Devolution or (de)centralization of HRM function in European organizations

Andolšek, Dana Mesner; Štebe, Janez

doi:10.1080/0958519042000339525

Cited by 35 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Legge () notes such exclusion contributes to a deficit of HR credibility and a lack of bargaining power to access information and support for new modes of operation. This can undermine the HR function's capacity to undertake a strategic partner role under devolution, where it is envisaged to offer business expertise, change agency, knowledge management, and consultancy support (Mesner Andolsek & Stebe, ; Ulrich & Brockbank, ). As a consequence, it has been argued that it is important for HR managers’ work to be fully integrated into the organization (Whittaker & Marchington, ), and in particular to achieve HR representation at board level and involvement in managerial planning (Guest & King, ).…”

Section: From Strategy To Practice: Roles and Responsibilities Under mentioning

confidence: 99%

From Bipartite to Tripartite Devolved HRM in Professional Service Contexts: Evidence from Hospitals in Three Countries

McDermott

Fitzgerald

Gestel

et al. 2015

Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the devolution of HRM in a hospital context. Based on secondary data and 128 interviews conducted in nine hospitals across three European countries (Ireland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom), we examine roles and responsibility for HRM under devolution and coordination between those delivering it. Findings challenge bipartite conceptions of devolution, identifying a tripartite model with (1) HR practitioners, (2) line managers, and (3) senior professionals (managers and specialists) implementing HRM. Involving senior professionals in HRM reflects long‐standing concern regarding managerial legitimacy in overseeing professional work. In the tripartite relationship, each party has scope to contribute to people management: HR practitioners to formulate a strategic framework, HR practices, and provide advisory services; line managers to implement HR practices and interface between HR and frontline professionals; and senior professionals to act as line managers’ advocates and provide expert knowledge and credibility to inform people‐related decision making. However, lack of role clarity and tensions in coordination relate to the differing goals of, and distance between, the HR function, line managers, and senior professionals. Our theoretical reframing of devolution notes potential for tripartite relational involvement to enhance HR performance in professional service contexts, the contingencies affecting this, and potential implications for the HR architecture. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: From Strategy To Practice: Roles and Responsibilities Under mentioning

confidence: 99%

From Bipartite to Tripartite Devolved HRM in Professional Service Contexts: Evidence from Hospitals in Three Countries

McDermott

Fitzgerald

Gestel

et al. 2015

Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Isomorphic pressures (Di Maggio & Powell, ; Zucker, ) may lead organizations in the same industry or sector to follow similar HRM practices, including allocation of relevant responsibilities to line management. Thus, it has been argued that the public sector's need for uniformity, consistency, and transparency may lead to a centralized model of HRM (Beattie & Osborne, ; Brown, ; Harris et al, ; Mesner Andolšek & Štebe, ). Furthermore, where production is group based or employees have limited influence on customers, it may be more cost‐effective for HRM to control conditions of employment, whereas in industries where individual employees typically control extensive and costly operations, work individually, or are in continuous contact with customers, line management will want more responsibility for managing them.…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, as argued earlier, the factors that affect the decision‐making process that leads to the allocation of HRM responsibility to line management are ambiguous. So far, researchers have maintained that there are two broad categories—cultural and noncultural factors—with researchers placing emphasis on one or the other (Mesner Andolšek & Štebe, ). For example, Budhwar () argued that contextual factors are crucial.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Institutional Antecedents of the Assignment of HRM Responsibilities to Line Managers

Brewster

Brookes

Gollan

2014

Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article uses large‐scale international data to examine how much autonomy organizations have to assign human resource management responsibilities to line managers, as indicated in the prescriptions of the literature. We use data from 11 countries to explore the impact of a variety of internal characteristics of organizations and the kind of economy in which they operate. We find that around half of the organizations assign HRM responsibilities to the line and that organizations appear to have considerable latitude in making choices in this area. Organizations in the Nordic economies are most likely to assign responsibilities for HRM to the line and those in the liberal market economies are the least likely to do so. In any economy, larger organizations, unionized organizations, and those with strategically positioned HRM departments are the least likely to allocate responsibilities for HRM to the line. We discuss the implications of our findings for future research and for practice. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

“…In order to conceptually contrast the institutional regimes surrounding age management between the UK and Japan, we utilise institutional theory. The main premise of this theoretical framework is that national institutions significantly influence how organisations design and implement policies and practices (Hall and Soskice, 2001 ), including HRM (Gooderham et al , 1999 ; Mesner-Andolsek and Stebe, 2005 ). Institutions have the direct and indirect function of guiding, regulating or constraining the behaviour of organisations and individual agents.…”

Section: Institutional Entrepreneurship In the Uk And Japanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Government as Institutional Entrepreneur: Extending Working Life in the UK and Japan

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Through the lens of Institutional Entrepreneurship, this paper discusses how governments use the levers of power afforded through business and welfare systems to affect change in the organisational management of older workers. It does so using national stakeholder interviews in two contrasting economies: the United Kingdom and Japan. Both governments have taken a ‘light-touch’ approach to work and retirement. However, the highly institutionalised Japanese system affords the government greater leverage than that of the liberal UK system in changing employer practices at the workplace level.

show abstract

Devolution or (de)centralization of HRM function in European organizations

Cited by 35 publications

References 22 publications

From Bipartite to Tripartite Devolved HRM in Professional Service Contexts: Evidence from Hospitals in Three Countries

From Bipartite to Tripartite Devolved HRM in Professional Service Contexts: Evidence from Hospitals in Three Countries

The Institutional Antecedents of the Assignment of HRM Responsibilities to Line Managers

Government as Institutional Entrepreneur: Extending Working Life in the UK and Japan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About