(3) limits the subordination of strategic considerations to HR preferences and the neglect of HRs as a vital source of organizational competence and competitive advantage.
The practice of devolvement is also becoming important in the increasingly competitive business environment, which has led to large-scale restructuring in organisations. As a result, line
managers have been given primary responsibility for HRM. The rationale for devolvement is:
certain issues are too complex for top management to comprehend;
local managers are able to respond more quickly to local problems and conditions;
it results in motivating employees and effective control, as line managers are in constant contact with employees;
it helps to prepare future managers (by allowing middle managers to practise decision-making skills);
it helps to reduce costs.
Owing to integration, the HRM function gets a chance to grow and become more strategic. From some takes HRM practice away from routine activities, results in devolvement of responsibility to line managers and the development of a stronger business strategy.
All such happenings result in the better identification of the needs of people and contributes to managing change and achieving organizational objectives. Managers under study believe that
integration of HRM into the corporate strategy also results in focusing more on employees' needs, improving industrial relations and reducing costs and tackling organizational issues (especially related to HRs) from the outset. They also see it as a vital ingredient in achieving and maintaining effective organizational performance. The interviewees believe that it is the line manager's job to take responsibility for certain activities as they are closer to the reality. Moreover, it is the company policy of many organizations to devolve responsibility to line. The aim is to make the line more responsible, to gain its commitment and to give the line more control. Further, due to the increased level of competition, it has become important to free specialists from routine activities and devolve these activities to the line. This helps in the smooth functioning of the organization. Devolvement of HRM to line managers also improves commitment of HRs towards organizations,
motivates them and helps in maintaining good industrial relations.
There are some other benefits of devolving HRM to line managers such as increasing in speed of decision-making, strategic role for central HR, short lines of communication etc.
The main negative outcomes of devolvement of responsibility for HRM to line managers include increased pressure to train line managers, problems of maintaining consistency in the system (risk of different standards and risk of falling standards), the need for strict HR auditing and the problem of maintaining a balance of power between line and specialists.
Leicester (1989) found line managers failed to take responsibility for employee development and few managers trained in interpersonal skills, as managers considered them unnecessary or were placed in charge of subordinates without such responsibilities being made explicit to them.
Line managers, while supporting devolution in principle, may be unwilling to undertake enhanced people management responsibilities, especially if they are uncertain about whether they will get the necessary training and support. A major problem has been that it has proved difficult to devolve a clearly defined work load to line managers, the dividing line between executive action and administrative support being especially difficult to draw.
It also provides a workplace in which employees may feel unfairly and in equably treated and be unsure of who they are actually working for. In the context of identifying line managers as the most important actors in employee relations, the easiest way to lose the commitment of employees is to be inconsistent and not follow good practice procedures.
As well as some line managers feeling that they did not own these personnel responsibilities, one of the major difficulties encountered was that line managers did not have the skills to take on board these new tasks, so there will be an additional costs of training line managers.
Hoogendoorn and Brewster(1992), in their international research, found that a majority of line managers did not have time to carry out personnel activities and did not feel sufficiently skilled to carry them out.. They also report a training provider who, judging by lack of response to personnel training offered to line managers, came to the conclusion that line managers do not even have the time to undergo training in relation to these activities.
There are still some other drawbacks such as increasing in grievances cases, lack of consistency in decision-making, potential for HR to be marginalized, less consistent communications etc.
HRM to line managers are practised in UK organizations and has helped to evaluate the present scenario. It recommends that practitioners give serious thought to the issues of integration of HRM into the business strategy and devolvement of responsibility to line managers and to the main determinants of HRM while forming their policies. This will not only improve the effectiveness of HRMs but will also help to make their HR function more strategic. However, the negative aspects of the devolvement function needs serious consideration.
Reference
BUDHWAR PS(2000) Evaluating levels of strategic integration and devolvement of human resource management in the UK, Personnel Review,vol 29 no2 pp141-161
HALL,L and TORRINGTON,D (1998)Letting go or holding on –the devolution of operational personnel activities ,Human Resource Management Journal,Vol8,No 1 pp41-55
RENWICK,D (2000) HR-Line work relations : a review, pilot case and research agenda,Employee Relations,Vol 22,No 2 pp 179-205
Gennard, J., Kelly, J, 1997, "The unimportance of labels: the diffusion of the personnel/HRM function", Industrial Relations Journal,
28, 1, 27-42.
Gibb, S.J., 1995, "The lead body of personnel management", Human Resource Management Journal, 5, 5, 60-71.