The role of the HR function and the practice of human resource management vary immensely in different organizations. As Sisson (1995) has commented, HR management is not a single homogeneous occupation – it involves a variety of roles and activities that differ from one organization to another and from one level to another in the same organization. Tyson (1987) has claimed that the HR function is often ‘balkanized’ – not only is there a variety of roles and activities but these tend to be relatively self-centred, with little passage between them. Hope-Hailey et al (1998) believe that HR could be regarded as a ‘chameleon function’ in the sense that the diversity of practice established by their research suggests that ‘contextual variables dictate different roles for the function and different practices of people management’.
fferent roles for the function and different practices of people management’. Adams (1991) has identified four approaches to the role of the function, each of which can be seen as representing a ‘kind of scale of increasing degrees of externalization, understood as the application of market forces to the delivery of HR activities.
1. The in-house agency, in which the HR department is seen as a cost centre and the activities are cross-charged to other departments or divisions.
2. The internal consultancy, in which the HR department sells its services to internal customers (line managers), the implication being that managers have some freedom to go elsewhere if they are not happy with the service that is being provided.
3. The business within a business, in which some of the activities of the function are formed into a quasi-independent organization that may trade not only with organizational units but also externally.
4. External consultancy, in which the organizational units go outside to completely independent businesses for help and advice.
fferent roles for the function and different practices of people management’. Adams (1991) has identified four approaches to the role of the function, each of which can be seen as representing a ‘kind of scale of increasing degrees of externalization, understood as the application of market forces to the delivery of HR activities.
1. The in-house agency, in which the HR department is seen as a cost centre and the activities are cross-charged to other departments or divisions.
2. The internal consultancy, in which the HR department sells its services to internal customers (line managers), the implication being that managers have some freedom to go elsewhere if they are not happy with the service that is being provided.
3. The business within a business, in which some of the activities of the function are formed into a quasi-independent organization that may trade not only with organizational units but also externally.
4. External consultancy, in which the organizational units go outside to completely independent businesses for help and advice.
The common feature of all these approaches is that the services delivered are charged for in some form of contract, which may incorporate a service level agreement.
The approach to the provision of services and their externalization will vary between different organizations because of contextual factors such as the way in which the business is organized and the type of people employed, the values and beliefs of top management about the need for HR and the extent to which it will make a contribution to the ‘bottom line’, and the reputation and credibility of the HR function.
Another area for variation is the extent to which the traditional methods of managing HR functions have changed in the direction of setting up shared services and outsourcing, as described later in this chapter.
No comments:
Post a Comment