“The effectiveness of front-line managers as

implementers of HRM”

The effect of facilitating factors; competences, time

capacity and HR support

Master’s thesis Human Resource Studies

Tilburg University

Name: Floortje Lansbergen

Address: Veestraat 131-05, 5021 PP Tilburg
ANR s565494
First supervisor: Paul Boselie
Second supervisor: Brigitte Kroon
Project period: February – December 2010
Abstract

Although literature states that the responsibility for HRM implementation is

increasingly devolved to front-line managers (FLMs), little research addresses
what makes FLMs effective in doing so. This study examined the extent to which
time capacity, perceived HR-related competences and support from HR
professionals facilitate FLMs in effectively implementing HRM. The multi-
source questionnaire data of 58 teams within one organization show that
employee and management perceptions on what makes a manager an effective
HRM implementer do differ. Results show that in the perception of subordinates,
time capacity is the only factor significantly contributing to a FLM‟s HRM
implementation effectiveness, while in the perception of FLMs their competences
are the only factor facilitating them in effective implementation. HR support is
not shown to have any effect. These results are reflected upon with FLMs during
interviews. This study confirms the central role of line managers in the HRM-
organizational performance link, and emphasizes the added value of including
employee perceptions.

Key words: Human Resource Management, strategy implementation, devolution,

line managers, multi-source data, the Netherlands.
1. Introduction

A policy can be very well-designed, but does not have the intended effect on the organization as long
as it is not evenly well-implemented. Generally the „designer‟ is not the same person as the
„implementer‟. Thus it is useful to identify the crucial actors in implementing strategies, and how these
actors give shape to a strategy in practice. This is a common theme in organizations, and also in the
field of human resource management (HRM). This clearly appeared from the enthusiasm about the
topic from participating members of the organization. In HRM research, the unclear linkage between
HRM policies and organizational outcomes is called the „black box‟. In the last 15 years, substantial
research is performed on the link between HRM and organizational performance (Wright & Boswell,
2002). Research shows that a certain link between Human Resource (HR) practices and several
organizational outcomes is apparent (Huselid, 1995; Huselid, Jackson, & Schuler, 1997; Wright,
Gardner, & Moynihan, 2003; Delery & Doty, 1996; Guest, Michie, Conway, & Sheehan, 2003), but
the intermediate linkages and processes that shape the causal chain are not clear yet (Boselie, Dietz, &
Boon, 2005; Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007).

The first step to get from HRM policies to organizational outcomes is to implement these policies.
Wright and Nishii (2006) developed a useful process model of strategic HRM. They emphasize that to
get from an HR policy to organizational performance an HRM implementation process is involved.
Results show that implemented HRM may be substantially different from intended HRM (Khilji &
Wang, 2006). More researchers acknowledge the importance of the HRM implementation process.
The discussion on who should be responsible for HRM implementation seems to shift from the HR
function to the line manager (Whittaker & Marchington, 2003). The line manager is found to be in the
right position to implement HR practices in conjunction with its day-to-day (people) management
activities, as he is in close contact with employees to motivate and manage them, and is able to
response quickly to local problems (Cunningham & Hyman, 1999; Budhwar, 2000; Larsen &
Brewster, 2003; Watson, Maxwell, & Farquharson, 2006; Renwick, 2000). However, the line manager
has to combine its HR responsibilities with other duties. If organizations aim to make line managers
more effective implementers, it is useful to get insight into how this is experienced by these line
managers.
Currently, research is done on HRM effectiveness (Perry & Kulik, 2008; Van Veldhoven, Debats, &
Dorenbosch, 2009; Wright, McMahan, Snell, & Gerhart, 2001) and on line managers‟ experiences
with their new HR responsibilities (Renwick, 2000; Cunningham, James, & Dibben, 2004), but the
relationship between those two factors is hardly ever explored. Furthermore, only few studies focus on
line managers as implementers of HRM by questioning themselves (Renwick, 2003; Whittaker &
Marchington, 2003); often HR professionals are asked for their opinions on line managers‟
effectiveness (e.g. Perry & Kulik, 2008). So, two main issues appear that need to be addressed: The

1
relationship between line managers‟ experiences with performing HR tasks and HRM implementation
effectiveness, by means of investigating line managers themselves.
The so-called devolution theory investigating the „devolvement‟ of HR responsibilities from HR
professionals to line managers, identified multiple factors that could affect the effectiveness of line
managers‟ HRM implementation. Based on an analysis of both the devolution literature and the
context of the specific case organization, the most relevant factors that could facilitate line managers
in performing their HR tasks are identified. These factors are experienced time capacity (being able to
balance its time between HR and operational duties), perceived HR support (delivered by HR
professionals), and the line manager‟s perception on its own level of HR-related competences. Based
on the devolution theory it is expected that these three facilitating factors will enhance line managers‟
HRM implementation effectiveness.

This outcome variable, HRM implementation effectiveness, has a strong link with organizational
performance. But, as Wright and Nishii (2006) show, employee perception and reaction are powerful
mediators in this relationship. Other studies proved as well that HRM implementation effectiveness (or
the HRM - organizational performance relationship) should best be measured by including employee
perceptions (Guest et al, 2003; Guest, 1999; Wright & Boswell, 2002; Gerhart, Wright, McMahan, &
Snell, 2000; Nehles, Terhalle, van Riemsdijk, & Looise, 2010b). As employees play such a crucial
role, employee perceptions on implemented HRM are central to this study: HRM is defined to be
effectively implemented when employees are satisfied with the way their line manager has performed
its HR responsibilities, as employee perception will affect employee behavior (Wright & Nishii,
2006). This will be discussed in more detail in the theoretical framework.
Nehles et al. (2010b) delivered an effort to first test this relationship, and developed a scale to measure
the variables. The study of Nehles et al. (2010b) will be repeated, but with a specific focus on three
facilitating factors. HRM implementation effectiveness will be assessed by both front-line managers
and their subordinates, and directly linked to each other, whereas Nehles could not link the specific
outcomes per team (Nehles et al., 2010b). Moreover, there is little shared understanding about how to
achieve effective HRM implementation (Perry & Kulik, 2008). Therefore it is useful to extent this
narrow quantitative study with a qualitative design. A series of interviews is used to explore the
interpretation of front-line managers of the concepts time capacity, perceived competences and HR
support, and their contribution to front-line managers‟ effectiveness. This can create a more in-depth
view on the proposed relationships.

To recapitulate, in this study a quantitative study will be followed up by a qualitative study. First,
questionnaires are used to assess three facilitating factors (perceived by FLMs) and their influence on
FLMs‟ HRM implementation effectiveness (perceived by FLMs and their subordinates). Second, a
qualitative design is used to make a more in-depth interpretation of the quantitative results, aiming to

2
get a better view on factors influencing front-line managers‟ HRM implementation effectiveness.
Leading to the following research question:

“To what extent do perceived time capacity, competences and HR support enhance front-line
managers‟ HRM implementation effectiveness within Netwerk VSP?”

This study contributes to a newly developing field of research within HRM, namely the devolvement
of HRM tasks to line management. It is unique in assessing line management perceptions to measure
the variables. Furthermore it includes multi-respondent research by assessing the subordinates of line
managers as well. This provides an extra validation of the line management‟s perception. The follow-
up of the quantitative study with a series of interviews enables an extra validation check of the
quantitative results. Next to a validation check this can be used to interpret the quantitative data to get
a more in-depth view on the topic and give meaning to the results in the specific context. At last it is a
valuable study because it is a repetition and extension of the study of Nehles et al. (2010b) in a
specific context. The interaction between the specific context and the theories tested makes it extra
valuable. Next to this scientific relevance, the societal relevance is created by the direct applicability
of this study to HRM within organizations. The results of for instance the facilitating factors can be
directly translated into interventions needed in practice. Furthermore, the effectiveness of line
managers‟ HRM implementation is a current topic in practice as well, and the insights of this study
can help to enhance effectiveness and consequently benefit the following boxes within the HR value
chain (Wright & Nishii, 2006).

Next a theoretical overview will be given, from which elements will be combined into a contextually
and empirically relevant research model. After that, the methods and results will be described and
reflected upon in the discussion.

3
2. Theoretical framework

Human resource management (HRM) can be defined as “all those activities associated with the
management of work and people in firms” (Boxall & Purcell, 2008, p. 1). During the last two decades
extensive research is performed to clarify which HRM activities or practices add most value to the
organization (Boselie, Dietz, & Boon, 2005). Nowadays, the HRM field starts to realize that next to
determining what the best practices are, it is evenly important to pay attention to how these practices
are enacted in practice, and how they are perceived by employees. This creates a shift in the HRM
literature which is also widely displayed in the broader strategy literature. Next, this shift will be
elaborated upon, and process models focused on HRM implementation are discussed. After that, these
are linked to the current study on what determines the success of HRM implementation.

2.1 HRM implementation

From the mid-nineties on a stream of strategic human resource management (SHRM) research started
to explore the effect of HRM on broader organizational outcomes. Many studies aimed to find
empirical evidence for the relevance of human resource practices to organizational performance (e.g.,
Huselid, 1995; Arthur, 1994; MacDuffie, 1995). Simultaneously, authors argue for a “best practices”
approach to SHRM, stating that some HR practices are always best to implement for every
organization, regardless of differences in context or strategy. For example Pfeffer created a list of
seven management practices which would result in higher productivity and profit for the organization
(Pfeffer, 1998). But researchers do not agree on the choice for which practices should be included in a
bundle of best practices (Boselie et al., 2005). To measure which practices are most prominently used
within organizations, studies investigate the „coverage‟ of the practice; in other words asking the target
employee group or managers to which degree a certain practice is applied (e.g., Huselid, 1995).
This stream of SHRM research on which „best‟ practices contribute most to organizational
performance has valuable implications for research and practice. This stream however adopts a form
of managerialism assuming that the performance of all organizations can be optimized when having
the knowledge on what general management practices are best to adopt. Becker and Huselid (2006)
correctly note that the SHRM theory has relied on the assumption that effective implementation of
these best practices will follow automatically. As a typical example they mention that Barney
originally omitted implementation from the resource based view model, but he later stated that
implementing strategies correctly, can by itself be a source of a competitive advantage (Becker &
Huselid, 2006). This is increasingly acknowledged in the broader strategy literature. The strategy-as-
practice approach emphasizes that strategy should be seen as an ongoing activity that firms and people
do rather than have (Regner, 2008). And thus the enactors or practitioners of the strategy should be
seen as carriers and creators, and as interpreters of strategy, who may enact the same strategy
differently using their own experience and skills (Whittington, 2006). Therefore the implementation

4
process should be seen as an independent but crucial linkage between designed HR practices and their
outcomes on the business. More research is needed to gain insight into this implementation process.

So when reviewing the HRM literature a gradual shift can be observed from identifying the best
practices towards conceptualizing the process through which these HR practices have an effect on the
organization. The intermediate linkages that connect HRM and organizational performance are not
clear yet, and therefore this is called the „black box‟ in HRM literature. However attempts are made to
develop process models to clarify this relationship. For example Becker, Huselid, Pickus and Spratt
(1997) and Guest (1997) developed models where HRM practices are derived from a general strategy,
and these practices affect employee behavior, ultimately resulting in organizational outcomes like
market value and financial outcomes (in Paauwe & Boselie, 2005). Employee responses are in the
centre of all HRM-performance models as the link between employee reactions and their subsequent
behavior is regarded as critical (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). However, these models do provide
insight into what „boxes‟ link HRM to performance, but they do not give any implications on how to
support the process to move forward between the separate boxes.
Wright and Nishii (2006) suggest a process model of SHRM where the process to get from one box to
another is described as well. It is also a multi-level model that incorporates both the job group (team)
and individual level. This model is displayed in Figure 1. It starts with intended HR practices that are
implemented and become actual practices. The implementation of new practices requires organizations
and individuals to change their routines. Wright and Nishii (2006) argue that during implementation,
these new employee behaviors should be institutionalized into a regular routine. Consequently, via a

5
process of communicating messages to employees and information processing by employees these
practices are perceived and interpreted by employees. Based on these perceptions and individual
differences, employees define a strategy for their reaction on these perceived HR practices. This
reaction can be affective (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment), cognitive (knowledge or
skill) and/or behavioral (task performance and effort). Wright and Nishii (2006) reason that individual
reactions should be coordinated to be consistent or complementary to have a positive effect on
organizational performance. This can be related back to the organizational structure, task design and
team processes. For example the climate literature found that shared perceptions on what behaviors are
expected and rewarded, enhance organizational performance (Schneider, Hanges, Brent Smith, &
Salvaggio, 2003). Organizational performance is defined as operational outcomes (productivity,
quality) and employee-related outcomes (absenteeism, turnover) (Wright & Nishii, 2006).

By differentiating between intended and actual HR practices the model “recognizes that not all
intended HR practices are actually implemented, and those that are may often be implemented in ways
that differ from the initial intention” (Wright & Nishii, 2006, p. 11). This is based on the notion of
Mintzberg (1978) that the espoused strategy of organizations often differs from the realized strategy
(in Wright & Nishii, 2006). This reflects the rationale of this study, and therefore the model of Wright
and Nishii (2006) will be used to position this study in the broader HRM-performance discussion. This
study addresses the crucial question: What makes HRM implementation successful? Next, a short
outline will be given of what is understood as effective HRM implementation. After that, theories
explaining the process of effectively implementing HRM are discussed, and the focus of this study is
made clear.

2.2 HRM implementation effectiveness

From the preceding can be concluded that the implementation of HR practices forms a crucial link
between designed best practices and their effect on organizational outcomes. The effectiveness of
HRM is partly defined by the choice for specific HR practices but moreover by the effectiveness of the
implementation of these HR practices (Huselid et al., 1997). The importance of implementation is
recognized in other fields of research as well. For example research on project management shows that
implementation is the key stage in determining the success of projects (Thi & Swierczek, 2010). Also
the marketing and logistics traditions aim to identify the challenges and barriers faced when
implementing a strategy (González-Torre, Álvarez, Sarkis, & Adenso-Díaz, 2010; Olsen &
Boxenbaum, 2009).

When aiming to define HRM implementation effectiveness it is necessary to explore what would make
an implementation process successful. The model of Wright and Nishii (2006) is a useful tool to do

6
that. Wright and Nishii (2006) state that the decision makers presumably analyzed the situation and
designed HR practices (derived from an HR strategy) that will best elicit the behaviors from
employees necessary to improve organizational performance. Following this logic one could argue
that HR practices are implemented successfully when they are exactly implemented as intended.
However, as Whittington (2006) also states, implementers do naturally interpret HR practices and
policies by using their own knowledge and skill base, and implement the practices in a way that fits
their situation. This could nevertheless be very beneficial to the organization, as this might result in
more positive perceptions by the employees. Based on the social exchange theory, Purcell and
Hutchinson (2007) state that employees‟ experience of actual people management is reciprocated back
to the organization by employees through positive attitudes and behavior. Thus when employees
perceive that the organization meets their expectations, they are likely to reflect that in their attitudes
and behaviors. This is also incorporated in the model of Wright and Nishii (2006), where the
implementation of HR practices affects employee perception and behavior.
From this short review it is concluded that for HRM implementation to be effective, the actual HR
practices should be positively interpreted by the targeted employees. As it is the employees‟
experience of implemented HR practices and how these affect them that will eventually influence
organizational performance (Khilji & Wang, 2006). Therefore the subordinates are questioned to rate
their front-line managers‟ effectiveness. Thus HRM implementation effectiveness is defined as the
satisfaction of front-line managers‟ subordinates with the way their line manager carries out the HR
activities in practice (adapted from Nehles et al., 2010b). Satisfaction is seen as a useful measure
because it is employees‟ satisfaction with the way HR practices are implemented that will elicit their
reciprocated behaviors (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007). Becker and Huselid (2006) also argue that
taking key intermediate outcomes (rather than firm performance outcomes) as dependent variable is
useful to investigate strategy implementation. Additionally, to test for differences between perceptions
of line managers and their subordinates, the line managers are also asked to rate their own
effectiveness concerning HRM implementation. This way can be determined if front-line managers
and subordinates differ in their perception on what makes a line manager effective in implementing
HRM.

This study investigates the implementation of the following HR practices; personnel administration,
job design, recruitment and selection, training and development, rewarding, appraisal and personal
coaching. The greater part of these practices is labeled „best practices‟ by earlier research. They reflect
the HR activities defined in the AMO model of Appelbaum et al. (2000), to support employee ability,
motivation and opportunity to participate (in Boselie, 2010). More importantly, these HR activities
were identified by the case organization as the core HR practices performed by line management.
Now effective HRM implementation is defined, current theoretical developments regarding HRM
implementation will be discussed.

7
2.3 Devolution of HRM implementation

In this study the focus lies on the implementation process to get from intended to actual HR practices,
as emphasized in Figure 1. Yet little is known about the actual implementation of HR practices, as
research is mainly focused on the intended HR practices (Paauwe & Boselie, 2005). Rarely any
research is done on what factors contribute to successfully implementing HRM.
However a clear development can be distinguished. The responsibility for implementing HRM is
shifting from the personnel specialists to line management. As a reaction to a business environment
that is increasingly turbulent and competitive, a trend is visible towards „real-time‟ pressure on
decision making and a focus on stimulating employee inputs to improve organizations‟ competitive
advantage (Hoogendoorn & Brewster, 1992; Watson et al., 2006). To meet these environmental
demands, HRM implementation is increasingly devolved to line management (Budhwar, 2000;
Nehles, van Riemsdijk, Kok, & Looise, 2006; Larsen & Brewster, 2003; Budhwar & Sparrow, 1997;
Schuler, 1992). This development is called devolvement or devolution and is defined by Brewster &
Larsen (1992, p. 412) as “the degree to which HR practice involves and gives responsibility to line
managers rather than personnel specialists” (in Nehles et al, 2006). Devolvement theory studies the
implications of this shift for line managers and their job. This body of theory will be used to embed the
explanatory variables in this study, and will be complemented by linking this knowledge to the
outcome variable HRM implementation effectiveness. This link has rarely been studied. It does make
sense to study this topic in the Dutch context, as the Netherlands is one of the leading European
countries in devolving HR responsibilities to line management (Nehles et al., 2006; Larsen &
Brewster, 2003). With line management is meant the direct supervisor of subordinates, called front-
line managers. The definition of front-line managers (FLMs) of Hales (2005), adapted by Nehles et al.
(2006), will be used in this study: “The lowest line managers at the operational level, who manage a
team of operational employees on a day-to-day basis and are responsible for performing HR activities”
(p. 257). To be clear, HR devolvement is different from HR decentralization, where HR
responsibilities are shifted from a central HR function to decentralized HR specialists (Hall &
Torrington, 1998). Next the implications of devolving HR responsibilities to line management are
discussed.

Several benefits of devolvement have been mentioned in previous empirical research, e.g. certain
issues would be too complex for top management to comprehend, it might reduce costs, and line
managers are able to respond more quickly to the local context and local problems (Budhwar, 2000). It
can result in better motivation of employees and more effective control, as line managers are in close
contact with employees on a daily basis (Budhwar & Sparrow, 1997). Another reason that has been
put forward by Larsen and Brewster (2003) is the need to link HRM with other aspects of day-to-day
management, making it an integral part of management.

8
As it might have some benefits to devolve HR tasks to line managers, it might also cause certain
problems. Problems mentioned by researchers are line managers not willing to take up this
responsibility, or not being sufficiently skilled nor trained (Larsen & Brewster, 2003; Cunningham &
Hyman, 1995; Martins, 2007). Line managers are no HR specialists and therefore often not aware of
recent developments in the HRM field (Larsen & Brewster, 2003). They also have difficulties with
translating advice from HR professionals into practice (Renwick, 2000). Other issues addressed are
line managers not having enough time to take up HR tasks, or lacking a broader organisational or
long-term view (short-termism). A problem that may also arise is a situation where managers do have
the responsibility but are not accountable for it, or do not get sufficient support from their supervisors
or from the HR department (Watson et al., 2006; Renwick, 2000; Becker & Huselid, 2006).

Research has been done on factors that hinder line managers in performing HR tasks, but it is seldom
studied if those constraining factors also diminish their effectiveness. Nehles and colleagues did study
this relationship, by linking five constraining factors to a measure of HRM implementation
effectiveness. Nehles et al. (2006) found that the devolution problems can be categorized in five
„constraints‟, based on i.a. Cunningham and Hyman (1999) and Hall and Torrington (1998): (1) Line
managers do not have enough time (capacity); (2) They are unwilling (desire); (3) They lack HR-
related competences; (4) They lack support from HR professionals; And (5) they lack policies and
procedures to guide them (Nehles et al., 2010b). Nehles was the first to test the relevance of these
factors simultaneously by combining them in one coherent model. Only the factors competences,
capacity, support and desire were found to be significantly related to HRM implementation
effectiveness, whereof competences is the most salient factor, still being significant when controlled
for context. However, contradictory to the expectations, a higher degree of desire relates to a lower
score on effectiveness (Nehles et al., 2010b).

Thus many factors are identified to have an effect on HRM implementation by line managers, and
Nehles et al. (2010b) delivered an effort to first test this relationship. In the current study is chosen for
a case study design to be able to control for other organizational contingencies that might influence the
relationship (Yin, 1994). The choice for a case study design brings along a restriction that only a
limited number of teams is available to investigate within this organization. Therefore a choice is
made to focus only on the most relevant factors influencing HRM implementation effectiveness, based
on an analysis of both literature and the organizational context. An in-depth analysis of these factors
with multiple data sources is made, covering specific contextual conditions (Yin, 1994). McGovern et
al. (1997) found that line managers evidently are motivated to perform HR tasks, specifically by
personal motivation rather than career advancement or other rewards (McGovern, Hope-Hailey, &
Stiles, 1997). Becker and Huselid (2006) state it very clearly as well: “managers now “get it” and do
not have to be persuaded that the quality with which they manage the workforce has strategic impact.

9
What they now need is help in understanding how to generate and sustain those potential returns” (p.
921). The factors that are identified both in literature as in practice to be most relevant to line
managers are time capacity, HR-related knowledge and skills (competences), and receiving support
from HR professionals. In this study a positive approach will be adopted. It is expected that the
presence of these factors will facilitate line-managers rather than focusing on the absence of these
factors which will likely constrain FLMs. These three factors are named facilitating factors, as is
believed that when these factors are apparent they will facilitate front-line managers in effectively
implementing HRM. These will be discussed next.

2.4 Facilitating factors in HRM implementation

Next, the three facilitating factors will be outlined by incorporating existing literature on the factors,
and hypotheses will be derived.

Time capacity
The devolvement of HR tasks to line management often adds up to other tasks and responsibilities
FLMs were already expected to perform. This might cause line managers to experience difficulties
with devoting enough time to HR duties as well, especially when short-term pressures dominate
(Renwick, 2000; Nehles et al., 2006). Hence line managers may perceive conflicting demands and
competing priorities between their operational business targets and HR responsibilities (Hope Hailey
et al., 1997; Whittaker & Marchington, 2003). Thus they need to balance their time. Whittaker and
Marchington (2003) found that HR responsibility takes second place in relation to other business
needs. Renwick (2003) found inconsistencies between HR specialists‟ expectations and the actual
enactment of HR activities by line managers, possibly because not enough time is devoted to it. When
there is a discrepancy between the time that should necessarily be spent, and the time that is actually
spent on HR activities, this might create a feeling of overload and might decrease the effectiveness of
line management‟s implementation of HR practices (Perry & Kulik, 2008; Nehles et al., 2010a).
Reilly (as cited in Nehles, van Riemsdijk, & Looise, 2008, p. 7) defines role overload as “a type of
role conflict that results from excessive demands on the time and energy supply of an individual”. In
the employee well-being literature, chronic job demands (e.g. work overload, emotional demands) or
poorly designed jobs are found to destroy employees‟ mental and physical resources, which may
diminish the energy level (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Having feelings of overload due to high job
demands is found to be negatively related to job performance (Bakker, Demerouti, & Verbeke, 2004).

According to these findings it can be expected that a feeling of overload might reduce the
effectiveness of the FLMs‟ performance. As this study takes a positive perspective, being able to
balance all managerial responsibilities and thus experience to have sufficient time capacity to perform

10
HR tasks, is expected to make FLMs more effective implementers. Therefore the following
hypotheses will be tested:

Hypothesis 1a: As a result of the greater time capacity that front-line managers perceive they
have available to spend time on performing HR practices, the more effectively they will
implement these practices on the work floor, as perceived by themselves.

Hypothesis 1b: As a result of the greater time capacity that front-line managers perceive they
have available to spend time on performing HR practices, the more effectively they will
implement these practices on the work floor, as perceived by their subordinates.

These two separate causal relationships are expected as the FLMs‟ HRM implementation effectiveness
is measured by the perception of FLMs themselves and their subordinates. The variables are expected
to have a causal relationship, based on deduction of earlier research (Nehles et al., 2010b). Moreover,
as the theory of reasoned action implies, beliefs and attitudes towards behavior are a credible predictor
of actual behavior (Ajzen, 1991). This can be applied to this study by viewing the perceived time
capacity, competences and HR support as beliefs that predict FLMs‟ behavior (HRM implementation
effectiveness).

Competences
Next to the capacity to perform tasks, line managers also need to know how to apply these practices.
Line managers often have little specialist knowledge and people management skills (Hall &
Torrington, 1998, McGovern, Gratton, Hope Hailey, Stiles, & Truss, 1997). Without training and/or
experience, this lack of skills and knowledge in HR practices will affect line managers‟ effectiveness
(Hope Hailey et al., 2005; Whittaker & Marchington, 2003). This resembles findings of Schmidt and
Hunter (1998) that job experience leads to job knowledge, which is the most important predictor of job
performance.
In this study, line managers themselves are asked to assess their own perception of their level of
competences with regard to performing HR tasks. This measure resembles the concept of occupational
self-efficacy. Self-efficacy can be defined as “the conviction that one can successfully execute a given
behavior required to produce certain outcomes” (Bandura, 1977, p. 193). This is about the own
perception if someone is capable of performing a certain task, given its level of capabilities. This
personal efficacy determines the effort an individual will put into a task, and how long this effort will
be sustained through obstacles (Bandura, 1977). Employee occupational self-efficacy is found to be
related to job performance, commitment, and satisfaction (Schyns & van Collani, 2002), similar to the
effect of „actual‟ competences. This makes it a useful instrument and thus is expected that the own
perception of one‟s competences has an influence on how effectively one is in executing HR tasks.

11
Therefore, the following hypotheses will be tested:

Hypothesis 2a: As a result of the more competences that front-line managers perceive they have
for performing HR practices, the more effectively they will implement these practices on the
work floor, as perceived by themselves.

Hypothesis 2b: As a result of the more competences that front-line managers perceive they have
for performing HR practices, the more effectively they will implement these practices on the
work floor, as perceived by their subordinates.

HR support
Literature shows that line managers are in need of support from HR professionals, like content-based
advice, sharing best practices, encouragement to meet HR responsibilities, and consultation about non-
routine matters (e.g., Bond & Wise, 2003; Hall & Torrington, 1998; Harris et al., 2002). McGovern et
al. (1997) found that the most dominantly used structure in organizations they studied was a model
where line managers were responsible for HR activities, with the support of a specialist HR function.
However, Bond and Wise (2003) found that HR professionals do not always provide line managers
with the services they need, because they do not have time, are not able to provide effective support, or
are reluctant to play a new organizational role (Nehles et al., 2010a; Renwick, 2000). The superior of
the FLMs as well as organizational incentives as a whole are also mentioned in literature in relation to
supporting FLMs to execute HR tasks. This is a different form of support, mainly aimed at motivating
FLMs to deliver high quality HR practices. But as earlier mentioned it is not the motivation of FLMs
that is problematic, but line management requires help on how to implement those practices. Thus
content-based support by HR professionals will be the focus of this study. But line managers are often
not satisfied with the services that HR professionals deliver, because the services are not in time or
incorrect, or HR professionals are not available or willing to advice line managers (Nehles et al.,
2008). Therefore HR support is operationalized as the effectiveness of the support services and
support behavior delivered by HR professionals as perceived by front-line managers. The following
hypotheses can be derived:

Hypothesis 3a: As a result of the more effective HR support that front-line managers perceive
they receive from HR professionals, the more effectively they will implement HR practices on
the work floor, as perceived by themselves.

12
 Hypothesis 3b: As a result of the more effective HR support that front-line managers perceive
they receive from HR professionals, the more effectively they will implement HR practices
on the work floor, as perceived by their subordinates.

Control variables are included to reveal spurious correlations, which can damage the assumptions of
causality. A higher level of experience, age and education level (of the subordinates and the FLM)
might buffer the influence of hindrances faced by FLMs (McGovern et al., 1997). Additionally the
span of control is expected to have an effect on the facilitating factors as well as HRM implementation
effectiveness.

To wrap up, the focus of this study is on the factors that might contribute to line management‟s
effectiveness in implementing HRM. Three distinct factors will be addressed that are often mentioned
in previous literature. These factors are characteristics of the line manager and his job (perceived time
capacity, competences) and his relationship with the HR department (HR support). The theoretical
framework and hypotheses lead to the following conceptual model, as shown in Figure 2.

+ Front-line managers‟ HRM

Competences implementation effectiveness,
perceived by front-line
Time capacity managers

Front-line managers‟ HRM

HR support implementation effectiveness,
perceived by subordinates

Figure 2. Conceptual model

13
3. Methods

3.1 Research set-up

In this study quantitative and qualitative methods are combined to explore the factors contributing to
FLMs‟ HRM implementation effectiveness. First, the effect of three facilitating factors is assessed by
using questionnaire data gathered. Considering the objective of testing proposed relationships, a
quantitative design is considered appropriate (e.g. Huselid et al., 1997). Second the results of this
quantitative analysis are studied more in-depth by interviewing several line managers on that topic. By
using both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis, a more in-depth interpretation can
be made of what factors influence HRM implementation effectiveness by line managers. This creates a
more holistic and integral view on this topic within the specific context (Yin, 1994). Methodological
triangulation, the cross-checking of data using multiple methods, gives a more detailed and balanced
picture of the situation, and minimizes biases and problems that come from a single-method design
(Denzin, 1970). Data gathered with the questionnaires can be validated with the interviews.
Additionally, the measure of HRM implementation effectiveness perceived by line managers as well
as subordinates provides an extra validation check. By adding another respondent, the analysis will
gain reliability (Gerhart, Wright, McMahan and Snell, 2000) as long as the additional measure is valid
and reliable. As this study is performed in one organization only, the context can be well controlled
for. Data is gathered at only one point of time, which makes it a cross-sectional study.

3.2 Research context

This study is performed within Netwerk VSP. Netwerk VSP is 100 percent owned by TNT and
operates in two interrelated markets. One division is focused on door-to-door communication and the
distribution of unaddressed print advertising. The company originated in this market, and possesses a
strong competitive position. The addressed mail division on the other hand, is more closely linked to
its parent company TNT, a high quality and high price mail deliverer. TNT requires Netwerk VSP to
enter the market as a low-cost and low-quality player, to serve as a counter-balance against other low-
cost competitors. This cost-minimization, price-based strategy differs from the door-to-door
communication market, where the emphasis lies on quality and innovation. With 27,000 deliverers
more that 6.2 billion items are delivered yearly to households in the Netherlands. Next to those
deliverers, working on a temporary contract, around 580 employees are currently employed by
Netwerk VSP.

14
3.3 Procedure

Questionnaires
The front-line managers are the unit of analysis. Within Netwerk VSP 63 front-line managers, who
directly supervise a team of employees, are employed. As three FLMs were on holidays, 60 FLMs are
asked to fill out a questionnaire, containing 75 items. These items assess their perceptions on
perceived constraints during HRM implementation, and perceived self-effectiveness in implementing
HRM. This questionnaire has been tested on clarity by two FLMs, and on expected validity by a
methodologist. Their feedback is processed to improve the questionnaire.
To measure the variable front-line managers‟ HRM implementation effectiveness, the perceptions of
subordinates were measured by a questionnaire containing 26 items. This questionnaire is extensively
tested, as the original questionnaire adopted from Nehles et al. (2010b) was not suitable for this
context. Mainly because the specific terms used were different from terms familiar to employees in
this organization. First the original questionnaire was discussed with an HR administrative employee
to check which questions were unclear or not applicable in this organization. Next, an alternative
questionnaire was developed which is elaborately discussed with two HR advisors and a
methodologist and altered after each discussion. The final questionnaire was tested by three
representative employees, who experienced the questionnaire as clear and easy to complete. The
questionnaire took approximately five minutes, to make it more attractive to contribute to this study.
Although the questionnaire is made context-specific, each concept and item has maintained its original
meaning.
The aim was to reach four subordinates per line manager as Gerhart et al. (2000) argue that to get a
reliable HR measure, four raters are desirable. This goal is not completely met as some teams were
smaller or wide-spread. The sample now contains one to six respondents per team, with an average
team size of 3.2 respondents. The questionnaire was accompanied by an instruction letter, discussing
the aim of this research and the confidentiality.
As a high response was necessary, time is spent to involve key positions in the research and convince
them of the use of the study. This is done by agreeing to do an internship at this company, and by
building a relationship with the HR team and the board members. This resulted in an official letter sent
out from the board stating that they support this study and they expect the management team to
cooperate. This helped enormously, as the FLMs were all willing to participate. The next action to
increase the response rate was by visiting all teams personally. First, the FLM was contacted and an
appointment scheduled. Next, by introducing the study and the researcher in person, the employees all
agreed to fill out the questionnaire immediately. Where needed, the FLM was made responsible for
returning all questionnaires in time. These actions concluded in an extremely high response rate of 58
of the 60 teams (97 percent). The sample of 210 subordinates and 58 managers is representative for the
total population of 580 employees.

15
Interviews
After the questionnaire data were analyzed, interview questions were drawn based on topics that need
more clarification. The questions were designed to get more insight into the meaning of the results.
Respondents were asked if they recognized the relationships found, and if they could explain the
findings using the experience with their own team. The questions were also designed to enable
creating a broader scope on the concept of HRM implementation effectiveness to embed the
quantitative results. For the interviews, respondents are approached personally. They have participated
in the survey as well. A description of the sample will be provided next.

3.4 Description of the sample

Questionnaires
The sample consists of 58 managers and 210 subordinates. The characteristics of the sample will be
described. Regarding gender, the sample differs for subordinates and first line managers. Of
subordinates 61.4 percent is male and 38.6 percent is female, while in the group of FLMs 77.6 percent
is male and 22.4 percent female. The average age of the FLMs is 39.05 (SD = 7.97), ranging from 24
to 59 years old. The subordinates sample is slightly younger with an average age of 37.27 (SD = 9.3),
ranging from 21 to 64 years old. These statistics indicate that the sample is satisfactory representative
for the organization, as these numbers are proportionally similar to the whole workforce of Netwerk
VSP where 53 percent is male, and the average age is 39 years old. The subordinates sample has a low
educational level, and the educational level of the FLMs is only slightly higher (intermediate / higher
vocational education). The FLMs have on average 7.76 years of experience with managing a team.
The sample roughly resembles the distribution of employees between the divisions, as the sample
contains for 64.5 percent of employees from the print advertising division (70.9 percent in the
organization), and for 35.5 percent of employees from the mail division (29.1 percent in the
organization).
To conclude the sample can be characterized as relatively young, which is the same as within the
organization. As the response rate was 97 percent, chances are small that not-responding individuals
have different characteristics or perceptions than the individuals within the sample have. The aim to
select subordinates per team as random as possible is met, as can be seen in the representative sample
that is just described.

Interviews
For the interviews, the sample consists of front-line managers, who have filled out the questionnaire as
well. It is common to define the number of interviewees needed in course of time, according to the
saturation principle, which states that theoretical saturation occurs when at one point of time no
additional data is found to contribute to the development of a theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In this

16
study this principle is not applied so strictly, but after four interviews the data was fairly stable in the
face of new data and rich in detail (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Therefore four interviews were assumed
sufficient to succeed in providing additional insight to replenish the questionnaire data. Researchers
using interviews need to balance between a diverse sample to increase the variance covered by the
sample, and a homogeneous sample to prevent spurious relationships to arise. In this sample is chosen
to use a „characteristic‟ sample, which can be seen as typical for the population, and resembles the
characteristics of the earlier described questionnaire sample (Baarda, Teunissen, De Goede, &
Teunissen, 1995). As the selected interviewees work in a similar situation, results can be interpreted
freely without the need to control for other factors.

3.5 Instruments

Questionnaires
The aim of this quantitative study is to get more insight into factors facilitating front-line managers‟
HRM implementation effectiveness. Below the scales for the concepts of this study – namely
perceived facilitating factors and perceived FLMs‟ HRM implementation effectiveness – are
described.

3.5.1. Perceived facilitating factors

Nehles et al. (2008) developed a questionnaire to assess the facilitating factors perceived by FLMs in
their implementation of HR practices. The researchers included different existing scales from the
psychology and marketing literature, and for some constructs items were newly developed. This
questionnaire is adapted to the HR field, and pre-tested in an earlier study (Nehles et al., 2008). In a
second study on HRM implementation effectiveness, Nehles found that the validity and reliability of
the three scales can be considered good (Nehles et al., 2010b). The composition of the scales will be
described first.
The first scale is the scale to measure perceived time capacity. A scale of Reilly (1982) measuring role
overload for housewives is used, as the definition of role overload reflects the concept of time capacity
measured in this study, as discussed in the theoretical framework. The items were reformulated where
needed by Nehles et al. (2008) to reflect the time demands on FLMs. The items were reverse coded as
a high degree of role overload reflects a low degree of time capacity (Perry & Kulik, 2008). The scale
consists of five items, measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 („fully disagree‟) to 5 („fully
agree‟). A sample item: “I can‟t ever seem to get caught up with performing my HR responsibilities”.
The second scale on FLMs self-perceived level of competences, was measured by a scale based on
occupational self-efficacy and training. The five-item self-efficacy scale of Schyns and van Collani
(2002) needed only marginal changes in wording to test FLMs perceived competences with regard to

17
performing HR tasks in particular (Nehles et al., 2008). The two items asking FLMs about specific
training they have received from their employer were develop by Nehles et al. (2008). The items were
measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 („fully disagree‟) to 5 („fully agree‟). A sample
item: “I can remain calm when facing difficulties in performing my HR responsibilities because I can
rely on my abilities”.
The third facilitating factor, HR support, is measured by assessing the perceived quality of services
delivered and the satisfaction with support behavior by HR advisors or the department in general. The
SERVQUAL scale on service quality developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1998, in Nehles
et al., 2008) is useful. Biemans (1999) already reformulated and translated this scale to a Dutch
version on the service quality of HR professionals, and this scale is used (Nehles et al., 2008). The
wording of the scale regarding the HR department was slightly adapted to the specific context of this
study. This concept was measured with seven items with answer categories ranging from 1 („fully
disagree‟) to 5 („fully agree‟). A sample item: “The HR department delivers services at the time it
promises to”.
These three scales together measure the facilitating factors for HRM implementation. Next the results
of the factor analysis will be discussed and reliability values are given.

In this study a principal component analysis is performed to test whether the theoretical structure is
reflected in the data. The results of this analysis can be found in appendix 1. The low inter-item
correlations (<.30), a significant Bartlett test (.000) and a sufficient value on the KMO analysis (.686)
show the data is suitable for factor analysis. First, an explorative factor analysis was performed to see
what structure would come out of the data unforced. The Scree plot, Kaiser‟s criterion and the
component matrix all direct towards a four factor structure. As these measures tend to overestimate the
number of factors (Baker, 1999), a quasi-confirmative rotated Oblimin analysis is performed with both
forced three and four factors. With three components, the factor structure is not conveniently simple,
and hard to split up based on statistical grounds. As can be seen in table three and four (an overview
with only the item labels) in Appendix 2, a four-components Oblimin rotation shows a simple factor
structure. One extra factor occurs containing the two items on training, which is one of the two
concepts within competences. These two factors repeatedly do not load on the competences factor. By
performing the factor analysis with four factors, the structure is more reliable, with training appearing
as a separate component. Two other items load on this component as well, but they do load even
stronger on respectively HR support and time capacity, and are therefore added to these components.
One item loaded stronger on training than on HR support, but based on theoretical grounds and on the
results of the reliability analysis, this item is added to the HR support factor. The remaining items
loaded exactly together on respectively HR support, time capacity and competences, the factors that
represented the variables in this study. This leaves a very reliable factor structure with four factors
instead of three, namely competences, training, capacity and support, together explaining 59.85% of

18
the variance. This four components structure, outlined in appendix 1, will be tested for reliability and
fit on the content.
The training scale that appeared to be a separate component in the principal component analysis was
sufficiently reliable but violated assumptions. The subscale does not fit with the definition of self-
efficacy used in this study for the concept of competences. In the other subscale FLMs were asked for
their perception on their own level of competences. The training items contradictory assessed the
sufficiency and quality of the training that FLMs received from their employer, which is not a measure
of self-efficacy. Furthermore the formulation of the items was unclear and troubled the results. For
these multiple reasons, this component is not included in the analysis. The Cronbach‟s alpha of the
scales capacity (.760), competences (.751) and support (.854) are good. Based on the item-total
statistics and the content of the items, no further alterations in the composition of the scales are
needed. Nehles et al. found similar reliability values for the competences and support scales, but they
reported a Cronbach‟s alpha of .880 for the capacity scale (Nehles et al., 2008, 2010).

3.5.2. Front-line managers‟ HRM implementation effectiveness

The dependent variable in this study is the effectiveness of line managers to implement HRM. This
will be assessed by the perception of line managers themselves, and by their subordinates. The scale
used is adopted from Nehles et al. (2010b). Subordinates were asked to rate their level of satisfaction
felt with the way their line manger implements the following HR practices; personnel administration,
job design, recruitment and selection, training and development (including appraisal), rewarding, and
people management (personal coaching) (based on Truss, 2001). The HRM implementation
effectiveness of line managers is an aggregated measure of the scales on these HR practices. As
outlined in the theoretical framework, most of these practices are labeled „best practices‟ by earlier
research. In addition to Nehles et al. (2010b), the same items are also assessed by the line managers
themselves. This makes it possible to compare the perception of line managers and subordinates on
HRM implementation effectiveness. A sample item is: “To what degree are you satisfied with the way
your manager performs the following tasks: Determining your need for training and development (e.g.
during your yearly appraisal)”. The complete questionnaire can be found in Appendix 4. The 30 items
making up the effectiveness measure were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 („very
dissatisfied‟) to 5 („very satisfied‟). A satisfaction measure is used as it has been found in theory that
that is the most valuable outcome measure of HRM implementation, as HRM implementation is
effective when it elicits desirable employee perceptions and reactions (Purcell & Hutchinson, 2007;
Becker & Huselid, 2006). An additional service is offered to the participants by providing an option
„not applicable‟ (NA), as it is possible that not all HR tasks apply for every employee or manager. This
appeared to be problematic as approximately 80% of all respondents have ticked the „not applicable‟
option at least once. As this is seen as a missing value, these cases are all excluded from the analyses,

19
which would cause a loss of the power of the data. To solve this problem the NA scores are seen as a
blank score. Thus, the mean total scores on the effectiveness scale are computed by dividing the total
score on the scale by the number of items scored (with a value 1 to 5) by the case. This makes it
possible to include the cases in the analyses, while not damaging the data as much as with methods
like multiple amputation and replace with series mean (Brown & Kros, 2003). However an analysis is
done on both items and cases to count the number of times NA is scored. For both the employees and
managers who scored on this scale, five items appeared to be „not applicable‟ to more than 20 percent
of the sample. This can be explained based on the content of the items, as these question topics that are
not applicable to every type of employee (e.g., registration of hours worked), or are only applicable
once you have experienced it yourself (e.g., long-term illness). These items were useful to include as
for other employees these topics are certainly relevant. It is not concluded that these are wrongly
formulated items, but they do bias the results as so few people have scored them in comparison to
other items. Based on the more than 20 percent rule and on the content, six items are deleted on both
the employees‟ and the line managers‟ effectiveness scale. Similarly, if a case has missing values on
more than 25% of the items on this scale, it is questionable if the other items are reliable as well
(Acock, 2005). Therefore, these cases are excluded from analyses using the „select cases if ..‟ option.
This excludes 13 employees and two managers from analyses, causing two teams to be excluded.

To check whether these 24 items do fit to one component, a principal component analysis is performed
for the employee scale as well as the managers‟ scale. For both, the Scree plot points clearly to one
component, and all items do load on this component with more than .30. The scree plots can be find in
Appendix 2 and 3. The underlying structure with the HR practices is not apparent and also not relevant
for this study, as the analyses are based on a mean total score on HRM implementation effectiveness.

The reliability of the HRM implementation effectiveness scale as perceived by employees is .907, and
the manager‟s self-perception scale has a Cronbach‟s Alpha of .849. This is comparable with the
reliability that Nehles et al. (2010b) found for this scale. In conclusion, the two scales on HRM
implementation effectiveness are reliable with 24 items, and the data does reproduce the theoretical
structure assumed.

3.5.3. Control variables

To enhance the internal validity of this research some control variables are accounted for. Adopted
from Nehles et al. (2010b), years of experience as a line manager, sex, age and educational level of the
line manager, span of control and education level of the team are included. A higher level of
experience, age and education level (of the team and FLM) might decrease the influence of hindrances
faced by FLMs (McGovern et al., 1997). Additionally, Nehles et al. (2010b) found that
(organizational) context has a major influence on this relationship. To control for intra-organizational

20
differences, one item is added as well to ask if the employees are working for the mail division or for
the door-to-door communication division. However, in this study this organizational control factor did
not have any significant effect. Control variables are mainly included to reveal spuriousness. A
spurious correlation can only arise from a variable that is related to both the dependent and
independent variable. In this study only the span of control is related to both X (capacity) and Y (as
perceived by employees). But when controlled for the other variables, only sex, years of experience as
a manager, and the educational level of the employees appears to have a significant effect on HRM
implementation effectiveness. Besides these three factors, span of control is nevertheless added as well
in the regression analysis. Sex is included as a dummy variable. Education is measured as a categorical
variable, and thus should be transformed to a dummy variable as equal distances between the
categories cannot be assumed. But because of pragmatic reasons (it serves only as a control variable)
and to limit the damage to the power (by restricting the number of variables in the regression), this
variable is included as a continuous variable.

Interviews
The instruments used to gather the qualitative data are semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Since
the respondents are Dutch, all interviews are conducted in Dutch. A common concern for the internal
validity in qualitative research is that interviewees could give socially desirable answers. And the
researcher who interprets the results might be biased. This is aimed to be partly neutralized by
recording and transcribing the interviews, so that no information got lost during the analysis, and by
using quotes when reporting the results. The interview results are analyzed by structurally categorizing
the information, as clearly outlined in Baarda et al. (1995). First, the relevant information is selected.
Then this information is divided into fragments, with each fragment covering a specific subject. The
subjects were broadly defined as time capacity, HR support, competences, and control variables.
Baarda et al. (1995) name this labelling by using elements from existing theory. This is considered
useful as the qualitative data were not gathered with an explorative cause but rather to specifically test
the research model again by interviewing managers, to be able to interpret the quantitative data.
Therefore the findings were organized per hypothesized relationship in the research model. Within
these subjects the information is divided into sub-subjects, e.g. for time capacity; the effect on HRM
implementation effectiveness perceived by FLMs, and perceived by subordinates, practical
implications derived (how to enhance time capacity), and the relationship with other facilitating
factors. Then is analysed what the interviewees‟ general interpretation is of the quantitative findings,
and to which degree the interviewees have specific remarks on each relationship (Baarda et al., 1995).
To ultimately explore the interrelationships between the facilitating factors, some fragments from
different subjects had to be reallocated together. In the end a clear picture could be drawn from the
interview information. These interpretations are outlined in the qualitative results paragraph, by using
translated quotes.

21
4. Results

4.1 Data aggregation

From the questionnaire two measures of HRM implementation effectiveness are available; perceived
effectiveness by the line managers and by their subordinates. The level of analysis is the individual
line manager. Because the effectiveness measured by subordinates is assessed at the individual
employee level, individual survey scores need to be aggregated to team level scores, to enable analysis
with the line manager as unit of analysis. In order to aggregate data, consistency in the answers by
respondents of the same team is needed. After the scores are tested for within-group variance from the
mean and reliability, the individual scores can be mathematically summarized to a group-level
variable.

An ANOVA is performed to generate intra-class correlations (ICC1 and ICC2) for the HRM
implementation effectiveness perceived by employees scale. It is tested whether average team scores
differed significantly across teams, and to which degree can be spoken of nested data. The ICC1 value
is .326, indicating that 32.6 percent of the variance in individual employee scores is attributable to
team membership. This is a rather high value in comparison to other studies. Increasingly more
organizational research is performed using multi-level analysis. In work climate and HR practices
satisfaction research, ICC1 values of .13 are common (Van Veldhoven, Debats & Dorenbosch, 2009;
Van de Voorde, Paauwe, & Van Veldhoven, 2010; Schneider et al., 2003). The difference between the
ICC1 values of these studies and the ICC1 value of this study could be explained by the nature of the
construct used. In this study the employees were asked to rate their satisfaction with a team-level
construct, namely the performance of their line manager. Whereas in the studies on work climate and
HR practices satisfaction, the construct refers to an individual level variable, where more variance
between individuals is likely to exist. Unfortunately, aggregated measures on HRM implementation
effectiveness to compare with are scarce. Nehles (2010b) found ICC1 values lower than .20. Although
it is hard to compare the ICC1 values, it appears that an ICC1 value of .326 is considerably high. Low
ICC1 values are not desirable as this indicates that remarkable little variance can be attributed to team
membership (Van Veldhoven, 2005). An interesting question is to consider if a rather high ICC1 value
implies that the perceived HRM effectiveness by employees can for a great extent be attributed to the
line manager. Obviously, a noticeable degree of variance in individual scores can be ascribed to
characteristics of the team, one of which is the manager. This might implicate that the front-line
manager plays a bigger role in perceived HRM than is currently outlined in theory, for example in the
Wright and Nishii (2006) model on employee perception and reaction on HR practices.

Large ICC1 values indicate a large clustering effect accompanied by little individual variability
(Bliese, 1998). Bliese (1998) formulates the ICC1 as “an estimate of the degree to which any one

22
individual‟s response provides a reliable estimate of the aggregated variable” (p. 359). A large ICC1
value indicates that a single response from a group member will provide a reliable estimate of the
group mean. With that, Bliese (1998) states that with small group sizes, a large ICC1 value is needed
to be able to have enough responses to obtain a reliable estimate of the average level within the team,
while large groups can also provide reliable estimates when ICC1 values are small. Considering this
discussion, the ICC1 value of .326 is seen as satisfactory for this study.

The ICC2 value can be interpreted as the reliability of the mean team scores. It is calculated using the
mean square within and mean square between teams. The ICC2 value for this study is .607. Values of
above .70 are considered good, and values between .50 and .70 are reasonably acceptable (Klein &
Kozlowski, 2000 in Van Veldhoven, 2005). With the number of individual respondents available in
this study, it was found that the variance components attributable to the team level were statistically
significant in an F-test (p < .000). Taking into account these results and the discussion on the ICC1
value, it is concluded that there is sufficient justification for aggregation, and reliable mean values for
teams are possible.

4.2 Descriptives

Statistical analyses are performed to test the relationships hypothesized in the research model. First,
descriptive statistics are derived. The means (M), standard deviations (SD), and Pearson correlation
coefficients (r) of the independent, dependent and control variables are presented in Table 1.

The correlation matrix is used to assess if constructs that are not related in theory are not related in
reality as well, known as discriminant validity. As the three facilitating factors are part of one variable
they can correlate a little, but it is not desirable if they have large correlations as these are treated as
separate constructs in theory and in the analysis. As can be seen in Table 1, the correlations between
the three facilitating factors (time capacity, perceived competences and HR support) are small (≤
.290). HR support and time capacity do correlate significantly (.290, p= .033), even as capacity and
competences (.233, p= .087). But Nehles et al. (2010b) also found many significant and even larger
correlations (up to .430). Thus, the correlations in this study sufficiently show that these variables are
separate constructs in reality as well.

The theoretically presumed relationship between the three fixed variables and the two dependent
variables is checked on convergent validity. Regarding the first dependent variable (managers‟
perception on effectiveness), only competences is moderately and significantly related (.492, p= .000).
Regarding the second dependent variable (subordinates‟ perception), only capacity (.411, p= .002) and
competences (.264, p= .049) are significantly related. From the correlation matrix it seems that support
does not have a significant relationship with HRM implementation effectiveness (p= .373 and p=
.499). It is also remarkable that these correlations are negative; the better the quality of HR support

23
Table 1. Descriptives

Measure M¹ SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Time capacity 3.31¹ .370 1 .233* .290* .212 .411*** -.064 -.013 .195 .320** .379*** -.404***

2. Competences 3.88¹ .482 1 -.100 .492*** .264** .129 .016 .233* .377*** .150 -.066

3. HR support 3.35¹ .661 1 -.124 .093 -.182 -.051 -.147 .044 .198 -.194

4. HRM implementation effectiveness

3.89¹ .316 1 .309** .302** .206 .579*** .123 .095 -.122
perceived by FLMs
5. HRM implementation effectiveness
3.75¹ .465 1 -.038 .145 .176 .087 -.085 -.299**
perceived by subordinates

6. Age FLM 39.15 7.735 1 -.184 .610*** -.082 .120 .044

7. Dsex = woman FLM 0.23 .426 1 -.089 .085 .042 -.069

8. Experience in years FLM 7.62 7.624 1 .065 .018 -.176

9. Education level FLM 3,54² 1.026 1 .499*** -.310**

10. Education level subordinates 3.16² .930 1 -.203

11. Span of control 10.86 9.308 1

¹ Based on a 5-point Likert scale

² Based on a 5-point scale (1= primary school, 5= university)
* p < 0.10 (2-tailed)
** p < 0.05 (2-tailed)
*** p < 0.01 (2-tailed)
N = 56
services and behavior, the lower the effectiveness of the manager, and vice versa. As these correlations
are not controlled for other variables yet, it will be discussed in more detail with the regression
analysis.

With a correlation of .309, the two HRM implementation effectiveness measures perceived by
managers and by their subordinates are significantly correlated at the .05 level. This means that once
the front-line manager has rated himself highly effective, his/her subordinates rated their manager
more effective as well, and vice versa. This strengthens the data triangulation, as two measures of the
same construct seem to measure the same phenomenon, as their ratings correlate. This means that the
additional measure of subordinates‟ perceptions increases the validity of this subjective measure on
perceptions of HRM implementation effectiveness. These two measures of one theoretical concept are
correlated, and thus show a high degree of convergent validity. The correlation is even more
surprisingly high, as outliers could have a big effect considering the small sample size per manager
(on average 3.2). Thus the retest of the same scale shows that this scale is fairly reliable.

Regarding the control variables, time capacity is positively related to the educational level of both the
manager and the employee. As educational level cannot be influenced by capacity, it could be possible
that supervising a team of higher educated employees results in a better time balance, especially when
the manager himself is higher educated as well. A manager also experiences a higher degree of time
capacity when he is supervising a smaller team (span of control, -.404). The span of control is also
negatively related to the effectiveness of the line manager as experienced by employees. In the
perception of FLMs this relationship is also negative but non-significant. To conclude, a FLM with
more years of experience with managing a team, perceives himself to be more competent to perform
HR tasks, and is also more satisfied with his performance as HRM implementer. Higher educated
FLMs also perceive themselves to be more competent than FLMs with a lower education. The
correlations between the control variables and the variables in the research model are not surprising.
Some will be outlined further when discussing the regression results, as these results are also
controlled for other variables.

In table 1 the means and standard deviations are reported as well. First, the mean scores on the three
facilitating factors are in the upper part of the 5-point scale (3.31 to 3.88). With caution can be said
that this might imply that front-line managers themselves do not perceive constraints in implementing
HR practices as much as implied in theory. The standard deviations are not worrisome. However the
line managers do agree more on their level of time capacity than their level of HR support. Second, the
FLMs perceived themselves as being quite effective in implementing HRM, with a mean of 3.89. The
subordinates were also satisfied with the way their managers apply HR tasks in practice, with a mean
of 3.75. This is higher than the 3.54 mean subordinates‟ perception that Nehles et al. (2010b) found in
their study. However, the self-perception of FLMs is more positive than the perception of

25
subordinates. This will be reflected upon in the discussion. Another remarkable outcome is the
difference in standard deviations between managers (.316) and subordinates (.465). Apparently
managers are more consent than subordinates are about this topic.

With the aggregated mean score of the subordinates‟ perception and the mean score of the front-line
managers‟ perception, the hypotheses can be tested for. This will be discussed next.

4.3 Regression analysis

A hierarchical regression analysis is carried out to investigate which factor is most salient for effective
HRM implementation. After checking if the data meets the assumptions (no multicollinearity, normal
distribution, linearity, etc), the analysis is performed. The three factors and the control variables were
added in a stepwise manner. In the first regression model only the three factors were included, in the
second model the demographic control variables of the manager were added (sex and years of
experience as a manager). In the third model, team control variables were added (number of direct
subordinates, educational level of subordinates). As the two effectiveness measures are significantly
correlated, the effectiveness perceived by employees (Y2) is controlled for while doing a regression on
FLMs‟ effectiveness perception (Y1) and vice versa. This way one can measure the effect of one
independent variable on one of the effectiveness measures, while controlling for the other independent
and dependent variables. This hierarchical regression analysis was performed for Y1 and Y2
separately, as can be seen in Table 2.

On HRM implementation effectiveness perceived by front-line managers (Y1) only competences has a
significant effect. Even after controlling for the demographic and team control variables, competences
has a significant positive effect (β= .334, p= .005). As perceived by FLMs, capacity and support do not
contribute to their effectiveness. When corrected for the small sample size, the first model with the
three facilitating factors explains 23.1 percent of the variance in FLMs‟ HRM implementation
effectiveness and is significant (F(4,48) = 4.915, p= .002). As sex (Dsex, 1 = women, β= .230, p
=.030) and years of experience (β= .500, p= .000) contribute significantly to the explained variance in
Y1, model 2 is significant as well on a 99 percent confidence level. Including team size and
educational level of subordinates in model 3 does not make a significant difference.
For HRM implementation effectiveness perceived by subordinates (Y2) only capacity has a significant
effect. The effect remains significant in model 3 when the control variables are added (β= .393, p=
.012). Subordinates perceive that the level of competences and support of their line manager has no
effect on their FLMs‟ effectiveness. Model 1 containing the variables of interest, is significant
(F(4,,48) = 5.527, p= .013), explaining 16.3 percent of the variance in Y2. Of the control variables,
only the educational level of subordinates has an effect on Y2, and it is a negative effect. Apparently
higher educated subordinates are less positive about their line-manager. Or it is possible that higher

26
educated employees have different job content and related demands of their FLMs. Span of control did
have a negative significant correlation but when controlled for other factors, the beta is not significant.

In the correlation table the perceptions of FLMs and subordinates on HRM implementation
effectiveness were significantly related on the .05 level (r= .309). When controlled for other variables
this relationship does not sustain. As can be seen in Table 2, the beta‟s of this relationship are not
significant anymore (β= .122, p= .331, β= .176, p= .331). Thus there is a correlation between the two
variables, but the data do not support a „causal‟ and controlled effect between the perception of the
line managers‟ own performance and the satisfaction of the subordinates with that same performance.

To test hypothesis 1, 2 and 3 the standardized regression coefficients (beta‟s) of model 3 are assessed
for both dependent variables.
Hypothesis 1 states that the more capacity front-line managers perceive they are given to spend time
on performing HR practices, the more effectively they will implement these practices on the work
floor, as perceived by themselves (1a) and by their subordinates (1b). Hypothesis 1a is rejected, as
clearly no significant relationship is found between capacity and HRM implementation effectiveness
perceived by FLMs (Y1) (β= -.009, p= .950). Hypothesis 1b is confirmed as capacity is significantly
related to HRM implementation effectiveness perceived by the subordinates (β= .393, p= .012). This
means that, in contrast with the perception of the FLMs, subordinates perceive that a FLM who has
more capacity to perform HR tasks, is more effective.
Hypothesis 2 states that the more a FLM perceives himself as being competent to perform HR tasks,
the more effective the FLM will be in doing so. This is confirmed in the data of FLMs‟ perceptions
(hypothesis 2a). Table 2 shows that the self-perceived level of competences has a significant positive
effect on Y1 (β= .334, p= .005). However, hypothesis 2b is rejected; the self-perceived level of
competences has no significant effect on HRM implementation effectiveness according to the
subordinates of the FLM (β= .135, p= .359).
To conclude, hypothesis 3 presumes a relationship between the support that FLMs receive from HR
professionals and the effectiveness of HRM implementation by the FLMs. This effect is certainly not
found in the data on both dependent variables Y1 (β= -.014, p= .898) and Y2 (β= -.045, p= .739), and
thus hypothesis 3a and 3b are rejected. This means that HR support does not contribute to HRM
implementation effectiveness.

27
Table 2. Hierarchical regression analysis on HRM implementation effectiveness
Dependent variable Perceived by FLMs Perceived by subordinates
Model 1 2 3 1 2 3
β p Β p β p β p β P β p
Time capacity .077 (.587) .001 (.992) -.009 (.950) .341 (.018) .345 (.020) .393 (.012)
Competences .414 (.002) .344 (.003) .334 (.005) .091 (.542) .104 (.498) .135 (.359)
HR support -.121 (.352) -.013 (.902) -.014 (.898) .028 (.841) .030 (.830) .045 (.739)
HRM implementation effectiveness .179 (.193) .098 (.394) .122 (.331) .196 (.193) .160 (.394) .176 (.331)
Dsex = women FLM .230 (.030) .228 (.036) .117 (.400) .112 (.398)
Experience in years FLM .500 (.000) .507 (.000) .005 (.974) -.041 (.800)
Span of control .046 (.690) -.165 (.234)
Educational level subordinates .052 (.661) . -.317 (.022)
R² .291 .538 .542 .227 .240 .341
Adjusted R² .231 .478 .458 .163 .141 .221
F 4.915 (.002) 8.934 (.000) 6.496 (.000) 3.527 (.013) 2.418 (.041) 2.846 (.012)
R² Change .291 .248 .003 .227 .013 .101
F Change 4.915 (.002) 12.333 (.000) .161 (.852) 3.527 (.013) .382 (.685) 3.380 (.043)
These results are summarized in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Research findings

Front-line managers‟ HRM

β=.334**
Competences
implementation effectiveness,
perceived by first-line managers
Time capacity β=.393*
Front-line managers‟ HRM
HR support implementation effectiveness,
perceived by subordinates

* Significant correlation at 0.05 level (2-tailed)

** Significant correlation at 0.01 level (2-tailed)

4.4 Conclusion quantitative results

From the quantitative results can be concluded that the perception on what facilitates FLMs in
effectively implementing HRM differs for managers and their subordinates. The main and only factor
contributing to the FLMs‟ perception of their effectiveness is their self-perceived level of
competences. However, only the degree of the FLMs‟ perceived time capacity had a significant effect
on the perceived effectiveness by subordinates. Women and more experienced FLMs rated themselves
as more effective, while subordinates with a lower education level evaluated their FLM as being more
effective. The span of control did have a correlation with the FLMs‟ effectiveness perceived by
employees, but this became non-significant when controlled for other factors in the regression. From
the correlation table is furthermore concluded that experience and educational level of the line
manager contributes to its perceived self-efficacy. Similarly, a higher education level as well as a
smaller span of control makes them feel they are better able to manage their time. Furthermore it has
been found in the correlation as well as regression analysis that HR support is not related to HRM
implementation effectiveness, in this specific context.
Thus the most important findings from the quantitative analysis are that FLMs and subordinates differ
in their perception on what makes a FLM effective in implementing HRM. The qualitative results
from the interviews will be discussed next, to provide further insight into these relationships.

29
4.5 Qualitative results

The interviews are done with four FLMs who also participated in the quantitative study. They are
selected based on a „characteristic‟ sample. Thus the interviewees are typical (or average) for the total
population of FLMs. They work in similar situations with a similar team to manage. As the
interviewed FLMs are therefore seen to be in exchangeable situations, it does not add value to make a
differentiation between their stories. Thus their input is discussed without distinguishing who gave the
input. Next the view of the interviewees on the results of time capacity, perceived competences and
HR support and their relationship with HRM implementation effectiveness will be outlined
successively.

4.5.1. Time capacity

For subordinates, the time capacity that a FLM has available to spend on HR tasks is obviously the
only factor that enhances the FLM‟s effectiveness. The interviewed managers were happy to see this
relationship as clearly employees notice the difference between a manager spending more time on HR
issues and a manager who has difficulties with balancing his time between operational and managerial
tasks. They recognized the need of subordinates to be able to call or walk into the office of their
superior to ask questions about daily work issues. Managers acknowledged that as supervising their
people is their main responsibility as a manager, they should always prioritize these issues above other
tasks, but sometimes the short-term operational pressures make it hard to find the right balance.
Interviewed managers were surprised to find out that their own perception on their effectiveness is not
affected by the level of time capacity, as they do feel that the quality of their HR tasks executed might
suffer if time is limited. A team characteristic that has been found in the data and referred to by the
managers as well to be an important variable is the span of control of the FLM, in other words the
number of employees that the manager directly supervises and is responsible for. The span of control
ranges from 3 to 40 people. An independent-samples T test is performed where the median (seven
employees) is used as cut point to define two groups. This shows that managers responsible for a small
group of employees are significantly more effective than managers supervising a large group of
employees, as perceived by these employees (p=.012). The time pressure due to greater spans of
control for line managers has been described earlier by McGovern et al. (1997). The interviewees do
perceive this as reasonable, as then the manager has less subordinates to divide its time between.

To improve HRM implementation effectiveness, FLMs are required to find a better balance between
their HR tasks and other managerial duties. According to the interviewed FLMs, enhancing time
capacity is basically nothing more than shifting priorities. The managers indicate that:

30
“Managing people should be the number one priority of every manager, and on the long run that‟s
better for the business as well. So people issues should always come first, and after that I spend time
on other tasks. It is just managing your time according to your priorities.”

But the managers make an important remark that just spending enough time with your employees can
make employees happy, but does not guarantee improved team performance. They argue that FLMs
also need to be competent to use that time correctly. They suppose that a higher level of perceived
competences can help to create time to spend with subordinates or to signal a persistent time shortage
and act on it. This might indicate a mediation effect of time capacity between competences and
effective HRM implementation as perceived by employees, and might possibly explain the absence of
a direct relationship. This will be discussed at the end of the qualitative results.

4.5.2. Competences

The relationship found between the self-perceived level of competences (named self-efficacy in
literature) and HRM implementation effectiveness perceived by FLMs, is reasonable according to the
interviewees. The interviewed managers recognize that when they have the feeling that their HR-
related competences are more developed, they are more confident and effective in managing their
people. Thus the interviewees think it is surprising that this relationship does not appear in the
perception of the subordinates, and they could not give an explanation for their view. One of the
interviewees states:

“I would not want my managers to only invest in the time factor. But I would like them to use the time
they spend with employees more effectively by coaching them on their competences to realize a change
in the behavior of its subordinates.”

In other words this manager argues that a FLM being competent enough to coach its subordinates on
their competences (rather than only being able to spend time with them to discuss daily work issues),
would make a truly effective HRM implementer. This manager spoke about the actual level of
competences rather than experienced self-efficacy which is studied in this research. Thus the
interviewed managers do recognize the need of employees to spend sufficient time with their manager,
but they think that the (self-perceived) level of competences of a manager is even more relevant.
However, this is not reflected in the quantitative results of subordinates‟ perceptions.

4.5.3. HR support

Another intriguing finding is the unambiguous absence of any relationship between HR support and
front-line managers‟ HRM implementation effectiveness. The HR support does not hinder nor

31
facilitate managers in HRM implementation. The interviewees were not surprised by these findings, as
they regarded HR support as a hygiene factor at this moment. They argue:

“It is up to the HR department to show their distinct added value, and if they are not capable of doing
so, then the manager sets his own course in implementing HR practices, regardless of what the HR
department has to offer.”

Therefore they did recognize that the effectiveness of the HR support delivered by the HR department
does not have a direct effect on the implementation of HRM. The interviewees prompted that to truly
add value and to ensure that it is acknowledged as such, the HR department should lessen their support
on operational issues, and instead use their expertise and knowledge to give advice on long-term
staffing issues and personnel development.

“The HR department has to facilitate and organize HRM related processes like working conditions,
salary payment, absence reports, etcetera. That can be seen as a qualifier. And from there you can
work on a relationship with management and become a sparring partner.”

“I would like the HR advisor to come to me and say; „Now your team is working well I would like to
discuss the competency gaps and the potential of your subordinates, and hear what you are going to
do to develop your team and support career advancement of your team members.‟ I think they would
be a real sparring partner if they also tell me sometimes that it is useless to discuss my team with the
HR advisor as long as I do not take the time to coach my people.”

Overall, the managers think the delivered HR support is too much a hygiene factor at the moment,
which should profile itself more by taking up the „HR business partner‟ role. They mention that the
HR advisor is allowed to also expect something from the manager, and monitor those expectations.

“The manager functions as a gateway to communicate and implement HRM instruments towards
employees. The commitment of the managers is crucial, for example when implementing a new form of
performance appraisals. But the HR department should control this process by checking if it actually
happens and evaluating it, and then communicate it back to management who should take up their
responsibility.”

In conclusion the interviewed line managers can give an explanation why HR support is found not to
be related to HRM implementation effectiveness at this point of time. They provide the HR
department with some advice on how to change that, for example by advising on more strategic HR
topics, act as a business partner more than just an advisor, and also pick up a monitoring role to check
if their policies are implemented correctly.

32
4.5.4. Interrelationships between the factors

From the interviews, two possible mediating effects were identified to explain the absence of a direct
relationship between competences and HRM implementation effectiveness. First, the interviewees
assumed that a lack of perceived competences could be compensated by a greater use of support.
Nehles et al. (2010b) did find a strong relationship between competences and employees‟ perception
on FLMs‟ HRM implementation effectiveness (β= .210, p< .05). Additionally from qualitative data
Nehles et al. (2010a) indeed found that when FLMs lack competences, they compensate that by either
delegating those tasks to or asking for support from the HR specialists (Nehles et al., 2010a). This
presumed mediating effect cannot be tested in this study, as not the frequency of using HR support is
measured, but the satisfaction with the quality of the support. What has been tested is if the level of
self-perceived competences influences the perception of HR support quality, but this appears to be a
non-significant effect (β= -.141, p= .466). Second, the interviewees think that when a manager has the
feeling to be more competent to perform HR tasks, this manager will experience a greater time
capacity as well. This resembles the presumption of the Job Demands-Resources model of Bakker and
Demerouti (2007) that experiencing job resources (like competences) may attenuate the perceived job
demands (like work overload). However, the level of self-perceived competences is found to be
unrelated to perceived time capacity when controlled for other variables (β= .115, p= .466).

Thus, none of the possible interrelationships put forward by the interviewees could be confirmed in the
quantitative data.

4.5.5. Conclusion qualitative results

The interview results appeared useful to interpret the quantitative results. The interviewed managers
could give insight into why subordinates find it so important that their manager finds a balance
between its duties and is able to spend time with them. They argue that enhancing time capacity can
be realized by reducing the span of control, but is mainly a matter of shifting priorities towards HRM.
The interviewed managers found it difficult to explain why employees are equally satisfied with
managers who have a different level of self-perceived competences. They themselves think that
(perceived) competences are more valuable to encourage the desired employee behavior than is time
capacity, as is reflected in their quantitative results as well. However, subordinates have a different
view. To conclude, the interviewees argue that for the HR department to have an effect on HRM
implementation effectiveness, they should play a different role and provide advice on different topics,
to make FLMs aware of their potential added value.

The quantitative results were effectively interpreted by using the qualitative results. Next, the
outcomes of this study will be discussed in the light of existing literature and implications for practice
and theory will be outlined.

33
5. Discussion and conclusion

According to the devolution literature, line managers are increasingly responsible for implementing
HRM but it is unclear whether they are effective implementers, and what would make them effective
in doing so. This study contributes to clarifying these knowledge gaps by assessing FLMs‟ and
subordinates‟ perceptions on front-line managers‟ effectiveness, and factors contributing to their
effectiveness. This study provides an answer to the following research question: To what extent do
perceived time capacity, competences and HR support enhance front-line managers‟ HRM
implementation effectiveness within Netwerk VSP? Questionnaire data of 58 teams was gathered
within mail and print advertising organization Netwerk VSP. Six hypotheses were tested with
hierarchical regression analysis. The results show that the perception on what factor contributes most
to HRM implementation effectiveness differs for front-line managers and their subordinates.
Interviews with FLMs are performed to be able to interpret those differences. Next the results will be
reflected upon using existing knowledge on strategy implementation and strategic HRM. After that the
implications for practice, the limitations and strengths of the design and instruments and directions for
further research are outlined.

5.1 Theoretical implications

To move from a strategy to the desired outcomes, different processes and people are involved. With
each process moving a bit forward towards an implemented strategy, a bit of the original strength of
the strategy is likely to be lost. This can be compared to a great joke that is passed on by different
people, but each time the joke is told forward, a piece of the information within the joke gets lost, until
in the end the joke is not funny anymore because the storyteller does not remember enough of the
information within the joke to make it a funny story. The same does unfortunately apply to a well
thought-out strategy that is interpreted and enacted by different people while going through different
processes, and as a result, the desired outcome (not a laugh but financial gain) is likely to be less than
originally expected. Organizations are aware of this process and aim to minimize the damage to the
original strategy, which is designed carefully. It is unrealistic to think that the design, implementation,
perception and reaction on a strategy can be performed perfectly as designed, or by one person solely.
But, organizations do think about how these processes can be best supported to implement their
strategies as smoothly as possible. A strategy is implemented well when the behavior aroused by it is
synchronized to the intentional goal.
This study investigated this process and the central role of the line manager in the specific field of
HRM implementation, but it is typically applicable to all organizational fields where strategies are
implemented. This study was aimed at identifying factors that contribute to effectively implementing a
strategy, and thus reduce the inevitable loss of the value of the original intention. First, the findings

34
about this implementation process in general are discussed. After that the specific role of the line
manager as implementer and the employee as receiver of HRM are outlined.

HRM implementation process

Although Wright and Nishii (2006) indicate only the process from intended to actual practices as the
implementation process, as emphasized with red in Figure 1, this study raised awareness that the
implementation process reaches further, namely including the experience of employees with the HR
practices (perceived HR practices). It appears to be questionable if „actual‟ HR practices should really
be indicated as a separate chain; it seems that HR policies are implemented and as a result of this
implementation process the practices are perceived by the employees. Is it really relevant to know
what managers perceive they have actually implemented? This is often assessed by a coverage
measure, which can be compared to the percentage of the employees perceived they are covered by a
certain HR practice. As this says something about „which‟ practices are implemented, this is useful
information to identify the mostly used HR practices in firms (to contribute to best practice research),
but this does not contribute to the knowledge on „how‟ these practices are implemented, and how
effective. Therefore it is concluded that for future research it might be not that interesting to know
if/which practices are actually implemented, as compared to the value of knowing how these practices
are experienced by the employees they are aimed at.
In this study the satisfaction of both FLMs and subordinates with implemented HR practices is
measured. These are found to be related, and thus when subordinates were less satisfied about their
manager, this was reflected in the self-perception of the manager as well. But when controlled for
other factors in the regression, no causal relationship from the experience of the line manager to the
experience of the employees could be confirmed.
To wrap up, the value of knowing „what‟ or even „how‟ practices are implemented in the perception of
the line manager (actual HR practices) is questionable, as this does not affect employee perceptions,
and employee perceptions are the only thing being relevant to continue the link between HRM and
organizational performance. Next, the link will be made to the central role of front-line managers and
the investigated factors that facilitate them to implement HRM effectively.

Devolution to the front-line manager

It can be concluded that the factors put forward by devolution theory (Cunningham & Hyman, 1995;
Renwick, 2000) appeared useful to study as they are indeed related to HRM implementation
effectiveness. This study greatly contributes to the little existing empirical results gathered by Nehles
et al. (2010b). FLMs will implement an HR strategy most effectively (i.e. arousing the most positive
perception by employees) when they experience sufficient time capacity. But more research should be
done on the possible role of competences which was experienced as a facilitating factor by line
managers as well. The quantitative and qualitative data could not clarify why there is no relationship

35
between the experienced competences by the FLMs and the perceived effectiveness of the
subordinates. It seems likely that the best explanation can be found in the operationalization of the
competences construct as a self-efficacy measure, which will be elaborately discussed later. The
managers were not surprised that HR support did not contribute to their effectiveness in this specific
organization at this point of time. Practical implications derived will be discussed later as well.
The central role that the front-line managers are assumed to play in HRM implementation (Becker &
Huselid, 2006) is clearly validated in this study. The line managers within this specific case
organization naturally spoke about themselves as being a link between HR and their subordinates, and
seemed to agree that they were in the best position to implement these HR practices. This case
organization is conscious of the statement of McGovern et al. (1997) that wrongful line management
practice can greatly distort, or even undermine, the contribution which HR policies are supposed to
make towards organizational outcomes. Top management did not need convincement that facilitating
line managers to perform best is core to their business. This was also reflected in the enthusiasm of all
managers to contribute to this study. This reflects the current relevance of this topic in practice as well.
To conclude, this study contributed to devolution theory by empirically identifying the factors that
were most relevant in facilitating FLMs to implement HRM effectively, and it confirms the central
role of line managers in HRM implementation. Next the value of including employee perceptions in
this study is discussed.

Employee perceptions
In this study employee perceptions on the effectiveness of their FLM, appeared to be very valuable.
First, employee perceptions are the outcome of HRM implementation that will affect the remaining of
the HRM-performance chain (Wright and Nishii, 2006; Becker et al., 1997; Guest, 1997). Thus the
finding that employees are mainly satisfied with a manager who indicates to have sufficient time
capacity, should be taken seriously if HRM is aiming to have an effect on employee behavior.
Secondly, the employee perceptions served as validating check of the FLMs‟ perceptions on their
effectiveness. Subordinates evaluated HRM implementation less positive then FLMs did. This seems
analogue to the differences earlier found in perceptions on HRM implementation effectiveness
between HR professionals and line managers (Wright et al., 2001; Van veldhoven, Debats, &
Dorenbosch, 2009; Boselie & Paauwe, 2005). Van Veldhoven et al. (2009) found that first HR
managers were more positive about HRM effectiveness than line managers, but increased HRM
devolvement to line management is related to more positive evaluations from line managers as well,
indicating that the upward bias might also apply to line managers nowadays. Therefore, currently
employee perceptions are involved, which are found to be consequently more negative than HR and
line management evaluations of HRM effectiveness (Van Veldhoven et al., 2009).
Huselid et al. (1997) conclude that HR investments are a potential source of competitive advantage,
but “scholars have very little understanding of the processes required to realize this potential” (p. 186).

36
They request future research to discover these processes. By including both line management and
employee perceptions in this study, the results give a clear view on what factors could enhance the
effectiveness of HRM implementation. This provides insight into the „black box‟ between HRM and
organizational performance, aiming to clarify the processes that relate HRM to organizational
outcomes.

5.2 Practical implications

This has useful implications for practice as well. It can be concluded that an organization capable of
successfully implementing strategies can definitely create a competitive advantage, as earlier stated by
Barney (in Becker & Huselid, 2006). First the findings on how to enhance FLMs‟ time capacity are
discussed. After that some implications for HR professionals are given to ensure HR does add value to
the HRM implementation process.

Apparently, to effectively implement HR practices on the work floor, it is most important for
organizations to ensure that front-line managers have enough time capacity to perform HR tasks,
rather than developing HR-related competences or providing support. According to the interviewed
FLMs, enhancing capacity is basically nothing more than shifting priorities towards HRM. To support
FLMs to allocate priorities correctly, they would like their superior to emphasize the importance of
people management by including these responsibilities in the performance appraisal system and by
rewarding the manager for his performance. Another factor that appears to have a great impact on the
capacity of FLMs is their span of control. The HR department could make a distinct contribution to the
organization by arguing for a smaller team of subordinates per manager, as this indirectly enhances
team and organizational performance. But the interviewees also mention that just spending time is not
enough, FLMs need to be competent to use that time correctly. This questionnaire can be used as a
valuable tool for organizations to assess the current perceived level of time capacity, perceived
competences and HR support, and their effect on HRM implementation effectiveness, and act on it.

As HRM implementation is increasingly devolved to front-line management (Whittaker &

Marchington, 2003; Cunningham & Hyman, 1999; Budhwar, 2000), HR specialists could deliver a
strategic contribution to the organization by supporting the FLMs with this responsibility. But to
contribute to their effectiveness, HR should apparently change their current approach to delivering
support, because currently HR support does not have an effect on the FLMs‟ effectiveness. From the
interview results can be deducted that the managers think HR support is too much a hygiene factor at
this point, which could profile itself more by taking up the „HR business partner‟ role. This fits the
discussion in literature that the HR department should indeed ensure that administrative processes are
organized first, but should then be able to move to a more strategic role to truly add value to the
organization (Boselie & Paauwe, 2005; Paauwe, 2004). This role is currently named the by Ulrich as
the „Credible Activist‟ (Ulrich, Brockbank, Johnson, & Younger, 2007). This study validates the call

37
from stakeholders in the organization that HR specialists are required to take up this role. Also,
devolving HRM implementation to FLMs does not mean that HR professionals are not responsible for
monitoring the process and checking and reporting the progress (Boxall & Purcell, 2008; Paauwe,
2004). This resembles the finding of McGovern et al. (1997) that devolving HRM to the line is only
possible if it is attended with an increased monitoring role performed by HR specialists. The
interviewed line managers would expect and appreciate it if HR specialists play this role, and
anticipate that this would have a positive influence on HRM implementation effectiveness by FLMs.

Thus to effectively implement HRM, the HR professionals could help front-line managers by
communicating the right priorities, restricting the span of control, coaching them on HR-related
competences, and by giving advice on long-term strategic decisions concerning personnel. This study
shows that line managers accept their new HR responsibilities and organizations are able to facilitate
them to be even more effective in implementing HRM.

5.3 Limitations and strengths

Design

Finding such strong relationships between elements in the research model is greatly attributable to the
design of this study. A combination of contextuality, evidence based management and rigor methods
make it a solid design; this study applies what Boxall, Purcell and Wright (2007) call Analytical HRM
(in Boxall & Purcell, 2008). First, by focusing on one organization to gather research data, contextual
conditions can be covered (Yin, 1994). The personally built network within the organization ensured
the commitment of the board of directors and the HR department to the study. Although rating the
quality of your manager appeared to be a sensitive subject, all managers within the organization
agreed to co-operate with their team. This is encouraged by visiting all managers and their teams
personally and explaining to them the topic and aim of the study. The questionnaires were spread
hard-copy after this meeting, and collected a couple of hours later. This led to a response rate of 97
percent, preventing any errors from differences between responding and non-responding teams. This
gives a complete view of the situation within this organization, and results are not influenced by
different contexts as much as when different organizations are involved in one study. The quantitative
results are reflected upon with a couple of front-line managers, which improves the contextual
understanding and makes interpretation of the results more solid. By discussing the theoretical results
with practitioners, the gap between theory and practice is shrinking. Context-specific studies like this
make it more attractive for organizations to use the outcomes of empirical studies, enhancing evidence
–based management (e.g., Guest, 2007). At last this study took up the challenge to look at HRM from
different levels and stakeholders within the organization. “Multi-level research in HRM in particular
almost automatically calls for a pluralist perspective taking into account potential different interests
and perceptions of those involved (employees, line managers, HRM professionals, top managers, and

38
employee representatives) and potentially conflicting or opposing outcomes” (Boselie, Brewster, &
Paauwe, 2009, p. 466). Multi-level studies lack in HRM research. In this study the respondents came
from two levels within the organization, but the data were aggregated to one level, so no multi-level
techniques were applied. The results of this study complementary show that the perceptions of line
management and employees on HRM do differ tremendously, thus supports the need for more multi-
level research mentioned by Boselie et al. (2009) and the call of Gerhart et al. (2000) for more multi-
rater research.

The downside of doing research in one organization is the limitation of a maximal number of teams,
which resulted in a fairly small sample size. Due to the context-specific data, the results can be greatly
interpreted in the light of the context of the organization. At the same time it is difficult to generalize
the findings to all other types of organizations. To conclude, the cross-sectional design makes
inferences about causality of relations questionable.

Operationalization of constructs

The results show a relationship between the level of perceived competences that the FLMs indicated to
have, and their self-perceived effectiveness, but it is not related to how effective the subordinates
indicated the FLM to be. This could be attributable to the operationalization of the variables.
According to the theory of self-enhancement, “people have a general tendency to develop positive and
enhanced self-evaluations”, which results in an overly-positive perception of one‟s own capabilities
and performance (Kwan, John, Robins, & Kuang, 2008, p. 549). This implies that the variables
measuring the self-evaluation of one‟s own capabilities and performance are overestimated; for this
study these variables are perceived competences and HRM implementation effectiveness perceived by
FLMs. This could be an explanation for the strong relationship found between perceived competences
and effectiveness perceived by FLMs (both self-assessments), but the absence of this relationship
between perceived competences and effectiveness perceived by FLMs, as the last measure is not a
self-assessment and the other is. This is a limitation of the research design measuring perceived
competences. Based on empirical results on self-efficacy and performance a relationship was
hypothesized, but apparently subordinates do not notice the effect of a differing level of self-perceived
competences by the FLM. As it is highly reasonable to expect that subordinates do perceive the
difference between a very competent and less competent manager, a measure of the actual
competences might have been more suitable for this study. The interviewees suggested measuring the
actual level of competences with the assessment centre method. Another way is to compare self-
perceptions to how one is perceived by for example HR specialists and subordinates, to validate the
self-perception measure, or by looking at the years of experience. Schmidt and Hunter (1998) found
that job experience predicts job performance, but this is not confirmed in the quantitative data of this
study. Years of experience as a manager is related to HRM implementation effectiveness as perceived

39
by FLMs, but not by subordinates. In the context of devolution theory the perception of line managers
themselves is in fact interesting to know, as they have to perform the job and their perception can
indicate what to focus on to enhance HRM implementation effectiveness. However, this possible
consequence of using a self-assessment should be taken into account when interpreting the results.

To conclude, HRM implementation effectiveness was based on all sorts of HR tasks varying from
administration to performance appraisal. As no underlying structure of different HR practices was
found in the data, this study was not able to differentiate the level of HRM implementation
effectiveness per HR practice. This could be interesting to consider for further research as well.

5.4 Recommendations for further research

This study contributed to clarifying the first part of the „black box‟; the HRM implementation process.
Further research could place these results in a bigger picture by including a broader part of the HR
value chain in the study, especially when a bigger sample can be reached. Similarly, it might be
worthwhile investigating a broader range of facilitating factors in one study to see the intermediate
relationships and get a more solid picture of the most relevant factors. Also more research is needed on
the possible different effect of actual and perceived competences of FLMs. The model of Wright and
Nishii (2006) is a good start to study the black box, but the processes they differentiate between are in
need of more elaboration. Purcell and Hutchinson (2007) found that employees respond to both HR
practices and their FLM‟s leadership behaviour. Thus it is interesting to include a measure of
leadership behaviour or leader-member exchange relationship (LMX) to the research model. Equally
the line manager is often seen by employees as an agent of the organization, and forms an important
chain determining if the intended (HR) message of the organization is actually perceived by the
employees. Thus the strength of the HR system, advocated for by Bowen and Ostroff (2004), is a
relevant theme is this type of research as well.

The factors enhancing the implementation process of HRM in particular are studied, but it might be
useful to investigate to what extent these results apply to other organizational fields as well.
Furthermore researchers are advised to consider the advantages of the design used in this study, and
the involvement of both line managers and employees.

Overall, this study has shown that time capacity of front-line managers is a very important factor to
enhance HRM implementation effectiveness; explanations and directions are given. For HR support to
contribute to front-line managers‟ HRM implementation, HR specialists should fit the subjects
delivered support on to the business demands, which seem to be more strategic. This study sheds a
new light on devolution theory and it supports the theory on the relationship between HRM policies
and organizational performance via line management and employees, and therefore emphasizes the
unmistakable role of employee perception in HRM research and practice.

40
 Literature

Acock, A. C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1012-1028.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179-211.

Arthur, J. B. (1994). Effects of Human Resource Systems on manufacturing performance and

turnover. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670-687.

Baarda, D. B., Teunissen, J., De Goede, M. P. M., & Teunissen, J. (1995). Kwalitatief onderzoek.
Groningen: Noordhoff Uitgevers B.V.

Baker, T.L. (1999). Doing Social Research (3th ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: state of the art. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the Job Demands-Resources model to
predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43(1), 83-104.

Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (2006). Strategic Human Resources Management: Where do we go
from here? Journal of Management, 32(6), 898-925.

Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Pickus, P. S., & Spratt, M. F. (1997). HR as a source of shareholder
value: March and recommendations'. Human Resource Management, 36, 39-47.

Bliese, P.D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: A simulation.
Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 355-373.

Bond, S., & Wise, S. (2003). Family leave policies and devolution to the line. Personnel Review, 31
(1), 58-72.

Boselie, P. (2010). Strategic human resource management: A balanced approach, London: McGraw-
Hill.

Boselie, P., Brewster, C., & Paauwe, J. (2009). In search of balance – managing the dualities of HRM:
an overview of the issues. Personnel Review, 38(5), 461-471.

Boselie, P., Dietz, G., & Boon, C. (2005). Commonalities and contradictions in HRM and
performance research. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3), 67-94.

Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2005). Human resource function competencies in European companies.
Personnel Review, 34(5), 550-566.

Bowen, D., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: the role of the
“strength” of the HRM system. Academy of Management Review, 29, 203–221.

41
Boxall, P., & Purcell, J. (2008). Strategy and Human Resource Management (2nd ed.). Hampshire:
Palgrave MacMillan.

Brown, M. L., & Kros, J. F. (2003). Data mining and the impact of missing data. Industrial
Management + Data Systems, 103(8), 611-622.

Budhwar, P. S. (2000). Evaluating levels of strategic integration and devolvement of human

resource management in the UK. Personnel Review, 29(2), 141-161.

Budhwar, P. S. & Sparrow, P. R. (1997). Evaluating levels of strategic integration and devolvement of
human resource management in India. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 8(4), 476-494.

Cunningham, I., & Hyman, J. (1999). Devolving human resources responsibilities to the line.
Personnel Review, 28 (1/2), 9-27.

Cunningham, I., James, P., & Dibben, P. (2004). Bridging the gap between rhetoric and reality: Line
managers and the protection of job security for III workers in the modern workplace. British
Journal of Management, 15, 273-290.

Delery, J. E., & Doty, D. H. (1996). Modes of theorizing in strategic human resource management:
tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions. Academy of
Management Journal, 39(4), 802–838.

Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act in sociology. Chicago: Aldine.

Gerhart, B., Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & Snell, S. A. (2000). Measurement error in research on
human resources and firm performance: how much error is there and how does it influence
effect size estimates. Personnel Psychology, 53(4), 803-834.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine.

González-Torre, P., Álvarez, M., Sarkis, J., & Adenso-Díaz, B. (2010). Barriers to implementation of
environmentally oriented reverse logistics: Evidence from the automotive industry sector.
British Journal of Management, 21(4), 889-918.

Guest, D. E. (1999). Human resource management - The workers‟ verdict. Human Resource
Management Journal, 9(3), 5-25.

Guest, D. E. (2007). Editors' Forum on the Research-Practice Gap in Human Resource Management -
Don't Shoot the Messenger: A Wake-up Call for Academics. Academy of Management journal,
50(5), 1020-1026.

42
Guest, D. E., Michie, J., Conway, N., & Sheehan, M. (2003). Human Resource Management and
corporate performance in the UK. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(2), 291-314.

Hall, L., & Torrington, D. (1998). Letting go or holding on – the devolution of operational personnel
activities. Human Resource Management Journal, 8(1), 41-55.

Harris, L., Doughty, D., & Kirk, S. (2002). The devolution of HR responsibilities – perspectives from
the UK‟s public sector. Journal of European Industrial Training, 26(5), 218-229.

Hoogendoorn, J., & Brewster, C. (1991). Decentralization and devolution. Personnel Review, 21(1), 4-
11.

Hope Hailey, V., Farndale, E., & Truss, C. (2005). The HR department‟s role in organizational
performance. Human Resource Management Journal, 15(3), 49-66.

Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,

productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3),
635-672.

Huselid, M. A., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1997). Technical and strategic human resource
management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance. The Academy of Management
Journal, 40(1), 171-188.

Khilji, S. E., & Wang, X. (2006). „Intended‟ and „implemented‟ HRM: the missing linchpin in
strategic human resource management research. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 17(7), 1171-1189.

Kwan, V. S. Y., John, O. P., Robins, R. W., & Kuang, L. L. (2008). Conceptualizing and assessing
self-enhancement bias: A componential approach. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 94(6), 1062-1077.

Larsen, H. H., & Brewster, C. (2003). Line management responsibility for HRM: what is happening in
Europe? Employee Relations, 25(3), 228-244.

Martins, L. P. (2007). A holistic framework for the strategic management of first tier managers.
Management Decision, 45(3), 616-641.

McGovern, P., Gratton, L., Hope Hailey, V., Stiles, P., & Truss, C. (1997). Human resource
management on the line? Human Resource Management Journal, 7(4), 12-29.

Nehles, A. C., van Riemsdijk, M. J., Kok, I., & Looise, J. C. (2006). Implementing human resource
management successfully: the role of first-line managers. Management Revue, 17 (3), 256-273.

Nehles, A. C., van Riemsdijk, M. J., & Looise, J. C. (2008). Assessing the constraints of HR
implementation: development and validation of a research instrument. Manuscript submitted
for publication to the Academy of Management. Retrieved March 2010.

43
Nehles, A. C., van Riemsdijk, M. J., Looise, J. C. (2010a). Constraints of line managers‟ HR
performance: the impact of organisational characteristics. Manuscript submitted for
publication to the Academy of Management. Retrieved March 2010.

Nehles, A. C., Terhalle, A. M., van Riemsdijk, M. J., & Looise, J. C. (2010b). Line managers as
implementers of HRM: are they effective? Manuscript under review.

Olsen, M., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). Bottom-of-the-pyramid: Organizational barriers to

implementation. California Management Review, 51(4), 100-125.

Paauwe, J. (2004). HRM and performance: achieving long-term viability. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Paauwe, J., & Boselie, P. (2005). HRM and performance: what next? Human Resource Management

Journal, 15(4), 68-83.

Perry, E. L., & Kulik, C. T. (2008). The devolution of HR to the line: implications for perceptions of
people management effectiveness. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
19(2), 262-273.

Pfeffer, J. (1998). Seven best practices of successful organizations. California Management Review,
40(2), 96-124.

Purcell, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2007). Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance causal
chain: theory, analysis and evidence. Human Resource Management Journal, 17(1), 3-20.

Regnér, P. (2008). Strategy-as-practice and dynamic capabilities: Steps towards a dynamic view of
strategy. Human Relations, 61(4), 565-588.

Renwick, D. (2000). HR-line work relations: a review, pilot case and research agenda. Employee
Relations, 22(2), 179-205.

Renwick, D. (2003). Line manager involvement in HRM: an inside view. Employee Relations, 25(3),
262-280.

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel
psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.
Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.

Schneider, B., Hanges, P. J., Brent Smith, D., & Salvaggio, A. N. (2003). Which comes first:
Employee attitudes or organizational financial and market performance? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(5), 836-851.

Schuler, R. S. (1992). Strategic human resources management: Linking the people with the strategic
needs of the business. Organizational Dynamics, 21(1), 18-32.

44
Schyns, B., & van Collani, G. (2002). A new occupational self-efficacy scale and its relation to
personality constructs and organizational variables. The European journal of work and
organizational psychology, 11(2), 219-242.

Thi, C. H., & Swierczek, F. W. (2010). Critical success factors in project management: implication
from Vietnam.Asia Pacific Business Review, 16(4), 567-582.

Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Johnson, D., & Younger, J. (2007). Human Resource competencies:
responding to increased expectations. Employment Relations Today, 34(3), 1-12.

Van de Voorde, K., Paauwe, J., & Van Veldhoven, M. (2010). Predicting business unit performance
using employee surveys: Monitoring HRM-related changes. Human Resource Management
Journal, 20(1), 44-63.

Van der Weerden, M. F. A. (2009). Interpersonal effectiveness of HR professionals: essential

behaviors for HR professionals in order to be a 'Credible Activist'. (Master‟s thesis, Tilburg
University, 2009).

Van Veldhoven, M. J. P. M., Debats, S. T. M. M., & Dorenbosch, L. W. (2009). Oordelen over de
effectiviteit van HRM: Een onderzoek onder HR-managers, lijnmanagers en werknemers.
Tijdschrift voor arbeidsvraagstukken, 25(2), 186-200.

Watson, S., Maxwell, G. A., & Farquharson, L. (2006). Line managers‟ views on adopting human
resource roles: the case of Hilton (UK) hotels. Employee Relations, 29(1), 30-49.

Whittaker, S., & Marchington, M. (2003). Devolving HR responsibility to the line – threat,
opportunity or partnership? Employee Relations, 25(3), 245-261.

Whittington, R. (2006). Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies, 27(5),
613-634.

Wright, P. M., & Boswell, W. R. (2002). Desegregating HRM: A review and synthesis of micro and
macro Human Resource Management research. Journal of Management, 28(3), 247-276.

Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., & Moynihan, L. M. (2003). The impact of HR practices on the
performance of business units. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), 21-36.

Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., Snell, S. A., & Gerhart, B. (2001). Comparing line and HR
executives‟ perceptions of HR effectiveness: services, roles, and contributions. Human Resource
Management, 40(2), 111-123.

Wright, P. M., & Nishii, L. (2006). Strategic HRM and organizational behavior: integrating multiple
levels of analysis. Working paper 06-05, Ithaca, NY: CAHRS Cornell University.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.), Londen: SAGE Publications.

45
Appendices

Appendix 1. Factor Analysis on time capacity, competences and HR support

Figure 4. Scree plot. Facilitating factors (time capacity, competences, HR support):

4 factors to extract.
Table 3. Factor analysis with 4 factors extracted (with labels)
a
Pattern Matrix

Component
Labels
1 2 3 4
De P&O adviseurs zijn altijd bereid mij te helpen
,950
De P&O adviseurs beschikken over de kennis die
nodig is om mijn vragen te beantwoorden ,889
De P&O adviseur geeft mij individuele aandacht
,742
De P&O afdeling heeft het beste met mij voor
,710
De P&O adviseurs informeren mij precies over het
tijdstip waarop bepaalde diensten geleverd zullen ,672
worden
Als de P&O afdeling belooft iets te doen binnen
een bepaalde tijd dan gebeurt dit ook ,588 ,398
Wat er ook gebeurt in het uitvoeren van mijn HR
taken, ik kan het gewoonlijk wel aan ,761
De ervaringen die ik in het verleden in mijn HR
taken heb opgedaan, hebben me goed voorbereid ,731
op mijn HR-toekomst
Wanneer ik geconfronteerd word met een
probleem bij het uitoefenen van mijn HR taken, ,698
dan vind ik meestal verschillende oplossingen
Ik bereik de doelstellingen die ik aan mezelf stel in
het uitoefenen van mijn HR taken ,685
Ik kan kalm blijven wanneer ik geconfronteerd
word met moeilijkheden in het uitoefenen van mijn
HR taken, omdat ik kan terugvallen op mijn ,604
vaardigheden.
Het cursusaanbod binnen TNT was voldoende om
mijn HR taken goed te kunnen uitvoeren ,878
De cursussen die ik gevolgd heb hebben me
geholpen om mijn HR taken goed te kunnen ,855
uitvoeren
De P&O afdeling slaagt er in om foutloze
personeelsgegevens te beheren ,350 ,453
Ik heb het gevoel dat ik HR taken gehaast en
wellicht minder zorgvuldig uitvoer om alles af te ,785
kunnen krijgen
Het is nodig dat ik een prioriteitenlijstje maak om
alle activiteiten die tot mijn leidinggevende taak ,725
behoren, te kunnen uitvoeren
Het lijkt of het uitvoeren van mijn HR taken nooit
afkomt. ,678
Vaak moet ik mijn verplichtingen voor mijn HR
taken afzeggen. ,636
Soms heb ik het gevoel dat de dag te kort is.
-,324 ,618
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
Table 4. Factor analysis with 4 factors extracted (overview with variable names)

a
Pattern Matrix
Component
Variables 1 2 3 4
Support 4 ,950
Support 5 ,889
Support 6 ,742
Support 7 ,710
Support 3 ,672
Support 1 ,588 ,398
Competences 3 ,761
Competences 4 ,731
Competences 2 ,698
Competences 5 ,685
Competences 1 ,604
Training 1 ,878
Training 2 ,855
Support 2 ,350 ,453
Capacity 5 ,785
Capacity 4 ,725
Capacity 1 ,678
Capacity 3 ,636
Capacity 2 -,324 ,618
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.

Table 5. Component Correlation Matrix

Component Correlation Matrix

Component 1 2 3 4
1 1,000 -,042 ,156 ,262
2 -,042 1,000 -,023 ,157
3 ,156 -,023 1,000 -,024
4 ,262 ,157 -,024 1,000
Appendix 2. Factor Analysis on HRM implementation effectiveness perceived by FLMs

Figure 5. Scree plot. FLMs‟ HRM implementation effectiveness perceived by FLMs:

1 factor to extract.
Appendix 3. Factor Analysis on FLMs‟ HRM implementation effectiveness perceived by subordinates

Figure 6. Scree plot. FLMs‟ HRM implementation effectiveness perceived by subordinates:

1 factor to extract.
Appendix 4. The questionnaire

In this appendix the front-line managers‟ questionnaire can be found. The subordinates‟ questionnaire
is similar but does not incorporate part 1 of the questionnaire. The questionnaire is in Dutch.
 Vragenlijst managers

De HR-rol van lijnmanagers

Informatie:
Floortje Lansbergen
Floortje.van.Lansbergen@netwerkvsp.nl
 Onderzoek naar de HR-rol van lijnmanagers binnen Netwerk VSP

Beste manager,
Binnen Netwerk VSP wordt het aansturen van medewerkers, en daarmee bepaalde personeelstaken,
steeds meer de verantwoordelijkheid van de direct leidinggevende (de lijnmanager). Met het
selecteren, ontwikkelen, beoordelen en begeleiden van medewerkers hebben lijnmanagers ook een
HR (Human Resource)-rol. Dit heeft ook invloed op jouw dagelijkse werkzaamheden. Netwerk VSP wil
graag meer inzicht krijgen in hoe jij dit ervaart. Ik vraag in dit onderzoek naar jouw eigen perceptie en
jouw ervaring met deze personeelstaken, en mogelijke uitdagingen die je hierbij ervaart.

Wat levert het jou op?

Ik zal onder andere vragen naar de tijd die je aan je HR verantwoordelijkheden besteed, je motivatie
en competenties om deze HR activiteiten uit te voeren en de ondersteuning die je hierbij krijgt vanuit
P&O. Tenslotte zal zowel jij als je medewerkers gevraagd worden om een indicatie te geven van de
effectiviteit van jouw personeelsmanagement activiteiten. Doordat je jouw ervaringen met ons deelt,
kan Netwerk VSP een goed beeld krijgen van hoe het management het in het algemeen ervaart om
personeelstaken uit te voeren. Dus hoewel ik vraag naar de specifieke ervaringen van jou en je
medewerkers is het nadrukkelijk niet de bedoeling om de resultaten per individu of team te bekijken.
Echter, als concrete punten naar voren komen die het management kunnen faciliteren, zal Netwerk
VSP daar organisatiebreed actie op ondernemen. Deze interventies kunnen ook bijdragen aan de
aansturing van jouw team en daarmee aan de prestatie van jouw medewerkers. Het loont dus om de
vragenlijst zo eerlijk mogelijk in te vullen! Het invullen van de vragenlijst zal maximaal 10 minuten in
beslag nemen. Bij voorbaat hartelijk dank voor je deelname!

Vertrouwelijkheid
Iedereen die deze vragenlijst ontvangt moet zich vrij kunnen voelen om de vragenlijst in te vullen.
Daarom is vertrouwelijkheid van het grootste belang. De Universiteit van Tilburg zal volstrekt
vertrouwelijk met de ingevulde vragenlijsten omgaan. De rapportage zal volstrekt anoniem zijn, en er
zal nooit gerapporteerd worden op een wijze waardoor resultaten tot een individu herleid kunnen
worden. De resultaten zullen alleen worden bekeken voor Netwerk VSP als geheel, en nooit voor een
specifieke afdeling, manager of medewerker.

Heb je vragen over dit onderzoek dan kun je contact opnemen met mij, Floortje Lansbergen. Ik voer
dit onderzoek uit ter afronding van mijn studie Human Resource Studies aan de Universiteit van
Tilburg. Je zou mij, en Netwerk VSP, ontzettend blij maken met je deelname!

Hartelijk dank voor je medewerking!

 Beantwoord de vragen vlot; geef het antwoord dat als eerste in je op
komt.

We zijn geïnteresseerd in jouw eigen mening. Er zijn geen goede of foute

antwoorden.

Kruis steeds maar ÉÉN antwoord aan.

Lees steeds goed de betekenis van de antwoordcategorieën.

1. HR verantwoordelijkheid en taken

In het volgende deel zullen wij vragen stellen over je leidinggevende functie, met een focus op de HR
verantwoordelijkheid en taken die je voor jouw team moet uitvoeren. Leidinggeven betekent niet alleen
het leiden, aansturen, motiveren en coachen van jouw team. Lijnmanagers zijn ook verantwoordelijk
voor bepaalde HR-activiteiten.

Voor welke van de volgende HR-activiteiten ben jij verantwoordelijk?

Meedere antwoorden mogelijk.

Administratieve taken m.b.t. het leiden van je team (personeelsgegevens vastleggen etc.)
Personeelsplanning
Verwerken van personeelsmutaties
Ziekteverzuimbegeleiding
Werven en selecteren van potentiële nieuwe werknemers
Evalueren en beoordelen van je medewerkers
Inventariseren van trainingsbehoefte en opdracht geven tot uitvoering hiervan
Vaststellen en bespreken van salaris(verhoging)
Begeleiden, adviseren en motiveren van medewerkers in je team

Met ‘HR taken’ worden in het vervolg die activiteiten bedoeld die je hier
aangegeven hebt!
 1 Helemaal mee oneens
Kun je aangeven in welke mate je het eens bent met de

5 Helemaal mee eens

volgende stellingen?
Kruis één antwoord aan van 1 (zeer mee oneens) t/m 5 (zeer mee eens).

2 Mee oneens

4 Mee eens
3 Neutraal
Tijdsbesteding aan HR taken:

1 Het lijkt of het uitvoeren van mijn HR taken nooit afkomt. 1 2 3 4 5

2 Soms heb ik het gevoel dat de dag te kort is. 1 2 3 4 5

3 Vaak moet ik mijn verplichtingen voor mijn HR taken afzeggen. 1 2 3 4 5

4 Het is nodig dat ik een prioriteitenlijstje maak om alle activiteiten die tot 1 2 3 4 5
mijn leidinggevende taak behoren, te kunnen uitvoeren.

5 Ik heb het gevoel dat ik mijn HR taken gehaast en wellicht minder 1 2 3 4 5

zorgvuldig uitvoer om alles af te kunnen krijgen.

Competenties voor het uitvoeren van HR taken:

6 Ik kan kalm blijven wanneer ik geconfronteerd word met moeilijkheden in 1 2 3 4 5

het uitoefenen van mijn HR taken, omdat ik kan terugvallen op mijn
vaardigheden.

7 Wanneer ik geconfronteerd word met een probleem bij het uitoefenen van 1 2 3 4 5
mijn HR taken, dan vind ik meestal verschillende oplossingen.

8 Wat er ook gebeurt in het uitvoeren van mijn HR taken, ik kan het 1 2 3 4 5
gewoonlijk wel aan.

9 De ervaringen die ik in het verleden met mijn HR taken heb opgedaan, 1 2 3 4 5

hebben me goed voorbereid op mijn HR-toekomst.

10 Ik bereik de doelstellingen die ik aan mezelf stel in het uitoefenen van mijn 1 2 3 4 5
HR taken.

Vragen over cursussen die je gevolgd hebt m.b.t. HR taken:

11 De cursussen die ik gevolgd heb hebben me geholpen om mijn HR taken 1 2 3 4 5

goed te kunnen uitvoeren.

12 Het cursusaanbod binnen TNT was voldoende om mijn HR taken goed te 1 2 3 4 5

kunnen uitvoeren.
 mee oneens

4 Mee eens
1 Helemaal

5 Helemaal
3 Neutraal

mee eens
Kun je aangeven in welke mate je het eens bent met de volgende stellingen?

oneens
2 Mee
Ondersteuning bij het uitvoeren van HR taken:

13 Als de P&O afdeling belooft iets te doen binnen een bepaalde tijd dan 1 2 3 4 5
gebeurt dit ook.

14 De P&O afdeling slaagt er in om foutloze personeelsgegevens te beheren. 1 2 3 4 5

15 De P&O adviseurs informeren mij precies over het tijdstip waarop bepaalde 1 2 3 4 5
diensten geleverd zullen worden.

16 De P&O adviseurs zijn altijd bereid mij te helpen. 1 2 3 4 5

17 De P&O adviseurs beschikken over de kennis die nodig is om mijn vragen te 1 2 3 4 5

beantwoorden.

18 De P&O adviseur geeft mij individuele aandacht. 1 2 3 4 5

19 De P&O afdeling heeft het beste met mij voor. 1 2 3 4 5

Motivatie om HR taken uit te voeren:

Waarom houdt u zich bezig met het uivoeren van HR taken?

20 Omdat ik vind dat het uitvoeren van deze activiteiten interessant is. 1 2 3 4 5

21 Omdat ik dit doe voor mijn eigen bestwil. 1 2 3 4 5

22 Omdat ik vind dat het goed voor me is om deze activiteiten uit te voeren. 1 2 3 4 5

23 Ik voer deze activiteiten uit maar ik ben er niet van overtuigd dat ze de 1 2 3 4 5
moeite waard zijn.

24 Omdat het leuk is deze activiteiten te verrichten. 1 2 3 4 5

25 Dat heb ik zelf zo besloten. 1 2 3 4 5

26 Omdat ik geen enkele keuze heb. 1 2 3 4 5

27 Ik weet het niet, ik zie niet in wat deze activiteiten me opleveren. 1 2 3 4 5

28 Omdat ik me prettig voel bij het uitvoeren van deze activiteiten. 1 2 3 4 5

29 Omdat ik geloof dat het verrichten van deze activiteiten belangrijk voor me 1 2 3 4 5
is.

30 Ik verricht deze activiteiten, maar ik ben er niet zeker van dat het verstandig 1 2 3 4 5
is hiermee door te gaan.

31 Omdat het de mensen in mijn team helpt te groeien, zichzelf te verbeteren 1 2 3 4 5

en te ontwikkelen.

32 Omdat deze activiteiten me helpen mijn team aan te sturen. 1 2 3 4 5

33 Omdat het me helpt bij het bereiken van mijn productieafspraken. 1 2 3 4 5

34 Omdat ik menselijk belang altijd de prioriteit geef boven zakelijk belang. 1 2 3 4 5

2. Uitvoering van HR taken

1 Zeer ontevreden
Hoe tevreden ben je over de manier waarop jij zelf de volgende

5 Zeer tevreden
taken uitvoert?

2 Ontevreden

4 Tevreden
Kun je voor de volgende stellingen aangeven hoe tevreden je bent over de manier

3 Neutraal
waarop jij onderstaande taken uitvoert (van 1 ontevreden t/m 5 tevreden)? Als de
stelling niet voor jou van toepassing is, kruis dan 0 (n.v.t.) aan.

n.v.t.
Personeeladministratie

1 De registratie van gewerkte uren 1 2 3 4 5 0

2 De administratie van ziekteverzuim 1 2 3 4 5 0

3 Vastleggen van personeelsgegevens 1 2 3 4 5 0

4 Vertalen van organisatiedoelen naar afdelingsdoelen en individuele doelen 1 2 3 4 5 0

5 Vastleggen van bedrijfsongevallen (veiligheid) 1 2 3 4 5 0

6 Analyseren van personeelsgegevens en het bespreken van de resultaten 1 2 3 4 5 0

(bijvoorbeeld VOICE, ziekteverzuim van de afdeling)

7 Aandacht geven aan de kwaliteit van de werkomgeving 1 2 3 4 5 0

( prettige werkplek, plezierige werkrelaties, etc.)

Bezetting
8 Introductie van nieuwe medewerkers 1 2 3 4 5 0

9 Functie-indeling 1 2 3 4 5 0
(plannen van de taken binnen een functie)

10 Functie beschrijving 1 2 3 4 5 0
(duidelijk communiceren wat van medewerkers verwacht wordt binnen
hun functie)

11 Competentiebepaling 1 2 3 4 5 0
(Sturing op competenties (vaardigheden, kennis en houding))

12 Het verwerken van personeelsmutaties/-wijzigingen 1 2 3 4 5 0

(overplaatsing, functiewijziging, urenwijziging, ouderschapsverlof,
indienst, uitdienst, etc.)

13 Het maken van een personeelsplanning 1 2 3 4 5 0

(afstemmen van de hoeveelheid medewerkers die worden ingepland
in het rooster op de hoeveelheid werk die er gedaan moet worden)

Werving en selectie

14 Het werven / aantrekken van nieuwe medewerkers 1 2 3 4 5 0

15 Het selecteren van een geschikte kandidaat voor een bepaalde functie 1 2 3 4 5 0
 1 Zeer ontevreden
Hoe tevreden ben je over de manier waarop jij zelf de volgende taken

5 Zeer tevreden
uitvoert?

2 Ontevreden

4 Tevreden
3 Neutraal

n.v.t.
Opleiding en ontwikkeling

16 Bepalen van de behoefte aan training en opleiding (bijv. tijdens het 1 2 3 4 5 0

planningsgesprek)

17 Opleiden, coachen en geven van aanwijzingen aan medewerkers 1 2 3 4 5 0

18 Loopbaanbegeleiding (bij het doorgroeien naar een andere functie) 1 2 3 4 5 0

19 Werkoverleg met medewerkers 1 2 3 4 5 0

20 Voeren van beoordelingsgesprekken 1 2 3 4 5 0

21 Voeren van voortgangsgesprekken 1 2 3 4 5 0

22 Nakomen van de gemaakte afspraken uit de plannings-, voortgangs- en 1 2 3 4 5 0

beoordelingsgesprekken

Beloning
23 Vaststellen van salaris (gebeurt dit eerlijk, transparant en duidelijk?) 1 2 3 4 5 0

24 Verhoging of verlaging van salaris 1 2 3 4 5 0

25 Bespreken van salaris 1 2 3 4 5 0

Begeleiding van medewerkers

26 Oplossen van conflicten tussen leden van de afdeling (directe collega’s) 1 2 3 4 5 0

27 Medewerkers adviseren over de uitvoering van hun functie 1 2 3 4 5 0

28 Onderhouden van harmonieuze arbeidsrelaties / de sfeer binnen de 1 2 3 4 5 0

afdeling

29 Ziekteverzuimbegeleiding (begeleiding bieden tijdens en na afloop van 1 2 3 4 5 0

afwezigheid door ziekte)

30 Persoonlijke begeleiding / gesprekken 1 2 3 4 5 0

3. Algemene gegevens

1. Wat is je leeftijd? ……………………………………………………………………………….

2. Wat is je geslacht?

man
vrouw

3. Hoeveel jaar ben je al werkzaam bij Netwerk VSP? …………………………………

4. Hoeveel jaar ben je al werkzaam in je huidige functie? …………………………………

5. Hoeveel jaar ben je al werkzaam in een leidinggevende functie? …………………………………

6. Voor welk bedrijfsonderdeel ben je werkzaam?

Huis-aan-huis Hoofdkantoor
Regio

Geadresseerd Hoofdkantoor
Regio

7. Wat is de hoogste opleiding die je hebt voltooid?

Lagere school
Voortgezet onderwijs (MAVO, HAVO, VWO)
Middelbare Beroepsopleiding (MBO)
Hogere Beroepsopleiding (HBO)
Universiteit (WO)

8. Heb je aanvullende opleidingen/cursussen gevolgd om je functie als leidinggevende uit te kunnen

oefenen?

Ja
Nee

9. Hoeveel medewerkers werken er gemiddeld genomen onder jouw directe verantwoordelijkheid

(dagelijks contact, rechtstreeks verantwoordelijk)? …………………………………

10. Hoeveel mensen werken onder jouw indirecte verantwoordelijkheid? ………………………………

11. Geef je leiding aan leidinggevende medewerkers?

Ja
Nee

12. Wat is de hoogste opleiding die de medewerkers in jouw team/afdeling gemiddeld genomen
hebben voltooid?

Geen scholing
Lagere school
Voortgezet onderwijs (MAVO, HAVO, VWO)
Middelbare Beroepsopleiding (MBO)
Hogere Beroepsopleiding (HBO)
Universiteit (WO)

13. De medewerkers waar ik leiding aan geef leveren in mijn beleving een wezenlijke bijdrage aan het
bereiken van de speerpunten van Netwerk VSP

Mee eens
Mee oneens

14. De medewerkers waar ik leiding aan geef zijn in mijn beleving “zeldzaam” of moeilijk te vervangen

Mee eens
Mee oneens

15. De medewerkers waar ik leiding aan geef zie ik als medewerkers die behoren tot de “kern” van het
bedrijf

Mee eens
Mee oneens

Mocht je nog vragen en/of opmerkingen hebben, dan hoor ik dat graag.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Dit is het einde van de vragenlijst.

Hartelijk bedankt voor je deelname!