 There have been notable attempts to capture the changing nature of personnel roles in response to major transformations in the workplace and the associated rise of 'HRM'. A decade ago Storey (1992) explored the emerging impact of workplace change on personnel practice in the UK and proposed a new fourfold typology of personnel roles: 'advisors', 'handmaidens', 'regulators' and 'changemakers'. Have these four roles changed now that HRM has increasingly become part of the rhetoric and reality of organizational performance? If Storey's work provides an empirical and analytical benchmark for examining issues of 'role change', then Ulrich's (1997) work in the USA offers a sweeping prescriptive endpoint for the transformation of personnel roles that has already been widely endorsed by UK practitioners. He argues that HR professionals must overcome the traditional marginality of the personnel function by embracing a new set of roles as champions of competitiveness in delivering value. Is this a realistic ambition? The new survey findings and interview evidence from HR managers in major UK companies presented here suggests that the role of the personnel professional has altered in a number of significant respects, and has become more multifaceted and complex, but the negative counter-images of the past still remain. To partly capture the process of role change, Storey's original fourfold typology of personnel roles is re-examined and contrasted with Ulrich's prescriptive vision for the reinvention on the HR function. It is concluded that Storey's typology has lost much of its empirical and analytical veracity, while Ulrich's model ends in prescriptive overreach by submerging issues of role conflict within a new rhetoric of professional identity. Neither model can adequately accommodate the emergent tensions between competing role demands, ever-increasing managerial expectations of performance and new challenges to professional expertise, all of which are likely to intensify in the future.

Change agents often play significant roles in initiating, managing or implementing change in organizations. Yet these roles are invariably exaggerated or misrepresented by one-dimensional models that ignore the full complexity and scope of change agent roles. Following a review and theoretical clarification of some of the literature and empirical research on change agency, a new fourfold classification of change agents is proposed, covering leadership, management, consultancy, and team models. The four models reaffirm the significance of the multifaceted and complex roles change agents perform in organizational change, while underlining the importance of conceiving change interventions within organizations as processes that need to be coordinated and effectively managed.

At the centre of many HRM approaches to organisational transformation and culture change is the concept of the personnel or HR professional as change agent. Storey highlighted the emerging significance of the 'changemaker' role in the UK almost a decade ago, and Ulrich has offered a powerful reinterpretation of the personnel function that affirms the significance of the HR change agent in championing competitiveness in many large US corporations. However, while the scope and influence of this role has often been questioned, the variety of forms it takes has not been satisfactorily addressed. The new survey findings and interview evidence from major UK companies presented here indicates that the change agent role has grown in significance and complexity.To partly capture these changes, a new four‐fold typology of HR change agent roles is proposed: champions, adapters, consultants and synergists.

The rise of ‘HR business partnering’ over the last decade has led to an enormous growth in HR competency models. Competencies are believed to provide a mechanism for reinventing traditional HR roles and improving the effectiveness of HR professionals as business partners. But are they effective? The survey and interview evidence presented here suggest that the effectiveness of competency models is disappointing, and they appear to be particularly weak at predicting performance in a business partner role. There are also significant contextual variations in effectiveness based on the degree of change experienced by the HR function, how consistently business partnering is implemented, overall levels of reduction in transactional HR, and the patterns of centralisation–decentralisation of the HR function. The findings highlight the intrinsic limitations of competency models, as well as the powerful influence of contextual factors, and they raise important questions about the future direction of HR business partnering.

Michel Foucault's work marks an important break with conventional ontological dualism, epistemological realism and rationalist and intentional notions of individual action and human agency. In these respects his ideas have had an enormous influence on postmodern organization theory and analysis, as well as related forms of social constructionism. In particular, Foucault's ideas have led to a rejection of agency-structure dichotomies and a move towards process-based ontologies of `organizing/changing', that create new problematics of agency as discourse, talk, text or conversation. While this ontological shift toward nominalism has often provoked a counter-reaction against the `death of the subject' and the corrosive influence of postmodernism, there have been few attempts to explore how Foucault's decentring of agency is related to new, more positive and potentially emancipatory discourses that redefine the relationship between agency and change, resistance and power in organizations and society. Here it will be argued that Foucault's legacy can be re-conceptualized as a theorization of the decentring of agency consisting of four key components: discourse, power/ knowledge, embodiment and self-reflexivity. Redefined within Foucauldian organizational discourses, decentred agency can lead to new possibilities for the exploration of agency as discourse and the broader dispersal of agency in organizations. It will be concluded, however, that Foucault's concept of agency fails as a theorization of change: it breaks the link between the voluntary choice or desire to `act otherwise' and the moral, political and practical possibilities of `making a difference'.