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

Abstract

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.

Line managers and HRM: A managerial discretion perspective

“…Most previous research on HR devolution has examined the allocation of HRM tasks and responsibilities between HR practitioners and line managers (e.g., Brewster et al, ; Reichel & Lazarova, ). Our study, however, joins Jones and Saundry () and McDermott et al () in highlighting the limitations of binary conceptualisations of HR devolution as an allocation of responsibilities to either the line or HR. As our detailed description of HRM processes at the case organisation shows, there are multiple, sometimes subtle and surprising, ways in which both line managers and HR practitioners can involve themselves in HRM decision making, so that most areas of HRM seem to combine and juxtapose devolved and nondevolved elements.…”

“…For instance, Jones and Saundry () examined disciplinary procedures in several U.K.‐based organisations and found that their nature and outcomes were shaped by the interactions between line managers and HR specialists. Likewise, in a study of hospitals in Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, McDermott, Fitzgerald, Van Gestel, and Keating () found a tripartite distribution of HRM responsibilities, involving line managers, HR specialists, and senior professionals. These studies suggest that arrangements between HR and the line may be more complex than has been shown in the literature.…”

Repatriation and (perceived) organisational support (POS)

“…Referring to others, like the studies of Keegan et al (2012) and McDermott et al (2015), the findings challenge bipartite conceptions of HRM devolution and show that (HR) support practices are carried out beyond HR professionals and beyond line managers. The repatriates mentioned senior managers, third party providers and family members as sources of support and repatriation literature shows that also colleagues and mentors can be added to this list (e.g.…”

“…Additionally, Shen and Hall (2009) address an important issue for international assignment management including the adequate management of repatriation: HR professionals and other repatriation stakeholders own (non-) experience working abroad might affect the quality of support policies and practices. Based on the previous research presented in our literature review (Dany et al,2008;Keegan et al, 2012 andMcDermott et al, 2015), we can present a conceptual model of the organisational support responsibility and devolution chain adapted to repatriation. *** Figure 1 ***…”

“…Burmeister and Deller, 2016;Caligiuri and Lazarova, 2001;Chew and Debowski, 2008;Dany et al, 2008;Furuya et al, 2009;Jasawalla and Sishttal, 2009;Kelly and Morley, 2010;Kulkarni et al, 2010;Lazarova and Cerdin, 2007;Martins et al, 2012;Reiche, 2012;Sánchez Vidal et al, 2007a, 2007bShen and Hall, 2009;Stahl et al, 2009;Stevens et al, 2006). However, previous research shows that HR or people management increasingly devolves to line managers and others (e.g., Dany et al, 2008;Bainbridge, 2015;Gilbert et al, 2011;Keegan et al, 2012;McDermott et al, 2015;Op de Beeck et al, 2015;Perry and Kulik, 2008;Whittaker and Marchington, 2003). Many scholars in the field of international assignment management acknowledge that the involvement of multiple stakeholders (e.g.…”