Devolved HRM responsibilities,

middle-managers and role

dissonance
Teri McConville
The Royal Military College of Science, Defence Academy of the United Kingdom,
Cranfield University, Shrivenham, Swindon, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to report a study into the role of middle line managers,
in public services,
in relation to devolved HRM. The paper notes that the intermediacy of middle
management leads to a
distinct and unique form of role tension. A model is offered to explain that
phenomenon, which is
exacerbated by HRM responsibilities, and emphasises the importance of middle line
managers within
organisations.
Design/methododology/approach – The paper shows that focused, qualitative
discussions
complemented earlier research. The NHS, Armed Forces and Fire Service were
investigated to
inform and test an explanatory framework for the phenomenon that is here denoted
as role
dissonance.
Findings – The paper found that middle line managers want to be proactive in HRM
and are
taking ownership of HRM and are exceeding their job requirements to do so.
However, while it can
potentially enhance their role, HRM adds to what is already a substantial
workload. Especially,
middle managers need to mediate tensions between strategic planners. That unique
function,
formerly shared with personnel managers, exaggerates the middleness of their roles
and is a source
of strain for individuals.
Practical implications – The model presented in this paper demonstrates how a
range of cultural
and structural factors impact on individual and organisational expectations and
behaviours. The
result is a role-based phenomenon, which is a distinct feature of middle-line
management, and shows
many similarities to cognitive dissonance.
Originality/value – The paper offers new concepts to explain a well-reported
phenomenon that has,
so far, not been adequately elucidated.
Keywords Human resource management, Middle management, Role conflict
Paper type Research paper
Modern organisations are under continuous and increasing pressures to change: from
growing competition in deregulated markets; government policies and legislation;
and
from new technologies. Human resource management (HRM) offers a rich array of
practices to allow organisations to adapt and respond to environmental changes.
The
key roˆle of line managers in the employment relationship is a central tenet of
such
practices but the effects of such responsibilities on line managers is an area
that
continues to be under-researched.
While numerous studies have offered empirical evidence to describe the means and
effects of implementing this principle (e.g. Cunningham and Hyman, 1995; Livian,
1997; Currie and Procter, 2001) such research has tended to focus on changes
within the
specialist function formerly known as personnel management. Scant attention has
been paid to the impact of changing responsibilities upon the roˆles, functions
and lives
of line managers.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
Devolved HRM
responsibilities
637
Personnel Review
Vol. 35 No. 6, 2006
pp. 637-653
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/00483480610702700
Following an earlier study (McConville and Holden, 1999), this paper reports on
the
tensions that arise for middle line managers, in public sector organisations, in
implementing HRM strategy. It reveals that, as part of the human resource, these
managers are bearing much of the strain associated with organisational change.
Mediation in the paradoxical outcomes of HRM gives rise to a distinct form of
roˆle
tension, which can be distinguished from roˆle conflict and roˆle ambiguity, that
arises
from the inconsistencies between the expectations of the organisation and of
individual
employees, creating a form of dissonance which here is dubbed roˆle dissonance.
Such
tensions, although not unique to HRM, are emphasised by it. This paper presents a
tentative, illustrative framework in an attempt to apprehend the phenomenon of
roˆle
dissonance and to explain its origins and effects.
HRM and the line management function
HRM gained prominence in western management thinking at a time of rapid social,
economic and technological change. As diverse industries and organisations adapted
to environmental variation, they developed cultures where line managers became
more
generalist, assuming greater responsibilities for accounting, budgeting and
production
processes. Amongst others Fombrun et al. (1984, p. 236) argued, 20 years ago,
that:
Any attempt to redesign the roˆle of the human resource management function
requires the
line’s participation since most of the activities of selection, appraisal, reward
and
development are prerogatives of the line organisation.
And throughout the history of HRM, the involvement of line managers has always
been a key feature of the concept.
The devolution of many responsibilities that were once the remit of personnel
specialists was consistent with such movement, for business managers need to
control
of all their resources in order to achieve increasingly short-term, measurable
targets.
Although personnel, was a staff function, line managers have always had some
responsibility for managing people in the workplace, for their roˆle includes
accountability for the performance of subordinates. However, as line managers have
shifted their orientation from production to business, HRM is only one among a
range
of initiatives (see, e.g. Livian, 1997), which have commanded their attention and
increasing expertise.
Investigation into how managers are interpreting and operationalising HRM is,
then, a requirement for understanding its true impact. There is a need to examine
the
expertise of those who are tasked with managing various facets of labour
management;
to discover what line managers gain from ownership of HRM; and to apprehend the
problems and costs associated with its devolution. Unless the questions and
paradoxes,
raised by the assertion that HRM is the province of line managers, are addressed,
investigations and appraisal of HRM will never be complete. Nevertheless, an
extensive trawl through numerous literature sources has shown that, with only a
few
exceptions (e.g. Renwick, 2003; Harris et al., 2002), the lack of research
attention paid to
this matter is almost embarrassing.
Recognising the middle managers
Line management is a feature of large organisations since before the time of Moses
and
is evident throughout the history of military, ecclesiastical and public sector
PR
35,6
638
organisations. The term implies a scalar chain of authority from senior managers,
through the managerial ranks, to individual workers. That chain, directly
concerned
with organisational output-deliverables, distinguishes “line” from “staff”
functions.
In organisations with traditional, hierarchical structures it is a simple matter
to
identify the most senior managers as those who define missions and formulate
strategy. Likewise, those who control the daily detail of working practices on the
shop
floor can be recognised as first-line managers whatever their title. Middle
managers are
more difficult to distinguish, as the boundaries between levels of hierarchy are
often
blurred. The exercise is further complicated in organisations with organic
structures
where demarcation may be ambiguous. As a result few writers have attempted to
define the roˆle.
Middle line management is often described in terms of what it is not. It is
neither
scaled-down senior management (Torrington and Weightman, 1987), nor an enhanced
form of supervision (Hales, 1986). Middle managers are removed from the shop floor
and are accountable for a range of outcomes beyond detailed work elements. They
hold
a vicarious position on behalf of senior managers, playing a co-ordinating roˆle,
but
with procedurally-limited autonomy (Della-Rocca, 1992). Their “middleness” comes
from their position in the organisational hierarchy (Kanter and Stein, 1979), the
time-scale and scope of decision-making processes (neither strategic nor routine),
and
in terms of their impact on the working of the organisation (Livian, 1997).
Middleness
also derives from career patterns, for middle management is a place where nobody
really wants to be (Dopson et al., 1992) being either a staging post on the road
from
supervisor to executive or an equally undesirable cul-de-sac for those whose
careers
will progress no further.
Being organisation-specific, the work of middle-line managers is equally difficult
to
delineate, but has been classified into three broad areas (Torrington and
Weightman,
1987). Administrative work, the routine, visible and comfortable activities
concerning
the collection and distribution of information, is easily identified and
quantified.
Technical work relates to a manager’s original trade or profession. It is
important, not
only for appreciating and detecting operational problems, but it allows them to be
seen
as authorities (although no longer experts) rather than simply being in authority.
The
most risky category is managerial work (Torrington and Weightman, 1987),
persuading others into a particular opinion or course of action. It demands
confidence
from middle managers to deal with uncertainties, from seniors to delegate
appropriate
authority, and from subordinates to follow a manager’s lead.
None of this work takes place in isolation, but especially over the last few
decades,
within increasingly turbulent environments. Externally, organisations have been
threatened, by economic difficulties, volatile markets (or quasi-markets), and,
aggressive competition. Internally, change has become the normal state of affairs.
The nature of line management means that middle managers are the agents of change
processes but, as employees, they are often also the foci of change.
As a result of the ambiguity inherent to the roˆle, this study took an agnostic
approach, determining that middle managers were the people identified as such
within
the organisation, provided that they were part of a clear chain of management and
involved in the delivery of an end service, being responsible for at least two
subordinate levels with the hierarchy, and with at least one superior between them
and
the organisational executive.
Devolved HRM
responsibilities
639
The study
The initial study, which forms the basis of this further work, was undertaken
within
two National Health Service (NHS) hospital trusts. The details of that research,
its
methods and findings, are reported in an earlier paper (McConville and Holden,
1999).
Within a case study strategy, structured questions were used to assess the extent
to
which human resource management was incorporated into the middle managers’ roˆles;
how far such incorporation represented change; and its perceived importance in the
achievement of organisational objectives. Richer evidence was collected, using
unstructured questions, to assess attitudes towards HRM and the extent to which
middle line managers were equipped to take on such responsibilities. It was from
these
outcomes that the notion of roˆle dissonance (see below) emerged, indicating the
need
for wider exploration.
During 2000-2002, possibilities arose to advance the original research within
other,
uniformed, public services where middle managers were readily identified due to
their
codified rank structures. The earlier NHS survey was used as a model. Questions
were
put to serving military officers holding the rank of major or lieutenant colonel
(or
equivalent) on post-graduate courses at the Royal Military College of Science (n ¼
64).
As these officers were effectively, if temporarily, non-operational their
contributions
were supported by a series of unstructured interviews with ten Royal Air Force
(RAF)
and twelve Royal Navy (RN) officers during the formation of the Joint Force
(Harrier)
(JFH) programme. Additionally, all participants were asked to comment on the
notion
of roˆle dissonance and the framework, presented in Figure 1. The means was a
series of
focus groups, involving all but five JFH officers. These group interviews began
with
discussions centred on comments from the questionnaires and individual interviews.
Next, the framework was presented, with explanation, before groups were asked for
comments.
The framework also further tested by presenting it to officers in the Fire and
Rescue
Services. On these occasions, group interviews, of the same format (above), were
held
in order to gather a range of opinions from ten fire fighters ranked as sub-
officers and
station officers.
The aim was to gather further evidence to support, or otherwise, the 1999 study
and
to test the tentative concept of roˆle dissonance. The choice to study public
sector
organisations was deliberate as it was assumed that recent, politically imposed,
changes in the governance and funding of public services would emphasise the
difficulties and paradoxes of the managerial roˆles and functions.
Over recent years, public services have undergone profound and continuing
structural reorganisation with consequences for management processes. Because of
their specialist natures, there is no typical public service. However, in all
cases, the
imperative of reducing public spending, and a desire to shed images of vast
bureaucracies have led to dramatic restructuring, tightly controlled budgets, and
closer
liaisons with private sector organisations as contractors or as partners.
The organisations
National Health Service
As the original study contributes to this paper, it is appropriate to offer a
brief review
of changes that were occurring at the time of that study. Throughout its short
history
the National Health Service (NHS) has been subject to numerous reforms and
PR
35,6
640
Figure 1.
Roˆle dissonance and the
middle line manager
Devolved HRM
responsibilities
641
reorganisations. Notable among such changes was the creation of “internal markets”
and hospital trusts. As a result the NHS was transformed into a multi-dimensional
amalgam of self-governing units, although most hospital trusts elected to follow
similar patterns of organisational structure and managerial processes (Audit
Commission, 1999, p. 13). Autonomy did not mean carte blanche, however, for
health care is a major political issue. Trust directors found that their
objectives were
hindered by, often unpredictable, government interventions and constraints,
including
the setting of efficiency and quality targets and compulsory competitive tendering
for
ancillary services.
While it may be tempting to generalise about the introduction of private-sector
management practices, NHS management is a complex area (e.g. Currie and Procter,
2001; Sheaff and West, 1997). In the face of widespread public and professional
criticism, trust boards have responded cautiously to new opportunities and
uncertainties. They have needed to balance the desire for management control of
resources with long-standing professional syndicalism (Strong and Robinson, 1990).
Armed forces
The Armed Forces also experienced large-scale restructuring during the 1990s. The
end of the Cold War forced reassessment of the nation’s defence priorities while
the
so-called revolution in military affairs (RMA), resulting from advances in
technology
and informatics, required a re-assessment of procedures and structures. The drive
for
efficiency, flexibility, and parsimony in the use of public resources, reduced its
strength
by 107,100 over the decade (Alexandrou, 2001). There have been large-scale
movements towards private-sector partnerships and increasing establishment of
joint-service (purple) organisations. A widening range of demands on the Forces
(e.g.
peace-keeping, aids to civil powers) and the increasingly expeditionary nature of
operations has led to severe stretching of human resources, compounded by recent
demographic trends.
The forces have tried to be pragmatic in their approach to change but have
maintained that in order to serve society they have a need and a right to be
different
from that society (Dandeker, 2000). Meanwhile, the impact of high profile legal
challenges over equal opportunities has threatened many fundamentals of military
culture (Wildman, 2002). The twenty-first century “serviceman” is increasingly
likely
to be female or gay; well-educated; and in a stable relationship with a partner
who has
a separate career. There is a double rank structure as candidates for commission
are
normally selected and trained separately from other ranks. The employment contract
is
unique, for service personnel carry the right to external violence on behalf of
society.
They cannot leave their employment (without severe financial penalty); they are
not
allowed to strike but have no independent representation; and might legitimately
be
ordered to their deaths.
Following the Strategic Defence Review of 1998, the Ministry of Defence worked
toward a more strategic approach to the management of service personnel and the
Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy (Ministry of Defence, 2000) was
devised in order to provide an integrated cradle-to-grave strategy to people
management. The fragmentation of functions between numerous agencies, and the
absence of HR representation on the Defence Management Board, suggests that the
Armed Forces are further away from strategic HRM than their rhetoric might
suggest.
PR
35,6
642
However, forthcoming changes in the education and careers of officers (Army, 2003)
identify a definite career path in HRM (alongside combat, defence policy,
logistics and
technology) suggesting a firm intention toward further developments in this area.
Fire and rescue services
Like the armed forces, the Fire and Rescue services have a strong culture of
disciplined,
tightly formed teams. Besides the obvious duties, fire brigades are required to
assist
with civil emergencies; to conduct safety inspections of buildings accessed by the
public; and to conduct fire safety education. Co-ordinated from the Home Office,
51
individual fire brigades in England andWales are funded by local government. In
rural
areas a system of “retained” (paid volunteer) fire-fighters supplements the full-
time
services.
Despite local management of fire brigades, terms and conditions of employment are
determined through a central negotiating body where, unlike their armed services
counterparts, fire fighters are represented by trade unions with retained and
full-time
fire fighters belonging to separate organisations. There is a single portal of
entry for
recruits into the service and promotion is achieved only after successful
completion of
professional training and examination. All senior officers have, then, begun their
careers as first level fire fighters and have experienced working at all
intermediate
levels of management.
Because of restrictions on local government spending, fire brigades managers have
had to juggle budgets to maintain an adequate service, and meet performance
targets
(Davis, 1997). This has largely been achieved through re-organisation of areas of
operation (the firegrounds) and close co-operation between neighbouring brigades.
Although the Fire and Rescue Services have been praised by the Audit Commission
(1999) for strong governance and good management, it has recently been criticised
(Bain Report, 2002) for failing to change structures, and terms and conditions of
employment, to keep pace with changing demands. During 2002 there was a
high-profile national dispute, involving the Fire Brigades Union, employers and
central
government, over this and pay-related issues.
The combined effects of government pressures and financial imperatives have
increased the need for strategic approaches to resource management throughout the
public sector. Attempts to introduce greater transparency and accountability, and
the
movement toward private finance initiatives have had far reaching effects on how
public services are run, and on how they are, perceived, to be run, both by the
public
and by staff. However, successive failed initiatives have left British public
service
managers sceptical about further change, especially where it is perceived to be
politically imposed rather than being essential to service delivery. Managers have
been
required to develop new skills and knowledge; to accept new goals; and to support
new
standards and values (Virtanen, 2000). Where professional values are compromised,
or
when the public service ethos is brought into confrontation with market
principles, it is
reasonable to assume that the effects of new working practices will be more marked
than in other, more commercially orientated, settings.
In many respects change can be exciting, presenting new opportunities for middle
managers to broaden their expertise, to take on new challenges and to innovate
(Keen
and Scase, 1996). But, it also leaves them vulnerable as they must develop new
competencies (Virtanen, 2000) at the same time that their work is increasingly
reified
Devolved HRM
responsibilities
643
by HRM and other initiatives, and familiar administrative or technical tasks are
subordinated to riskier managerial work. For those with a strong professional
identity,
change threatens their roˆle; while a market orientation is seen as antithetical
to the
values of public service, and threatens the integrity of the psychological
contract
(Dopson and Neumann, 1998). Small wonder, then, that middle managers (and others)
have become resistant to further change and reluctant to give their full
commitment to
new initiatives.
As change agents middle managers are responsible for implementing new
initiatives, and causing the resulting uncertainty or distress for their staff
while, as
employees and therefore a focus of change, they are simultaneously suffering such
effects themselves. The evidence from this study that managers’ resistance arises
from
attempts to protect themselves and their staff from the harmful stresses of change
programmes that could prove to be as fruitless as any that have gone before
(Colling,
1997).
Outcomes
Although middle line managers had varying degrees of responsibility for HRM issues
it was clear that in all three cases, they were actively involved in the
management of
their staff. The findings from these studies suggest that middle line managers
wanted
to be involved in the management of their staff but that they were frustrated by
lack of
autonomy and resources, especially time; and that, in the isolation of their
middleness,
HRM exacerbates the tensions inherent to their roˆle.
Ownership
In contrast to other evidence (Rowley, 1999), the middle line managers in these
studies
welcome an involvement in HRM, viewing it as a natural part of their roˆles. As
all of
these services have had traditions of professional groups managing their own
staff,
this was possibly less surprising than it might at first appear. Additionally, or
alternatively, it may be an outcome of these particular organisations, which exist
to
respond to personal and public crises. All groups reported a belief that being
able to
manage their own teams was a basic requirement in building and maintaining group
cohesion:
[Having direct responsibility for HRM] would allow me to develop my staff in line
with the
requirements of my department (Major: Royal Anglian Regiment).
The manager is the only one who knows what the team does. She [sic] must be able
to develop
the team from the start (NHS Departmental Manager).
NHS managers had some influence over the appointment and training of their staff,
within tight fiscal constraints. They were able to draw up job and person
specifications, select and interview candidates and to influence grading
decisions.
These managers welcomed such responsibilities and rated them as important (mean
score 8.51 on a ten point scale) in meeting departmental objectives. Only one of
the
managers interviewed claimed to have authority to dismiss unsatisfactory staff.
Within the uniformed services, middle line managers were frustrated by, although
somewhat pragmatic about, institutional constraints:
PR
35,6
644
If I had responsibility for staffing, it would empower me to make a real
difference in the
interests of the individual and the service. But it would never happen and only
adds to an
already over-heavy workload (Lt. Col.: Royal Logistics Corps).
Systems of posting personnel to defined positions disrupts established teams, and
takes no account of managers’ needs, or preferences. One fire service Station
Officer
told of when a new leading hand (supervisor) was assigned to his watch. The
newcomer was that officer’s next-door neighbour but neither man had been consulted
over the posting.
Maintenance of personnel records (leave, sickness and training) proves to be a
time-consuming undertaking, which is often carried out in managers’ own time. One
NHS clinical manager remarked:
I sometimes feel that I’m doing someone else’s job – for their benefit.
This is, however, an exercise that all agreed was important. For at least one RAF
Officer, it was his only source of control over a predominantly civilian staff.
Another
Army Officer told of how civilian contractors’ staff were subjected to appraisal
only at
the Army’s insistence.
Frustrations
Public sector organisations are, by their nature, labour intensive. The
organisations
involved in this study all rely on skilled, motivated professionals for successful
outcomes. Middle line managers are clearly aware of this and endeavour to
compliment
staff contributions by careful and competent management. Their efforts, though,
are
often frustrated by fiscal and procedural constraints. Organisational
restructuring and
financial parsimony have, of late, severely limited the available resources: time,
money
and people. Most of the managers interviewed felt that a lack of control over
rewards,
financial or otherwise, was a major obstacle in being able to get the best from
their staff
and was a factor in recruitment and retention problems.
In the face of increasingly low-trust relations between public service workers and
their senior management, the interviewees felt powerless to exert any real
influence.
Time pressures added to their problems as much of their available time was spent
on
paperwork associated with performance indicators, ISO 9000 standards and Investors
in People.
Pressure of work was clearly demonstrated during workplace interviews in
hospitals where most sessions were interrupted. Middle line managers were in
constant
demand to deal with a range of problems, from broken equipment to clinical
emergencies. Although exigencies of the services demanded that fire fighters and
armed forces officers were interviewed outside of their duty time, both groups
reported
constant interruption as a regular feature of their working days. When asked to
rate
their workload on a scale of 1 (not at all heavy) to 10 (impossibly heavy), NHS
managers gave a mean score of 8.56, and JFH officers 8.74.
For middle line managers involved in this study, the reality of devolved HRM
tarnishes the visions so often described in the literature.
First, the ways in which services are administered is tightly controlled by
initiatives
from central government, in the form of performance indicators, and by financial
targets, which often lead to perceptions of under-staffing and over-stretch:
Devolved HRM
responsibilities
645
. . . we used to have four pumps at this station. Now we have two, and we are
often
short-crewing them. Sure, we get to the fire-ground on time for the targets, but
we can’t do a
proper job when we get there because there aren’t enough of us. If anything needs
more than
two pumps or anything special, we have to wait for another station to turn out
(Sub-Officer:
Fire and Rescue Service).
This over-stretch also undermines the positional power of managers who are often
forced to rely upon the goodwill of their staff in order to get through the daily
workload
and/or maintain safe staffing levels:
You have to keep on the right side of your crews because sooner or later you’ll
have to ask
them to do something as a personal favour to you (Sub officer: Fire and Rescue
Service).
For middle managers, who must be pragmatic in their daily work, the finer points
of
managing their staff were simply something to which they aspired – a Utopian goal,
which might never be achieved. Middle managers’ work occurs amid a general
busyness where the imperatives of the moment must take priority over rhetorical
and
aspirational ideals:
When people are busy they have to concentrate on the “now” issues. You always lose
the
luxuries - HRM is one of them; but when it goes wrong you’re suddenly a bad
manager (NHS
clinical manager).
Second, despite their different backgrounds, functions and services, all
interviewees
emphasised the intermediate nature of their positions and the resultant stress.
For
them, the distinguishing feature of the middle line managers’ roˆle is pressure
from both
sides, roˆle ambiguity and powerlessness:
[Middle line managers are] very much piggy-in-the-middle. They have little power –
only
what senior managers are allowed to give them. They have to deal with ‘now’
problems but
are constrained by policies they have no control over (NHS clinical manager).
You get caught from both sides. The men think you’re toadying up to the bosses and
the
senior officers say that you identify too much with the men. You can’t win
(Station Officer:
Fire and Rescue Service).
While competing theories have been developed about the roˆle of middle managers,
the
experience of participants in these studies was of being “piggy in the middle”:
caught
between the directives of their seniors and the exigencies of the service on the
one
hand, and the demands and problems of their staff and ‘customers’ on the other.
They
lacked clear roˆle definition, adequate training and resources, and consistent
support
from seniors. Consequently they felt ill-equipped to take on the demands of
continual
change:
If he [the mid-rank officer] is ever to stand a chance of achieving the promotion
he seeks then
he must deliver his superiors’ directives. But how does he maintain the support
and
confidence of his subordinates throughout what might be a very unpopular change
process?
(RAF Squadron Leader: JFH).
This perception was compounded by a logical separation from those with whom they
worked and physical isolation from their peer group. When circumstances prove to
be
difficult, middle managers cannot merge into the relative anonymity of “the
workforce”
to avoid their seniors, nor can they retreat behind office doors from the
animosity of
PR
35,6
646
frustrated staff. Lack of opportunities to share their feelings and frustrations
deprived
these people of an appreciation that they are not alone in their problems, leading
to
feelings of inadequacy and increasing roˆle conflict. The research interviews, it
transpired, were cathartic for most informants. Many ended meetings by thanking
the
interviewer for the opportunity to air their problems.
It became apparent that a clear understanding of the middle line managers’ roˆle
in
HRM (and other initiatives) required an adequate appreciation of their position
within
organisations, and of the true nature of this under-reported roˆle. To be truly
effective in
managing their staff, introducing change and maintaining quality of service, these
people needed the training and support which is in the gift of their seniors but
so often
absent as features of their day-to-day work. As managers they are the agents of
HRM
policy and operations; but they are also part of the human resource so,
apparently,
valued by their organisations. Middle line managers, too, need to be managed.
Roˆle dissonance
For many public sector workers, who consider themselves to be professional, recent
and on-going changes within their organisations represent a shift in focus – a
movement away from the public service ethos towards commercial interests.
Middle-line managers have been obliged to realise much of this change; to
implement
policies dictated by governing bodies, and strategies determined by seniors
managers,
while simultaneously being required to conform to standards laid down by
professional bodies and public watchdog organisations, and to meet government
performance targets. The managers themselves had few, if any, opportunities to
influence the decision-making processes, their autonomy was restricted by virtue
of
their position within their various organisations, and yet they were held
accountable
for the outcomes of those imposed systems, while personal values could be
compromised by shifting standards. Devolution or, indeed, responsibility seem to
be
inadequate words to describe such impotent obligation, for both terms imply a
degree
of authority; perhaps liability would be a more appropriate appellation.
Like their Civil Service counterparts (Merchant and Wilson, 1994), the middle line
managers in these studies must bear the brunt of change and, because of career
stagnation, they are likely to be involved in several (possibly contradictory)
processes.
Responsibility for HRM, possibly more than any other strategic initiative, has the
potential to enhance middle line managers’ roˆles and to produce real improvements
in
team performance. However it adds to what is already a substantial workload, while
the collation of performance statistics reify their activities.
Often professionally qualified, middle line managers work closely with their
staff, to
whom they represent management, and who they must represent to senior management.
Their roˆle carries a huge workload and brings increasing conflict at both
personal and
professional levels. Trying to achieve government targets and maintain personal
standards, within their departments, means that managers are doing more with less.
Fewer people, tightly controlled budgets and time pressures force middle line
managers
to rely on the goodwill of their staff, which undermines their power base.
Compromise is a fundamental feature of the effort-reward bargain and the conflict
between public service ethos and the call to competitive efficiency, faced by
latter-day
public services, is a stark exemplar of such rapprochement. In a traditional
industrial
relations interface, any conflicts between employers and employees would be
managed
Devolved HRM
responsibilities
647
by negotiation between personnel (industrial relations) specialists and employee
representatives. In organisations where HRM is being “devolved” to the line, where
personnel specialists are taking an increasingly advisory roˆle, or where such
services
are out-sourced, that avenue for negotiation and conciliation is becoming eroded
and
middle-line managers may be brought into direct conflict with their staff, as one
Royal
Navy officer explained:
When they brought in Pay 2000 [a restructuring exercise over service pay] – we
knew before
it was published that there’d be problems, and the men knew that there’d be
problems – but
we were the ones who had to face the men and say “no, it’s all fair and
straightforward –
there’s just a few teething problems because it’s new”. We knew we were wrong and
they
knew we were wrong. And when it went wrong, we were the one’s still facing a load
of angry
Jacks [sailors].
Whether or not they agree with imposed policies, middle managers must convey and
justify directives to their work teams – those individuals whom they might need to
ask
for “personal” favours. The result is a moral dilemma, which can only lead to
cognitive
dissonance (Festinger, 1957) and increased roˆle strain.
Middle line management is a vague term to describe an imprecise set of roˆles,
which
are complex and often contradictory. The intermediate nature of the roˆle leads to
a
range of stressors that are well documented (e.g. Miner, 1971) such as roˆle
ambiguity,
over/under-load and roˆle conflict (or roˆle incompatibility). Such problems are
not,
however, unique to line management and do not adequately explain the nature of the
go-between position so familiar to the middle line managers in this study and
which is
heightened by their liabilities for HRM. Within the present day public services,
boundaries of structure, process, responsibility and purpose are in a state of
flux.
Change brings new challenges, especially for those who must translate concepts
into
practice. Realignment of legal, moral and cultural boundaries are a source of
tension
that is not adequately explained in terms of roˆle ambiguity, overload or
conflict. While
these phenomena are undoubtedly present, this study identified that a particular
form
of roˆle strain arises from middle managers being caught in the tensions between
the
need for change and the continuity of traditional values and systems. For want of
a
more precise terminology, that tension is named here as roˆle dissonance.
Such roˆle dissonance is a distinctive feature of the vicarious, intermediate
nature of
middle management which exemplifies, as no other position can, the tensions that
exist
between strata of staff within an organisation. As the linking pin (Currie and
Procter,
2001) in the realisation of HRM and other initiatives, middle line managers must
translate organisational goals and expectations into terms that are acceptable to
their
staff (Dew, 2000); while the requirements and expectations of staff need to be put
to
seniors couched in the rhetoric of performance targets and economic achievement
(Thompson and Harrison, 1997). In the process, middle line managers must share
both
the public service ethos held by their staff, and the precepts of market
efficiency that
drive new policies and strategies within their organisations. Holding simultaneous
but
inconsistent cognitions is a major source of discomfort for any individual but
unlike
Festinger (1957) concept of cognitive dissonance, resolution in this context is
beyond
the capability of the individual, for this dissonance is inherent to the roˆle.
To better describe and understand this phenomenon, and the associated
“piggy-in-the-middle” effect so often described by middle line managers within and
PR
35,6
648
beyond this study, an explanatory framework has been developed, and is shown in
Figure 1.
At the top of the diagram is a social mechanism, derived from Poole (1976) work on
industrial democracy. The operations and policies of an organisation are
constrained by
two major sets of variables. Cultural, historical and ideological factors combine
to
generate its value set (Griseri, 1998); specifically those relating to its
services (or
products), to the balancing of various needs among client (customer) groups and to
employees.
These factors are, in their turn, affected by the economic, political and
technological
context in which the organisation operates. It is these, structural variables that
form the
power base for organisational control systems. This is the traditional concept of
power
derived from structural legitimacy and control over rewards and resources. The
term
cogency is used, firstly, to distinguish organisational power from individual
power and,
secondly, to denote that this power has a coercive and domineering potential.
It is the combined effects of its value set and cogency that shape the nature of
the
organisation as a specific entity. They are the source of organisational culture,
structure, objectives and its expectations of employees.
The pattern is reflected at the bottom of the figure where a similar mechanism
operates at the level of the individuals. They, too, have some level of power, but
this
power derives from their personal worth to the organisation (Mechanic, 1962).
Their
knowledge base, skills and professional standing will delimit their status while
labour
market conditions will define the degree to which they are disposable. This power
differs
from that held by the organisation, for this is the power to command attention and
consideration, to make demands or to convince seniors. Hence, the term potency is
used.
Individual value sets derive from a combination of personal factors such as
experience, cultural norms and socialisation, that accumulate through life
(Griseri,
1998). The combined effects of individual values and potency will shape an
employee’s
expectations of, and behaviour within, the employing organisation.
Between the two is the scalar chain of line management (the Armed Forces insist on
calling this the chain of command). It is through this chain that directives will
be
communicated from the higher echelons to the lower, and – depending upon the
balance of cogency and potency – ideas, reactions and demands will be transmitted
in
the reverse direction. Much of this exchange could be explained in terms of the
psychological contract (e.g. Rousseau, 1989) but that concept is concerned with
the
contractual exchange (albeit implicit) between employer and employee. Here a
broader
concept is apprehended – concerning fundamental understandings about why
particular organisations exist, why people work within them and the purpose of
individual roˆles and functions. Where there is discrepancy between the
expectations
and understandings of organisations and their employees there is a field of
conflict
(Boulding, 1964) that is potentially disruptive. This is a dynamic state that is
subject to
subtle changes in power and social values. However, if conflict and disruption are
to be
avoided, the organisation needs a mechanism whereby opposing sets of expectations
can be held in tension. This is a function that can only fall to line managers.
Within public sector organisations first line managers are normally appointed for
expertise and competence in their technical work. They are part of the teams that
they
manage and, being in daily contact, may have intimate working relationships with
team members from whom they might draw moral support and influence. While they
Devolved HRM
responsibilities
649
will possibly experience some degree of roˆle dissonance, they continue to work at
the
customer interface, which allows them to retain their professional ethos. Hence
their
own expectations are liable to align most closely with those of the individuals
with
whom they are in direct daily contact. It is a contention within this framework
that, for
first line managers, dissonance is most likely to be resolved in favour of
professional
values, expectations and behaviours.
Likewise, senior managers, in order to achieve their position, will need to have
acquired attitudes and skills that are consonant with their managerial, as opposed
to
professional, roˆles. The criteria for appointment, or promotion, are based on a
managerialist agenda as this example, from a British university demonstrates:
. . . The UWE senior manager will normally require budgetary and resource
management
skills and, depending on the roˆle, the ability to manage the generation of income
for the
university and/or to deliver efficiency savings (UWE, 2003, p. 3).
A further contention is that, as senior managers must be able to act and reason
primarily according to the interests of the organisation, they are able to resolve
personal dissonance in favour of the organisation. This assumption has support
from private sector studies (Van der Velde et al., 1999; Horlick, 2000), although
further research is indicated within the public services.
The point of greatest dissonance will then be at the position, which is furthest
from
each of the opposing sources, and in the centre of the managerial chain is the
middle
line manager. It has been said that conflict is endemic to the roˆle of middle
managers
for, within their daily activities, they must deal with “conflicting objectives
and
demands from above and below . . . [and] distinct subcultures and sectional
concerns”
(Hallier and James, 1997, p. 703). Middle line managers are, therefore, required
to act as
buffers between opposing expectations and must bear the strain of the resulting
tension, which becomes a source of roˆle strain for the individual manager (see,
also
King and Zeithaml, 2001; Frank, 1999).
A positive outcome of such mediation is the potential for middle line managers
to limit the excesses of both organisation and individual. Professional ideals,
for
instance, can be moderated through pragmatic arguments concerning equality of
access, while, overly-parsimonious policies can be countered by principled debate.
However this mediating function also undermines middle line managers’ power
bases. It exposes their lack of autonomy and influence, diminishing their cogency
as employers; while their potency as employees is limited by the implicit
requirement that they should align with organisational goals and expectations.
This process is exacerbated by the devolution of HR functions. Within conventional
structures, with a clear distinction between line and staff posts, much of the
conflict
that arises from power differentials would be managed through negotiation between
employee representatives and industrial relations specialists – each being
empowered
to speak for their constituents. The erosion of that interface shifts the burden
onto
individuals and their line managers.
During interviews where this framework was revealed to middle line managers, it
received overwhelming endorsement. A fire fighter gave a typical comment:
. . . because you’re riding on the pumps you have to be able to talk their
language so when the
DO [Divisional Officer] comes up with some scheme you have to find ways of selling
it to the
watch (Station Officer, Fire and Rescue Service).
PR
35,6
650
although the most succinct was from an RAF Wing Commander:
Yeah. I’ve been there.
Roˆle dissonance is a very real issue for middle line managers, who, in many
respects
embody the tensions, which exist between the organisation, as an entity, and the
individual workers within it. The framework presented here illustrates this how
those
tensions arise and, thus, clarifies the poorly understood “piggy-in-the-middle”
sensations that middle line managers so often report. The middle line manager far
from
being an intermediate, even luxury, tier to the hierarchy of organisations is a
crucial
element for control and co-ordination. Middle line managers are fulfilling a vital
purpose – like shock absorbers in any complex mechanism or the flex in elaborate
structures– in balancing tensions and mediating potential conflict. The added
burden
of devolved HRM functions both highlight and exaggerate a problem that was
previously dissipated by the presence of specialist practitioners. It follows
that, if
human resource management is to be truly integrated at a strategic level, then the
middle line managers must be able to take ownership of decisions that they must
implement. They, also, need to be strategically integrated.
References
Alexandrou, A. (2001), “HRM in the armed forces – options for change to AFOPS”, in
Alexandrou,
A., Bartle, R. and Holmes, R. (Eds), Human Resource Management in the British
Armed
Forces: Investing in the Future, Frank Cass, London, pp. 1-12.
Army (2003), “Review of officers’ career courses”, internal publication, Ministry
of Defence,
London.
Audit Commission (1999), Local Authority Performance Indicators 1997/98: Police
and Fire
Services, Audit Commission Publications, Abingdon.
Bain Report (2002), The Agenda to Deliver a Modern Fire Service, a position paper
by the
Independent Review of the Fire Service, chair: Bain, available at: www.irfs.org.uk
Boulding, K.E. (1964), “A pure theory of conflict in organizations”, in Kahn, R.L.
and
Boulding, E. (Eds), Power and Conflict in Organizations, Basic Books, New York,
NY.
Colling, T. (1997), “Managing human resources in the public sector”, in Beardwell,
I. and Holden,
L. (Eds), Human Resource Management: A Contemporary Perspective, Pitman,
Boston, MA, pp. 654-80.
Cunningham, L. and Hyman, J. (1995), “Transforming the HRM vision into reality:
the roˆle of line
managers and supervisors in implementing change”, Employee Relations, Vol. 17 No.
8,
pp. 5-21.
Currie, G. and Procter, S. (2001), “Exploring the relationship between HR and
middle managers”,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 53-68.
Dandeker, C. (2000), “On ‘the need to be different’: recent trends in military
culture”,
in Strachan, H. (Ed.), The British Army: Manpower and Society into the Twenty-
first
Century, Frank Cass, London, pp. 173-90.
Davis, D. (1997), “Is the financial money go-round due for its 59 year service?”,
Fire Magazine,
April, pp. 7-8.
Della-Rocca, G. (1992), “‘Voice’ and ‘exit’ in the middle-management labour
market”,
International Studies of Management and Organisation, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 54-66.
Dew, J.R. (2000), “The middle manager in a team environment”, Quality Congress.
ASQC Annual
Quality Congress Proceedings, Milwaukee, MI.
Devolved HRM
responsibilities
651
Dopson, S. and Neumann, J.E. (1998), “Uncertainty, contrariness and the double-
bind: middle
managers’ reactions to changing contracts”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 9,
pp. s53-s70.
Dopson, S., Risk, A. and Stewart, R. (1992), “The changing roˆle of the middle
manager in the
United Kingdom”, International Studies of Management and Organisation, Vol. 22 No.
1,
pp. 40-53.
Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press,
Stanford, CA.
Fombrun, C.J., Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A. (1984), Strategic Human Resource
Management,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Frank, J. (1999), “Stuck in the middle no more”, Editor and Publisher, Vol. 132
No. 22, p. 27.
Griseri, P. (1998), Managing Values. Ethical Change in Organisations, Macmillan
Business,
London.
Hales, C.P. (1986), “What do managers do? A critical review of the evidence”,
Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 88-115.
Hallier, J. and James, P. (1997), “Middle managers and the employee psychological
contract:
agency, protection and advancement”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp. 703-28.
Harris, L., Doughty, D. and Kirk, S. (2002), “The devolution of HR
responsibilities: perspectives
from the UK’s public sector”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 26 No.
5,
pp. 218-29.
Horlick, M. (2000), “Middle managers in France – lost in the shuffle?”, Employee
Benefit Plan
Review, Vol. 54 No. 11, pp. 50-1.
Kanter, R.M. and Stein, B. (1979), Life in Organisations, Basic Books, New York,
NY.
Keen, L. and Scase, R. (1996), “Middle managers and the new managerialism”, Local
Government
Studies, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 167-86.
King, A.W. and Zeithaml, C.P. (2001), “Competencies and firm performance:
examining the
causal ambiguity paradox”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 75-99.
Livian, Y.-F. (1997), “Introduction: middle managers in management thinking:
crucial . . . and
absent”, in Livian, Y.-F. and Burgoyne, J.G. (Eds), Middle Managers in Europe,
Routledge,
London and New York, NY, pp. 1-24.
McConville, T. and Holden, L. (1999), “The filling in the sandwich: HRM and middle
managers in
the health sector”, Personnel Review, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, pp. 406-24.
Mechanic, D. (1962), “Sources of power of lower participants in complex
organizations”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 30, March, pp. 78-102.
Merchant, G. and Wilson, D. (1994), “Devolving HR in the civil service”, Personnel
Management,
January, pp. 38-41.
Miner, J.B. (1971), Management Theory, Macmillan, London.
Ministry of Defence (2000), Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy, The
Stationery Office,
London.
Poole, M. (1976), “A power analysis of workplace labour relations”, Industrial
Relations Journal,
Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 32-43.
Renwick, D. (2003), “Line manager involvement in HRM: an inside view”, Employee
Relations,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 262-80.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989), “Psychological and implied contracts in organizations”,
Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 121-39.
Rowley, C. (1999), “Introduction: why services? Contexts, themes and comparisons”,
Personnel
Review, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, pp. 372-81.
PR
35,6
652
Sheaff, R. and West, M. (1997), “Marketisation, managers and moral strain:
chairmen, directors
and public service ethos in the National Health Service”, Public Administration,
Vol. 75
No. 2, pp. 189-206.
Strong, P. and Robinson, J. (1990), The NHS under New Management, Open University
Press,
Milton Keynes.
Thompson, M. and Harrison, K. (1997), The Roˆ le of the Middle Manager, Financial
Times-Pitman, London, and New York, NY.
Torrington, D. and Weightman, J. (1987), “Middle management work”, Journal of
General
Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 74-80.
UWE (2003), The ‘UWE Senior Manager’: A Profile University of the West of England,
available
at: www.info.uwe.ac.uk/personnel/strategyUWESeniorManager.doc (accessed March
2003).
Van der Velde, M., Jansen, P. and Vinkeburg, C. (1999), “Managerial activities
among top and
middle managers: self versus other perceptions”, Journal of Appllied Management
Studies,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 161-74.
Virtanen, T. (2000), “Changing competencies of public management: tensions in
commitment”,
The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 333-41.
Wildman, H. (2002), “Military culture under fire”, in Allexandrou, A., Bartle, R.
and
Holmes, R. (Eds), New People Strategies for the British Armed Forces, Frank Cass,
London.
About the author
Teri McConville is a lecturer in organisational behaviour in the Department of
Defence
Management and Security Analysis, Cranfield University. She is currently involved
in research
concerning retention of skilled technicians in the armed forces, and the discourse
surrounding
the debate over women in direct combat roˆles. Formerly she was a nurse tutor and
a middle line
manager in the NHS. She can be contacted at: t.a.mcconville@cranfield.ac.uk
Devolved HRM
responsibilities
653
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints