The Changing Role of the Manager
As organizations change and develop, so too does the role of the manager. This Manager Update will review four recent perspectives on the changing managerial role. Two of the articles examine the extent to which responsibility for human resource issues has been devolved to the line, and the issues arising for an organization wanting to promote this devolution further. The other two articles consider the role and competences of the future manager more broadly, and raise the question of how best managers should be prepared for their changing role, or roles.
Human Resource Management and the Line Manager
A maxim of modern Human Resource Management theory is that line managers should play a pivotal role as drivers and deliverers of HR policy in the organization, whether strategically or operationally. Not only should the HR dimension be a part of business strategy, but line managers, supported by HR specialists, should 'own' personnel responsibilities. This model of HRM has been contrasted to the classic personnel management model in which personnel activities are undertaken by personnel specialists, and HR strategy is seen as separate from business strategy. But, we may ask, to what extent has this devolution actually taken place? For line managers to own personnel activities they must be both willing and able to take on those responsibilities, and personnel managers must voluntarily devolve some of their activities. The article by McGovern [1] et al considers the first of these key requirements, and that by Hall and Torrington [2] examines the second.
The Practice of Appraisal
The research of McGovern et al is based on an ongoing case study of seven successful organizations in the UK, and focuses on the practice of managers with regard to performance appraisal. Within all the organizations studied, line managers are expected to be directly involved in HR activities, such as those of selection, appraisal, and development, and to be supported by a specialist HR function. However, the authors found significant variation across and within organizations in the consistency of implementation of HR policy and the quality of HR practice between managers. In addition to discovering differences between 'espoused theory' and 'the theory in use', they argue that line managers may actually undermine or even distort HR policies.
All the organizations except one claimed to have formal performance appraisals. However, there were considerable variations across departments and between managers in the frequency of appraisal, and differences with regard to the actual conduct of appraisals, as well as in the definition of what constituted an appraisal. Issues highlighted included the subjectivity of appraisal, lack of training for appraisers, a feeling that gradings had been decided before the interview and were more influenced by what salaries could be afforded rather than actual performance, and the view that appraisal is merely a paper exercise. These issues, and the variations in practice, led to dissatisfaction about the fairness of ratings assigned to individual employees, and an undermining of the credibility of the process.
Organisational Constraints
McGovern et al also identified three important organizational constraints on line managers practice:
- The level of institutional reinforcement of HR practices.
- Managerial short-termism.
- Delayering.
If organizations are committed to having line managers involved in HR practices, this role should be formally institutionalised and reinforced through the organizations' policies - for example, through managers performance objectives, job descriptions, and by training. Whilst training on appraisal was provided by all the organizations in the case study, the main issue was that of line manager commitment. Fewer than half of the managers surveyed considered the successful implementation of personnel policies to be an important or very important factor in their own performance appraisal. Many managers do not feel a strong institutional pressure to give serious consideration to those aspects of their job which encompass HRM. Institutional involvement, particularly through business targets, is required if managers are to implement HR activities.
Short-term pressures had two distinct effects on the practice of HRM. Managers felt their main priority to be 'hard' numbers' rather than softer people management issues and, second, managers had little incentive to invest time in policies such as career development, particularly in an environment of downsizing when these have little short-term pay-off or are not quantifiable in the long term.
Organizational restructuring, especially where there have been redundancies at the managerial level, can lead to larger workloads for the managers who remain within the organization. This, in turn, leads to a lower commitment to finding time for activities that will not produce an immediate return, activities which now have a higher opportunity cost.
The Practice of HR Professionals
Hall and Torrington provide another perspective on the issue of the devolution of HR activities in their study of HR professionals in 214 organizations. They distinguish between 'devolution' and 'decentralisation': the former gives operational personnel activities to non-specialists, while the latter is about decentralising the central personnel function to personnel professionals at a lower level. In addition to pointing to conflicting evidence regarding the extent to which this devolution has been achieved in practice, they also raise the question of the desirability of this devolution. Criticisms of devolution have included the possible short-term focus of managers which may not promote a strategic approach to HRM, and inconsistencies in quality and practice.
The majority of respondents in the study indicated a clear and unambiguous policy to devolve on the part of the organization, and some also noted a change in the role of the personnel specialist from that of a 'doer' to a consultant. Typically however, the rationale for this policy did not flow from a philosophy of HRM, and often owed more to pragmatic reasons such as the decline in the number of HR personnel, and the desire to allow HR personnel to focus more on strategic issues.
Actual practice was found to differ from the theory. The overall picture is patchy and suggests a movement towards rather than the achievement of devolution. The most predominant role of the HR practitioner is one of joint involvement in decisions, followed by that of acting as consultant adviser or information giver. Direct involvement is common in recruitment and selection, employee relations, discipline, training, redundancy and dismissal, but is low in appraisal and quality. A key reason given for not taking over these tasks is that of a lack of line manager skills. In those organizations where devolution is more successful, there seems to be long tradition of the importance of people at line level, with plenty of training and coaching, as well as some devolution of personnel and training budgets.
The changing role of personnel specialists also requires them to develop different skills, with an emphasis on consulting, coaching, and counselling and the skills of monitoring and benchmarking also become more important. They discovered some reluctance to hand over budgets and some concern over loss of power and control. Overall, there seems to be a favourable attitude to devolving activities, but also a wish on the part of personnel specialists to retain some control by holding on to budgets.
Implications of the Organisation
Leaving aside the question of whether the effectiveness of people management is improved by devolution, and this question has not yet been answered, the implications of these articles are not encouraging for organizations.
McGovern et al argue that the 'prospects for full-blown devolvement to the line are not promising'. They argue that one option for organizations is to establish or to reinforce institutional measures to encourage managers to place more emphasis on HR activities, and to increase monitoring by HR specialists. However, this not only runs counter to the spirit of HRM, but it would also impose greater bureaucracy. They argue that the wider problems of management training, managerial short-termism, and the tendency to treat employees as resources need to be addressed if there is to be a genuine impact on managerial practice.
Hall and Torrington argue that 'unless line managers gain the incentive of budget responsibility, it appears that achieving devolution will continue to be an uphill struggle in most organizations'. But at the same time they note that 'if managers do gain such controls, there is the concern that line managers will manage human resources in line with short-term priorities rather than a long-term strategic vision'. They point to the paradox 'that devolution has been seen as part of a move to enable personnel practitioners to play a greater role in HR strategy, and yet the logical consequence of devolution is to make the implementation of strategy extremely difficult'.
To overcome this dilemma the authors suggest a number of possible actions:
- line managers to be explicitly involved in HR strategy;
- changing attitudes and behaviours through skill training;
- senior managers acting as role models;
- people management issues being incorporated into performance targets;
- defining tight procedure and manuals (retaining the reality of control and appearance of devolution).
The organization will also need to address the issue of the changing role and skills of personnel specialists, and the question of how they will keep up-to-date without operational responsibility. One possibility raised by Hall and Torrington is that of the increasing outsourcing of the personnel function.
The Future Manager and the Future Organisation
If the two articles already considered suggest that in some respects the role of the manager is not changing as quickly as some may wish, the next two articles suggest that future managers will be different in their role, activities and competences from managers of today. The approaches differ primarily in their perspective on the question of whether there is a generic manager role, although they agree that a key driver of the changing role lies in the changes in organizational structures and work.
For Hiltrop [3], in the organization of the future, the rules governing organizational success will be different:
- organizations will become more complex and ambiguous places in which to work.
- transactional contracts of employment will become the norm in industry and a 'self- reliance' orientation will pervade the employment relationship.
- the role of the manager will become more lateral with much more focus on people, customers and processes.
Bartlett and Ghoshal [4] see a new organizational framework emerging, that of the 'post-transformational organization', distinguished by three characteristic features:
- a 'radical decentralisation' built from the bottom upwards on the foundation of small front-line operating units;
- a portfolio of cross-integrative processes to break
- down vertically oriented relationships;
- a strong commitment to empowerment
The Competences of the Future Manager - Are Managers all the Same?
As a consequence of the changes he identifies, Hiltrop argues that managers will face more stress, require more dynamic career perspectives, and also need new, more extensive, skills and competences. The future manager will need to demonstrate wide ranging mastery and will have to be:
- an expert - demonstrating enthusiasm, professionalism, up-to-date knowledge, intellectual curiosity, and life-long learning skills;
- a networker - with skills in communication, negotiation, problem-solving, project management, and open-mindedness;
- self-reliant - with initiative, vision, creativity, risk-taking, and self-motivation;
- resilient - demonstrating stress-tolerance, flexibility, team-working, adaptability, and determination.
Bartlett and Ghoshal take a different approach. They also see profound changes in the future role of the manager but attack the 'Russian doll' model of management, rooted in a hierarchical view of organizations, according to which all managers at every level have similar roles and similar responsibilities, differentiated only by the size and scope of their activities. In the hierarchical model, top-level managers set direction by formulating strategy and controlling resources, middle level managers mediate the vertical information processing and resource allocation processes by assuming the role of administrative controllers, and the front-line managers are operational implementers.
In place of the old hierarchy of 'nested' management roles operating level managers, senior managers and top level managers play different roles: as innovative entrepreneurs, developmental coaches, and organizational leaders, respectively. These changes bring with them new means of adding value, new roles and activities, and new personal competences at differing levels.
Entrepreneurs, Coaches, and Leaders
For the operating level manager the key activities are: creating and pursuing new growth opportunities; attracting and developing resources and competences; and managing continuous performance improvement. The operating level entrepreneur must be a results-oriented competitor, with detailed operating knowledge focusing energy on opportunities. Key competences include creativity, technical knowledge and the ability to motivate people.
For the senior-level manager the key activities are: developing individuals and supporting their activities; linking dispersed knowledge, skills and best practices across units; and managing the tension between short-term performance and long-term ambition. The senior-management developer must be a people-oriented integrator with broad organizational experience able to develop people and relationships. Key competences include supportiveness, understanding inter-personal dynamics and the ability to delegate, develop and empower.
For the top-level manager the key activities are: challenging embedded assumptions while establishing a stretching opportunity horizon and performance standards; institutionalising a set of norms and values to support co-operation and trust; and creating an overarching corporate purpose and ambition. The top-level leaders must be institution-minded visionaries, understanding the company in context, balancing alignment and challenge. Key competences include challenging, understanding the organization as a system, and the ability to inspire confidence and belief in the institution and its management.
Implications of Changing Managerial Roles for the Organisation
Hiltrop argues that 'in most industries only those career systems emphasising continuous development will survive the dawn of the flexible, process-oriented organization'. He suggests a number of methods for accelerating some of the changes needed in organizations:
- They should build new skills through innovative 'practice fields', which involve the creation of a learning environment, providing opportunities to gain experience under realistic but risk-free conditions.
- Organizations should prepare people for the frustration of career stagnation, and career entrenchment.
- They should facilitate career mobility and change, encouraging people to take more responsibility for their self-development and career planning through counselling, mentoring, the portability of benefits, and the encouragement to develop new skills.
- Individual growth and development should be encouraged through real teamwork, including team-oriented career development systems.
- HRM managers should be given a pivotal role in implementing the new agenda, by making HR departments true partners with line managers in running the business.
Bartlett and Ghoshal argue that a number of implications follow for the organization from their analysis:
- Selection for jobs should be on the basis of their embedded personal characteristics rather than acquired experience.
- Training and development activities are rarely effective in changing deeply embedded traits, but can develop knowledge.
- On-the-job training should be the primary emphasis for knowledge development, and on- the-job experience is the main way of allowing people to develop their skills.
- The most effective role that management can play 'is to coach and support those that they have selected and prepared for the job by providing the resources, reinforcement, and guidance to encourage the self-development process.
In the post-transformational organization the scarce resource is not capital but knowledge, and this brings with it a new relationship between the organization and its employees. Knowledge is not at the top of the organization but at the operating level, and in a knowledge-based environment diversity of employee perspectives, experience and capabilities can be an organizational asset. Rather than forcing the individual to conform to the organization, the organization must capitalise on diversity - 'organization man' will give way to the 'individualised organization'.
References
[1] McGovern, P., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P. and Truss, C., 'Human Resource Management on the Line?', Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1997.
[2] Hall, L. and Torrington, D., 'Letting Go or Holding on - The Devolution of Operational Personnel Activities', Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1998.
[3] Hiltrop, J-M., 'Preparing People for the Future: The Next Agenda for HRM', European Management Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1, February 1998.
[4] Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S., 'The Myth of the Generic Manager: New Personal Competences for New Management Roles', California Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 1, Fall 1997.
