Credibility lost: attempting to reclaim an expert identity in an HR professional context

Abstract

Professional insecurity is a long‐standing concern within HR, with claims to expertise seen as critical to credibility. Considering HR as an epistemic community and drawing on the identity work literature, we examine an identity threat to, and subsequent response by, a training and development (T&D) team. Based on ethnographic exposure to their practice, we explore how team members experience the threat and follow their attempts to re‐establish their position in the local epistemic community, the HR department. We examine both individual and collective identity work, considering how both the identity threat and subsequent responses are embedded within T&D and HR practice more broadly. Through this analysis, we offer academic insight on the nature of HR practice and the construction of claims to expertise.

Doing it for themselves? Performance appraisal in project‐based organisations, the role of employees, and challenges to theory

“…Training to improve project personnel's understanding of, and willingness to work with, appraisal processes is also a possibility to ensure the appraisal system remains effective and delivers the important outcomes associated with employee and organisational interests. Although current framing in HRM models assume—increasingly—little direct contact between HR specialists and employees (Pritchard & Fear, ), polyadic HRM systems commend a closer working relationship between HR specialists and employees , especially if they are doing it for themselves.…”

Human resource business partner lifecycle model: exploring how the relationship between HRBPs and their line manager partners evolves

“…More specifically, the collection of data pre, during and post‐introduction of the HRBP approach would be a valuable contribution, potentially refining our lifecycle model. Additionally, there are limited investigations of non‐HRBP models (Pritchard and Fear, ). Our results show that the ‘perfect’ HRBP Model may not exist for all organisations and that the relationships are indeed dynamic.…”

“…Our research suggests that the matching process is extremely important and that the competencies of key stakeholders need to be developed to sustain relationships. Hence, in this stage, credibility and augmented business acumen is required for HRBPs to be taken seriously (Charan, 2014;Pritchard and Fear, 2015), consistent with Ulrich's credible activist competency domain. Concurrently, LMPs need to develop their HR expertise.…”

“…The essence of the HRBP approach is that an HR professional can become a strategic partner with line managers to facilitate the attainment of business goals (Ulrich, ; Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, ). The influence of the HRBP approach is widespread, with some authors claiming it is ‘centre stage … with significantly less attention paid to other [HR] roles’ (Pritchard and Fear, : 1). Thus, we wanted to understand how the HRBP role plays out in practice, over time, through the voices of those involved in the relationship, namely the HRBPs and their line manager partners (LMPs).…”

“…Factors such as encouraging LMP buy‐in to the HRBP approach and upskilling HR professionals to become more ‘business savvy’ are noted as problematic (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, , ; McCracken and Heaton, ). Similarly, authors have identified the importance of balancing both transactional and strategic HR duties (Beer, ; Caldwell, ; Lawler, ) as well as tensions associated with the HRBP's dual role as both partner to management and employee advocate (Kochan, ; Francis and Keegan, ; Pritchard and Fear, ). In many ways, such tensions are intrinsically related to the organisational context or cultural circumstances faced by the main stakeholders.…”