270

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

2009 47(3)

Irreconcilable differences? Strategic human resource management and employee well-being Michelle Brown University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Isabel Metz Melbourne Business School, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Christina Cregan University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Carol T. Kulik University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia

The transition from personnel to human resource management took place in Australia in the latter part of the twentieth century. The change in nomenclature reflects a change in the nature of the work: from an employee-centred role to a management-centred role. In this paper we examine the relationship between these two roles, with a particular emphasis on their compatibility. Using interview data we find that HR managers devote considerable time to employee-centred activities. HR managers philosophically reconcile these activities with their responsibilities as a strategic partner by identifying the benefits of their employeecentred efforts for management. HR managers do, however, experience some operational challenges when they attempt to be a strategic partner and simultaneously promote employee well-being.
Keywords: employee advocate, employee well-being, HR profession, strategic partner

This research was supported by grants from the Faculty of Economics and Commerce, University of Melbourne and the Australian Research Council (Discovery Project 0664752). We thank the HR managers who participated in our research interviews for their time and insights. Correspondence to: Dr Michelle Brown, Department of Management and Marketing, University of Melbourne, Parkville Vic. 3010, Australia; fax: +613 9349 4293; e-mail: brownm@unimelb.edu.au
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources. Published by SAGE Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC; www.sagepublications.com) on behalf of the Australian Human Resources Institute. Copyright 2009 Australian Human Resources Institute. Volume 47(3): 270294. [1038-4111] DOI: 10.1177/1038411109106859.

SHRM and employee well-being

271

The job title of those organisational members charged with the management of employees has changed considerably over time in Australia: from welfare officers in the early 1900s, to personnel managers in the 1950s to the 1980s, and then to human resource managers in the late twentieth century. The change in nomenclature reflects a change in the nature of the work: from an employee-centred role to a managerially focused role. Wright goes further suggesting that the change in the focus of the work has now made HR managers the agents of capital (Wright 2008, 1068). Welfare officers and personnel managers had an employee-centred role and focused on servicing the workforce (Beatty and Schneider 1997) and ensuring the well-being of employees. The role also included the creation and administration of systems that served employees including pay systems and training and development programs (Mohrman and Lawler 1997). Beyond providing support services, the personnel manager sought to promote the fair treatment of employees in the workplace (Ulrich et al. 2007). Promoting fair treatment required the personnel manager to walk a fine line between the needs of the employee and the organisation (Renwick 2003). Ellig (1997) goes further suggesting that the focus was on the employee to the exclusion of business needs. In contrast, modern day human resource (HR) managers undertake a strategic partner role with management. HR managers work with management to analyse and devise solutions for organisational problems. They are involved in strategic planning and aligning HR (both vertically and horizontally) with the organisations mission and strategic goals with the objective of maximising employee contributions to the overall performance of the organisation (De Cieri and Kramar 2003; Rynes 2004; Schuler 1990). In this paper we examine the activities of contemporary HR managers with a view to determining the extent to which they continue to undertake a traditional employee-centred role and its compatibility with their strategic partner responsibilities. There are two competing perspectives on the compatibility of these roles. One perspective suggests that the roles are compatible and can be undertaken by the same individual. According to Ulrich and Brockbank (2005b, 201), HR managers are able to see the world through employees eyes and act as their representative, while at the same time looking through customers, shareholders and managers eyes and communicating to employees what is required for them to be successful in creating value. An alternative perspective states the roles are inherently incompatible (Beer 1997; Fisher, Dowling, and Garnham 1999; Rynes 2004). Beer (1997) argues that the employee-centred and strategic partner roles require people with very different outlooks and skills. In the employee-centred role the HR manager must support the needs and goals of employees (Ahmed 1999) while in the strategic partner role the HR manager must contribute to the organisations performance and mission. Focusing on the strategic partner role has the potential to promote credibility with top management but HR managers may find themselves neglecting legitimate employee needs (Peterson 2004, 195).

272

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

2009 47(3)

Our study is based in Australia where the role of the HR manager continues to evolve. The concept of HR first developed in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s (Brewster 1995) and subsequently spread to Australia, though Kramar (1992) suggests the take-up rate was relatively slow. This slower take-up rate may mean that the commitment to employee-centred activities (the focus of the former personnel managers) has endured. HR managers in Australia may, therefore, be attempting to reconcile their employee-centred and strategic roles. But Fisher, Dowling, and Garnham (1999) believe that the employee-centred activities are likely to be secondary to the strategic partner responsibilities for HR managers in Australia. Debate about the role of HR managers has been ongoing (for example, see Legge 1978; Ritzer and Trice 1969; Watson 1977; 1986). Earlier debates focused on the role ambiguity experienced by HR managers. Legge (1978), building on Ritzer and Trice (1969), suggested that HR managers experience considerable role ambiguity as they try to identify their specific contributions that are distinct from the roles of line managers or top management. Watson (1977; 1986) also identified multiple challenges for the personnel manager, including the level of authority attached to decisions made by personnel managers. Our focus is on the compatibility of an employee-centred and strategic partner role using interview data collected from Australian HR managers. The debate about role compatibility is particularly salient in Australia where changes in the federal system of industrial regulation have altered the institutional framework that establishes and reviews terms and conditions of employment. The shift from centralised to enterprise to individual bargaining encouraged the Australian HR profession to reflect on its role and priorities as it now plays a more pivotal role in the establishing employment conditions at the workplace level (for example, see Mithen 2005). Our paper responds to calls for researchers to devote far more effort to understanding what HR managers actually do and think about when confronting dilemmas that pit short term profits against employee welfare (Rynes 2004, 210). Understanding the activities and priorities of the contemporary HR manager is important for two reasons. First, the activities of the contemporary HR manager have implications for the attraction and retention of new people to the profession. Hammonds (2005, 40) suggests that new entrants to the profession are attracted by a desire to help others. Hammonds notes that people enter the field of human resource management with the best of intentions: they like working with people and they want to be helpful. However, these do-gooder intentions are seen by some HR managers to be misplaced. When people come to me and say I want to work with people I say Good, go be a social worker (HR manager quoted in Hammonds (2005, 40). If the employee-centred role is no longer undertaken, many students of human resource will experience dissatisfaction with their career choice. Current HR managers already talk about facing a bleak future (Francis and Keegan 2006, 242). HR managers in the Francis and Keegan (2006) study felt

SHRM and employee well-being

273

let down by the professions failure to realise how important the employeecentred role is to a fully rounded HR function, leaving some HR managers to contemplate career changes. Second, understanding the activities and priorities of the contemporary HR manager has implications for the content of practitioner and academic programs that are intended to provide the skills for a successful career in HR. Many writers (for example, see Ulrich and Brockbank 2005a; 2005b) suggest that potential HR managers need training in the language and practice of business in order to be an effective business partner. But if HR managers still undertake an employee-centred role they will also need skills to support employee well-being, for example communication and counselling skills. In the next section we provide a short review of the evolution of the HR profession in Australia. We demonstrate that the first members of the profession undertook an employee-centred role until the rise of HRM from the 1980s that introduced the strategic partner role. We also review the debate about the consequences of a shift to the strategic partner role, with a particular emphasis on the extent to which it takes employee well-being into consideration. We then outline the data collection and analysis techniques employed and report the results of our interviews. The paper concludes with a discussion of the conceptual and practical implications of our study and identifies some issues for future research. From employee advocate to strategic partner in Australia: History and analysis We need to begin our analysis of the compatibility of HR roles with a review of the development of HR in Australia. The concept of HR first developed in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s (Brewster 1995) and reflected the values of American society (Guest 1990). As this section will show, the development of HR in Australia reflected a distinctive set of political, socio economic, cultural and institutional factors (Budhwar 2004).
Historical review

The first individuals with principal responsibility for employees had a significant welfare orientation (Fisher and Dowling 1999, 1). The appointment and training of industrial welfare officers was the result of an Australian government initiative. The onset of World War II in 1939 stimulated the growth of firms in the manufacturing industry which required a new approach to the organisation of labour and management of production (Fisher and Dowling 1999). This welfare role was directed chiefly at improving the war effort by minimising the human problems which reduced efficient production (Smart and Pontifex 1993, 1). Industrial welfare officers focused on

274

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

2009 47(3)

improving physical working conditions, employee counselling, induction and skills training (Smart and Pontifex 1993). Industrial welfare officers formed their own professional body (the Personnel and Industrial Welfare Officers Association) in January 1943. The association focused on personnel and industrial welfare, with a particular emphasis on the physical and operational aspects of people management at work (Smart and Pontifex 1993). However, industrial welfare officers experienced role conflict due to the uncertainty surrounding whose interests they should represent. Industrial welfare officers were regarded somewhat contemptuously as the workers friend and were not readily accepted by line managers (Smart and Pontifex 1993, 2). In the 1950s the expansion of the Australian economy, especially in the manufacturing industry, facilitated the growth of the personnel function. Personnel management moved from a welfare focus to one based on administrative processes to improve efficiency (Smart and Pontifex 1993, 2). According to Dunphy (1987, 4), personnel managers sought to select and deploy people to maximise productivity, maintain predicable and reliable operations and to achieve cost efficiency. The rise of scientific management and the human relations school also played a role in this change of emphasis: both movements highlighted the importance of work processes and employee skills for organisational efficiency. The emphasis was now on employment and training, industrial relations and safety at the expense of the primarily welfareoriented aspects (Smart and Pontifex 1993, 2). The work of the personnel manager/department began to evolve in the 1960s and early 1970s as a consequence of labour market and other changes. First, labour shortages focused organisational attention on management practices that would boost employee motivation and job satisfaction (Smart and Pontifex 1993). Second, the changing expectations of workers and organisations encouraged a review of current practices. Young workers were avoiding dull, boring, repetitive, manual and clerical work (Dunphy 1987, 42), while organisations (both public and private) were promoting multiskilling and flexibility in order to cope with new technology and new organisational structures. Third, the work redesign movement played a role in moving the agenda and approach of personnel managers in Australia. Dunphy (1987, 43) notes that the main purpose of the work redesign movement was to increase productivity, to raise quality, to maintain work motivation and job satisfaction. To achieve these objectives, the focus was on enlarging and enriching work. For organisations this meant creating bigger and more challenging jobs, and these jobs required more sophisticated selection procedures (for example, psychological testing) and career management practices to identify talent and develop employees. These demands were a boon for personnel departments, which became more proactive as they focused their activities around work design issues (Dunphy 1987). Finally, the use of greenfield (new) work sites also encouraged the linking of corporate strategy and

SHRM and employee well-being

275

staff planning. Organisations were able to design and implement HRM practices that suited the new sites without the need to modify established practices as was the case with brownfield (existing) sites. These contextual changes encouraged personnel departments to undertake non-administrative tasks such as selection, career planning, training and appraisal (Dunphy 1987). Personnel departments effectively moved away from their traditional, purely administrative role to a role that included manpower planning and organisational review and analysis functions (Dredge and Smith 1982, 35). The shift to HR was facilitated by the advent of a federal Labor government in Australia in the early 1980s with its focus on social reform. The Hawke Labor government came to office with the Prices and Incomes Accord: a document signed by the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions that set out the priorities of an incoming federal Labor government across a broad range of economic and social policy issues (Deery et al. 2001). The Accord directed attention to issues such as equal opportunity, occupational health and safety and industrial democracy and provided a central place for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC). Subsequent AIRC national wage-case decisions linked pay increases with changes in work practices so that employees achieved significant pay increases through agreements on multiskilling and award restructuring, both of which had an impact on organisational work practices and training needs (Dunphy 1987). An increase in international competition cemented the position of the HR manager as a strategic partner in Australian organisations. Competitive pressures required the HR function to be strategically aligned and focused on the bottom line (Fisher and Dowling 1999, 2). The Karpin Report expressed concerns about the weakness of management in Australian organisations, a weakness that would need to be overcome for Australian organisations to reach world best practice by 2010 (Enterprising Nation 1995). The Karpin Report encouraged organisations to review and improve the employee management skills of their management team. This task was undertaken by HR departments and highlighted the importance of HRM for organisational performance. Changes in the HR profession are reflected in corresponding changes in job titles and work priorities. Smart and Pontifex (1993, 10) first noted the change in nomenclature in Australia from employee relations to HR while a survey of Australian Human Resource Institute (AHRI) members provided quantitative evidence of the take-up rate of the new title for the personnel function. When respondents in a 1995 survey were asked to report the title of the department in which they presently worked, 35% responded human resources while only 10% responded personnel or industrial relations (Dowling and Fisher 1997). Two years later, 54% of respondents had human resources in their personal job titles and only 10% had personnel or industrial relations in their titles (Fisher, Dowling, and Garnham 1999).

276

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

2009 47(3)

These surveys also suggest that the new breed of HR managers had priorities that differed from those of their predecessors. Dowling and Fisher (1997) found HR managers were prepared to adopt a strategic focus (73% of senior HR respondents strongly agreed that HR policy should be linked with organisational strategy and 67% strongly agreed that HR policy areas needed to be more carefully integrated). A second survey two years later reinforced these findings: A total of 65% strongly agreed that HR is expected to make an improved contribution to organisational effectiveness and 63% strongly agreed that HR programs need to add value to the organisation (Fisher, Dowling, and Garnham 1999, 508). These priorities have now been translated into practice for many HR managers. Another Australian study found that 49% of senior HR managers are heavily involved in decision-making across a broad range of strategic issues (Sheehan, Holland, and De Cieri 2006). This brief review demonstrates that the people management function in Australian organisations originated with a focus on employee-centred activities. The shift to HR with its emphasis on the strategic partner role is a comparatively recent development (1980s90s) and many of those currently employed as HR managers will have entered the profession when the focus was on employee-centred activities (Sheehan, Holland, and De Cieri 2006). The current generation of HR managers is therefore likely to be attempting to reconcile their new responsibilities as a strategic partner with their original job expectations that included an emphasis on employee-centred activities.
Irreconcilable differences?

The compatibility of employee-centred and strategic partner roles is central to current debates in HR. We now briefly review practitioner and academic reactions to the transition from personnel management (with its emphasis on employee-centred activities) to HR (with its emphasis on being a strategic partner). The work of industrial welfare officers and later of personnel managers focused on the day-to-day problems and needs of individual employees (Conner and Ulrich 1996). As a consequence, employees in these jobs were seen as having a short-term administrative and reactive focus (Fisher and Dowling 1997). Critics dismissed personnel managers as focused on tea and sympathy (Beckett 2005; Pickard 2005) and derided the personnel managers job as a house keeping role or a clerk of the works (Dowling and Fisher 1997, 2). Others described personnel managers as in-house Socialists focused on feel good events (Ellig 1997, 91). These labels reflect the challenge faced by personnel managers to demonstrate their impact on organisational performance. Sheehan, Holland, and De Cieri (2006) argue that each part of an organisation must directly add value to the organisations bottom line. As a consequence, the HR function is under pressure to justify itself and identify its contribution (Becker et al. 1997).

SHRM and employee well-being

277

A strategic approach offered the reassertion of the fundamental importance of people management but also genuine access to the room from which all too often the personnel specialist has been excluded: the boardroom (Keenoy 1990, 3). However, embracing the opportunities offered by strategic HR came at a cost for HR managers: they had to relinquish any claim to be the guardians of humane human resource management (Keenoy 1990, 4), an activity that was often the most rewarding aspect of the job for incumbents (Francis and Keegan 2006; Hammonds 2005). There has been considerable debate in both academic and practitioner circles about the level of importance that ought to be attached to employee wellbeing in HR. On the one hand, supporters of the strategic emphasis resist talking about employee well-being, believing it to be equivalent to dragging the profession back to the dark ages of welfare work (Beckett 2005, 18). According to Ellig (1997), the term HR was developed by those who wanted to distinguish themselves from personnel and identify with the more important role of business partner. In this role, the HR manager identifies with management as a partner in delivering value to the organisation (Francis and Keegan 2006, 233). Under this perspective, employee well-being is not a priority for HR managers: these are issues for social workers or other caring professions. On the other hand, critics of the strategic partner role regard HR as having an inappropriately narrow and economic view of the employment relationship (for example, see Keenoy 1990; Peterson 2004; Rynes 2004), which underestimates the value of employee well-being. Simmons (2003, 131) believes that HR is now paid to take care of the negative implications for employees of management strategies to increase competitiveness and shareholder value. Renwick (2003, 355) believes that HR managers who are unduly focused on a strategic approach miss a great opportunity to re-define who they are and what role they play in organizations. Lansbury and Baird (2004, 50) suggest that by identifying with managements agenda in recent years there is now a crisis of trust among workers in HR practitioners as being either willing or able to safeguard their interests. The real significance of ignoring employee well-being, according to Hope-Hailey, Farndale, and Truss (2005), is that it can have a negative effect on the sustainability of high organisational performance. This debate about the importance that ought to be attached to employee well-being is reflected in the mixed reactions of HR managers to the changed role of the personnel manager. Caldwell (2002, 694) suggests that practitioner reactions have varied from unalloyed enthusiasm and pride at the reinvigoration of the profession in the face of new business realities, to moral indignation at the loss of the apparently paternalistic social values that once characterized the personnel function. Ulrich and Brockbank (2005b, 219) do not believe that HR managers need to make a choice about what role to play. They need to play multiple roles and when HR professionals master these roles and play them well, they add value.

278

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

2009 47(3)

Method Given our study investigates the role of HR managers and how they reconcile two potentially conflicting roles, we used a qualitative research method. Interviews allow HR managers to tell their story in their own language (Glaser and Strauss 1967) giving the researcher rich descriptive details. Quantitative research has been useful for assessing the extent to which the people management function has changed in title and activities but leaves unanswered the question of how HR managers undertake their roles and reconcile potentially conflicting priorities. A semi-structured interview is an effective tool to capture the complexities of this process (Patton 1987). The interviewees were identified through a variety of methods: some from industry contacts, some from cold calls and some through a snowball technique (whereby one interviewee is asked to nominate other potential interviewees (Sudman 1976)). We also recruited participants through an advertisement in an electronic newsletter that was sent out to HR managers in Australia. The electronic newsletter was useful in identifying respondents across Australia. We continued to interview until the data we were collecting revealed no additional insights (Miles and Huberman 1994), a point achieved by the nineteenth interview. Thirteen female and six male HR managers were interviewed from a variety of industries (the following classification is based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics Standard Industry Classification system): seven worked in education, four in finance and insurance, three in health and community services, two in communication services, one in manufacturing, one in property and business services and one in transport and storage. Our interviewees were all senior HR managers and some were responsible for the HR unit in their organisations. The organisations our interviewees worked for ranged in size from 80 to 32 000 employees. Given their size, all of these organisations had established HR units responsible for overseeing people management activities. We refrained from asking respondents their age. However, since the interviewees were all senior HR managers with many years of experience, it is reasonable to assume that their average age was in the forties or fifties. Each manager was interviewed for about one hour in his or her office or a nearby conference room. Those located outside Victoria were interviewed by telephone. The interviews were semi-structured: the researchers developed an interview protocol which facilitated a focused interaction. Interviewees were aware of the purpose of the interview but did not receive the interview protocol in advance. When interviewees have time to reflect on their responses, there is an opportunity to censor their final responses, reducing the quality of the data (Shillito 1992). Additional questions were introduced during the interview to probe for more detail (Neuman 1997). Each interview was recorded digitally in order to ensure a high-quality recording, which assists the transcription process leading to better quality transcripts (Modaff and Modaff 2000). Transcripts were compared to the digital recordings as a quality control check.

SHRM and employee well-being

279

Interview procedure

The essence of an employee-centred role revolves around helping employees. For the purposes of our study we define an employee-centred role as helping distressed employees (when an employee goes to HR because they are feeling upset or concerned about something with the hope that HR will be able to provide some support and advice). We ensured the distinction was clear to our respondents by contrasting such employee-centred activities against purely administrative issues (when an employee comes to you with a very practical problem: How much annual leave have I accumulated? How do I apply to take my long service leave? How do I change my bank account details?). We used a critical incident technique (Flanagan 1954) when discussing the employee-centred work of the HR manager. A critical incident technique involves asking respondents to discuss a specific event rather than making generalisations. We were looking for specific examples in order to ensure our interviews were anchored in the reality of actions taken rather than the rhetoric of what HR managers might feel obliged to report (Hunt and Boxall 1998). We asked HR managers to describe a specific instance in which they had to deal with an issue brought to them by a distressed employee (without revealing any identifying information). We asked them to describe the event that caused the distress, the resolution of the issue, and who was involved in the resolution process. We then asked our interviewees to estimate the total amount of their time spent in dealing with issues brought to them by distressed employees. The interview concluded with a series of questions about the interviewees strategic responsibilities and activities to identify any points of conflict between their employee-centred activities and their role as a strategic partner. We first conducted two pilots of our interview protocol to ensure that the interviewees fully understood the questions (De Vaus 1993). As the protocol did not change as a result of the pilot interviews, the pilots were included in our data set. Three of the authors and one paid research assistant conducted the interviews. Interviews were initially conducted by two or three researchers. After each of the first three interviews, the researchers engaged in debriefing sessions to minimise interviewer bias in future interviews and facilitate data analysis (Patton 1987). Each of the remaining interviews was carried out by only one interviewer.
Method of analysis

One of the authors and a research assistant skilled in qualitative research methods independently content analysed each interview transcript. The research questions and the literature review suggested initial classifications of the content of the interviews (Miles and Huberman 1994), but as the process continued

280

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

2009 47(3)

the categories become more numerous and differentiated. For example, we developed categories for the conditions under which an HR manager would or would not deal with an issue brought by a distressed employee. Our coding relied on the constant comparative method in which newly coded text was compared with previously coded text to ensure that the new codes maintained their integrity (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Miles and Huberman 1994). Once the data were coded we searched the data manually for a more fine-grained understanding of the relationship between an employee-centred role and a strategic partner role. We searched for evidence that enhanced our understanding of how these two roles were undertaken by HR managers. Further, we examined the data with a view to determining how HR managers reconciled their responsibilities as a strategic partner with their responsibilities for employee well-being.

Results The results presented here outline themes in the data, where a theme represents the views of multiple respondents. We describe the theme pertaining to each issue being investigated and then we provide one or two examples to illustrate the theme. Our results are organised around three main issues. First, we assess the extent of, and limits to, employee-centred activities by Australian HR managers. Second, we report how respondents, who undertook both roles, reconciled their employee-centred and strategic partner roles. Finally, we examine the practical challenges for an HR manager when undertaking both employeecentred and strategic partner activities.

Contemporary HR: From employee-centred to strategic partner?

The interview data suggest that HR managers do perform employee-centred activities. The majority (52.9%) of the HR managers reported that they spent approximately 1030% of their time dealing with issues brought to them by distressed employees. Fewer than 12% of the HR managers stated that they spent less than 10%, and 29.4% stated that they spent more than 60%, of their time on the issues brought to them by distressed employees. The data therefore suggest that HR managers responsibilities still encompass looking after employees well-being. As the following quotes demonstrate, this is either because employee well-being is part of their role in the organisation or because of the HR managers natural inclination to be employee-centred.
It will come to you. People come to you because of your role in the organisation. (HR manager #9, female, property and business services)

SHRM and employee well-being

281

Im getting more and more people coming to me. So the word spreads and so by reputation they come to you for assistance and the same would be happening to [colleagues name]. Hes a good bloke, so go and see him. So it depends on the grapevine and they know somebody who was helpful and so direct them up to that particular individual. (HR manager #7, male, transport and storage)

The issues of distressed employees can find their way to the HR manager because they impact on an employees work performance. In one case, the distressed employee was revealing his personal problems to clients (HR manager #1, female, health and community services). In another case (HR manager #2, female, finance and insurance) work colleagues of a distressed employee lodged complaints with the HR manager. When HR managers undertake an employee-centred role, they prefer to play the part of a neutral party in the resolution process. Respondents indicated that they took on the issues of distressed employees in order to promote fairness and justice in the workplace.
But in dealing with these sorts of things I think from the point of view of a HR manager as a sort of a you know as a neutral player in these sorts of things, youve really got to keep a very open mind, even though youve got a suspicion which way it might go. (HR manager #3, male, manufacturing) We are third party neutral, running it for both the person who is making the complaint as well as the other person involved in the complaint itself. (HR manager #6, female, finance and insurance)

The willingness of HR managers to engage in employee-centred activities was sometimes constrained by the circumstances of their workplace and their workload. For instance, HR managers spend less time on employee-centred activities because employees have little access to an HR manager and the HR manager is not known to the employees, as the following quote illustrates:
because I just dont have a lot of that day-to-day contact so I dont build up that rapport with individual staff members [in] this role, because people are geographically spread out, [I] just dont get to see them, so Im not someone thats in their mind in terms of when they come up with who they should talk to. (HR manager #3, male, manufacturing)

The size of the organisation and of the HR department influenced the extent to which our interviewees were involved in the employee-centred activities. HR managers in smaller organisations (or with previous work experience in smaller organisations) felt that it was inevitable that their role would involve dealing with the employee-centred activities. Another factor that influences the amount of time spent on the employee-centred activities is the

282

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

2009 47(3)

workload of the HR manager. Time to talk is a significant constraint for both employees and the HR manager:
[in] organisations of under a thousand people, its very hard to stay out of that role, because usually they dont have a lot of HR people, and yeah, there is a conflict and it was one of my frustrations Ive taken in my last two roles, because theyre strategic, and they ended up not being [strategic] because there are a whole lot of unresolved things that were below that level we just discussed, which actually threaten your business. (HR manager #9, female, property and business services) I have been involved in doing that type of work in my previous position and when I took on the one with my current organisation, I started off in HR and I sort of explained to the organisation that all of the obligations to have as an employer, which includes, obviously, the soft side, and if theres only one person, then, by default, youre it. (HR manager #8, female, health and community services) The HR team doesnt have time and the individual doesnt. (HR manager #6, female, finance and insurance)

Not all HR managers want to undertake an employee-centred role a minority only become involved once the issue could not be resolved by the line manager. Alternatively, the HR manager would become involved in order to avoid the involvement of the union.
My role is really to focus on the more strategic imperatives in the organisation. Now, thats not saying I dont get my hands dirty, but the model that Im trying to operate here is that line managers really are the HR people in the organisation, and theyre the ones that ought to be dealing with this sort of stuff. (HR manager #3, male, manufacturing) But you know our view is that we should provide the first point of contact. People should feel they can come to us and we will champion their cause, even though it may be something that is against their manager, because if we dont support them, we will drive them to the union. (HR manager #7, male, transport and storage)

But a small proportion of the HR managers interviewed went further and objected to the social work aspect of employee-centred activities. A few HR managers were critical of those in the profession who wanted to work in HR in order to focus on the employee-centred role.
Youve got people who are being attracted to HR either because they cant get into anything else, they dont want to do a business related course, they dont want to do arts and they have this thing about I think I want to help people. (HR manager #6, female, finance and insurance)

SHRM and employee well-being

283

And I dont think a lot of them fully understand being able to conceptualise, being able to work in an analytical way and get all of the issues without just being the, well, how are we going to help people? If I interview people for a job, why do you want to work in HR? I like working with people and you think of course, another one. (HR manager #12, female, education)

In sum, the data indicate that most of our HR managers are actively engaged in an employee-centred role. The amount of time spent on these activities varied and was typically determined by the organisational context. Only a minority of our HR managers were critical of the employee-centred activities of the profession.
Reconciling the employee-centred and strategic roles

We earlier reviewed debates about the compatibility of an employee-centred with a strategic partner role. The data reported in this section show that our HR managers believed that spending time and resources on distressed employees would benefit the organisation in terms of staff retention and contribute to its reputation as an employer of choice. HR managers do not have to make a choice between employee-centred and strategic partner activities. Undertaking employee-centred activities is incorporated within the strategic partner role: employee-centred activities are strategic because they can generate benefits for the organisation. Hence, it is appropriate for an HR manager to undertake employee-centred activities.
It IS strategic, this IS strategic! (HR manager #4, male, communication services responding to a question about whether dealing with the issues of distressed employees conflicts with the strategic side of HRM) I think that if you do not provide that support and you get a disenfranchised workforce, I dont care how good your strategy is, youre not going to get there, so I think the two do go hand-in-hand. (HR manager #7, male, transport and storage)

Beyond keeping valued staff in the organisation, undertaking an employee-centred role was seen to promote a higher level of employee engagement with the organisation.
I think soft HR and strategic HR go together: if strategic HR is about talent management and employee engagement, because then that fits. (HR manager #6, female, finance and insurance) If you dont have the hearts and the minds of the people with you, then you are going to have a lot of counterproductive things happening, arent you? (HR manager #14, female, education)

284

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

2009 47(3)

The nature of the organisation also influenced the extent to which employee-centred activities could be positioned as strategic. In organisations that are particularly labour intensive, such as health and community services, issues with staff take on a greater importance.
... because we are in the people business and our staff really, if they are vulnerable, if they go down, then the business does as well. I can actually make a business case for the soft side. (HR manager #8, female, health and community services)

Investing time and resources into distressed employees was seen as strategic because it would create tangible outcomes for the organisation. The respondents identified higher productivity as one of the benefits for the organisation. Not only are distressed employees often not working productively, they can also prevent other employees in the organisation from being productive.
Its like ripples in a pond. They dont just affect one person or two parties involved, it affects people around them and that makes it and thats my line to people, you know, this is not just about you, this is an organisational issue and its clearly of a higher you know, got broader implications. (HR manager #9, female, property and business services) Out of every ten people in work, there will be one, two, maybe three, on any given day that are sub-optimally performing because theyve got a personal problem, theyve got a problem with their children, their adolescent son is a problem, theyve got an alcoholism problem, theyve got a domestic violence program, theyve got some other problem. And if we can help deal with that, we will raise productivity. Its not only the person thats affected, theyll spend half the day talking to their work colleagues about their problems, so you end up with six people, you know, distracted by the problems of one person. (HR manager #4, male, communication services)

An employee-centred approach was also seen to have a positive effect on organisational profitability by promoting employee trust and organisational loyalty:
I think she became a real champion for [our organisation], and no doubt if her paths came across someone else who was in difficulty, whether it be a work related issue or a personal issue which sometimes the two do conflict where she would say well, look, you can trust the people at employee relations. Go and speak to them. (HR manager #7, male, transport and storage)

Interviewees commented that dealing with the issues of distressed employees could save the organisation money. Cost savings occur by

SHRM and employee well-being

285

avoiding some employment-related costs such as sick leave and employment termination:
If theyre not distressed, theyre more productive. If they have processes to not get to that point, then its more economical for the [organisation] that we dont have to then spend all this money on WorkCover or we lose them through sick leave or that they terminate and that we lose their services. (HR manager #12, female, education)

The HR managers in our study formalised their employee-centred role by establishing policies and procedures for managing the issues of distressed employees. They regarded this approach as a way to promote fairness of treatment and process in the workplace.
We have processes around investigation, processes around support mechanisms, you know, issues around, you know involving as you say its not just one individual, its two individuals, with a very different perspective and a different sense of reality and yes, youve got that whole area about, you know whats the legal responsibility of the employer, what are the procedural fairness issues and then youve got, as you say, the emotional support issues about dealing with those sorts of issues. (HR manager #6, female, finance and insurance) The problem with a lot of these issues in fact it could be the big problem is that people tend to react on a moralistic or emotional level, and they dont follow a process, a clear process, a fair process. (HR manager #16, female, education)
Practical challenges

The data so far suggest that HR managers do not regard employee-centred activities as being in conflict with their responsibilities as a strategic partner. In fact, many managers argue that an employee-centred role will further the strategic objectives of the organisation. Nevertheless, the data provide evidence of practical and personal challenges in performing both roles for a minority of our respondents. One challenge is when employees seek out HR as a sounding board. Approaching HR with an issue but not lodging it formally potentially raises significant legal problems for the organisation. Employees are sometimes just looking for a sympathetic listener to air their issues but once aware of an issue, HR may be obliged to follow formal procedures even against the wishes of the distressed employee. When one HR manager asked an employee:
Are you reporting this to us formally because we have a process? She said, No, I dont want [the organisation] to do anything, but I just want you to be aware of it. So we were in a bit of a dilemma then, that from a health and safety

286

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

2009 47(3)

point of view, weve got an obligation to provide a safe workplace. Should we comply with the employees request, or should we do something that I guess is contrary to that request? (HR manager #7, male, transport and storage) Mostly because of my role, but there are some people who know me or know of me who other people would advise. You know go and see [name withheld], shell sort it out, but I think theyre not I dont really want to be just someone that listens and makes people feel better because theyve been listened to. I want to be able to do something as a result. I want to be able to offer some useful information that is going to help them resolve it. So you can get friends and family to listen to you but they cant do often anything in the way of offering advice as to how you might solve the problem. (HR manager #16, female, education)

A second challenge is ambiguity about who the HR manager represents. Issues often find their way to the HR manager because both a manager and an employee seek the intervention of a third party to resolve the issue.
Are we representing the business or are we representing the employee? And, in some instances, actually we were prepared we were going to go into the [Australian Industrial Relations] Commission. I was going to represent the employer because I had better skills to do that, depending on what the issue was, and somebody else who used to work with us, who is gone now, was going to represent the employee and were going to take it in as a dispute to the Commission, by agreement. (HR manager #7, male, transport and storage)

A third challenge is the need to be objective in performance evaluations. HR managers are often involved in the evaluation of employees performance. However, providing support to employees means that HR managers are also accumulating information about employees that can potentially influence the HR managers assessment of their performance.
Professionally, it causes me to have a clouded judgment of people because when theyre in here with me, talking about something, I see a different light as to whether when theyre out there, interacting in the normal organisation, it really frustrates me to see the two-faced sort of actions of some of the people I talk to. I know a lot, so that frustrates me. Sometimes I form personal opinions and make judgments that affect my decision making. (HR manager #15, female, communication services) I try not to get too involved in personal stuff with people, because I find it is very hard then to do performance management. (HR manager #1, female, health and community services)

SHRM and employee well-being

287

A fourth challenge is to demonstrate the economic benefits of employeecentred activities for the organisation. In an organisational context that attempts to measure the contribution of functions to the overall performance of the organisation, spending time with employees does come at a cost. For example, the HR manager is unable to demonstrate any measurable outcomes, as they are merely returning the distressed employees back to their original productive status.
I suppose the only tension that I see is that issue about the planned and the unplanned where youve got as a business partner youre required to meet a whole lot of, you know, criteria and report on different things, and that softer side is something thats very difficult to report on in terms of outcomes and dollars and those sorts of things. (HR manager #1, female, health and community services) So its hard to identify real outcomes. Its not that people are producing more dollars, or theyre more productive or better than they were. Its just about maintaining the status quo. (HR manager #2, female, finance and insurance)

Discussion and conclusions The central issue in our paper is the compatibility of an employee-centred and a strategic partner role for HR. The majority of our HR managers reported spending some time undertaking both roles, though a majority indicated that they spent less than a third of their time on employee-centred activities. Notably our respondents did not report any difficulties engaging with employee-centred activities and their role as a strategic partner at a philosophical level. This compatibility appears to result from three factors. First, our HR managers regarded the employee-centred work as consistent with their strategic responsibilities. They saw the employee-centred activities as generating organisational benefits including retention and employee engagement/ productivity as well as enhancing the reputation of the HR department. Second, the issues brought to HR by distressed employees did not consume the majority of an HR managers work time. HR managers did not mind spending time on these issues, as they found this aspect of their role professionally and personally rewarding. Third, our HR managers did not attempt to deal with all issues brought to them by employees: they dealt only with those that they felt qualified to assist with and outsourced the remaining issues to people/units formally equipped to provide professional assistance (usually an employee assistance program). Issues with a clear work connection (such as relationships with supervisors or work colleagues) were usually dealt with by our HR managers. Complex personal issues such as divorce, depression and drug abuse were typically outsourced as these were seen to require professional skills beyond those acquired as part of HR professional or educational programs.

288

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

2009 47(3)

Among our interviewees, however, we find some evidence of practical difficulties in reconciling the two roles such as when employees use HR as a sounding board about issues that have legal ramifications. HR managers also reported practical challenges when conducting performance management interviews, particularly when information provided by an employee outside the performance management process might be important in the subsequent evaluation of his/her performance. These findings have important implications for our theoretical understanding of the roles of the contemporary HR manager. Our results show that practitioners have merged these two roles by redefining the employeecentred role to be part of the strategic role, though researchers still tend to distinguish between these two roles (for example, see Ulrich and Brockbank 2005b). The redefinition is also noteworthy as the traditional employeecentred role was intended to promote employee well-being. Contemporary HR managers undertake an employee-centred role, but it is now accompanied by an expectation of augmenting organisational performance. This new definition is much more managerially focused, which is consistent with the view that the strategic partner role has made HR managers agents of capital (Wright 2008, 1068). HR managers have played a critical part in the redefining employeecentred activities as strategic through a process of job sculpting. Job sculpting involves modifying the job to fit the person rather than expecting the person to always fit the job (Butler and Waldroop 1999). It can involve changing work practices to accommodate both individual and organisational goals. HR managers, who were initially attracted to the profession because they liked working with people and wanted to be helpful (Hammonds 2005, 40), have redefined the employee-centred role to be strategic. They have done this in order to satisfy their emotionally driven passions: to undertake in those activities that engage them and keep them happy and fulfilled at work (Butler and Waldroop 1999, 152). Redefining employee-centred activities as strategic has enabled HR managers to distance themselves from earlier views of employee-centred activities as welfare work and to undertake activities that they enjoy, while having the support of their employing organisations. By defining employee-centred activities as strategic, HR managers may also be reinstalling barriers to entry into the profession. Wright (2008, 1082) argues that the move to a strategic partner role has resulted in a dilution of occupational identity by muddying the boundaries of HRM expertise. Managers from a wide variety of functional backgrounds possess the business skills necessary to undertake the responsibilities of an HR manager undertaking strategic partner activities. Barriers to entry into the profession are reinstalled, however, when managers need not only business skills but also skills in dealing with distressed employees.

SHRM and employee well-being

289

HR policy and practice implications

The merging of the employee-centred and strategic partner roles has implications for assessing the performance of the HR function. The metrics typically applied to assess the impact of a strategic partner role are financial or accounting measures (for example, the rate of return, see Belcourt 2001). Returns from an employee-centred role can generate organisational benefits but may not be adequately captured by narrow accounting measures given the time delays between providing support to an employee and their return to full productivity. Or more broadly, it is difficult to place an accounting value on a reputation as a caring organisation. In addition, a combined employee-centred and strategic partner role might be of value in recruiting and retaining the best people in the organisation but that value is difficult to measure in dollar terms. This redefinition of the role of HR has implications for the recruitment of people into the profession. Research in the careers field has consistently demonstrated the importance of compatibility between people and their work environments (personenvironment fit; e.g., Ehrhart and Makransky 2007). Good fit can result in a range of positive outcomes such as job satisfaction, oganisational commitment and performance (Ehrhart and Makransky 2007). The challenge for the HR profession is to ensure potential recruits are aware that HR is a helping profession but that this aspect of the work is tempered by the need to ensure a contribution to the overall performance of the organisation. HR educators carry a responsibility to ensure that their students graduate with the skills and knowledge necessary to be a strategic partner as well as the communication and counselling skills necessary to undertake the employee-centred activities effectively. Our findings raise questions about the most appropriate operational structure for an HR department. A focus on strategic HRM is often accompanied by the outsourcing of some specific activities such as recruitment, selection and payroll and/or the application of HR information technologies (Lawler and Mohrman 2003). While outsourcing and IT may free up the time of HR to work on strategic issues, it also has the potential to isolate HR from the employees of the organisation and limit opportunities to provide support to employees. Organisations may also enlist other resources to ensure that distressed employees receive support: line managers (Hope-Hailey, Farndale, and Truss 2005), unions (Francis and Keegan 2004) or an employee assistance program (EAP). Australian evidence suggests that line managers are not willing or capable to assume this role (Kulik and Bainbridge 2006; Teo 2002). Line managers are not motivated to take up these issues, as they regard them as peripheral to their immediate work demands. Another group that could supply employee-centred services are trade unions (Francis and Keegan 2004). A few of our interviewees, however, indicated some reluctance to have unions provide these services. Our study demonstrates that employees have personal and professional issues that impact on their work lives. Acknowledging employee issues will

290

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

2009 47(3)

help in the identification of the most effective operational structure for providing the necessary support. An option for larger organisations is to designate a particular HR manager with a primary responsibility for dealing with the issues of distressed employees. Alternatively, the job description for all the HR managers in an organisation could be amended to include responsibility for dealing with the issues of distressed employees (Kulik et al. in press).
Limitations of the present study

The sample size for our study is relatively small and our respondent recruitment strategy focused on organisations with a full-time HR presence (typically found in larger organisations). These characteristics lead to two potential limitations. First, we may over-represent the use of some techniques used by HR managers, particularly the use of an EAP. The costs associated with seeking outside professional support may be prohibitive for smaller organisations, which are underrepresented in our sample. Second, given the relatively large number of small workplaces where HR is a not a full-time responsibility for anyone in the management team (Barrett 2002), we may have overrepresented the extent to which employee-centred activities are performed in Australian organisations. Future research therefore should focus on the compatibility of an employee-centred and strategic partner role in small workplaces. Small business researchers (for example, see Deery, Walsh and Knox 2001) have suggested that the small size of some workplaces contributes to a very supportive employment relationship while other small workplaces are bleak houses that emphasise employee control rather than support. Our sample has a disproportionately large number of interviews (seven out of nineteen) with HR managers in the education sector relative to this sectors representation among employers in the Australian economy (Deery et al. 2001). The overrepresentation of higher education reflects the impact of the snowball approach used to identify interviewees (HR managers in one educational institution were more likely to identify an HR manager in another educational institution). This is not a serious problem as our focus was on the roles HR managers undertake or are expected to undertake in organisations. The role expectations of HR should, in principle, be similarly understood by HR practitioners regardless of the industry in which they work. However, future researchers should attempt to replicate our findings with a more diverse sample of Australian HR managers. Our interview protocol did not distinguish between the role of HR in formulating as opposed to implementing strategy, a distinction that Hunt and Boxall (1998) regard as important. It may be that our respondents were involved in the implementation of strategy and found their employee-centred activities more compatible than if they were involved in strategy formulation. An HR manager involved in the implementation of strategy is likely to have more regular contact

SHRM and employee well-being

291

with employees and as part of that contact provide support to employees. An HR manager who is principally involved in strategy formulation will have less contact with employees as his/her role involves meetings with members of the senior management team to discuss high-level business-related information. Future research should examine the compatibility of an employee-centred role with different types of strategic partner roles.
Implications for future research

Our paper focused on those currently employed as HR managers. These HR managers have redefined a focus on employee well-being as consistent with a strategic partner role by linking employee well-being with its impact on organisational performance. We encourage future researchers to address three issues: first, are there any time limits to the employee-centred role? It is unclear how long an HR manager will deal with a distressed employee before withdrawing support. Our interviews show that HR managers recognise the costs of employeecentred activities but engage in these activities because they believe there are benefits of doing so for the organisation. At some point, however, the costs of supporting a distressed employee may outweigh the benefits. Knowing how long it typically takes to move through the break-even point and how this break-even point varies based on the nature of the issues causing employee distress would tell us about the quality of the support provided to distressed employees. A second issue deals with the differential support that HR managers might give to various employees. As organisations continue to assess the impact of individuals (via performance management systems) we might anticipate that not all employees will receive the same level of support from HR, as some employees generate greater value for the organisation than others. As Beatty and Schneider (1997, 29) noted, HR should care and feed the core workforce, that component of the work force that staffs the organisations core competencies as these groups are a source of competitive advantage. However, creating classes of care may undermine the effectiveness of an employee-centred approach. Third, debate about roles tends to assume that HR managers have a choice about the role they prefer to undertake. However, as Procter and Currie (1999, 1079) pointed out, the role HR can play is the result of a continuous process of negotiation with other groups. The employee-centred role is only an option if employees are prepared to engage with HR. Future research should examine the effectiveness of the HR manager in the performance of their employee-centred role. Researchers should seek an employee perspective on the approachability and effectiveness of HR when it undertakes employee-centred activities, as previous research (Wright and McMahan 2001) assessing the effectiveness of HR has demonstrated the value of collecting data from users of the HR system. The role of an Australian HR manager has become increasingly complex over time as the number and range of roles has expanded. Two of these roles,

292

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

2009 47(3)

employee-centred and strategic partner, would appear to be a potential cause of difficulty but contemporary Australian HR managers have redefined the work of the former to be consistent with the latter role. The merging of the two roles may be evidence of the flexibility of the HR profession to transform itself sync with organisational dynamics in order to maintain HRs relevance. The next step is to evaluate the implications of this flexibility from the perspective of HRs stakeholders.

Michelle Brown (PhD, Wisconsin) is an associate professor in the Department of Management & Marketing, University of Melbourne, Victoria. Her research interests are in the areas of pay and performance management systems, employee involvement and organisational cynicism. Her research seeks to understand the unintended consequences of HR management policies and practices. Isabel Metz (PhD, Monash) is a senior lecturer at the Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne, Victoria. Her research interests are in the areas of gender and careers, work and family, new employment relationships, and group work in the classroom. Current projects focus on the influence of individual, organisational and social factors on womens advancement in academia and industry, toxin handling by HR professionals, and the development of psychological contracts. Christina Cregan (PhD, London School of Economics & Political Science) is an associate professor in the Department of Management & Marketing, University of Melbourne, Victoria. Her research interests are concerned with disadvantaged groups in the workforce and labour market. Her current projects include a study of immigrant textile outworkers and an investigation of the impact of paid work on disabled persons and their caregivers. Carol T. Kulik (PhD, Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) is a research professor in the School of Management, University of South Australia. Her interests encompass cognitive processes, demographic diversity, and organisational fairness, and her research focuses on explaining how human resource management interventions affect the fair treatment of people in organisations.

References
Ahmed, S. 1999. The emerging measure of effectiveness for human resource management. Journal of Management Development 18(6): 54356. Barrett, R. 2002. Small firms and employee relations. In Employee relations management: Australia in a global context, ed. J. Teicher, P. Holland and R. Gough 13353. Sydney: Prentice Hall. Beatty, R.W. and C.E. Schneider. 1997. New HR roles to impact organisational performance: From partners to players. Human Resource Management 36(1): 2937. Becker, B.E., M.A. Huselid, P.S. Pickus, and M.F. Spratt. 1997. HR as a source of shareholder value. Human Resource Management 36(1): 3947. Beckett, H. 2005. Perfect partners. People Management 1 April: 1623. Beer, M. 1997. The transformation of the human resource function: Resolving the tension between a traditional administrative and a new strategic role. Human Resource Management 36(1): 4956. Belcourt, M. 2001. Measuring and managing the HR function. Ivey Business Journal (Jan./Feb.): 359.Brewster, C. 1995. Towards a European model of human resource management. Journal of International Business 26: 122. Budhwar, P.S. 2004. Managing human resources in Asia Pacific. London: Routledge.

SHRM and employee well-being

293

Butler, T., and Waldroop, J. 1999. Job sculpting: The art of retaining your best people. Harvard Business Review (Sept.Oct.): 14452. Caldwell, R. 2002. A change of name or a change of identity? Do job titles influence people management professionals perceptions of their role in managing change? Personnel Review 31(5/6): 693709. Conner, J. and D. Ulrich. 1996. Human resource roles: Creating value, not rhetoric. Human Resource Planning 19(3): 3849. De Cieri, H., and R. Kramar. 2003. Human resource management in Australia. Sydney: McGraw Hill. Deery, S., D. Plowman, J. Walsh, and M. Brown. 2001. Industrial relations: A contemporary analysis. 2nd edn. Sydney: McGraw-Hill. Deery, S.J., J. Walsh, and A. Knox. 2001. The non-union workplace in Australia: Bleak house or human resource innovator? International Journal of Human Resource Management 12(4): 66983. De Vaus, D.A. 1993. Surveys in social research. 3rd edn. London: UCL Press. Dowling, P.J., and C. Fisher. 1997. The Australian HR professional: A 1995 profile. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 35(1): 120. Dredge, R., and A. Smith. 1987. The changing profile of personnel management: A survey of IPMA members. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 19: 2939. Dunphy, D. 1987. The historical development of human resource management in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 25(2): 407. Ehrhart, K.H., and G. Makransky. 2007. Testing vocational interests and personality as predictors of personvocation and personjob fit. Journal of Career Assessment 15(2): 20626. Ellig, B.R. 1997. Is the human resource function neglecting the employees? Human Resource Management 36(1): 915. Enterprising nation: Report of the industry task force on leadership and management skills (the Karpin Report). 1995. Canberra: AGPS. Fisher, C., and P.J. Dowling. 1999. Support for an HR approach in Australia: The perspective of senior HR managers. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 37(1): 119. Fisher, C., P. Dowling, and J. Garnham. 1999. The impact of changes to the human resources function in Australia. International Journal of Human Resource Management 10(3): 50114. Flanagan, J.C. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin 51(4): 32759. Francis, H., and A. Keegan. 2006. The changing face of HRM: In search of balance. Human Resource Management Journal 16(3): 23149. Glaser, B.G. and A.L. Strauss. 1967. Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. Guest, D. 1990. Human resource management and the American dream. Journal of Management Studies 27(4): 37797. Hammonds, K. 2005. Why we hate HR. Fastcompany Magazine, issue 97, August: 25. Hope-Hailey, V., E. Farndale, and C. Truss. 2005. The HR departments role in organisational performance. Human Resource Management Journal 15(3): 4966. Dunphy, D. 1987. The historical development of human resource management in Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources Hunt, J., and P. Boxall. 1998. Are top human resource specialists strategic partners? Self-perceptions of a corporate elite. International Journal of Human Resource 9(5): 76581. Keenoy, T. 1990. HRM: A case of the wolf in sheeps clothing? Personnel Review 19(2): 39. Kramar, R. 1992. Strategic HRM: Are the promises fulfilled? Asia Pacific Journal of HRM 30(1): 115. Kulik, C.T., and H.T.J. Bainbridge. 2006. HR and the line: The distribution of HR activities in Australian organisations. Asia Pacific Journal of HRM 44(2): 24056. Kulik, C., C. Cregan, I. Metz, and M. Brown. In press. HR managers as toxin handlers: The buffering effect of formalizing toxin handling responsibilities. Human Resource Management. Lansbury, R.D., and M. Baird. 2004. Broadening the horizons of HRM: Lessons for Australia from the US experience. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 42(2): 14755. Lawler, E.E., and S.A. Mohrman. 2003. HR as a strategic partner: What does it take to make it happen? Human Resource Planning 26(3): 1529. Legge, K. 1978. Power, innovation and problem solving in personnel management. London: McGraw-Hill.

294

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

2009 47(3)

Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. 3nd edn. London: Sage Publications. Mithen, J. 2005. Perspective. HR Monthly, July: 10. Modaff, J.V., and D.P. Modaff. 2000. Technical notes on audio recording. Research on Language & Social Interaction 33(1): 10118. Mohrman, A.A. and E.E. Lawler. 1997. Transforming the human resource function. Human Resource Management 36(1): 15762. Neuman, W.L. 1997. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Patton, M.Q. 1987. How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Peterson, R.B. 2004. A call for testing our assumptions. Journal of Management Inquiry 13(3): 192202. Pickard, J. 2005. Part, not partner. People Management: 4850. Procter, S., and G. Currie. 1999. The role of the personnel function: Roles, perceptions and processes in an NHS trust. International Journal of Human Resource Management 10(6): 107791. Renwick, D. 2003. HR managers: Guardians or employee wellbeing? Personnel Review 32: 34159. Ritzer, G., and H.M. Trice. 1969. An occupation in conflict: A study of the personnel manager. New York: Cornell University Press. Rynes, S. 2004. Where do we go from here? Imagining new roles for human resources. Journal of Management Inquiry 13(3): 20313. Schuler, R. 1990. Repositioning the human resource function: Transformation or demise? Academy of Management Executive 4: 4960. Sheehan, C., P. Holland, and H. De Cieri. 2006. Current developments in HRM in Australian organisations. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 44(2): 13252. Shillito, L. M. 1992. Value: Its measurement, design, and management. New York: Wiley. Simmons, J.A. 2003. Balancing performance, accountability and equity in stakeholder relationships: Towards more socially responsible HR practice. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 10(3): 12940. Smart, J.P., and M.R. Pontifex. 1993. Human resource management and the Australian Human Resources Institute: The profession and its professional body. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 31(1): 119. Sudman, S. 1976. Applied sampling. New York: Academic Press. Teo, S.T.T. 2002. Effectiveness of a corporate HR department in an Australian public sector entity during commercialisation and corporatisation. International Journal of Human Resource Management 13(1): 89105. Ulrich, D., and W. Brockbank. 2005a. Role call. People Management 16 June: 248. Ulrich, D., and W. Brockbank. 2005b. The HR value proposition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Ulrich, D., W. Brockbank, D. Johnson, and J. Younger. 2007. Human resource competencies: Responding to increased expectations. Employment Today Fall: 112. Watson, T.J. 1977. The personnel managers: A study in the sociology of work and employment. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Watson, T. 1986. Management, organisation and employment strategy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Wright, C. 2008. Reinventing human resource management: Business partners, internal consultants and the limits to professionalization. Human Relations 61(8): 106386. Wright, P.M., and G.C. McMahan 2001. Comparing line and HR executives perceptions of HR effectiveness: Services, roles and contribution. Human Resource Management 40(2): 11121.