategic
change as ``important linking pins'' in ``the
realisation of HR strategy''. They concluded
that this came from the greater discretion
given to the line in ``implementing''
deliberate HR strategies and their role in
``synthesising information'' (Currie and
Procter, 2001, pp. 58-9, 63-6). On the specific
issue of performance-related pay, Harris'
(2001) study[4], pointed to a ``hidden agenda''
Douglas Renwick and
Christina M. MacNeil
Line manager involvement in
careers
Career Development
International
7/7 [2002] 407±414
in IPRP initiatives (Harris, 2001, p. 1184), and
found ``the potential for decisions that
decreased rather than increased levels of
employee trust'' (Harris, 2001, pp. 1190-1).
Cunningham and James (2001) found limits
occurring in line manager involvement in
dealing positively in ``ensuring continued
employment security for employees'' in
absence cases caused by long-term illness
and disability, and identified five reasons for
this. First, line stubbornness in not wishing
to attend training programmes on these
issues. Second, the line arguing that
insufficient training was provided on these
issues. Third, a low skill level amongst line
managers in general. Fourth, the line having
to handle some of these cases without
specialist (HR) help, and finally, fifth, the line
had to supervise the ``punitive sanctions''
connected to organisational policies on
incapability (Cunningham and James, 2001,
pp. 20-1).
e-HR/new forms of work organisation
Several themes have emerged recently in the
field with the introduction of new
technologies and communications systems to
deliver HR advice and services to the line; the
willingness of line managers to take on more
HR work (identified as an issue at Marks &
Spencer); the impacts that such changes
would have on line manager workload (seen
at British Nuclear Fuels); and what platforms
should provide which HR services and why
(Deeks, 2000). The use of organisational
intranets, the Internet, and HR call-centres,
raises the possibility of line managers having
to handle some HR work on their own. This is
because HR managers will either not be
physically on-site to assist them, or there
being reduced numbers of HR specialists
employed, as the organisation takes
advantage of the cost benefits that these new
technologies bring (i.e. the need to employ
fewer HR staff). In the software industry it
has been noted that there is the possibility of
the line having to do all the relevant HR work
on their own (Brewster and Larsen, 2000,
p. 213).
Issues arising
Implications for employee career
development
Several issues emerge from the review above.
In general we draw the following
interpretations from the literature. These
include concerns about the potential of line
managers to:
. accept doing HR work willingly, or take
responsibility for it;
. discriminate against employee
promotions when they are involved in
using performance appraisal/
management systems;
. provide access for employees to employee
career development opportunities;
. seeing developing staff as a
straightforward technical task;
. be unwilling to provide job enrichment
and involvement opportunities for staff;
. lack commitment to re-engage employees
who need it;
. prioritise employee career development
amongst their other tasks;
. be reluctant to take on new roles that
facilitate learning by others;
. not handling grievance and discipline
cases properly;
. discriminating against employees in
organisations where the HR function is
small and/or understaffed and cannot
intervene to promote best practice (as in
many SMEs);
. not increasing levels of employee trust
when making pay awards[5].
Implications for line management career
development
Implications for line management career
development include:
. the extent to which a hidden agenda is
occurring of line managers being forced
into ``learning'' about HRM/taking on
increased responsibilities in it in a
climate of fear and mistrust in
organisations;
. whether line managers are breaking
through any learning barriers in
understanding HR work and actively
engaging in developing staff and their
careers, or not;
. if line managers have the ``desire,
capacity, ability, training, and
conservatism'' in completing HR work
(Brewster and Larsen, 2000);
. the line facing time constraints when
completing HR work due to other
demands on them;
. a lack of willingness from HR staff to help
the line manage employee development;
. how employees view line involvement in
developing employees' careers; and
. whether negative upward appraisals from
employees on line involvement in
employee career development will shorten
line careers[6].
Implications for organisations
Managers are significantly involved in the
career development of staff, and concerns
arise about their involvement in using HR
processes to develop them. Line involvement
[ 409 ]
Douglas Renwick and
Christina M. MacNeil
Line manager involvement in
careers
Career Development
International
7/7 [2002] 407±414
[ 410 ]
in employee career development (ECD)
provides both benefits and costs to
organisations as shown below:
1 Benefits of line involvement in staff
career development:
. employee career development (ECD)
issues are solved at source (lowest
level);
. better change management is achieved,
facilitating engagement in more ECD;
. more scope for HR managers to focus
on strategic, holistic ECD;
. ECD issues receiving a business focus;
. line managers who make their own
ECD decisions are more likely to
commit to them;
. promotes local management
accountability and responsibility for
ECD;
. reduces training and development
costs, as line ``know'' what ECD is
needed;
. promotes the case that ECD is an
essential element of every manager's
job and cannot be transferred to HR
specialists;
. enables ECD decisions to be tailored to
suit local circumstances;
. increases the speed of decision making
in ECD;
. provides increased awareness of ECD
issues throughout the organisation;
. helps satisfy line willingness to take
part in ECD initiatives;
. raises prospect of building line and HR
``partnerships'' in working on ECD;
. releases line to enact ECD strategies on
their own if they wish to do so.
2 Costs of line involvement in staff career
development:
. line acting as ``gate-keepers'' in ECD
progression;
. increased pressure to train and/or re-
skill line managers, and a need for HR
auditing;
. problems arising of maintaining
consistency in decision making by the
line;
. problems in maintaining the balance of
power between the line and HR
specialists;
. potential for the HR/IR role to be
marginalised;
. the prospect of ECD issues not being
handled properly, receiving low
priority, or of standards in it falling by
line managers ± as they may lack
competence, capability and
commitment in it;
. little time for the line to perform ECD
duties well due to other operational
demands, and potential for a decrease
in the quality of work that is completed
by them;
. risks of extra stress for the line as line
manager workloads are increased in
doing ECD;
. extra costs in training line managers,
and potential costs of grievances
arising in disputed cases;
. less consistent communications
arising between the line and HR on
employees' needs;
. line rejection of ECD being part of their
job;
. potential for line managers to abuse
their position and discriminate against
employees as they line handle more
face-to-face ECD work[7].
Discussion
Devolution of HR work to the line raises
issues about the degree of ``partnership''
between the line and HR in developing
employee careers, of HR managers' ability to
block the broadening of line careers, the role
that executives play in shaping managerial
careers, and the general implications for
managerial careers that devolution poses. We
now examine these issues.
Line manager commitment to
``partnership'' working with HR managers
on employee career development
We began this review by indicating some of
the dominant themes on line involvement in
HRM. A central theme here was the idea of a
``partnership'' forming between HR and the
line on how HR work was to be done, and who
did what in it (Ulrich, 1997, 1998, 2001;
Eisenstat, 1996; Hutchinson and Wood, 1995).
We noted the work of some authors who saw
the need for an ``HR triad'' of HR, the line and
employees to be formed to manage HR issues
(Jackson and Schuler, 2000). The optimism of
many of these (American) writers does not
seem to be reflected in some of the research
findings in the UK at present. In some cases
HR managers have not helped line managers
to complete HR work as much as they could
by providing training for them, or in
generally offering them support and advice
(see Brewster and Larsen, 2000; Cunningham
and James, 2001; Marchington, 2001). Perhaps
we have come full circle and need to ask
again ± ``are the personnel managers in
danger of not just giving HRM away, but of
`giving it up'?'' (Blyton and Turnbull, 1992, p.
11, quoted in Brewster and Larsen, 2000, p.
195). It is not clear from the literature that HR
managers will give the necessary support to
the line in developing employees and their
Douglas Renwick and
Christina M. MacNeil
Line manager involvement in
careers
Career Development
International
7/7 [2002] 407±414
careers, and that they will work in
``partnership'' with them on it either.
HR managers as a barrier to broadening
line management careers
There is much criticism in the literature on
line managers' commitment and capability to
handle HR tasks consistently and
professionally. However, as Brewster and
Larsen (2000) point out, HR need to support
and advise the line to do HR work, and this
support and advice does not necessarily
occur in all cases. The critique of line
capability and/or commitment has three
flaws. First, the data that supports these
accounts are often compiled from the views
of senior HR managers, and it is doubtful that
these managers would say that it is anyone
but they that have a key role in HR work.
Such statements justify their specialist
``expert'' role, and help to keep their power
base alive. If they did say anything different
on line managers' capability in HRM they
could be running the risk of ensuring their
own redundancy. Second, HR are unlikely to
argue that the line are totally ``capable'' in
HRM, as this comment would undermine the
legitimacy of HR's role in ``policing'' the line.
Third, if the dominant model of HR line
responsibilities for HR tasks is one of line
dominance (Poole and Jenkins, 1997) and of
HR acting as advisers to the line (Tyson and
Fell, 1995), then criticising line capability in
HRM is inaccurate as:
. line managers have previously been
trusted enough to do this work by senior
managers (see Brewster and Larsen, 2000;
Currie and Procter, 2001; Guest and King,
2001; Marsh, 1971; Marsh and Gillies, 1983;
Ulrich, 1997, 1998, 2001);
. if one group's responsibility is to ``do''
(line) and the other is to ``advise'' (HR),
then both are at fault if all goes wrong, as
neither seem to have done ``their'' job
properly. Only blaming line managers for
this situation is a biased case;
. it ignores the issue that ``specialist'' HR
managers may be giving line managers
poor advice and/or support in HR work in
the first place (see Brewster and Larsen,
2000; Currie and Procter, 2001).
Thus HR managers have a vested interest in
how well devolution of HR work to the line
works in practice:
. . .on the part of HR managers, there appears
to be a desire to keep hold of at least some of
their operational responsibilities . . . the HR
function's successful execution of operational
responsibilities is seen as important for the
credibility needed to exercise influence at a
strategic level (Currie and Procter, 2001,
p. 54).
We can only speculate whether HR managers
will be totally willing to hand over full
responsibility for operational HR work
(including employee career development,
ECD) to the line. Moreover, we can only
guess whether line managers will seek more
or less involvement in ECD, as although
some HRD work has traditionally rested with
them (Walton, 1999), the line may not
necessarily be interested in a game of
political football with HR managers over it,
as it is only one element of their current role.
Further research is needed on these issues.
The role of executives in future line and HR
managerial careers
The willingness of CEOs to abandon a
devolution approach if the line prove
incapable in doing HR work well is in
question. This does not look promising as
Guest et al. (2001) found that executives are
sometimes not for turning. A question
arising is whether CEOs are actively limiting
the career development of line managers by
allowing HR managers to still ``devolve'' HR
work to the line. This could be seen through
the line being more easily replaced as the
``generalist'' managers. Or the opposite may
occur as the line become more marketable
now they have taken on development of staff.
If the line prove to be ``poor'' at HR work and
employee complaints and/or grievances
against them rise, then HR managers will
need to persuade senior executives to
abandon a devolution approach. Questions
arising are whether HR managers will do
this, as the costs of doing so for HR are high.
The implication of failed devolution for HR
managers are that HR need to pick up
``operational'' HR work and possibly reduce
their ``strategic'' input as a result. HR
managers may therefore be seen to be
actively limiting line management careers by
``dumping'' HR work on the line. If these last
points are accurate, then it may well seem
that it is HR specialists who are to blame for
poor people management practice, as they
have not fulfilled the roles they have been
given of supporting and advising the line in
it. Clearly we need further research to again
be done here.
Implications surrounding devolution on line
and HR managers' careers
A fear of reduced influence or even of
redundancy seems to be apparent in HR
managers' minds if they devolve too much
HR work to the line, and the line complete it
successfully. HR managers may well be right
to be concerned, because it then becomes
harder to measure the contribution of HR
specialists if the line are ``doing'' HR work,
[ 411 ]
Douglas Renwick and
Christina M. MacNeil
Line manager involvement in
careers
Career Development
International
7/7 [2002] 407±414
[ 412 ]
and there is the further prospect of tensions
arising with line managers (Bach, 1999,
quoted in Sisson and Storey, 2000, pp.219-20).
However, loss of influence and fear of
redundancy are also key issues from a line
manager perspective. For them there is the
question of whether line managers will move
to a lower organisational status if they take
on HR work. This is due to this work being
more ``generalist'', making it easier to replace
line managers, and it also being seen as low
status work (as HR work has had a
``Cinderella'' tag associated with it in the
past). Moreover, questions remain over
whether line managers undertaking HR work
are able to reach a high technical level in it,
and what rewards are associated with taking
on this ``new'' (HR) work. The implication in
the literature is that the line will not reach a
high technical level of expertise in HRM
(Cunningham and Hyman, 1999; Harris, 2001;
Marsh and Gillies, 1983; Redman, 2001), and
neither will they receive any extra pay for
taking on these extra HR duties.
For HR managers, the changes in their
careers lie in the immediate opportunities of
not only devolving HR work to the line, and
then of ``moving on up'' into a strategic HR
role (Kelly and Gennard, 2001). Some may
even move further on up to an international
HR management role as firms become
increasingly more international in scope and
operations (Brewster et al., 2001). However,
such trends imply a loss of national middle-
management HR jobs, and less need for base-
level HR administrators, as organisations
take advantage of providing HR advice and
services by using HR call-centres and e-HR
intranets/Internets. For line managers there
is scope to ``move on out'' of a solely
operational line role to become a more
generalist middle manager as HR work is
incorporated into their daily routines.
However, this increased career mobility
comes with the price of greater stress in the
job, as new (HR) skills need to be learnt, less
personal HR advice and support is available
to them, (as HR management numbers are
reduced as HR become strategic or
international), and HR services are provided
by HR call-centres/e-HR. So, we may see
enhanced HR careers for the few HR
managers able to take advantage of these
opportunities now, and enhanced line
careers that are more stressful for their role
occupants. With all of the moves towards
downsizing and de-layering of middle-
management jobs, and the constant threat of
outsourcing the HR function, many
managers may well feel that the roles they
have now been assigned to are perhaps worth
having, whatever problems they pose.
Research has identified that both HR and
line managers derive mutual benefits from
these current changes to their roles ± the line
gain a more rounded view of management,
and HR are released to gain a strategic
perspective (Kelly and Gennard, 2001). But
whether this situation remains in the future
remains to be seen. Certainly, executive
views about line manager involvement in
HRM are that ``good people management''
was ``as much about the way front-line
supervisors, team leaders and middle
managers engaged with their staff as it was
about implementing particular HR practices''
(Guest and King, 2001, p. 25). The view that
the line have an important role to play in
developing and managing people does not
look set to decline, as it has been in existence
for at least 20 years (see Marsh and Gillies,
1983), but it also is the current view of senior
executives. So, whether the line or HR like
line manager involvement in HRM or not, it
looks set to continue at least into the short
term.
Conclusion
We consider that there are many areas of
future research on line manager involvement
in careers that are useful to consider. First,
there is a need to understand how line
managers develop themselves in HR work
and how they learn about it. Of particular
interest here is whether most of their
knowledge, skill and ability in it derives via
formal or informal means, coaching by HR
managers, experiential learning, or off-the-
job exercises (as well as their uptake of e-HR
and HR call-centres). Second, whether they
see their involvement in the career
development of their staff as enhancing or
limiting their own career development.
Third, there is a need to gain employee views
of line manager skill levels in developing
employees (the view of those on the receiving
end of line ECD interventions), which
includes what priority the line is seen to
attach to employee development. Fourth,
what the main changes are being seen to
managerial jobs and careers arising from
line involvement in careers in general. This
includes questions of what a line
management job and career is today in the
context of rapid organisational change,
flatter structures, downsizing, de-layering,
changing psychological contracts, and
peripheral and knowledge working. It also
includes issues around whether if line
managers can secure their own career
development when their ``employability'' is
in question, and how they can further
employee career development in this context.

Douglas Renwick and
Christina M. MacNeil
Notes
Line manager involvement in
careers
Career Development
International
7/7 [2002] 407±414
1 Line managers are defined here as middle and
junior level managers that undertake general
management work in work organisations, and
are not specialists in any functional area, e.g.
HR, marketing, sales, etc. (Legge, 1995).
Distinctions can be made between line
managers and supervisors (as per Currie and
Procter, 2001, p. 54), and front-line (FL) and
first-line managers (FLM) and supervisors are
seen to have a key role to play in day-to-day
HRM (Storey, 1992; Marchington, 2001). Here
we focus on all line managers, whether
designated ``middle managers'' (Currie and
Procter, 2001, p. 54), or not, as we see the issues
raised have relevance to FMs, FLMs and
supervisors too.
2 We have distinguished three broad types of
employee relations manager. First, there are
those whose dedicated function is the
management of employee relations, identified
by having any of the terms ``personnel, human
resources or industrial, employee or staff
relations'' in their job title. We refer to them
hereafter as ER specialists. The second group
are managers who have a specialist
responsibility for a function other than
employee relations, but whose job also
includes responsibility for employee relations
at the workplace. These include marketing
and sales managers, accountants and other
professional and technical managers. We refer
to them as line managers. Finally, there are
those managers who have overall
responsibility for the workplace, including the
management of employee relations. These
include general managers and site managers,
with titles such as branch, office or depot
manager in service industries and works or
plant manager in manufacturing. We refer to
this group as ``generalists'' (Millward et al.,
2000, pp. 51-2).
3 We may alternatively call them first-line
managers (Storey, 1992) or front-line
managers. The main logic of looking at this
group is that the issues that are involved at
this level are similar to those that will face
more senior designated ``line'' or ``general''
managers ± middle managers in general
(Torrington and Hall, 1998, quoted in Currie
and Procter, 2001).
4 ``A two-part study of middle managers'
interpretation and application of
performance-related pay processes in a
variety of organisational contexts . . . first
phase in 1995 and involved a survey of 60
managers. They were predominantly in
middle management roles . . . In 80 per cent of
the organizations respondents were
responsible for making decisions about pay
for the employees in their own sections or
departments . . . second phase of the research
took place in 1988-1989. All the previous
respondents were re-contacted and 36 of them
took part in a series of follow-up, in-depth
interviews'' (Harris, 2001, pp. 1182-3).
5 Our interpretation from our reading of
Brewster and Larsen (2000); Deeks (2000);
Beaver and Harris (1996, cited in Harris, 2001);
Redman (2001); Walton (1999); Cunningham
and Hyman (1999); Marchington (2001);
Cunningham and James (2001); MacNeil
(2001); Rollinson et al. (1996); Millward et al.
(2000); Harris (2001) respectively.
6 Our interpretation from our reading of Harris
(2001); Cunningham and James (2001);
Brewster and Larsen (2000) respectively.
7 Adapted from Brewster and Larsen (2000);
Budhwar (2000); Currie and Procter (2001); IRS
Employment Trends (1995, 1996); Harris (2001);
Walton (1999); Marchington (1999); Sisson and
Storey (2000); Sparrow (1999); Thornhill and
Saunders (1998); Marsh and Gillies (1983);
Eisenstat (1996); Hutchinson and Wood (1995);
Ulrich (1997, 1998, 2001) respectively.
References
Brewster, C. and Larsen, H.H. (1992), ``Human
resource management in Europe: evidence
from ten countries'', The International
Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 3 No. 3, December, pp. 409-34.
Brewster, C. and Larsen, H.H. (Eds) (2000),
Human Resource Management in Northern
Europe: Trends, Dilemmas and Strategy,
Blackwell, Oxford.
Brewster, C., Harris, H. and Sparrow, P. (2001),
``On top of the world'', People Management,
25 October, pp. 37-42.
Budhwar, P.S. (2000), ``Evaluating levels of
strategic integration and devolvement of
human resource management in the UK'',
Personnel Review, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 141-61.
Cunningham, I. and Hyman, J. (1999), ``Devolving
human resource responsibilities to the line:
beginning of the end or a new beginning for
personnel?'', Personnel Review, Vol. 28
No. 1/2, pp. 9-27.
Cunningham, I. and James, P. (2001), ``Line
managers as people managers: prioritising
the needs of the long-term sick and those with
disabilities'', British Academy of Management
Conference Paper, Cardiff University.
Currie, G. and Procter, S. (2001), ``Exploring the
relationship between HR and middle
managers'', Human Resource Management
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 53-69.
Deeks, E. (2000), ``Self-service is hard work'',
People Management, 23 November, Vol. 26
No. 23, p. 9.
Eisenstat, R.A. (1996), ``What corporate human
resources brings to the picnic: four models for
functional management'', Organizational
Dynamics, Autumn, pp. 7-22.
Guest, D. (1987), ``Human resource management
and industrial relations'', Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 24, September,
pp. 503-22.
[ 413 ]
Douglas Renwick and Guest, D. and King, Z. (2001), ``HR and the bottom
Christina M. MacNeil line'', People Management, 27 September,
Line manager involvement in pp. 34-9.
careers
Guest, D., King, Z., Conway, N., Michie, J. and
Career Development Sheehan-Quinn, M. (2001), Voices from the
International
7/7 [2002] 407±414 Boardroom, Chartered Institute of Personnel
and Development, London.
Harris, L. (2001), ``Rewarding employee
performance: line manager's values, beliefs
and perspectives'', The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, Vol. 12
No. 7.
Hutchinson, S. and Wood, S. (1995), Personnel and
the Line: Developing the New Relationship,
Institute of Personnel and Development,
London.
IRS Employment Trends (1995), ``Changes in
personnel'', No. 598, December, pp. 4-9.
IRS Employment Trends (1996), ``The changing
world of personnel'', No. 604, March, pp. 4-11.
Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S. (2000), Managing
Human Resources: A Partnership Perspective,
7th ed., International Thomson Publishing,
London.
Kelly, J. and Gennard, J. (2001), The Effective
Personnel Director: Power and Influence in the
Boardroom, Routledge, London.
Legge, K. (1995), Human Resource Management:
Rhetorics and Realities, Macmillan Business,
Basingstoke.
MacNeil, C.M. (2001), ``The supervisor as a
facilitator of informal learning in work
teams'', Journal of Workplace Learning,
Vol. 13 Nos. 5 and 6, pp. 246-53.
Marchington, M. (1999), ``Professional
qualification scheme: core personnel &
development exam papers & examiners'
reports May 1999'', Institute of Personnel and
Development, paper presented at the IPD
Professional Standards Conference,
University of Warwick, Coventry, July,
pp. 1-12.
Marchington, M. (2001), ``Employee Involvement
at Work'', in Storey, J. (Ed.) Human Resource
Management: A Critical Text, 2nd ed.,
Thomson, London.
Marsh, A.I. (1971), ``The staffing of industrial
relations management in the engineering
industry'', Industrial Relations Journal,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 14-24.
Marsh, A.I. and Gillies, J.G. (1983), ``The
involvement of line and staff managers in
industrial relations'', as quoted in Thurley, K.
and Wood, S. (Eds), Industrial Relations And
Management Strategy, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 27-38.
[ 414 ]
Millward, N., Bryson, A. and Forth, J. (2000), All
Change at Work? British Employment
Relations 1980-1998, as portrayed by the
Workplace Industrial Relations Survey
series, Routledge, London.
Poole, M. and Jenkins, G. (1997), ``Responsibilities
for human resource management practices in
the modern enterprise'', Personnel Review,
Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 333-56.
Procter, S. and Currie, G. (1999), ``The role of the
personnel function: roles, processes and
perceptions in an NHS Trust'', International
Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 10 No. 6, December, pp. 1077-91.
Redman, T. (2001), ``Performance appraisal'', in
Redman, T. and Wilkinson, A. (Eds),
Contemporary Human Resource Management,
Pearson Education, Harlow, pp. 57-95.
Rollinson, D., Hook, C., Foot, M. and Handley, J.
(1996), ``Supervisor and manager styles in
handling discipline and grievance: part two ±
approaches to handling discipline and
grievance'', Personnel Review, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 38-55.
Sisson, K. and Storey, J. (2000), The Realities of
Human Resource Management, Open
University Press, Buckingham.
Sparrow, P. (1999), ``Is HRM in crisis?'', in
Schuler, R.S. and Jackson, S.E. (Eds),
Strategic Human Resource Management,
Blackwell, Oxford.
Storey, J. (1992), Developments in the Management
of Human Resources, Blackwell, Oxford.
Storey, J. (2001), ``Human resource management
today: an assessment'', in Storey, J. (Ed.)
Human Resource Management: A Critical
Text, 2nd ed., Thomson, London.
Thornhill, A. and Saunders, M.N.K. (1998), ``What
if line managers don't realize they're
responsible for HR? Lessons from an
organization experiencing rapid change'',
Personnel Review, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 460-76.
Tyson, S. and Fell, A. (1995), Evaluating the
Personnel Function, 2nd ed., Stanley Thornes,
Cheltenham.
Ulrich, D. (1997), Human Resource Champions:
The Next Agenda for Adding Value and
Delivering Results, Harvard University Press,
Boston, MA.
Ulrich, D. (1998), ``A new mandate for human
resources'', Harvard Business Review,
January-February, pp. 124-34.
Ulrich, D. (2001), ``The evolution of a professional
agenda'', Financial Times, Mastering People
Management, 15 October, pp. 2-3.
Walton, J. (1999), Strategic Human Resource
Management, Pearson Education, Harlow.