Between A Rock And A Hard Place: An Exploration Of Line Manager Partnership Working With Trade Unions And The HR Function
Refereed Paper
McGuire, Fiona; McGuire, David; Sanderson, Mike
Introduction
In recent years, not only has there been a move to partnership working between HR and line managers but with declining unionisation rates, there has also been a move to HR functions and unions working in partnership with line managers. Oxenbridge and Brown (2002) report substantial growth in the pursuit of workplace partnership arrangements, leading to greater trade union presence in the workplace. Ackers and Payne (1998: 546) argue that partnership enables trade unions to “swim among the fishes”, heralding the re-entry of unions to mainstream workplace issues and strengthening union negotiating power with management. For her part, Edwards (2003: 532) states that a ‘partnership model is based on a culture of information; consultation and co-operation bringing mutual benefits to each side’meaning that trade unions are now becoming more active partners in workplace decision-making.
Partnership working takes place against a backdrop of increasing devolvement to line managers and decentralised HR structures. Within Ulrich’s structure of devolved HR – the missing partner is arguably that of the trade union. While research has focused on the sometimes fraught relationship between HR and line managers (Larson and Brewster 2003; Renwick 2003; Perry and Kulik 2008; Brandl et al. 2009), little attention has focused on the role trade unions play in this partnership arrangement.Changes to HR structures have a critical relevance in determining both who, how and to what standard HR is delivered. This paper seeks to shed light on how the three parties interact and coexist within a unionised manufacturing environment. In particular, it looks to clarify the role played by trade unions in working with line managers and the HR function.
The structure of the paper is as follows. First, the paper examines the changing nature of HR structures, examining the impact of Ulrich and Brockbank’s work on HR roles and looking at how devolvement pressures have affected line management roles and responsibilities. Within this section, relationships between HR, line managers and trade unions are explored, paying particular attention to how trade unions are working to support employers in dealing with HR and employee-welfare issues. The second section explores the concept of “employee voice” within this set of relationships. More specifically, it looks at representation roles within the modern workplace and reviews how despite unitarist ideals of open communication,unions still offer an effective mechanism for voicing employee views and concerns without fear of management reprisal. The methodology section discusses the protocols followed for collecting data within the host organisation as well as providing detail on the sampling techniques and data analysis tools employed. The results section outlines the key findings from the study and the conclusion section highlights some of the important theoretical and practical implications flowing from the study.
Structural Issues in HR Delivery
The reorienting of HR from a traditional, transactional, activity-based, administrative division to a proactive, service-driven, business-led, strategically aligned function has forced a reconsideration of the roles and structures through which HR is designed and delivered. The work of Ulrich and Brockbank (2005) assignsfive HR roles: employee advocate; strategic partner, functional expert, human capital developer and HR leader and creates four HR delivery mechanisms: corporate HR, embedded HR, centres of expertise and line managers. These changes have driven HR out of centralised functions and placed HR at the business coalface, making HR accountable for enacting and enabling business development. The focus of these changes has been to make HR more visible, more responsive and more strategic. Fairbrother (2006) comments that within manufacturing, that there has been a move to more open communication channels, therefore making businesses more directly engaged with employees and increasing levels of participation and involvement. Within such structures, line managers are playing a significant role, being empowered to step up and accept many aspects of HR operational delivery(Truss and Gratton 1994; Mello 2007). The CIPD (2006: 1) highlight the importance of the these changes when they state that ‘the devolution of HR work to line managers is a crucial issue for the future of the profession...critical in delivering effective HR’.
Within this context, it is unsurprising that relations between line managers and HR practitioners are at an all time low (Wilson 2005). One aspect of this faltering relationship is a perceived lack of confidence in the skills of HR staff embedded within the business. Guest and King (2004) carried out research which showed that line managers felt HR practitioners were not comfortable discussing business issues. This research would suggest that line managers question the ability of the individuals working in HR departments to add value to the organisation and understand the strategic needs of the business. Renwick (2003) suggests that another reason for a declining HR-line relationship is due to a lack of trust and the need to share information. This undoubtedly undermines the effectiveness of business partnership models given the need for a close link between HR and the line, thus enabling HR to become more strategic in their service delivery. Caldwell and Storey (2007) question, if in changing the HR structure that we have in fact created a more complicated system for employees and managers to work within.
Although much of the research has shown that line managers clearly have a role within HR activities, it is suggested that difficulties exist in ‘securing line manager acceptance of HR responsibilities’ (Watson et al. 2007: 32). This may be due to poor communication or poor support for line managers from the HR function. Keegan (2006) highlights the fact that for line managers to be successful in HR delivery, organisations need to ensure that line managers are trained and have the time to carry out their duties. In discussing business partnership, the CIPD (2006) highlight some of the common barriers experienced, namely, managers not having the skills to carry out HR activities, HR not being strategic in their approach and poorly experienced HR professionals. Morley et al. (2006) echo this work and comment that a lack of confidence from HR in what they should be doing in an era marked by an ever growing demand for leaner structures within organisations will result in managers feeling even more pressure to focus on HR related tasks.
For devolved HR to work effectively in a pluralist environment, it is essential that there is a close relationship based on trust between line managers, trade unions and the HR function. Such arrangements may appear unnatural as Guest (1989: 48) commented that “an organisation persuing HRM will almost always prefer a non-union path, emphasising individual rather than collective agreements.” Such views have caused trade unions to re-examine their role with MacShane (1999) and Ackers and Payne (1998) arguing that partnership working remains the only viable route for trade unions to maintain relevance in the 21st century. For their part, Martinez and Stuart (2002) point toan increasingly positive approach being taken by trade unions in the workplace. They argue that trade unions have moved beyond adversarial stances to providing employers with a wide range of information services through networking, marketing and consultancy advice. In particular, they argue that trade union agendas are increasingly focused on work-life balance, employee-led flexibility and issues related to managerial and employee conduct and behaviour and that trade unions can provide organisations with a powerful ally in legitimising organisational change. That said, Bryson et al. (2005) argue that the effectiveness of trade unions in partnership working depends upon the union’s bargaining power, its efficacy as a voice for workers and its relationship with management. Indeed in some cases, research indicates that some employers have been working to mould their union
Employee Voice in the Workplace
For many years, it has been hypothesised that HRM practices have been antithetical to trade unionism and that the direct communication and consultation principles at the heart of unitarist HRM approaches negated the need for third party or trade union representation. Under this approach, Fiorito (2001) argues that unions may become looked upon as redundant as positive employer practices improve employee job satisfaction and foster closer workplace relationships between employers and employees. For their part, Kim and Kim (2004) argue that such non-union employee representation (NER) practices perform traditional union functions as effectively as trade unions, but foster a less conflictual, adversarial system of employee representation. They argue that NER provides effective communication between management and workers; strengthens worker participation and involvement and expeditiously resolves workplace grievances and complaints. Similarly, Kaufman and Taras (2000) posit that NER is generally more effective at dealing with issues such as workplace health and safety, information sharing, training and skill-building.
However, more recent research indicates that many organisations are operating hybrid approaches through providing employee representation forums in unionised environments. Research by Forth and Millward (2002) found that direct communication was unrelated to management’s orientation towards trade unions in a unionised context – suggesting that management identified value in directly seeks employees views even where unions existed. Likewise, Machin and Wood (2005) identified evidence of complementarity between trade unions and HRM practices and concluded that HRM practices are probably not an important factor underpinning union decline in the UK.
Many organisations increasingly use a range of mechanisms for gauging employee voice in the workplace. From an employee’s perspective, union representation can usefully counter attempts to inculcate a “consensus culture” within the workplace and help employees adopt a more critical stance towards management practice (Tailby et al. 2007). Union representation gives trade unions an enhanced role in decision-making and unions through their relationship with employees represent an important voice in the partnership building process. Kim and Kim (2004) also argue that trade unions can perform a useful representation role, particularly as other employee voice mechanisms do not allow employees access to financial resources and access to independent trained professionals. However, Taylor and Ramsay (1998) urge caution in organisations where unions coexist alongside other workplace representation mechanisms. They argue that unions need to thread carefully lest they become seen as less effective than direct representation mechanisms or become associated with organisational change and work intensification ambitions of management.
Despite the presence of trade unions in workplaces, many employees often express a preference for direct communications as this has sometimes been identified as more effective than union representation (Tailby et al. 2007). Likewise, Gollan (2005) argues that amongst some workers union voice may not be preferred and could represent a less optimal form of voice. A further criticism is levelled by Guest and Peccei (2001: 23) who found that “within partnership working, there is a constrained mutuality, with the balance of advantage leaning clearly towards management”.
Methodology
Manufacturing Plc is a large unionised multinational company that has manufacturing facilities in 11 countries across the globe. This study focuses on partnership working across sites located in the central belt of Scotland. A series of 10 semi-structured interviews were conducted with line managers to investigate relationships that existed with the HR representatives and trade union officials. The interviews focused on four key areas: HR devolution within the business; changes to line manager roles within the devolved structure; partnership working with HR and partnership working with the trade unions. The interviews were carried out in January 2009 and all interviews lasted one hour in length and were recorded on dictaphone and transcribed. An interview guide was used to structure the interviews and managers were assured of confidentiality and anonymity.
A profile of interviewees is provided in Table 1. It shows that most managers were male and aged between 28 and 55. Most managers had spent a long period of time working for Manufacturing PLC ranging from 6 years to 35 years. In terms of devolved responsibility, the most common areas transferred from the HR function to line management were recruitment and selection, grievance and discipline, absence management and people development.
Table 1: Interviewee Profile
Gender / Age / Qualification / Years of Management experience / Years worked in Manufacturing PLC / Managerial Grade / Areas of Devolved ResponsibilityMale / 55 / A Level / 17 / 17 / 5 / Recruitment Selection
Grievance & Discipline
Data Information
Male / 50 / HNC / 32 / 17 / 4 / Recruitment & Selection
Grievance Discipline
Policy Making
Male / 37 / Degree / 9 / 15 / 5 / Recruitment & Selection
Grievance Discipline
People Development
Male / 53 / Diploma / 15 / 35 / 4 / Grievance Discipline
People Development Absence Management
Male / 40 / Degree / 17 / 18 / 3 / Recruitment Selection
People Development
Capability Assessments
Female / 39 / O Level / 1 / 23 / 5 / Recruitment Selection
Grievance Discipline
Absence Management
Employee Appraisals
Female / 39 / Highers / 5 / 19 / 5 / Recruitment Selection
Grievance Discipline
People Development
Employee Appraisals
Male / 45 / Diploma / 11 / 17 / 5 / Recruitment Selection
People Development
Absence Management
Male / 35 / HNC / 4 / 18 / 5 / Recruitment & Selection
Grievance Discipline
People Development Absence Management
Male / 28 / Degree / 4 / 6 / 4 / Recruitment Selection
Grievance Discipline
Absence Management
Employee Appraisals
Findings
The following sections contain the findings of the primary research data collected. The first section examines how HR services are delivered in Manufacturing PLC focusing on the changing role of both HR and line management. The second section then looks at employee voice and the role that is played by trade unions in partnership with the HR function and line management.
Structural Issues in HR Delivery
Devolution at Manufacturing PLC took place in 2005, when the HR structure changed from a more traditional model with HR administrators, advisors and managers based on site or within business areas looking after that area. The new model broadly follows Ulrich and Brockbank’s (2005) framework and sees the creation of business partners and specialist departments including resourcing, training and development and employee solutions. The rationale underpinning the changes was to streamline operations, introduce cost reductions and allow HR specialists to work within key business areas and develop a more strategic HR approach. Such changes also placed greater responsibility on line managers for many areas heretofore delivered by the HR function. Managers clearly exhibit concerns about the new structure and the belief that the new HR structure was ineffective seemed to revolve around the fact that the personal touch from HR was no longer apparent. One manager comments on the effectiveness of the HR devolution process by saying:
“I don’t believe devolvement has been effective. HR first role is to deal with people; it seems like a 3rd party HR now which is responsible for over 500 staff. People have many issues of which they would have taken to HR issues like cancer or family or work problems; they don’t have anyone to go to. There is an expectation that they now have to ask for emotional support through e-mail or speak to someone which they don’t see, it leaves things pretty flat”.
Male, Band 4 manager, 32 yrs management experience
In relation to the barriers experienced by line managers, many felt that they were inadequately trained in areas where previously the HR function had accumulated significant expertise. While some training was provided to line managers, the primary focus of this training was in the areas of employee relations, absence management and grievance management. Managers also reported being under significant time pressures and often experienced difficulty in accessing HR expertise across the organisation. One line manager expresses concern about growing workload levels and declining organisational support in the following terms:
Barriers for me are one around time management and the volume of activity that we are seeing just now. How complete you get to do something and how much time you get to spend on the development for people, it is very difficult and a real struggle time wise. I do feel in terms of HR model itself that they are quite a limited resource which is really stretched, the sheer number of employees which HR are asked to support across Scotland so they have a very limited amount of time which you can offer in terms of support to us. It is quite clear at times that the two just don’t marry up’.
Male, Band 5 manager, 9 yrs management experience
While the structural changes introduced by Manufacturing PLC allowed for a more strategic approach to HR and the concentration of HR and specialist functions such as training and development, resourcing and reward, line managers often felt less than fully prepared to deal with the consequences of such changes.
Employee Voice
Manufacturing PLC has had a collective partnership agreement with two trade unions since 1994 and adopts a proactive approach to engaging with staff at all levels and involving them in organisational decision-making. The collective partnership agreement sets out the principles, policies and procedures to which all parties will operate under and identifies specific areas that the business will engage the union through consultation. The organisation has always been heavily unionised and implementation of partnership working was something which took a long time to take root within the organisation.
Managers were asked how they saw partnership working with the trade unions and often described this relationship in very procedural terms. As one line manager commented:
‘My understanding is that the business and the unions agree on the policies and wording in the partnership book and are both aligned with it. I know as long as I am working within this booklet that I am working within the letter of the law. Even if that means that sometimes an employee isn’t happy with the decisions it is within the book and the union are going to be agreeing with me on it. It is a great framework where everyone is aligned. It is clear for everyone, clear for employees, clear for the unions, and clear for the business what we are doing’.