The Changing Roles of Personnel Managers: Old Ambiguities, New Uncertainties

Abstract

 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.

Beyond the line: exploring the HRM responsibilities of line managers, project managers and the HRM department in four project-oriented companies in the Netherlands, Austria, the UK and the USA

“…One problem with the emphasis on how HRM can become more productive, efficient and value adding is that HRM practitioners may face tensions arising from 'old-new value clashes' (Caldwell 2003). The traditional role of HRM practitioners as welfare workers and advocates of employees needs is often downplayed in accounts of how HRM's role is changing.…”

Contemporary Trends in Brazilian Human Resource Management Studies over the Last Decade (2001–2010)

“…Further, we also discovered some research gaps too, as while multiple HR role modelling (e.g., Caldwell, 2003;Ulrich, 1997;Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005) seems well researched in the Western HRM literature, few works other than the one by Tanure, Evans, and Canç ado (2010) appear in recent Brazilian HRM studies. Such time-lags and inconsistencies seem partly due to the management, organisational, political and economic factors identified by Wood Jr. et al (2011) regarding the emerging state of HRM in Brazil when compared to HRM in more developed countries.…”

Stratejik İnsan Kaynakları Yönetiminin Örgütsel ve Bireysel Düzeyde Etkileri

“…İnsan kaynakları uzmanlarının, organizasyonların çıktılarını artırdığı düşüncesiyle işletmelerde daha çok iş ortakları rolünde görev aldıkları görülmektedir (Ulrich, 1997). Örneğin, yarı yapılandırılmış derinlemesine bir görüşmede insan kaynakları uzmanları en önemli görevlerinin stratejik konularla alakalı planlamalarda danışmanlık ve değişim ajanı olarak görev yapmak olduğunu ifade etmişlerdir (Caldwell, 2003;Storey, 1992;Lepak vd., 2006;Wright, McMahan, 2011). Ulrich ve Beatty (2001) insan kaynakları uzmanlarının kendilerini; işletme hissedarların danışmanları, insan kaynakları sisteminin mimarları, doğru işe doğru eleman uygunluğunu temin etmeyi sağlayanlar, insan kaynakları bölümünü bir iş birimi gibi yöneten liderler ve insan kaynakları kararlarının etik usullerde yapıldığını garanti eden koruyucular olarak gördüklerini vurgulamıştır.…”