IS ULRICH’S MODEL USEFUL IN UNDERSTANDING HR PRACTITIONERS’ ROLES IN NON-WESTERN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES? An exploratory investigation across Private and Public sector Organizations in the Sultanate Kingdom of Oman

Aminu Mamman

University of Manchester

Institute for Development Policy and Management

And

Khamis Zayid Al Kulaiby

Institute of Public Administration,

Oman,

Musqat

Abstract

This study set out to explore whether Ulrich’s model is useful in understanding HR roles in non-Western developing countries such as Oman.The study surveyed a random sample of 780 HR practitioners, line managers and employees from public and private sector organizations. In addition, 12 HR practitioners and managers were interviewed to supplement the data collected from the survey.The findings indicate that HR practitioners in Oman perform all the roles as perceived by the respondents;however, “strategic partner”is the least performed role. The findings also indicate that HR practitioners in the private sector are more likely to perform all the five roles to a greater extent than their counterparts in the public sector. We also found partial support for our proposition that HR practitioners in the public sector would play more “operational” roles (e.g. employee advocate or functional expert) than “strategic” roles (i.e. strategic partner or HR leader). The study revealed that Ulrich’s model is robust enough to help in the understanding of HR roles in a non-Western, developing country context.The findings are discussed within the context of institutional and cultural frameworks. The paper argues for more research to improve the understanding of how cultural values influence HR roles and how they are performed.

Keyword: HR roles; HRM in developing countries; Cultural and Institutional Influences on HR roles;

Introduction

It is widely agreed that HR practitioners have been facing many challenges in the last few decades. Some of these challenges relate to maintaining autonomy and influence, others relate to powerlessness, marginalization, porous occupational boundary and tension pertaining to balancing the interests of multiple stakeholders (Kochan, 1997; Legge, 2005; Ulrich, 1998). In line with these developments in the profession, HR practitioners in developed countries have been askedto lift their games and redefine their roles so that they can prove their worth to the organization and by doing so, improve their image and status amongst fellow professionals(Barney & Wright, 1998; Bowen, Galang & Rajanandini, 2002; Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005; Wright et al., 2001).It is perhaps worth pointing out at this stage thatin this paper, status refers to HR practitioners’ position in the organizational hierarchy, while their role refers to the functions they perform. Image, on the other hand, refers to how they are perceived by fellow practitioners.

However, in spite of the developing literature,little is known about the roles played by HR practitioners in developing countries (Bhatnagar & Sharma, 2002, 2005; Budhuwar & Debrah, 2004). The neglect of this line of enquiry has left a gap in the conceptualization of HR roles invarious contexts. Although with the aid of institutional theory we now have a theoretical explanation as to why HR roles vary across countries (see Brandl, Madsen & Madsen, 2009;Brewster et al.,1996; Chiang & Birtch, 2010;Gooderham & Nordhaug, 1999; Gooderham et al., 1999; Melahi, 2007), the evidence isalmost entirely based on developed countries. It is worth noting, however,that there is no shortage of literature on HRM practices in developing countries (see Aycan et al., 2007; Baruch & Clancy, 2000; Blunt & Jones, 1992;Budhuwar & Melahi, 2007; Budhuwar et al., 2006; Budhwar & Debrah, 2004; Horwitz et al., 2002; Kamoche et al., 2004; Mamman et al., 2006; Mamman et al., 2009; Nyambegera, 2002; Rowley, 1997). However, the literature has focused largely on defining and explaining the landscape of people management in developing countries, rather than explaining HR practitioners’ roles within that context.

Given the institutional and socio-economic environment impacts on HR roles (Bowen et al., 2002; Brewster et al., 1995; Chiang & Birtch, 2010; Gooderham,Nordhaug &Ringdal, 1999; Peck, 1994; Williams et al., 2011), there is a legitimate question concerningwhether HR professionals in developing countries perform a similar role to their counterparts in developed countries. The answer to this simple question shouldshed light on many theoretical issues associated with the debate on HR roles. For example, it will provide further understanding and perhaps justification for some of the classifications of HR roles. It will also enhance theoretical development of the field by clarifying the roles of HR practitioners under various socio-economic and institutional contexts.

Against this backdrop, the paper explores the role of HR practitioners in thedeveloping country of Oman. Specifically, the paper uses institutional theory to explore and understand how the regulatory system of employment influences the roles of HR practitioners. Also, using culturalist theses (Aycan et al., 2007; Nyambegera, 2002), the paper examines the literature on national cultureand how it might influence how HR roles are performed. Ulrich’s classification of HR roles (Corner & Ulrich, 1996; Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005)was used to examine organizational members’ perspectives on the types of roles played by HR practitioners in the public and private sectors. Specifically, the paper seeksto explore whether Ulrich’s model can help to understand the role of HR practitioners in non-Western developing countries, using Oman as a case example.The paper examineswhetherthere are variations in the performance of the roles within and across the public and private sectors. The paper alsoexplored whether certain roles are influenced by cultural norms and values prevalent in Omani society.

Background literature

The literature on the role of HR practitioners can be divided into descriptive/empirical and prescriptive dimensions. The former provides empirical evidence on the role played by HR departments and HR practitioners (e.g. Antila & Kakkonen, 2008; Bowen et al., 2002; Caldwell, 2001,2003; Conner & Ulrich, 1996; Hall & Torrington, 1998; Teo, 2002; Truss et al., 2002; Zuzeviciute & Margarita, 2010), while the latter focuses on recommendations, suggestions and/or arguments for HR practitioners regarding their past, current and future roles. This paper will not reviewtheliterature that takes aprescriptive perspective asthis has beenthoroughly analysed elsewhere (see Beer, 1997; Caldwell, 2001, 2003; Tyson, 1995; Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005). However, we will provide brief highlights of Ulrich’s model in order to justify the use ofthe model in this study.

Prescriptive literature: Researchers have identified several HR roles that have emerged over the years (see Legge, 2005; Sisson, 1994; Storey, 1992; Ulrich, 1997, 1998; Ulrich and Brockbank, 2005; Welch & Welch, 2012). In line with the argument that HR professionals should focus on delivering value or face extinction, Ulrich (1997, 1998) advocated four main roles: (1) ‘Strategic Partners’ – help to successfully execute business strategy and meet customer needs; (2) ‘Administrative Experts’ – constantly improve organizational efficiency by reengineering the HR function and other work processes; (3) ‘Employee Champions’ – maximize employee commitment, and competence; and (4) ‘Change Agents’ – deliver organizational transformation and culture change. Later,Ulrich revised the earlier 1997/98 version of HR roles (Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005). The authors identified the following four roles: Employee advocate– focusing on employee needs; Human capital developer– focusing on managing and developing employees for future needs; Functional expert– focusing on HR practices central to HR values; Strategic partner – focusing on multiple roles such as change agent, business expert, planner etc.; and Leader– leading the HR function and collaborating with other leaders. In spite of the practical and rhetorical value and testability of Ulrich model, it is yet to be tested in different institutional and cultural settings. Also, the extent to which the model reflects the dynamics of power and politics in organizations is open to question. This is becausealthough it is one thing to articulate a role, it is quite another for professionals to deliver the roles, given that organizations can be political entities (Mintzberg, 1983). Additionally, the changing organizational internal and external environmentwould necessitate continuingto revise the model to fit with the context.

Despite the criticism of Ulrich’s model, this paper will use it as a basis for exploring HR roles in thedeveloping country of Oman for the following reasons.First, it is a model which lends itself to empirical investigation because it has precisely identified the elements that constitute each role. Second, the model was derived from previous empirical research which revealed that HR practitioners do indeed perform such roles (Corner & Ulrich, 1996). Third, experts maintain that the framework attempts to acknowledge the changing nature of HR activities, and appears to offer a prescriptive vision for the future (Caldwell, 2001,2003). Fourth, the model has been used or examined widely by researchers (e.g., Caldwell, 2001, 2008; Keegan & Francis, 2010; Truss et al., 2002; Wright et al., 2001). Finally, it has been argued that it is the most well-articulated model for modern HR (Vosburgh et al., 2008). In fact, Caldwell pointed out that, “…the Ulrich model of business partnering has been widely espoused in boththe USA and UK partly because of its rhetorical simplicity and its forceful message to change the HR function” (Caldwell, 2008).

Empirical evidence: From the empirical perspective, a number of researchers have investigated the roles of HR practitioners in different countries. For example, Hailey et al. (2005) reported a study of the role of HR departments in the UK banking industry. In this study, the authors reported the changing role of HR practitioners from an administrative to a more strategic role. However, they also reported that this strategic role sometimes conflicts with other important roles that HR issupposed to play.

A number of studies have been undertaken in Europe to determine the roles played by HR practitioners. Prominent among these is the work of Brewster et al. (1992) who reported that the roles of HR practitioners in European countries vary according to the degree and type of devolution of HR functions to line managers.Brewster et al. (1992) found that UK organizations are more likely to centralize the personnel function while Danish organizations are more likely to decentralize it. Some of the specific findings reported were that in France, the HR function tends to have an advisory role, while in Spain there has been increased integration of HRM activities into line management (Bournois, 1992; Fillella & Soler, 1992).

Nikandrou et al. (2005) reported a convergence of HRM practices across Europe. They found two major clusters across 18 European countries. Similarly, Mayrhofer et al. (2011) also reported continuous divergence of HRM practices across thirteen countries in Europe. This is an indication that the influence of institutional factors (or lack of it) is not static. Overtime, certain factors will have less influence on HRM practice as well as the roles of HR departments and HR practitioners. Lemmergaard (2008) investigated the perceptions of HR roles held byline managers and HR professionals in a Danish bank and found that, “not only are all four roles strongly represented, they are also equally shared between the HR executive and line managers” (p.182). A more detailed review of studies based on the Cranet database is provided by Dewettinck & Remue (2011). Their review provided a further demonstration of the role of institutions and culture on HRM practice.

A study of 12 countries by Schuler (1994) reported that there had beena shift in the roles advocated for HR departments as well as a shift from an operational to a strategic role. Implicit in the latter is the attempt to improve the status of the HR function and HR practitioners (Bowen et al., 2002). Research in North America has indicated that HR departments and HR practitioners are increasingly playing a strategic role (Conner & Ulrich, 1996; Schuler, 1994; Ulrich, 1996). In a study of the relationship between HR and organizational performance, Wright et al. (1998) found a strong relationship between HR’s involvement in strategic planning and the evaluation of HR function effectiveness. Later, Wright et al. (2001) reported a study of the perception of the effectiveness of HR roles amongst line executives and HR executives. The researchers reported that HR executives ranked their own effectiveness much higher thandid line executives.

Research on HR practitioners’ roles in Asia is,however,limited. Sumelius, Smale & Bjorkman (2009) reported that the strategic role of HR has been changing for the better in Chinese multinational companies. In a study of transition to strategic HRM in China, Zhu et al. (2005: 513) reported that, “Overall, a strategic role for the HR function and implementation of ‘Western’ HRM practices are becoming more prevalent in China, although the legacy of traditional practices endures and new challenges are emerging.” Research by Jacoby et al. (2005) reported the increasing decentralization of HR functions in Japanese companies. There are several studies that focus on the status of the HR department or function. For example, in a cross-country study of HR functions, Bowen et al. (2002) reported the status and practices of the HR function in countries including Australia, China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan and Indonesia. They found that the status of the HR department was generally high across the ten countries they studied, withthe status highest in Australia and lowest in Indonesia. They reported that, “in countries where HR departments occupy a high status position in the organization, it may be easier for those departments to promote the development of workforce with a broad base of skills and behavioural repertoires necessary to respond to a variety of demands. This is indicated in our data by the significant correlations between status of the HR Department and organizational capability” (Bowen et al., 2002: 113).

The institutional context of HRM in Oman

The key institutions that are responsible for regulating employment and HRM practices in Oman consist of committees, ministries and authorities such as the Ministry of the National Economy, the Council of the Civil Service, the Ministry of the Civil Service, the Ministry of Higher Education, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Manpower and the Institute of Public Administration (Budhwar et. al., 2002; Al-Hamadi et al.,2007). In addition to these, there is also the Council of Ministers, one of the most important institutions whichplays a significant role in the formulation of human resource developmentpolicy (Ministry of Information, 2010).The Council of Ministers helps in the design and implementation of the policy of the state andis the authority responsible for ensuring the implementation of policy. The Civil Service Council is responsible for developing general policies that affect the Civil Service, as well as for looking at ways of increasing the level of nationals in the workforce (i.e. Omanization). This is done by determining which laws and decisions are likely to achieve higher outcomes. The Ministry of Manpower holds overall responsibility for employment within the private sector; duties include creating policies that affect both national workers and foreign workers employed in the private sector (Ministry of Manpower, 2009; Shayban, 2008).

The above institutional set-up not only influences the activities of the units and organizations in the public and private sectors, but alsoboth constrains and enables the behaviours of managers and HR practitioners,affecting what they can and cannot do. The Omanization policy guides recruitment and selection as well as human resource development activities in public and private sector organizations (Al-Lamki, 1998, 2005; Shayban, 2008). Like most civil services, the Omani public servants and organizations are regulated by the Omani public service code which effectively evolved through royal decrees issued between1970 and2010 (Al-Ansi, 1994). In particular, these decrees have clarified the role and conduct of members of the public sector and how they will be treated and rewarded by their employers. Some of these decrees have a direct bearing on the private sector organizations.

Factors which can influence the role of HR practitioners: Theoretical background

Anumber of factors account for the variation in HRM practices across organizations and across societies. Hence,theoretical frameworks have been proposed to explain this variation. They range from culturalist framework (Aycan, 2005; Aycan, et al., 2007; Brookes et al., 2011; Katou et al., 2010; Tayeb, 1995, 1997), institutional theory (Brookes et al., 2011; Gooderham et al., 1999; Melahi, 2007; Paauwe & Boselie, 2003) and strategic choice model (Hrebiniak & Joyce, 1985; Jackson & Schuler, 1995; Schuler & Jackson, 1995, 1999) to resource-based theory (Barney, 1991). Although these theoretical frameworks have shed light on the variation of HRM practices across organizations and across societies, most were not used to explore and explain the HR role across organizations and across societies. For the purpose of this paper, we will use institutional theory and culturalist perspective to explore and understand how the role of HR practitioners could vary across organizations in developing countries in general and in Oman in particular. We will then outline research questions to guide our study.

The role Institutionalfactor:Institutional theory has long been a framework for explaining the behaviour of organizations and their members (DiMaggio, 1983; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Powell, 1998). Powell (1998) argued that organizational behaviour and practices reflect rules and structures built into the wider environment. Indeed, the concept of environmental determinism as opposed to strategic choice has been widely acknowledged in the literature (Hrebiniak & Joyce, 1985). Central to institutional theory is the notion that organizations succumb to peer pressure and statutory rules, leading to specific behaviour (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Institutionalists also underscore the importance of industrial self-regulation in the absence of statutory regulation (Bartley, 2003; Campbell, 1989). These theoretical assumptions have varying implications for public and private sector organizations. For example, while public sector organizations can be easily monitored and regulated, the activities of private sector organizations cannot be easily determined, let alone regulated. In developing countries where resources are limited, the lack of capacity to monitor the implementation of statutory regulations provides private sector organizations the opportunity to avoid or manipulate the statutory regulations meant to guide their activities. Hence, HR practitioners in the private sector in developing countries would have relative freedom to adopt and recommend innovative approaches to HRM practices (strategic role) compared totheir counterparts in the public sector.

One of the issues associated with institutional theory which has direct relevance to the role of HR practitioners is the notion of isomorphism. This concept assumes that institutionalization of practices and ways of thinking through professionalization creates resistance to adapt to change (Abrahamson, 1991, 1996; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). For example, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) identified professionalization as a normative mechanism that influences decision-making in organizations. This normative mechanism sheds light on why an organization dominated by a particular profession tends to have peculiar organizational structure and practices (Kellough & Seldon, 2003; Minztberg, 1983). For example, public sector organizations in developing countries are more likely to adhere to bureaucratic behaviour than private sector organizations where the degree of professionalism is comparatively low. Therefore, isomorphism would influence HR practitioners in the public sector to be more engaged in administrative than strategic roles.