Line Managers’ Perspectives on Understanding and Adoption of Human Resource

Development:
Approaches in Hilton International’s UK Hotels

Introduction

The aim of this article is to discuss human resource development (HRD) in terms of line
managers’ understanding of their responsibility and inclination towards adopting key
activities. The dual dimensions of this aim are addressed first from theoretical perspectives,
then on this foundation from an empirical perspective drawing from case study work of line
managers’ approaches to HRD in Hilton International’s UK hotels. In compiling this article
we are seeking to draw attention to how line manager’s perspectives of HRD can influence
the implementation of HRD in practice.

Line Managers’ Understanding of HRD

Defining HRD

A relatively recent and ‘still emergent’ concept (Sambrook, 2004; p611), HRD is not yet
widely understood. Nevertheless, understanding HRD is fundamental to line managers’
practical implementation of HRD activities (Maxwell and Watson, 2004). The term HRD,
however, continues to generate controversy and complexity (Trehan, 2004) while eluding
universal definition. McGorldrick et al. (2002; p11) indicate that ‘There is no single lens for
viewing HRD and indeed there are many voices articulating particular perspectives.’ Trehan
(2004), for example, sets out various contours of defining HRD: organisational objectives and
processes, mutuality of organisational and individual interests, training and development
activities, and societal learning. Similarly Garavan et al. (1999) point out, from a
comprehensive overview of the body of theory on HRD, three key dimensions that underpin
the philosophy of HRD. These are that: HRD is a social and discursive construct; HRD can
be conceived as an investment in human resource capability as opposed to costs of
employment; and HRD focuses on individual employees in a holistic sense. In facilitating
line manager activity in HRD though, these aspects of HRD may be seen as general and
rather vague, lacking specificity and application. Therefore Smith’s (2004) definition of HRD
may be both more concrete and practical. Here:
‘HRD is concerned with enhancing the work-related knowledge, skills and capability
of people; [and with] people working as individuals, in teams, and in organisations. It
is about providing people with the knowledge, understanding, skills, and training the
enable them to perform effectively’
(Smith, 2004; p149).

The value of this definition for line managers is that is centres on the nature and purpose of
HRD, particularly in the context of organisational change. So it is arguably helpful in line
managers’ assuming responsibility for HRD activities.

Line Manager Responsibility for HRD

Human resource activities, including training ‘have always been a part of a line manager’s
job,’ according to Papalexandris and Panayotopoulou (2005; p282). Moreover, Beattie (2006;
p101) argues that ‘line managers as much as, if not more than, the HRD function play a
critical role in facilitating …organisational and individual learning.’ Such positions are
supported by others, for example Garavan et al., (1999), Gibb (2003) and McCracken and
Wallace (2000). Factors in the external and internal business operating environment have, it
is asserted, necessitated line managers being integral to HRD. These factors include
consumer demands, information technology developments and globalisation on the external
front and employee productivity, service innovation, skills shortages and competence
development on the internal front. Furthermore, it has been contended that not only should
line managers be involved in HRD but also that they are ‘key stakeholders’ in HRD (Heraty
and Morley, 1995; p31), so important is their contribution.

Previous work by the authors indicates that as a key stakeholder, line manager involvement in
HRD, crucially, is predicated on conceptual understanding of the business need for such
activity (Maxwell and Watson, 2004). Indeed, a fundamental element of HR business
partnership development is arguably commonality in line and HR manager perceptions on the
HR function in which line managers are elemental (Larson and Brewster, 2003). Perceptual
divergence may negatively impact on line manager and, ultimately, business performance
(Gilbert, 2000; Kearns, 2004), therefore understanding it is important.

Also, Maxwell et al (2004) categorise a number of enablers of line manager involvement in

HRD activities as: integration of HRD activities with organisational goals; top management
support for HRD, environmental scanning in relation to awareness and benchmarking of
HRD and recognising that the culture can be managed to encourage learning. In seeking to
explore partnerships between HR and line managers, Maxwell and Watson (2006) highlight
the importance of a shared understanding of roles and a supportive culture to embrace
individual and organisational learning.

In general the presumption in the literature on line managers in HRD is that they will adopt
HRD activities for reasons of business imperatives, irrespective of whether they understand
their responsibility for HRD or whether the enablers are in place.

Line Managers’ Adoption of HRD

Activities and Behaviours

HRD activities are helpfully outlined by Koorneeff et al. (2005). They can include: training
needs analysis, training programme design and modification, planning and control,
consultation and discussion, delivering training, controlling and assessing training, coaching,
managing or overseeing training and acting as a resource (ibid; p363). Again, line managers
may be supported in adopting HRD by the specific and concrete nature of deconstructing
HRD in this - or a similar - way.

In a similar vein of practicality, Beattie (2006) specifies, in a hierarchical order, categories of

line manager behaviours in facilitating learning. In ascending order, these categories are:
caring, informing, being professional, advising, assessing, thinking, empowering, developing
developers and, at the apex, challenging (ibid; p107). More useful still is a further analysis of
the categories into behaviours (and descriptions) of the behaviours, viz:

Caring supporting; encouraging; being approachable; reassuring;

being committed/ involved; empathising
Informing sharing knowledge
Being Professional role modelling; standard setting; planning and preparing
Advising instructing; coaching; guiding; counselling
Assessing providing feedback and recognition; identifying development needs
Thinking reflective or prospective thinking; clarifying
Empowering delegating; trusting
(ibid; p108)

Although these behaviours were identified in a case study setting, the category/ behaviour
format, together with some of the behaviours themselves, may well offer practical guidance,
once again, for line managers being able to discharge their HRD responsibility. However, it is
also important to recognise that challenges to line managers in HRD may present themselves.

Challenges

As de Jong et al. (1999; p176) level, delegation of HRD responsibility to first level managers
turns out to be a feasible option providing certain conditions are met’. The underlying
implication is that conditions to - or challenges to - line manager adoption of HRD activities
exist. Indeed a raft of conceptual and practical challenges have been identified (Maxwell and
Watson, 2006) in the literature. On the conceptual level, line manager commitment to HRD
(de Jong et al., 1999), senior managers’ understanding of training and development issues
(ibid), and trust between line managers and specialists (Garavan et al., 1993) have been
identified. On the practical level, line managers’ ability to carry out HRD activities (de Jong
et al., 1999), demonstrable organisational support for HRD (Heraty and Morley, 1995), and
line manager training in HRD (de Jong, op.cit.) have been identified. In addition, short-term
pressures and work overload have been noted as challenges to line managers in HRD, by Tsui
(1997) and Brewster and Soderstrom (1994) respectively. Yet again support to line managers
in HRD is afforded, in detailing potential challenges.

In summarising the themes from this literature review it can be seen that in relation that there
is discussion on line managers understanding of HRD theoretically and practically in relation
to their responsibility for HRD and that in relation to adoption of HRD, the literature
highlights issues regarding the roles and activities of HRD and challenges in relation to
conceptual and practical issues. From the literature review we have developed the following
research questions to guide the analysis and discussion within this paper.
The research questions that underpin this article are
What is the line manager’s understanding of their HRD roles and responsibilities?
What are the key HRD activities that line managers adopt?
What are the challenges that line managers face in relation to HRD roles and responsibilities?

Research Design

The is research is conducted within the 76 UK based hotels of Hilton International, as it had
launched a service quality initiative that acted as the impetus for the organisation to integrate
HRD activities with strategic goals. Integral to the new service concept in Hilton was the
linking of all HR activities to the service initiative in an HR policy and employment package
called Esprit. Within Hilton, Esprit is portrayed as being a concept directing the way
employees are managed and work. It is ‘a promise on how our colleagues are treated within
the company’ (UK HR Vice-President), consisting of a range of HR activities. Hotel
managers, departmental managers, supervisors and assistant managers alike are all charged
with responsibility for delivering Esprit, though in practice the hotel managers usually have
less customer contact. These managers are collectively referred to as line managers.
Hilton perceives Esprit as being fundamentally concerned with instilling a service culture
throughout the organisation. In the words of the UK HR Vice-President, it is intended that
‘Esprit should live in the hotels and [line] managers should determine recognition rather
than it being seen as a Head Office initiative’. Respect, recognition and reward are the key
principles of Esprit. They are supported in practical terms by a comprehensive training and
reward system which is packaged as a club employees join through achieving levels of
training. Another central tenet of Esprit is that line managers in hotels are expected to assume
much of the responsibility HRD activities that support the strategic quality service driver.
These activities include training and development, employee motivation and recognition, and
performance management. Line managers are provided with support from specialist HR staff
at unit and Head Office level. In the UK and Ireland region for one, gaining line manager
commitment and involvement is, according to the HR VP here, “by far the biggest challenge
… there is an awful lot of work to do in changing line managers’ hearts and minds to
understanding the essence of Esprit.” At present line managers tend to expect people other
than themselves to “do Esprit,” and rather miss the point that Esprit is “only as good as the
people [including line managers] who live its ethos – walk the talk – and implement it.”
Fundamental to this is an understanding that Esprit is a behavioural not a mechanistic vehicle
for delivery of organisational goals. In essence the organisation appears to be adopting an
HRD approach as defined by Smith( 2004).

This paper is reporting only on the HRD aspects of the results from a project that was
investigating the wider HRM and HRD implications of this initiative on line managers. The
empirical work is derived from a survey of 760 of Hilton International’s UK managers on
their perceptions of, and involvement in, human resource activities. The survey was
conducted as an on-going case study with Hilton (Maxwell and Quail, 2002; Maxwell and
Watson, 2004). With a survey response of 328 questionnaires (43%), the Hilton work
provides data for an analysis of the perspectives of line managers on their interface with
HRD. Descriptive statistics are used to analyse the quantitative results. Open-ended question
responses are coded into themes to enable these to be presented using percentage response
rates. Quantitative responses are supplemented with qualitative statements where appropriate.
In addition, the analysis is supplemented with information gleaned from semi-structured
interviews with the UK and Ireland regional Human Resource Vice President.
However, the limitations of this approach to the research concern a bias in the results, with
line managers commenting on their own roles and abilities could present a more positive
image than is the case in reality. In addition the use of a survey instrument as the means of
collecting data does limit the extent to which individual perceptions can be explored.
However, in support of this method it does provide an organisation picture of views on HRD
to be exposed.

Empirical Findings

Line manager profiles

All 76 hotels in the UK are represented in the sample, with 34% of respondents located in
Central and North England, 22% from Scotland and Ireland, 29% South of England and 16%
in London. Thirty percent of the sample comprises senior managers, consisting of general
managers and deputy managers, 53% are departmental managers, 9% supervisors and 7%
(assistant and deputy departmental managers). Two percent of the respondents did not
indicate their position in the organisation. Fifty six percent of the respondents have been in
their current position for 1-5years, 15% over 5 years and 27 % less than one year. Of those
who have been in their current position for less than one year, 39% have been with the
organisation for less than one year, representing 10% of the total returns. Forty eight percent
of the respondents indicated that they had been with Hilton hotels for 1-5years and a further
38% over 5 years.
The results from the survey questionnaires are presented using the three research questions to
frame the discussion, prior to offering concluding comments regarding line manager’s
perceptions on HRD.

What is the line manager’s understanding of their HRD roles and responsibilities?

In relation to the line managers’ views on their understanding of their HRD roles, we have
utilised data on both the understanding and ownership of the Esprit initiative as this is the
foundation of the HRD activities in the organisation (Heraty and Morley, 1995; Bond and
Wise, 2003).

Respondents were able to give multiple responses to the question on their understanding of
Esprit within Hilton. For the majority of line managers (87%) perceive Esprit as a club for
employees. This majority view is represented across all levels of management, and is not
dependent on length of service, age or gender. Only 26% of the line managers indicate that
Esprit is a concept directing the way employees work, with a further 14% indicating that it is
a way of working practices. Further, only four line managers specialists indicated
understanding of the concept and values underpinning Esprit in positing additional
comments: [Esprit is] ‘a belief/ culture system’ (HR manager, Scotland) and ‘positive
enforcement of Hilton as a group in the minds of our employees’ (line manager, Scotland).

In a similar vein there also appears to be discrepancies regarding ownership of Esprit that
may be resonant of line manger willingness to carry out HR activities (Aston, 1984; de Jong
et al., 1993; Garavan et al., 1995 and 2001; Renwick and MacNeil, 2002).The general view
expressed is that there is multiple-ownership. Nearly all respondents provided three responses
each to the question on this subject, generating a total of 865 responses. However in
analysing these based on number of respondents it can be seen that 69% of line-managers
consider Esprit to be owned by Hilton, whilst 54% of line managers indicate that employees
own it. Almost two thirds of the line managers consider it to be owned by human resource
specialists (30% head office HR and 31% hotel based human resource specialists). Twenty
three percent of line managers perceive it to be owned by senior management. Thirty percent
of line managers expressed the view that departmental managers own it and 22% considered
Esprit to be owned by the individual hotels.

From their majority responses it is evident that the respondents do not have an understanding
of Esprit or take responsibility for the ownership that is commensurate with the Hilton
conception. However, although there appears to be some confusing regarding the
philosophical acceptance of the Esprit concept, line managers do portray a strong sense of
personal responsibility for staff within their teams, with nearly all (97%) agreeing to some
extent – 56% strongly – with the statement ‘I feel personal responsibility for my team
members.’ Slightly fewer (90%) agree to some extent – 33% strongly – with the statement ‘I
have responsibility for HRD in my team.’
So in relation to this research question, the results support a view that line managers accept
responsibility for HRD, even although there is confusion regarding their understanding and
ownership of Esprit.
What are the key HRD activities that line managers adopt?

In order to obtain an overview of the range of HRD activities undertaken line managers were
asked to indicate their views on: the human resource development activities in which they are
actively involved; the level of importance of HRD activities in relation to importance to
business effectiveness; and ranking of the most important HRD activities. Table 1 provides a
breakdown of the results.

Table1 Perceptions of line managers: involvement in activities and importance in HRD

activities

HRD activity Line managers’ Line Managers’ mean Managers’ rankings

views on their scores on importance of most important
involvement in of HRD activities to HRD activities to
HRD activities business effectiveness business effectiveness
(involved or not)
(1=most important,
5= least)

Team briefings & 89% 2.77 2

communication
Identification of 85% 3.26 4
training needs

Performance 84% 3.21 3

appraisal
Ensure staff 80% 3.32 5
participate in T &
D activities
Evaluating training 71% 3.57 6
Ensuring HRD 67% 3.63 7
processes are
maintained
Induction of new 66% 2.58 1
employees

It is interesting to note the perceived importance of induction and team briefings to business
performance, with evaluation and process issues being seen as having little impact. Greatest
involvement is seen in team briefings, identifying training needs and performance appraisals,
which can be seen to be falling within (Beattie’s, 2006) caring, informing and assessing
behaviours.

Twenty one percent of the line managers took the opportunity to provide additional
comments on their role in relation to HRD activities. Thirty eight percent of the comments
relate to training, encompassing analysing training needs, encouraging employees to
participate in training, delivery and evaluation and coaching. Interestingly, most of the
comments offered in the questionnaire responses – some 214 – focus on line managers’
personal impacts on Esprit. Most (25) comments relate to positive role model effects in
managerial attitudes and behaviours, for example one respondent notes his/ her ‘promotion of
Esprit to ensure it’s a key focus for staff and lives and breathes in the department.’ Other
behavioural comments cluster around the managerial actions of encouragement, support and
communication of Esprit, strongly indicating acceptance of responsibility for HRD in Esprit.

There is also evidence of managers feeling that they have the ability to undertake HRD
activities with, 95% of respondents feeling ‘competent in supporting training and
development in their department’, pointing to line managers’ successfully rising to the
challenge of carrying our HRD activities. Further 92% are comfortable with their coaching
role. These behaviours are more associated with thinking, empowering advising and being
professional (Beattie, 2006).

What are the challenges that line managers face in relation to HRD roles and
responsibilities?

In relation to organisational support for line managers (Heraty and Morley, 1995), most often
cited by the line managers (by 61%) were personal development and the provision of support
material, such as training manuals, as Table 2 illustrates.
Table 2 Supports to Line Managers in HRD

Support Opinions
of line managers
(n=328)
Personal development 61% (of respondents)
Provision of appropriate 61%
support material
Maintenance of the profile of HRD activities 45%
Senior management support 42%
HRD techniques and ideas 35%
Administrative support 31%

As to opinions of senior managers’ understanding of training and development issues, the

overwhelming majority (97%) opine this is quite good to excellent,. On a five point semantic
scale where 5 is ‘excellent’, the mean is 3.91, that is between ‘good’ and ‘very good.’ It is
clear then that overall the level of understanding is believed to be high, encouraging line
managers’ involvement in HRD.

In addition in exploring the issues of trust (Garavan et al, 1993) line managers’ portray a
very high level of trust in the hotel HR managers is clearly evident: 86% of respondents attest
to this trust, with 68% of all respondents either strongly agreeing or agreeing with the
statement ‘I trust the HR specialists in my unit.’ Line managers’ positive opinion of HR in
their hotels is also underlined by their views on the working relationship with their hotel HR
manager (M=3.91), indicated as an important factor by Garavan et al. (1999).

This analysis indicates that the challenges around trust, support, and ability have been
realised, but in examining training, work pressures and time, a slightly more negative picture
is exposed. In particular, the majority of line managers (74%) stated that training would help
them to some extent (36%) or to a great extent (38%). The importance of training of line
managers to enable them to undertake HR activities has been highlighted by a number of
authors including Aston (1984), Brewster and Soderstrom (1994) and de Jong et al. (1999).

The two main barriers to most line managers supporting the HRD Esprit initiative are seen as
heavy workloads and short-term job pressures (see Table 3). Time management skills were
raised as a barrier by 43% of the line managers, reinforcing the issues of heavy workloads
and short-time pressures.

Table 3 Barriers to Line Manager Involvement in HRD

Barrier Opinions of
line managers
(n=328)
Heavy workloads 86% (of respondents)
Short term job pressures 78%
Lack of time management skills 43%
Role conflict 29%
Lack of delegation skills 27%
Lack of skills to support learning 19%
Lack of communication skills 17%
Discomfort with coaching role 9%

In summary, the analysis reveals that although there is a lack of clarity regarding the
philosophy and ownership of the Esprit concept, there is a general acceptance of HRD
responsibilities and activities. At the same time issues of conceptual understanding and
ownership of HRD within Hilton, together with training support for HRD, are challenges that
have been exposed. However, the respondents offer suggestions to improve their ability to
undertake HRD activities within the case organisation, reflecting an acceptance of their role.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the data from this research has revealed that despite a lack of shared
understanding and ownership of the wider HR initiative, line managers appear to have
embraced their HRD roles, portraying a sense of responsibility to employee and business
needs. The results can be seen to support the three dimension of HRD as presented by
Garavan et al. (1999). In addition the line managers have taken on board key HRD roles and
reflect a (self assessed) ability and willingness in adopting these.
Finally, many of the challenges in devolving HR to the line managers have been overcome,
but in practical terms there are still the issues of workloads, time pressures and further
training to support line managers to be addressed.

In this case study, it can be surmised that the line managers perceptions of HRD reflects a
view of HRD as a business imperative, with it being concerned with ensuring employees
have the skills and abilities to perform effectively ( Garavan et al., 1999 and Smith, 2004). It
is also evident that the organisation and the respondents consider that line managers play a
central role in implementing HRD and as such can be seen as key stakeholders (Heraty and
Morley, 1995). In addition it has been realised that both the organisational culture and the
strategic integration of HRD are enablers in cultivating this business oriented view of HRD
(Maxell and Watson, 2004).

However, it must be highlighted that the survey design did not enable further exploration of
behaviours and interpretations of line managers understanding. It does however provide an
example of line managers’ perceptions of HRD in practice that can add to the understanding
of HRD (Sambrooke, 2004) through the lens of line managers (McGoldrick et al., 2002).
References

Beattie R.S. (2006) ‘Line Managers and Workplace Learning: Learning from the Voluntary
Sector,’ Human Resource Development International, 9:1, pp100-119.

Bond S. and Wise S. (2003) “Family leave policies and devolution to the line”, Personnel
Review, 32 (1 /2):58-73.

Brewster C. and Soderstrom M. (1994) ‘Human resources and line management,’ in Brewster
C. and Hegewisch A., Policy and Practice in European Human Resource Management,
London: Routledge, cited by Heraty and Morley below.

de Jong J.A., Leenders F.J. and Thijissen J.G.L. (1999) ‘HRD tasks of first level managers,’
Journal of Workplace Learning, 11:5, pp176-183.

Garavan T. N., Barnicle B. and O’Suilleabhain F. (1999) ‘Management development:

contemporary trends, issues and strategies,’ Journal of European Industrial Training, 23/4/5,
pp191-207.

Garavan T.N., Barnicle B. and Heraty N. (1993) ‘The training and development function: its
search for power and influence in organisations,’ Journal of European Industrial Training,
7:7, pp22-32.

Garavan T.N., Heraty N. and Barnicle B. (1999) ‘Human resource development literature:
current issues, priorities and dilemmas,’ Journal of European Industrial Training, 23/4/5,
pp169-179.

Gibb S. (2003) ‘Line manager involvement in learning and development: Small beer or big
deal?’ Employee Relations, 25:3, pp281-293.

Gilbert G. R. (2000) Measuring internal customer satisfaction. Managing Service Quality,

Vol.10, No.3, pp178-186.

Heraty N. and Morley M. (1995) ‘Line managers and human resource development,’ Journal
of European Industrial Training, 19:10, pp31-37.

Kearns P. (2004) How Strategic Are You? The six ‘killer’ questions, Strategic HR Review,
Vol.3, No.3, pp20-23.

Koornneff M.J., Oostvogel K.B.C. and Poell R.F. (2004) ‘Between ideal and tradition: the
roles of HRD practitioners in South Australian organisations,’ Journal of European Industrial
Training, 29:5, pp356-368.

Larsen, H.H. and Brewster, C. (2003) Line management responsibility for HRM: what is
happening in Europe? Employee Relations Vol 25, No.3 pp228-244
Maxwell G.A. and Watson S. (2004) ‘Quality Service in the international hotel sector: a
catalyst for strategic human Resource Development?,’ Journal of European Industrial
Training Vol, 2/3/4 pp159-183

Maxwell G.A. and Watson S. (2006) ‘Line Manager Challenges in Human Resource
Development: A Study of Hilton International’s UK Hotels,’ International Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Administration, Vol 27 no 1 pp 83-99

McCracken M. and Wallace M. (2000) ‘Exploring strategic maturity in HRD – rhetoric,

aspiration or reality?’ Journal of European Industrial Training, 25:5, pp281-290.

McGoldrick, J., Stewart, J. and Watson, S. (2002 Understanding Human Resource

Development A research-based approach. Routledge, London

Papalexandris N. and Panayotopoulou L. (2005) ‘Exploring the partnership between line

managers and HRM in Greece,’ ’ Journal of European Industrial Training, 29:4, pp281-291.

Smith I. (2004) ‘Continuing professional development and workplace learning: human

resource development – a tool for achieving organisational change,’ Library Management,
25:3, pp148-151.

Trehan K. (2004) ‘Who is sleeping with whom? What’s not being talked about in HRD?’
Journal of European Industrial Training, 28:1, pp23-39.

Tsui A. (1987) ‘Defining the activities and effectiveness of the human resources department:
a multiple constituency approach,’ Human Resource Management, 26:1, pp35-69.

Sambrook S. (2004) ‘A “critical” time for HRD?” Journal of European Industrial Training,
28:8/9, pp611-624.