Relationship Tensions: Exploring the HR Business Partner-HR Function Dynamic

Background The Human Resource (HR) function has seen many changes over the past decade, moving from a more transactional and administrative people management function to a more strategic partnership with business Line Manager... [ view full abstract ]

Background

The Human Resource (HR) function has seen many changes over the past decade, moving from a more transactional and administrative people management function to a more strategic partnership with business Line Manager Partners (LMPs) (Author 2 and Colleagues, 2012; Author 1 and 2 and Colleagues, 2016; Caldwell, 2003; Prichard, 2010; Prichard and Fear, 2015; Ulrich et al, 2013). The consequence of this has been the development of the HR Business Partner (HRBP) role in which HR professionals’ partner with senior and line managers from other organizational functions through increased participation in strategic decision making and planning in an effort to facilitate the attainment of business goals (CIPD, 2014; Ulrich, 1998). Although many organisations have adopted this model research into its effectiveness is limited. Some authors have identified underlying tensions with the HRBP approach such as line manager buy-in to both the changed HR role and their increased involvement in people management tasks, upskilling HR staff to be more business savvy, and questions concerning the dual role of HR as both HRBP and employee advocate (Caldwell, 2003; Grillo, 2014, Author 1 and 2 and Colleagues, 2016; Lawler, 2011; Pritchard, 2010; Ulrich & Beatty, 2001). Thus there is not universal agreement in the literature concerning the benefits of, or need for, HRBPs; and more importantly the role definition of HRBPs. The varying perspectives of the HRBP role help provide the context for this paper. While we see arguments concerning the relative advantages and disadvantages of the HRBP approach, the literature lacks an in-depth examination of the different ways the HRBP role can play out in practice and the relationship between the HRBP role and, where it exists, the traditional HR function.

The transition to HRBP model inevitably results in changing roles and responsibilities for line managers and HR professionals, both within the HRBP role and the HR function more generally. We would expect that issues of role ambiguity and conflict become increasingly present during the transition to an effective HRBP model. Role conflict and ambiguity have a long and rich history in the broader general management literature, with many researchers discussing the negative relationships between role conflict, role ambiguity and stress (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1962; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). Prichard (2010), in her ethnographic exploration of HRBPs, shifted from exploring the HRBP role to considering their identity. She identified tensions which exist within the HRBP model suggesting that ‘the impact of these tensions is felt across the HR department, and indeed beyond with the clients, as they ripple through the way work is performed in respect to key HR practices and policies’ (pg.186). Therefore we are keen to understand how this plays out in practice. This leads us to our research question: How does the introduction of the strategic HRBP impact the HR Division?

Methodology

The case study centres on a public sector heath and social care trust employing approximately 12,000 staff, and catering to the diverse needs of approximately 500,000 people. Historically, the trust operated a transactional and administrative support HRBP programme; however this model was disestablished and replaced with one ‘pushing and following a strategic people management and development agenda’ (Director of Human Resources). Three HRBPs were appointed to the various operational directorates. In-depth semi structured interviews were conducted with the three HRBPs; and supplementary interviews conducted with a further seven members of the HR division. Data was analysed utilising a thematic analysis to understand how each individual HRBP’s role had evolved.

Preliminary Findings

This section briefly outlines the challenges faced by HRBPs in the Trust when engaging and interacting with their HR colleagues.

Turf protection. Much evidence emerged of both the strategic HRBPs and specialist functions within the HR division engaging in what can best be described as ‘turf protection’. In essence, a blurring of responsibilities between the strategic HRBPs and HR division has resulted in both parties engaging in actions and activities aimed at protecting, or defending, their own position within the HR division, for example one HRBP noted “at times we are here to take their work and do their jobs and step on their toes…”, while at others “they push [work] back at us”. Two of the HRBPs spoke of senior managers in the directorates being “very precious about their area”, and not wanting to feel “disempowered by us”.

Glory Hunting / Cherry Picking. Closely related to the issue of turf protection is that of glory hunting, or cherry picking. Evidence emerged, particularly on the part of the specialist HR functions, of a perception that HRBPs engage in ‘cherry picking’ when dealing with HR issues arising in the operational divisions. Such activity was perceived by specialist staff as manifesting in three ways: (i) HRBPs prioritizing and taking personal responsibility for issues which carry the most credit, or which attract more favorable attention from senior management; (ii) HRBPs quickly passing the less ‘attractive’, or more mundane, aspects on to the specialist teams; and (iii) HRBPs attracting the credit for, and seeking to take the credit for, work which has actually been completed by the specialist directorates. The perception of glory hunting was refuted by the HRBPs, with, for example, one contending this to be “perception rather than the reality, because, actually, we deal with a lot of old [expletive deleted]”.

Role inconsistencies. Much evidence emerged of inconsistencies across HRBPs and operating divisions in terms of the role performed by the HRBPs, especially in regards to the extent to which they get pulled into performing a transactional, operational role. In part this may be explained by formal role definition (broad in nature), the relationship building aspect of the role whereby HRBPs have to build trust with divisions, the diverse needs of the operating divisions, and personality and experiential differences across the HRBPs. An assistant director expressed the view that “our current business partners struggle…. because they are trying to take a more strategic view, but they are getting dragged into operational things, because that’s how we are seen as HR”. This view was also held by the other HRBPs, with one, for example, pointing to cultural differences across divisions as an explanation (“the work which I do is completely different to the work [of the others] because the divisions all have their own wee culture”, HRBP C)”.

Going native. Given the flexible, evolving nature of the role, coupled with expectations created by the previous HRBP model and the need for HRBPs to become involved in operational work in seeking to build relationships, we were interested to explore if HRBPs were becoming too involved in operational matters, or whether the potential existed for this to occur. Both the HRBPs and senior management within the HR division, though confident that this has not as yet occurred, also highlighted the risks. One assistant director noted how “I think definitely that could happen”, with another contending that “the hard bit for our business partners is to make sure they keep themselves at that [strategic] level, that they don’t get sucked in, because they will, they will….”. However, we did pick up on some evidence of close relationships with operating divisions developing.

Conclusion

In summary, the findings revealed a ‘messy’ context, in which the role of the HRBPs has (of necessity) not been clearly defined, and within which HRBPs have been required to engage in ‘non- role’ (operational) activities in order to progress the relationship building process on which the role is predicated. Within this uncertain context, individual actors – HRBPs, HR division and line managers – have acted so as to both defend and advance their own agendas, often from the sense-making perspective of institutional memory, with the consequent outcomes of turf protection, jealousy and perceptions of glory hunting and cherry picking between the strategic HRBPs and the HR division, inconsistencies in role performance, and the disintegration of the HRBP role from the HR function.

References

Author 1 and Colleague. (2012).

Author 1 and 3 and Colleagues. (2016).

Caldwell, R. (2003). ‘The changing roles of personnel managers: old ambiguities, new uncertainties’. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 4, 983–1004.

Kahn R.L., Wolfe, DM. Quinn, R.P, Snoek, J.D., & Rosenthal, R.A. (1964). ‘Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and role ambiguity’. New York, NY: Wiley and Son.

Lawler, E. E. (2011). ‘Celebrating 50 Years: HR: Time for a reset?’ Human Resource Management, 50: 171-173.

Pritchard, K. (2010). ‘Becoming an HR strategic partner: tales of transition’. Human Resource Management Journal, 20: 2, 175–188.

Pritchard, K. and Fear, W. (2015). ‘Credibility lost: attempting to reclaim an expert identity in an HR professional context’. Human Resource Management Journal, 25: 3, 348–363.

Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J., & Lirtzman, S.I. (1970). ‘Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 15: 150-163.

Ulrich, D., & Beatty, D. (2001). ‘From partners to players: Extending the HR playing field’. Human Resource Management, 40: 293-307.

Ulrich, D., Younger, J., Brockbank, W. and Ulrich, M.D. (2013). ‘The state of the HR profession’. Human Resource Management, 52: 3, 457–471.