the devolution of hr tasks & responsibilities to line
Post on 12-May-2022
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
THE DEVOLUTION OF
HR TASKS &
RESPONSIBILITIES TO
LINE MANAGEMENT
Jeremy Bernard Buitenhuis, 10278664
7 december 2017
Executive Programme in Management Studies – Strategy Track
University of Amsterdam
Supervisor: Dhr. J. Strikwerda
1
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Jeremy Buitenhuis (10278664), who declares to take
full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work
presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in
the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and
Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the
contents.
Signature ___________________________________________
2
Abstract
This study focusses on the transfer of HR responsibilities from HR professionals to line
managers, also known as ‘the devolution of HR tasks & responsibilities to line
management’. In practice line managers didn’t seem too happy with taking on HR
responsibilities. Through this study I try to understand how devolution affects line
managers. The main research question was:
Does devolution of HR tasks to line managers increase their effectiveness?
This quantitative study explores devolution within a social firm through a literature
review, followed by a theoretical model. A survey sent to 110 line managers within the
social firm. The results were analyzed using a regression analysis. The findings show that
HR role ambiguity is a predictor for line management effectiveness.
Furthermore, this study contributes to existing research by providing a new definition of
devolution, a cohesive model of devolution that can be built upon and the creation of
variables that can be used in future studies. This study also adds to existing research from
Gilbert et al. (2011) and stimulates the further use of role stressors in business related
research.
3
Table of Contents
Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 2
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 3
List of tables & figures .......................................................................................................... 4
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5
Pantar ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Literature review .....................................................................................................................11
Theory on devolution ...........................................................................................................11
What is devolution? ..............................................................................................................12
Reasons to devolve ...............................................................................................................13
HR & Organizational performance ......................................................................................16
Who are the main players in devolution? ............................................................................17
The (role of the) Line manager ............................................................................................19
The staff-line relationship ...................................................................................................22
HR information system ........................................................................................................23
HR role stressors ..................................................................................................................24
Attribution theory ................................................................................................................25
Research question and hypotheses .........................................................................................26
Conceptual model ....................................................................................................................27
Method .....................................................................................................................................28
Case study ............................................................................................................................28
Data collection method ........................................................................................................29
Sample ..................................................................................................................................30
Measurement of variables ...................................................................................................31
Translation, back-translation procedure .............................................................................31
(Amount of) Devolution of HR tasks and responsibilities ...............................................31
Personal HR support ........................................................................................................32
Amount of HR training .....................................................................................................32
Time spent on HR tasks ...................................................................................................32
HR information system ....................................................................................................32
Experience as line manager .............................................................................................33
HR role overload ...............................................................................................................33
4
HR role ambiguity ............................................................................................................33
Sense of responsibility & accountability ..........................................................................34
Line manager effectiveness ..............................................................................................34
Results & Analysis ..................................................................................................................35
Correlation analysis .............................................................................................................39
Regression analysis ..............................................................................................................41
Attributions about devolution and the impact on line manager effectiveness ...................47
Discussion ................................................................................................................................49
Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................51
References ................................................................................................................................55
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................58
1 Pantar Organogram ..........................................................................................................58
2 Questionnaire (English & back-translation) ....................................................................59
3 Questionnaire (Final Dutch version) ................................................................................69
4 Survey correspondence .....................................................................................................86
Invitation email ................................................................................................................86
Reminder email ................................................................................................................86
Thank you email ...............................................................................................................87
5 SPSS Frequencies .............................................................................................................88
6 SPSS data transformations ..............................................................................................89
List of tables & figures
Figure 1: Model of impact of devolution of line manager effectiveness .................................27
Table 1: Correlations & Reliability scales ...............................................................................37
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics.................................................................................................37
Table 3: Regression results for Line manager effectiveness ..................................................44
Table 4: Regression results for Line manager effectiveness score .........................................45
Table 5: Attributions about line manager effectiveness .........................................................47
5
Introduction
After I graduated in HR, I started working as an HR administrator in an internet company.
During my time there I learned a lot from my manager and HR colleagues as they were
very experienced in operational HR. One of the things they taught me was the importance
of empowering line management. In their view, empowerment meant that the line
managers would take responsibility for all employee related issues. Whether it be
managing the vacation schedule or taking the lead in disciplinary matters. To my surprise,
I realized that line management wasn’t all too happy with having that responsibility and
often complained about the amount of time HR responsibilities took. However, at that time,
I didn’t stand still to ponder why.
After a few years I moved on to another company in a different sector – it was a social
employment firm. Due to changes in the social employment legislation, the company was
forced to reduce its costs, which I’ll get in to later. One of the things they changed, was the
HR organization: they increased the HR responsibility of line managers in order to cut costs
by reducing the number of HR personnel, organize the HR processes in a more efficient
manner and position HR to be a strategic partner. Again, after a few months in the ‘field’ it
became apparent: line management again didn’t seem too happy about it. Their primary
reason for disliking the new situation was the amount of time that their new HR
responsibilities required and how they struggled with meeting their performance targets.
This made me wonder: does the increased responsibility hamper the ability of a line
manager to perform? And if so, does that impact the organization in a negative way?
As I was in need of a research topic for my thesis, this ‘empowerment’ of line management
really piqued my interest. I found it strange that HR specialists were very content with this
6
idea and line managers weren’t. I had worked in the Dutch military and the concept of
leadership was drilled into my head. Most military organizations are hierarchies. Officers
and Non-Commissioned Officers (NCO’s) are trained in all aspects of leadership: they are
taught to take care of their team and achieve results through the use of their team. Thus, I
believed that being a team leader in a regular company meant taking care or being
responsible for your teams wellbeing and general employment affairs. So why wouldn’t line
management be happy with the opportunity to really manage and lead a team?
Since I wanted to know more about this phenomenon, I decided to focus on this subject for
my thesis. After reading a few research articles I learned that this phenomenon of
empowering line managers or increasing their HR responsibilities was named: the
devolution of HR tasks and responsibilities to line management.
Following the strategy track of business studies, I wondered what the impact of devolution
on the firm could be. Does it provide any strategic value for the firm? From a contingency
point of view, the most efficient form of an organization is dependent on its context (Blok,
2013). If so, under which circumstances would it make sense for an organization to devolve
HR tasks and responsibilities to line management? And what would contribute to a
successful implementation of devolution? In the literature review I explore the first
question and through the survey I try to answer the last two questions.
Most literature on devolution is written from an HR perspective (Gilbert, de Winne, & Sels,
2011). Neglecting the organization or line managers involved. That is why I’ve chosen to
focus this study on the line manager. Another fact is that most studies are either
qualitative case studies or surveys completed by high level HR professionals, so this study
contributes to existing research by performing a quantitative survey focused on the line
manager.
7
I try to understand the relation between devolution and line manager effectiveness through
the use of the attribution theory. Attributions are individuals’ explanations for the causes of
their successes and failures (Martinko et al., 2011). Understanding how these explanations
affect devolution, could provide valuable insights on devolution in practice.
As I’ve mentioned before I started working for a company who had just devolved HR tasks
and responsibilities. The company is named Pantar. In order to increase the
generalizability of the study, it would be best to send the survey to a large number of
companies and line managers, however this could potentially lower the strength of the
study as there is no solid and tested model. It would also take a lot of time to find the
appropriate companies and respondents. That’s why I’ve chosen to perform the survey
within Pantar. This way I can test the model and provide a more solid base for future
research.
The above leads to the main research question:
Does devolution of HR tasks to line managers increase their effectiveness?
In this thesis, I start by explaining what devolution is, why organizations devolve HR tasks
and responsibilities and who are involved with devolution. During this literature study the
hypothesis are introduced. The literature study ends with a summary of the hypothesis and
a proposal for a model combining various elements from the literature. In the next
paragraph I explain the research method, including the sample and a detailed explanation
of the variables. Here I also explain the statistical procedures used in this study.
The second part of the thesis begins with the statistical results and reviews the outcomes of
the various hypothesis. I then draw my conclusions based on these results, followed by a
discussion and my recommendations for future research.
8
For now, I would like to thank my readers, for taking the time and read this thesis. It has
been a trying endeavor to go through the various research steps and finish it. I’ve learned
that quality is achieved through collaboration and that such collaboration can come in
many different forms.
My partner who at times dragged me to the computer to work continue my work. My own
team manager who kept supporting me even though time kept passing by. Old friends that
sparred with me on the statistical procedures and new friends that pointed me in the right
direction. I hope this thesis reflects not only my own efforts, but their efforts and support as
well.
9
Pantar
Pantar is a non-profit organization in Amsterdam. A few years ago there was legislation on
how to provide work to people who, due to physical or psychological reasons, have
difficulties finding a job. This was called ‘social work’ and people who qualified for social
work could apply for a job at so-called social work organizations. Pantar is one of these
social work organizations in the Netherlands who provides work to people living in
Amsterdam and Diemen (Pantar Corporate website, 2017).
In 2015 the laws on social work changed and people no longer received a social work
qualification. The new laws wanted to increase the responsibility of regular firms by
encouraging them to create jobs for people that previously qualified for social work. This
change had a huge impact on social work organizations who depend on the subsidies they
receive for each employee. The municipality of Amsterdam lowered the subsidy per
employee and where their previously was a steady stream of new applicants, there no
longer were joiners with a social work qualification. Instead, people joined with a new
qualification, which came with a subsidy which was a percentage of their annual income
based on the work they should be able to do when compared to a regular employee. For
example, a new joiner that would work as a cleaner would come with an indication stating
that the new employee could do 60% of the work compared to a regular employee and so
Pantar would receive a subsidy of 40% of the annual gross income of that employee (Pantar,
2013).
These changes meant that Pantar had to change their business model in order to remain
financially solvent. This resulted in a reorganization of the staff departments, which also
affected HR (Pantar, 2013). In order to do the same amount of work with less people,
10
management decided to transfer a part of the HR responsibilities to line management and
give HR a more advisory role.
Pantar has around 3000 employees and is divided in four different units: Production,
Services, Public Area Services and Secondment services. The management organization
consists of team leaders, department heads, business unit managers and the directors,
which are around 130 people. In addition, there are ca. 200 staff employees working in HR,
finances, communication, facility, etc. (Appendix 1 Pantar Organogram).
Pantar’s main client is the municipality of Amsterdam and they maintain public locations,
rural areas, provide postal, catering and cleaning services. They also have other clients and
perform manual production activities such as packaging at the Pantar office location or
directly at the location of the client. Following the new laws on social work, Pantar no
longer just provides work, they focus on training and developing the necessary skills of
their employees in order to qualify for regular work (Pantar Corporate website, 2017).
11
Literature review
Theory on devolution
Blok (2013) notes that very little HR literature uses academic theory. Indeed, in my
literature review I didn’t come across any references of models or theory related to
devolution. However, devolution can also be seen as decentralization. As early as 1945,
Hayek wrote about how decision-making power should be either centralized or
decentralized based on how knowledge is utilized within the organization. So it is
interesting to learn that elements from organizational literature aren’t used in conjunction
with a HR perspective. Strikwerda (2003) wrote about what parent boards need to devolve
to subsidiary board in order to cope with the changing economic environment. Although this
is not the same as devolving HR tasks and responsibilities, the underlying principles might
be applicable in both cases. Meaning that HR should consider their own organizational
structure before devolving responsibilities to line managers and how they can best facilitate
conditions for success of such devolution. Such support could be given through the use of
platforms (Zuboff, Maxmin, & Hutton, 2004).
The emergence of individualism and changing economic circumstances place an emphasis
on knowledge and the knowledge worker. A firm’s intangible assets, including tacit
knowledge, are provided by these skilled workers. They provide the firm the capabilities it
requires to gain a competitive advantage. Thus, when considering devolution, the question
is how to best facilitate these knowledge workers so their knowledge can be retained,
shared, distributed and used towards achieving the company strategic goals.
12
In the case of Pantar knowledge plays an interesting role. In the current situation there is
no specialized workforce or does it utilize the knowledge of its employees in order to gain a
competitive advantage. When considering the employees at the lowest level this makes
sense as they are more focused on survival instead of self-determination (of course there are
exceptions). However, this does not apply to line managers and staff specialists. They’ve
accumulated knowledge and experience over the years that might be utilized. At this
moment in time there are no clear signs of how this knowledge put to good use within the
organization or how it contributes towards gaining a competitive advantage.
What is devolution?
The devolution of HR responsibilities from HR managers to line managers is both a growing
and global trend (Perry & Kulik, 2008). In the 90’s strategic integration was one of the key
selling points of the HRM concept seeking integration with business strategy (Cabral-
Cardoso, 2004). Devolvement was also growing more popular as it emphasizes the short line
of communication between the line manager and the employee (Budhwar, Strategic
Integration and Devolvement of Human Resource Management in the UK Manufacturing
Sector, 2000). There is a trend of devolvement happening in most European countries,
which could indicate that organizations consider devolvement to be beneficial to the
organization (Cabral-Cardoso, 2004).
Budhwar (2000) defines devolution as the degree to which HRM practices involve and give
responsibility to line managers rather than HR specialists. Most authors describe
devolution in a similar matter (Gollan, Kalfa, & Xu, 2015) (Brewster, Comparative HRM:
European views and perspectives, 2007). Krulis-Randa (1990) in (Harris, Doughty, & Kirk,
2002) expands the definition by describing the role of the HR function: HR specialists need
13
to support and facilitate line management with their HR responsibilities and not control
them. Another definition is given by Torrington & Hall (1996) in (Brewster, Comparative
HRM: European views and perspectives, 2007), who define devolution as: “Devolution is
indicated by the co-determination of HR strategy with the line management rather than
being the province solely of the personnel people.” This definition adds to the others,
because it mentions HR strategy and by doing so it places devolution within a broader
organizational context.
The word devolution is a combination of ‘evolution’ and ‘devolve’. This relates to the view of
the HR function evolving itself as a strategic partner and in that process certain HR
activities are moved to line managers. The role of HR as a strategic partner is lacking in the
definitions mentioned above and therefore I propose a new definition:
Devolution is the process of redistributing HRM tasks and responsibilities
between line managers and HR specialists, with the aim of integrating HR
strategy with business strategy.
Reasons to devolve
According to Budhwar (2000), a direct line between line manager and employee affects
efficiency and motivation because: a) local managers can respond to local problems and
solutions faster (Perry & Kulik, 2008) b) certain issues are too complex for top managers to
comprehend c) it can help to reduce costs (Harris, Doughty, & Kirk, 2002) d) it can help to
prepare future managers (by allowing middle managers to practice decision making skills).
Renwick (2000) adds: e) increase local management accountability, and f) introduce policies
more appropriate to the locality.
14
With the exception of the reason that certain issues are too complex for top managers to
comprehend, the list sums up most apparent reasons for devolution. However, it seems too
easy to say that certain issues are too complex for top managers to understand. Top
managers have received more training (such as traineeships or management development
programs), higher base education and have more experience in terms of years spent as a
business leader. Thus I believe it less probable that they cannot understand certain issues.
Budhwar (2000) assumes there is a positive relationship between integration and
devolvement, because as HRM becomes more and more strategic, personnel specialists will
have less time for the traditional routine type of HR activities. These activities will then be
devolved to, and performed by, the line managers. There is partial support for his theory,
but he concludes his introduction by stating more empirical studies are needed on this
topic.
His mixed-methodology approach of survey data and interviews showed no clear distinction
or relation between integration and devolvement, except that British managers feel the
need to increase both. His study was conducted in a specific sector and its conclusions are
therefore not generalizable, it does help to get a better understanding of the concept of
devolution.
Renwick (2000) contradicts Budhwar’s views by stating that the devolvement of HR tasks
and responsibilities to line management is the result of the evolving function of line
managers and line manager behavior as they became responsible for: a) setting objectives
b) organizing c) motivating and communicating d) measurement and e) people development
(Drucker, 1974 in Renwick, 2000). It seems that the line manager plays a more important
role within the organization (Holden & Roberts, 2000) (Renwick, 2000). For this study it is
important to note a different viewpoint on why devolvement is occurring in the first place:
15
to organize the HR and line function in such a way that it provides the most added value in
reaching company goals and gaining a competitive advantage.
Another reason mentioned in the literature is that HRM responsibilities are shared
between HR specialists and line managers to better integrate HR and business strategy
(Harris, Doughty, & Kirk, 2002). Devolution is seen as a vital part of Strategic HRM
(SHRM). SHRM focusses on several issues, including the fit between HR practices and
organizational strategic goals, the integration of HRM in organizational strategic
management, the involvement of the HR function in senior management teams, the
devolvement of HR practices to line managers and the value that is added to organizational
performance by HRM. (Andersen, Cooper, & Zhu, 2007) (Gollan, Kalfa, & Xu, 2015). To
further integrate HR in strategic decision making, the responsibility of routine execution
and administration of the HR practices should be delegated to line managers, as they have
direct and frequent contact with employees and a capacity to understand, motivate, control
and respond quickly to employees (Andersen, Cooper, & Zhu, 2007) (Brewster, Brookes, &
Gollan, The institutional antecedents of the assignment of HRM responsibilities to line
managers, 2015). In addition, devolution also contributes to the effective implementation of
HR strategy through line managers (Andolsek & Stebe, 2005).
The reasons for devolution seem to involve different sides of the organization. It is theorized
to positively impact line managers, realize cost reductions and stimulate business strategy
integration. However, there is little empirical evidence of these effects. Furthermore,
although devolution is expected to positively impact line managers, its purpose is to help
better the strategic HR role within organizations. In order to learn how devolution affects
line managers, our first hypothesis is:
16
H1A: The (amount of) devolution of HR tasks and responsibilities has a negative
influence on line management effectives.
Not all organizations devolve HR tasks and responsibilities to line management.
Organizational factors believed to influence the decision to devolve are: a) size of the
organization, b) the extent of unionization, c) strategic role of HR specialists, and d) location
of collective bargaining as well as the strategic nature of the HR department (Brewster,
Brookes, & Gollan, The institutional antecedents of the assignment of HRM responsibilities
to line managers, 2015). Although it is unclear why, Brewster et al. (2015) found that
organizations with a HR department involved with strategic decision making are less likely
to have devolved HR responsibility to the line. This could indicate that devolution might not
contribute to the strategic position of HR at all.
HR & Organizational performance
Organizational performance is defined as: ‘the comparison of the value produced by a
company with the value owners expected to receive from the company’, this can be defined
in HR-related outcomes such as turnover, absenteeism, job satisfaction, commitment, etc. or
financial outcomes such as profits, sales, return on assets or capital market outcomes’
(Darwish & Singh, 2013).
It is estimated that a firm’s intangible assets, e.g. human capital, information capital and
organization capital, may represent over 75 percent of its value (Kaplan & Norton, 2004). In
order to create value from intangible assets, they need to be aligned with strategy. Kaplan
& Norton (2004) wrote that activities such as HR, should be integrated with the
organization in order to maximize their contribution towards the value creation process.
The amount of overlap and integration between intangible assets make it impossible to
express the ‘tangible’ amount of value that is contributed by HR or other intangible
17
activities. Although Kaplan & Norton (2004) do provide a tool that helps to quantify the
contribution of the individual and helps with the human capital and strategic alignment.
According to Andersen et al. (2007) there is a positive relation between strategic HR
alignment and the perceived financial performance of the firm. In general, there is a belief
that HR is connected to firm performance, but it is unclear how (Gollan, Kalfa, & Xu, 2015).
A possible explanation is given by Sanders & Yang (2016) who wrote that HR can
contribute to organizational performance by motivating employees to adopt desired
attitudes and behaviors that, in the collective, help to achieve the organization’s strategic
goals. It can do so by helping to create an organization image with which employees can
identify. Considering human nature, identification inspires individuals to collaborate and
accomplish feats not possible for the individual (Simon, 2002).
Besides financial firm performance, employees and intellectual property can give
organizations a competitive advantage (Lawler III & Mohrman, 2003). In a survey
conducted by Darwish & Singh (2013) among HR directors, the directors state that they
believe that employees are key resources who can enable businesses to gain a competitive
advantage.
Often line managers function as a first point of contact for employees. This means their
effectiveness or performance can have a direct impact on their employees’ motivation,
turnover, absenteeism and an indirect impact on organizational performance.
Who are the main players in devolution?
There are two important players involved with devolution: the HR department and its
specialists and the line management within an organization. Other stakeholders such as
the board of directors are important when it comes to making the decision to devolve or not,
18
but are not concerned with daily operational HR tasks and responsibilities. Employees are
seldom mentioned in literature about devolution.
The HR department or HR in general are a much debated subject in research and
management literature (Cappelli, 2015). Not always seen as a positive element within the
organization. HR is accused of having no connection with the business, they are slow to act
and they create unrealistic policies (Whittaker & Marchington, 2003). With the integration
of HR and business strategy, devolution could be an effective transformation strategy that
HR could use to increase the image of HR among line managers (Brewster, Brookes, &
Gollan, The institutional antecedents of the assignment of HRM responsibilities to line
managers, 2015).
However, when it comes to devolution the HR department plays a crucial role. As HR tasks
and responsibilities are transferred, the HR department is need to also transfer the
knowledge of such duties. In addition to knowledge transfer they need to change their
service model to facilitate, support and give advice to line managers (Harris, Doughty, &
Kirk, 2002). As the gap between HR and business strategy shortens and devolution
increases, HR takes on the role of strategic partner and coordinator for the activities of line
managers (Cabral-Cardoso, 2004). In order to be successful HR needs to develop new
competencies such as policy creation, e-HRM, and expert advice & consultation (Whittaker
& Marchington, 2003). Unfortunately not all organizations provide the HR support needed
by line managers to successfully accomplish their HR responsibilities (Perry & Kulik, 2008).
Based on this the second hypothesis is:
H1B: The influence of devolution on line manager effectiveness is more negative
among managers who receive a high amount of personal HR support.
19
In the case of labor legislation, HR plays a very important role to protect the organization
from costs incurred by errors or lawsuits (Harris, Doughty, & Kirk, 2002). Harris et. al.
(2002) mention that an increase in employment legislation also demands increase in
knowledge and expertise from those who are handling employment issues. It is difficult and
potentially costly to transfer such knowledge to line managers. In order to prevent such
costs, HR creates rigid employment processes and monitors these processes intensely. As a
result HR seems bureaucratic, inflexible and doesn’t seem to care about operational
problems (Harris, Doughty, & Kirk, 2002). In that case , it may seem wise keep the
responsibility for these issues within a trained and specialized HR department (Brewster,
Brookes, & Gollan, The institutional antecedents of the assignment of HRM responsibilities
to line managers, 2015).
The (role of the) Line manager
The other important players within devolution are the line managers. Line managers play a
central role within the organization (Holden & Roberts, 2000) (Renwick, 2000). They
organize the work, implement strategy, manage disputes and motivate staff (Holden &
Roberts, 2000). Because line managers are concerned with implementing the corporate
strategy, they play a very important role in the change process. They are tasked with
relaying the order from above and receiving the feedback from the operation. Because of
their ‘stuck in the middle’ position they may experience tension, conflict and stress. Holden
& Roberts (2000) note that because of this, they experience difficulties with performing
effectively, especially in conjunction with the devolved HR functions. Holden & Roberts
(2000) wrote that line managers became more and more responsible for recruitment,
disciplinary functions, most training and development issues, performance appraisal,
health and safety monitoring and record keeping.
20
Definitions found described line managers as: ‘a manager who deals with any of the
functional areas other than HR’ (Srimannarayana, 2010), ‘covers those people in the
management who are directly responsible for production or services’ (Brewster, Brookes, &
Gollan, 2015) and ‘the first level of management to whom only non-managerial employees
report’ (Gilbert, de Winne, & Sels, 2011). It is interesting to see that these definitions would
lead to small differences in the target group, such as excluding HR or staff departments. In
essence any manager, whose HR tasks and responsibilities increase, could be more or less
effective as a result of the change in amount of HR tasks and responsibilities. Depending on
the size of the organization, there could be a several layers of management who are not
considered part of the senior management or strategic apex. Pantar for example, has such
an additional layer of management. These ‘department heads’ are responsible for
production and manage the line managers directly supervising non-managerial employees.
As they are not part of the strategic decision making process this layer of management is
also considered part of line management in this study.
Not all line managers have the necessary skills and competencies to perform their HR
duties (Whittaker & Marchington, 2003). According to Perry & Kulik (2008), the skills and
competencies of a line manager are an important factor in devolution. Training helps to
build a competency base for line managers which they can utilize to perform their HR tasks
successfully. Insufficient training offered to line managers greatly undermines the capacity
of line managers to perform HR activities effectively (Andersen, Cooper, & Zhu, 2007).
H1C: The influence of devolution on line manager effectiveness is positive among
managers who received a high amount of HR training.
When untrained even the most routine HR tasks, such as writing letters or taking the
appropriate first disciplinary steps, can become very time consuming. In practice, line
21
managers are often caught between their operational and people management
responsibilities. Especially when it comes to prioritizing between the two, operational
demands are regarded as more important by line managers, which resulted all too often in
a minimalist approach towards people management issues (Harris, Doughty, & Kirk, 2002).
According to Whittaker & Marchington, as long as people management goals are not
embedded within the performance targets of the line managers, people management
responsibilities will always be second (Whittaker & Marchington, 2003) (Perry & Kulik,
2008). However, lack of training and competence could potentially result in a
disproportionate part of their time spent on HR tasks.
H1D: The influence of devolution on line manager effectiveness is lower or
neutral among managers who already spend a high amount of time on HR tasks.
Besides managing their employees, line managers also implement policies designed by HR
(Harris, Doughty, & Kirk, 2002). Some of these policies are meant to make sure that
internal policy meets the external regulatory requirements. Yet, the difference between
designed and implemented policies affects value creation as true implementation may differ
from the intended implementation (Renwick, 2003) in (Gollan, Kalfa, & Xu, 2015). In
addition to said difference, Perry & Kulik (2008) mention that line managers seldom apply
HR policies in a consistent manner.
Policy implementation increasingly goes through software, especially HR-software.
According to Conway & Monks (2010), problems with policy implementation may occur
when line managers are not involved with policy creation and only responsible for policy
implementation. For line management involvement in HR to be successful, there are three
important factors to consider: line management needs to understand the rationale of their
22
involvement, belief in the value of their involvement and HR role clarity & capability
(Conway & Monks, 2010).
‘It is difficult to see how managers, whose responsibility is to get things done through
others, could not have HRM responsibilities’ (Brewster, Brookes, & Gollan, The
institutional antecedents of the assignment of HRM responsibilities to line managers,
2015). Although this seems logical, there are a lot of unknowns when it comes to the details
of that responsibility. Yet, managers acknowledge that HR is an important part of their role
(Conway & Monks, 2010). Line managers have always had HR responsibilities (Gilbert, de
Winne, & Sels, 2011). Solving HR problems at a lower organizational level, created more
responsible line managers and improved the efficiency of employees (Perry & Kulik, 2008).
If devolution is welcomed by experienced managers, because it provides more responsibility
and decision making power, it should have a positive effect on their effectiveness. Leading
to the next hypothesizes:
H1E: The influence of devolution on line manager effectives is positive for line
managers who have a high amount of experience as a line manager.
H1I: Devolution leads to increased feelings of responsibility & accountability
which in return leads to higher line management effectiveness.
The staff-line relationship
When personnel specialists try to change their role it could lead to conflict, especially when
senior management views the role of HR differently (Renwick, 2000). However, Renwick
has a mostly negative view on the relationship between HR and line management. He
believes that this is caused by HR not delivering or adding value (Renwick, 2000). These
sentiments tend to pop up every now and then, with arguments such as HR makes us
23
perform tasks we dislike, like documenting problems with employees or tells we can’t hire
who we want (Cappelli, 2015).
The negative views are offset by progressive views such as more integrated approach of
personnel management. In which HR is treated as a shared responsibility between line
managers, HR professionals and employees (Srimannarayana, 2010), (Brewster, Brookes, &
Gollan, The institutional antecedents of the assignment of HRM responsibilities to line
managers, 2015). In such a relation HR is seen as a strategic partner that can contribute to
the development and implementation of corporate strategy (Lawler III & Mohrman, 2003).
Especially in organizations that focus on competencies and knowledge management, HR is
more likely to be a strategic partner (Lawler III & Mohrman, 2003). Being a strategic
partner and devolving HR tasks to line management requires trust and HR tasks need to
be transferred without HR adopting a controlling role (Lawler III & Mohrman, 2003).
HR information system
A large part of the devolved tasks has an administrative nature. However, the impact of
modernization and digital processes is rarely discussed in devolution literature. This is
especially remarkable as more and more HR tasks are being digitalized through digital HR
systems (Blok, 2013). Time potentially being a bottleneck for both HR specialists trying to
adopt a more strategic role and line managers coping with the added strain of HR tasks and
responsibilities. Much administration can be done through Management Self Service and
Employee Self Service. This could save time of the HR specialist and line manager (Lawler
III & Mohrman, 2003).
In his book about Self Service Centers Strikwerda (2010) discusses the case of KPN. KPN
changed the HR service structure when they needed to severely reduce costs. Switching to a
24
e-HRM system enabled them to achieve significant cost reductions through the removal of
paper messages, manual calculations and physical filing. It also provided line managers
with access to relevant information about their employees (Strikwerda, Shared Service
Centers II, 2010).
A sound digital HR infrastructure should lead to higher line management effectiveness,
thus leading to the next hypothesis:
H1F: The influence of devolution on line manager effectiveness is positive among
managers who are satisfied with the HR information system.`
HR role stressors
Role stressors, or HR role stressors, find their origin in role theory. Unclear role
expectations or incongruities, cause negative attitudes or bad performance of those who
fulfill the role (Gilbert, de Winne, & Sels, 2011). Gilbert et al. (2011) wrote: “An
organizational role can be defined as the set of activities that are expected to be performed
by an employee occupying a certain position in the organization (i.e. the role incumbent)
(Kahn et al., 1964)”. Various studies portrait line managers who mention that that
workload is increased and has become more complex. According to Gilbert et al. (2011)
there is not a lot of research about these role stressors and how they are related to
devolution. This study could contribute towards gaining a better insight in that relation.
In their study, Gilbert et al. (2011) research the impact of different antecedents (such as
HR support, HR task requirements and line manager competency) on HR role ambiguity
and HR role overload. They do so based on the idea that role stressors lead to negative work
attitudes, less wellbeing and reduced individual performance, role stressors might impact
the implementation of HR by the line manager (Gilbert, de Winne, & Sels, 2011). HR role
25
ambiguity means: “uncertainty about the scope activities and responsibilities that are
expected in the HR role” (Gilbert, de Winne, & Sels, 2011). HR role overload is defined as:
“Being unable to complete all assigned HR tasks effectively due to time limitations”
(Gilbert, de Winne, & Sels, 2011). Problems with role overload emerge when HR tasks are
added to already overburdened work commitments (Conway & Monks, 2010).
The negative impact of HR role stressors on line managers is based on earlier studies of role
theory. In order to add to existing research, in this study the relation between HR role
stressors and line manager perceptions is tested:
H1G: Devolution leads to increased feelings of HR role overload which in return
leads to lower line management effectiveness.
H1H: Devolution leads to increased feelings of HR role ambiguity which in return
leads to lower line management effectiveness.
Attribution theory
At the core of line manager effectiveness lies the behavior of the line manager and its
impact on situational outcomes. For example, poor team member performance might be
addressed through punishment or reward, which in return may or may not reinforce the
desired performance. Attributions are individuals’ explanations for the causes of their
successes and failures (Martinko et al., 2011). These insights could help explain how
different factors influence the success or failure of devolution in practice. Also as the
attribution theory has not been widely used in organizational science (Martinko, Harvey, &
Douglas, The role, function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership: A review,
2007), this research could contribute to the organizational science community by exploring
the attributions line managers make about the impact of devolution on line manager
effectiveness.
26
Research question and hypotheses
Main:
Does devolution of HR tasks to line managers increase their effectiveness?
Hypotheses:
H1A: The (amount of) devolution of HR tasks and responsibilities has a negative
influence on line management effectives.
H1B: The influence of devolution on line manager effectiveness more negative
among managers who receive a high amount of personal HR support.
H1C: The influence of devolution on line manager effectiveness positive among
managers who received a high amount of HR training.
H1D: The influence of devolution on line manager effectiveness is lower or neutral
among managers who spend a high amount of time on HR tasks.
H1E: The influence of devolution on line manager effectives is positive for line
managers who have a high amount of experience as a line manager.
H1F: The influence of devolution on line manager effectiveness is positive among
managers who are satisfied with the HR information system.
H1G: Devolution leads to increased feelings of HR role overload which in return
leads to lower line management effectiveness.
H1H: Devolution leads to increased feelings of HR role ambiguity which in return
leads to lower line management effectiveness.
H1I: Devolution leads to increased feelings of responsibility & accountability which
in return leads to higher line management effectiveness.
27
Conceptual model
Figure 1: Model of impact of devolution of line manager effectiveness
28
Method
This section details the base and structure of this empirical study. It begins by explaining
the choice to conduct a case study. Then it moves on to data collection methods for the
literature review and the sample selection. It finishes with a thorough review of the chosen
variables and the intended statistical approach to test the hypothesis. Both the Dutch and
English versions of the questionnaire can be found in the appendix chapter 2 and 3.
Case study
A case study is an approach capable of examining simple or complex phenomenon, with
units of analysis varying from single individuals to large corporations and businesses; it
entails using a variety of lines of action in its data-gathering segments and can
meaningfully make use of and contribute to the application of theory (Cresswell,2007; Yin,
2003a) in (Berg, 2009).
A large-scale survey would be ideal to gain a broad perspective on the subject of devolution.
Most research on devolution relied on case study research designed to identify the costs and
benefits of devolution (Perry & Kulik, 2008), so a large scale survey would contribute to the
field of research. However, such a survey requires identifying firms who have recently
devolved HR tasks and responsibilities. In order to get the required response needed for
statistical testing, a large number of companies need to be identified. For the scope of this
study it is important that it can be completed within a limited time. Therefore, the study of
a single firm is preferred.
The devolution of HR tasks and responsibilities is a complex research subject. There are
many variables involved and a lot of different angles that can be investigated. For example:
29
under which circumstances may a firm chose to devolve HR tasks & responsibilities to line
managers. Another angle could be the characteristics of a successful implementation of
devolution within an organization. A case study is perfect for examining complex research
subject and can be used in both theory building and theory testing (Berg, 2009).
A drawback is that the findings cannot be generalized, so this research can be viewed as a
first step in developing a theory concerning the impact of devolution on line managers.
Future steps would definitely include multiple case studies and/ or a large scale survey.
Most research on devolution starts from an HR perspective and neglects line views and
opinions (Gilbert, de Winne, & Sels, 2011). Another way to contribute to this field of
research is by focusing mainly on the line manager perspective. This case study studies the
effects of various aspects of devolution on line management effectiveness by sending a
questionnaire to all line managers within one organization.
Data collection method
To gain a better understanding of devolvement the first step was to review relevant
literature. The digital library of the University of Amsterdam was searched to find relevant
articles. The following keywords were used: HR, Human Resource Management, line
management, line work, devolving, devolvement, HR to line. Recommendations made by
the database based on articles selected have also been included in the search.
The search was set to find articles published between the present and the year 2000, so to
ensure information was relevant within the context of time. Most articles will include
summaries of relevant information from before 2000. It is expected that research conducted
in the last seventeen years would give a more actual view of the devolvement of HR
responsibilities in the present day.
30
Sample
Pantar has a total of 132 people working in managerial positions. The sample consists of
line managers who meet the definition provided by Brewster et al.: ‘Line management
covers those people in the management who are directly responsible for production or
services’ (Brewster, Brookes, & Gollan, 2015). There are 110 team leaders and department
heads who are responsible for directly supervising employees who work in production or
services and all of them are included in the sample.
The rest of the managerial positions are held by staff managers, senior management and
the managing board. They are excluded from the sample, because devolution impacts them
less. The majority of line managers have a span of control between 20 and 45 employees. As
you move up in the hierarchy the span of control becomes smaller as managers have around
five department heads. It’s logical to assume that line managers spend more time on HR
tasks compared to staff managers, senior management and the managing board as they
manage larger teams.
All respondents received a digital email invitation with a link to the survey. The email
addresses have been provided by Pantar. Since Pantar is going through a strategic
transition at the moment, respondents might feel that this study could affect them in a
negative way. Therefore, the invitation letter explains that all data is treated as
confidential. Additionally, management and leadership are only given aggregated data
which cannot be translated to individuals. The Dutch versions of the email correspondence
has been added to the appendix chapter 4.
31
Measurement of variables
Translation, back-translation procedure
As the primary language of the respondents is Dutch and the study is written in English,
the questionnaire needed to be translated. To avoid changes in the true meaning of the
items, a translation- back-translation procedure was used. In this procedure a third person
translates the Dutch questionnaire back to English. Any differences found have been
discussed and, if a consensus was reached, altered in the final Dutch version of the
questionnaire.
(Amount of) Devolution of HR tasks and responsibilities
In order to measure the current state of devolution within Pantar, the item “In the last five
years has line management involvement in people management activities within Pantar:
increased, decreased or stayed about the same.” was added, based on the similar item in the
Perry & Kulik (2008) study.
The extent of the devolution of HR tasks and responsibilities is measured using an index
constructed from 27 practice HR tasks (Budhwar, Evaluating levels of strategic integration
and devolvement of human resource management in the UK, 2000) (Gilbert, de Winne, &
Sels, 2011) mentioned in devolution literature and the extent to which line managers
indicate their responsibility: Fully responsible, Main responsibility but consult with HR,
Shared responsibility with HR, HR has primary responsibility, Not applicable/ no response
and I don't know. As according to Gilbert et al. (2011) and Cascón-Pereira et al. (2006) the
amount of devolution is caused by the number of tasks devolved. All items for which line
managers feel responsible are summed, because in general a task is deemed devolved once
32
there is a shared responsibility between line management and HR (Gilbert, de Winne, &
Sels, 2011).
Personal HR support
This variable was measured using a five-item scale (Cronbach α = .89) used by Gilbert et al.
(2011). The items ask about the amount of support received by the line manager from the
HR department, for example: “The HR department supports me in executing my HR tasks”.
All items were indicative for personal HR support. A 7 point Likert-scale ranging from was
used, ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), ‘not applicable’ and ‘I don’t
know’.
Amount of HR training
To measure the level of HR training a self-designed six-item scale (Cronbach α = .86) was
used. The items were based on the HR competence variable used by Gilbert et al. (2011).
Additionally, three items were based on Takeuchi’s (Takeuchi et al., 2007) scale. All items
were indicative for the amount of HR training. Again, the same 7 point Likert-scale ranging
from Personal HR support was used.
Time spent on HR tasks
A single item ‘Please specify the average amount of time you daily spend on HR tasks’ was
used to measure the variable. Respondents are asked to fill in the average amount in hours
(per day).
HR information system
HR information systems are seldom discussed in devolution literature. As a result, a five-
item scale (Cronbach α = .78) was devised based on a thorough search of items in an online
33
database (INN constructing theories, integrating research, 2017). Most items didn’t fit the
question ‘How do line managers perceive the use of the HR information system?’. The final
set of items was constructed in line with the other items in terms of wording and phrasing.
All items were indicative for the HR information system. Also the 7 point Likert-scale was
again used.
Experience as line manager
Another single item ‘Please specify how much years of experience you have as a line
manager’ was used to measure this variable. Respondents are asked to fill in their
experience in years.
HR role overload
This variable is measured in the same way as in the study conducted by Gilbert et al.
(2011). It consists of a five-item scale (Cronbach α = .90) and also uses the 7 point Likert-
scale. An example item is ‘My HR tasks lead to a work load that is too heavy.’ All items
were indicative for HR role overload.
HR role ambiguity
Another variable used in the Gilbert et al. (2011) studies is HR role ambiguity. It is
measured using a four-item scale (Cronbach α = .86). The items mainly ask about the
clarity of the HR tasks and the role of the line manager in performing these tasks, e.g. ‘I
know what my HR responsibilities are’. All items were indicative for HR ambiguity. The 7
point Likert-scale was used again.
34
Sense of responsibility & accountability
Another hypothesis explores the relation between what line managers see as their
responsibility and how that impacts their effectiveness as a line manager. Unfortunately,
not a lot has been written about that relation in devolution literature. In order to explore
the relationship a six-item scale was made. Again the online database (INN constructing
theories, integrating research, 2017) was consulted to find items matching our question
‘How responsible or accountable does a line manager feel considering his role?’. No items
were found and items were created based on that question. During the reliability analysis
the Cronbach’s α for all items was .60, the analysis showed that by deleting ‘As a line
manager I am accountable for the mistakes of my team.’ The Cronbach’s α would rise to .69.
As there is no guide or other research to consult, the decision was made to delete the item.
In the new scale, excluding the question ‘As a line manager I am accountable for the
mistakes of my team.’, all items were indicative for the sense of responsibility &
accountability. A 7 point Likert-scale ranging from was used, ranging from 1 (strongly
agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), ‘not applicable’ and ‘I don’t know’.
Line manager effectiveness
First an item asking for an overall rating of the own effectives was used. Second, a four-
item scale (Cronbach α = .76) measured the variable. Line manager effectiveness is derived
from a few related to reasons to devolve: a) the decision making abilities of the line
manager (Renwick, 2000) (Perry & Kulik, 2008), b) local line manager responsiveness
(Budhwar, Evaluating levels of strategic integration and devolvement of human resource
management in the UK, 2000) (Brewster, Brookes, & Gollan, The institutional antecedents
of the assignment of HRM responsibilities to line managers, 2015) and c) the employee bond
35
(Brewster, Brookes, & Gollan, The institutional antecedents of the assignment of HRM
responsibilities to line managers, 2015). As I did not find a similar scale, I searched for
items in the online database (INN constructing theories, integrating research, 2017) that
resembled the reasons mentioned above and constructed my own variants on those items.
The final scale uses a 7 point Likert-scale. All items were indicative for line manager
effectiveness.
To gain a better understanding of what attributions line managers make about the various
variables, a matrix was added that included with all variables. Line managers need to
indicate if they believe a variable makes a large positive contribution, small positive
contribution, neutral or no contribution, small negative contribution or large negative
contribution.
Results & Analysis
Over a period of three weeks an online survey was sent out to 110 line managers within
Pantar. A total of 54 line managers responded. This response may result in low predictive
power of the statistical analysis. A sample size calculation at the 95% confidence level and a
confidence interval of 10, suggest that a minimal sample size of 52 is needed.
After reaching the minimal required sample size, the data was examined using the
Statistical Software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The first step was to recode the
variables. ‘Not applicable’ and ‘I don’t know’ have been recoded as missing values.
Respondents that only completed the first questions and didn’t finish the questionnaire
have been deleted. HR role overload was reverse coded as it was the only negatively
formulated variable.
36
Devolution strength has been recomputed in a new variable using the method described by
Gilbert et al. (2011). This means that each of the 27 individual items related to the presence
of devolution has been recoded into a new dummy variable. The values that include full or
partial responsibility of line management have been recoded into 1. Responses based on full
HR responsibility, ‘not applicable’ or ‘I don’t know’ were recoded into 0. The next step was to
compute a new variable called ‘Devolution Strength’ which sums together all 27 items for
each individual respondent. The number represents the total score of devolution: a higher
number represents a stronger presence of devolution and a lower number indicates a lower
presence.
The next step was a scale reliability analysis to determine the strength of the variables.
The results are shown in brackets in Table 1. The scales of ‘Sense of responsibility &
accountability’ and ‘Line manager effectiveness’ are good as their Cronbach’s α is close to .7.
However, the scales for the other variables were considerably higher: ‘Personal HR support’
and ‘HR Role overload’ both have a Cronbach’s α close to .9, whilst ‘Received HR training’
and ‘HR Role ambiguity’ have a Cronbach’s α of .86. ‘HR information system’ scores in
between with a Cronbach’s α of .78. After the analysis, new scales were computed based on
the mean average.
37
Table 1: Correlations & Reliability scales
Once all variables were computed a descriptive overview including histograms was
produced using SPSS, see Table 2. Examining the histogram’s showed outliers on ‘Tenure’
and ‘Time spent on HR tasks’, upon inspection it showed the values were higher than what
one would logically expect: spending more than ten hours per day on HR tasks or spending
more than 40 years at the company. These values were removed.
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics
Age (yrs)
Tenure
(yrs)
The
amount of
devolution
Personal
HR
support
Received
HR
training
HR
information
system
Time spent
on HR
tasks (hrs)
HR role
overload
(R)
HR role
ambiguety
Amount of
experience
as a line
manager
(yrs)
Sense of
responsibil
ity &
accountabi
lity
Line
manager
effectivene
ss
Line
manager
effectivene
ss score (1
to 10)
Age (yrs) -
Tenure (yrs) .31* -
The amount of devolution -.02 .13 -
Personal HR support -.18 .02 -.04 (.89)
Received HR training -.19 -.06 -.15 .51** (.86)
HR information system .01 .06 .00 .10 .13 (.78)
Time spent on HR tasks (hrs) -.12 -.04 -.20 -.11 .16 -.21 -
HR role overload (R) -.14 -.30* -.18 .35
**.44
** -.01 .17 (.90)
HR role ambiguety -.10 -.15 -.03 .53**
.44** -.01 .09 .31
* (.86)
Amount of experience as a line manager (yrs) .62**
.29* .02 .00 -.11 .12 -.04 .09 -.14 -
Sense of responsibility & accountability -.01 -.14 -.01 .11 .17 .36** -.08 -.10 .10 .06 (.69)
Line manager effectiveness .06 -.07 .04 .15 .27* .07 .16 .27
*.46
** .02 .24 (.76)
Line manager effectiveness score (1 to 10) .06 -.03 .13 -.25 -.29* .09 -.18 -.22 -.57
** .19 .01 -.30* -
Note: N=54 (Valid N=48)
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Pearson Correlations
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error Skewness Kurtosis
Age (yrs) 54.00 30.00 64.00 52.74 9.07 -1.12 .32 .36 .64 -3.46 .56
Tenure (yrs) 53.00 .50 37.00 13.16 9.80 .66 .33 -.57 .64 2.01 -.88
The amount of devolution 54.00 15.00 27.00 22.04 3.11 -.33 .32 -.63 .64 -1.02 -.99
Personal HR support 54.00 1.00 4.00 2.42 .74 .12 .32 -.44 .64 .36 -.68
Received HR training 54.00 1.33 4.67 2.70 .77 .43 .32 -.26 .64 1.31 -.41
HR information system 54.00 1.67 4.33 2.68 .59 .59 .32 -.02 .64 1.81 -.04
Time spent on HR tasks (hrs) 48.00 1.00 8.00 3.46 1.69 .63 .34 -.01 .67 1.83 -.01
HR role overload (R) 54.00 1.00 5.00 3.36 .89 -.37 .32 -.29 .64 -1.14 -.45
HR role ambiguety 54.00 1.00 5.00 2.43 .75 .83 .32 2.10 .64 2.56 3.28
Amount of experience as a line manager (yrs) 54.00 5.00 40.00 22.31 9.16 .04 .32 -.68 .64 .11 -1.06
Sense of responsibility & accountability 54.00 1.00 3.40 1.95 .49 .38 .32 .20 .64 1.16 .32
Line manager effectiveness 54.00 1.00 3.25 1.79 .50 .37 .32 .10 .64 1.15 .16
Line manager effectiveness score (1 to 10) 54.00 4.00 9.00 7.30 1.18 -.68 .32 .25 .64 -2.10 .39
Note: N=54 (Valid N=48)
z-score
Descriptive Statistics
Skewness Kurtosis
38
In order to verify normality of the data, the skewness and kurtosis for all variables was
checked. ‘Age’ showed a substantial negative skewness (<-1). ‘Tenure’, ‘HR information
system’, ‘Time spent on HR tasks’ and ‘HR Role ambiguity’ showed moderate positive
skewness (between .5 and 1). ‘Line manager effectiveness score’ showed moderate negative
skewness (between -.5 and -1). The skewness and kurtosis of the remaining variables is
close to 0 and therefore are considered normally distributed. To check significance z-scores
have been calculated for all variables. The z-scores are compared with the known values for
the normal distribution (field). This showed that ‘Tenure’ and ‘Line manager effectiveness
score’ values show significant skewness (p<.05); however, they are very close to the lower
limit (1.96 or -1.96). ‘HR ambiguity’ (p<.01) and ‘Age’ (p<.001) also show significant
skewness. The z-scores have also been calculated for kurtosis, showing significant kurtosis
for ‘HR role ambiguity’ (p<.05).
Not all variables are distributed normally. In order to resolve this issue, a data
transformation can be applied in order to normalize the data (Field, 2009). To find out
which transformation would be best different transformation were applied: a log10, square
root and 1/X transformation. The square root transformation normalized all but ‘Line
manager effectiveness score’. After the transformation ‘HR role overload became skewed, so
the transformation didn’t solve all problems.
Field (2009) mentions two things that complicate matters: a) to apply the same
transformation to all variables b) reverse the reversed score transformation afterwards in
order to avoid issues with the interpretation. The skewness differs for each variable: some
are positively skewed; others are negatively skewed. This becomes a problem when
applying the transformation as it makes no sense to reverse the positive skewed data. It
39
results in negatively skewed data to which the transformation cannot be applied. The same
principle goes for reversing reversed score transformations.
He also mentions that transforming data is subject to debate (Field, 2009). Some authors
consider the added value to be low and rarely worth the effort (Field, 2009). According to
Games (1984) in (Field, 2009) it is difficult to determine normality in small samples, such
as ours. Of our variables only ‘age’ showed substantial skewness (<-1). This makes sense
considering perceptions about the population made by managers and HR professionals: the
population is around 50 years old and predominantly male. The sample accurately reflects
this perception. As ‘age’ is considered a control variable the impact on the statistical model
should be low. Leading me to believe that transformation could have severe negative
implications and thus should not be considered1. For statistical purposes all, but the control
variables, are considered normally distributed.
Correlation analysis
Before I begin detailing the results of the correlation analysis, I would like to point out that
the Likert scale used in this study ranks from one to five. One represents ‘strongly agree’
and the other ‘strongly disagree’. All items are formulated positively and the Likert scales
are treated as interval data2. I would like to remind the reader that a higher score reflects a
negative association with the variable and a lower score has a positive association. When
reviewing the correlation data this means that a strong positive correlation indicates that
the more they disagree on one variable the more they disagree on the other and vice versa.
The results from the correlation analysis can be viewed in table 1.
1 For statistical enthusiasts the descriptive statistics for the transformations have been added to the
appendix.
40
‘Age’ was significantly correlated with ‘tenure’ (r = .31, p < .05), and ‘amount of experience
as a line manager’ (r = .62, p < .01); ‘tenure’ was also correlated with ‘amount of experience
as a line manager’ (r = .29, p < .05).
There was a significant relationship between ‘tenure’ and ‘HR role overload (R)’ (r = -.3, p <
.05). This means that the longer a person works for the company, the less role overload that
person experiences.
‘The amount of devolution’ and ‘Time spent on HR tasks’ showed no significant relationship
with any of the other variables.
‘Personal HR support showed a significant correlation with: ‘received HR training’ (r = .51,
p < .01), ‘HR role overload (R)’ (r = .35, p < .01), and ‘HR role ambiguity’ (r = .53, p < .01).
‘Received HR training’ is also significantly related to ‘HR role overload (R)’ (r = .44, p < .01),
and ‘HR role ambiguity’ (r = .44, p < .01). ‘HR role overload (R)’ and ‘HR role ambiguity’ are
correlated as well (r = .31, p < .05).
‘Received HR training’ is significantly positively related to both ‘Line manager
effectiveness’ (r = .27, p < .05) and negatively related to ‘Line manager effectiveness score’ (r
= -.29, p < .05). The more dissatisfied a person is with the HR training, the lower the
corresponding effectiveness score is.
There was a significant relationship between ‘HR information system’ and ‘Sense of
responsibility and accountability’ (r = -.36, p < .01).
‘Line manager effectiveness’ is correlated to ‘HR role overload (R)’ (r = .27, p < .05) and ‘HR
role ambiguity’ (r = .46, p < .01).
41
‘Line manager effectiveness score’ shows a significant relationship with ‘HR role ambiguity’
(r = -.57, p < .01) and ‘Line manager effectiveness’ (r = -.3, p < .05). High effectiveness
scores, result in lower scores for ‘HR role ambiguity’ and ‘Line manager effectiveness’. The
latter is interesting because that relation could mean both measure the same.
Regression analysis
The next step in the statistical analysis is to do a regression analysis and determine the
impact of the predictor variables on the outcome variables. There are two outcome variables
measuring line manager effectiveness: line manager effectiveness based on a four item
scale and line manager effectiveness score that is based on a ten-point scoring system.
Although the MANCOVA test is better suited for multiple predictor and outcome variables
(Field, 2009), it is not part of my curriculum. Therefore, I’ll run two regression analysis: one
for each outcome variable. As there are more than one predictor variables, I’ll be running
the multiple regression analysis.
The chosen method of regression is forced entry. The model used in this study is based on
existing research and literature, but has not been tested as a whole before. In a hierarchical
regression the researcher decides the order in which the predictor variables are entered
into the model. This could influence the outcome of the regression. The researcher choices
should be based on previous studies. The same goes for the forced entry method, except the
researcher doesn’t decide in which order the variables are entered into the model. All
variables are entered into the model simultaneously. According to Field (2009) this method
is best suited for theory testing (Studenmund & Cassidy, 1987) in (Field, 2009).
Unfortunately, the current sample size seems too small to make accurate predictions. The
sample size determines what effect sizes we can measure (Field, 2009). In general, the
42
bigger the sample the better. Field (2009) mentions a few methods to calculate the
minimum sample size. First, if you wish to test the overall model the recommended formula
is 50 + 8k (k stands for the number predictor variables, we have eleven in this regression).
Second, in order to test the individual predictors, the formula is 104 + k. So that would
mean the required minimum sample size for this regression is 138 to test the whole model
or 115 to test the individual predictors. For this study the size of the line manager
population within Pantar is 110. That would mean that even if every line manager at
Pantar completed the survey, we would still lack the necessary numbers to perform an
accurate/ powerful regression analysis.
When considering different effect sizes (large, medium, small), Field (2009) provides a
graph produced by Miles & Shevlin (2001). The graph shows the sample size/ number of
predictor variables for different levels of power. Field (2009) summarizes the graph in three
rules: 1) in order to detect a large effect, a sample size of 80 is sufficient 2) in order to detect
a medium effect, a sample size of 200 is sufficient and 3) in order to detect a small effect, a
sample size of 600 is sufficient. This goes for up to twenty predictor variables. For ten
predictor variables we need a sample of around 60 cases to be able to predict large effects.
Therefore, in order to enhance the power of the regression analysis, I’ve decided to reduce
the number of predictor variables used in the regression. The control variables ‘age’ and
‘tenure’ will not be included in the regression analysis. This means that our regression
won’t be able to detect medium or small effects, but possibly can detect large effects if
present, but I’ll discuss this a bit more in the general discussion.
However, the outcomes are very similar. ‘Line manager effectiveness’ is correlated to ‘HR
role overload (R)’ (r = .3, p < .05) and ‘HR role ambiguity’ (r = .52, p < .01). ‘Line manager
effectiveness score’ is correlated to ‘HR role overload (R)’ (r = -.3, p < .05) and ‘HR role
43
ambiguity’ (r = -.5, p < .01). ‘Received HR training’ is significantly related to ‘Line manager
effectiveness score’ (r = -.3, p < .05). It seems that ‘HR role ambiguity’ will probably best
predict ‘Line manager effectiveness’ and ‘Line manager effectiveness score’.
When looking at the model of the first regression analysis (line manager effectiveness), we
learn that the R² for the first stages of the regression is extremely low: R² stage 1 = .001
and R² stage 2 = .089. Meaning that respectively .1% and 8,9% of the variance in ‘Line
manager effectiveness’ is explained by the models. In the final stage of the regression the R²
of the entire model increases to .37, which means that 37% of the variance in ‘Line manager
effectiveness’ is explained by the entire model. This change in the final step is significant (p
< .01). The ANOVA table confirms the results by showing that the F-ratio for the model in
the final step is significant (p < .05), but the F-ratio for the first two steps aren’t significant.
By adding the variables in the final step of the regression analysis the predictability of the
model increased. Unfortunately, since only 37% of the variance in ‘Line manager
effectiveness’ the model as a whole doesn’t provide a strong means to predict ‘Line manager
effectiveness’. The Durbin-Watson statistic is 2.27 and this makes it likely that the
assumption about independent errors in the regression is met.
44
Table 3: Regression results for Line manager effectiveness
The model of the second regression analysis (line manager effectiveness score), also shows
low R² scores: R² stage 1 = .012 and R² stage 2 = .124. Meaning that respectively 1.2% and
12.4% of the variance in ‘Line manager effectiveness score’ is explained by the models in
these steps. The final model in the regression explains 30,7% of the variance in ‘Line
manager effectiveness score’. This change in the final step is not significant (p = .058). The
ANOVA table confirms these results by showing that the F-ratio for none of the steps is
significant. The overall predictive power of the model on ‘Line manager effectiveness score’
is also low. The Durbin-Watson statistic is 1.88 and this makes it likely that the
assumption about independent errors in the regression is met.
Regression results for Line manager effectiveness
B Std. Error Beta
Step 1
(Constant) 1.74 .52
The amount of devolution .00 .02 .02
Step 2
(Constant) .68 .74
The amount of devolution .01 .02 .08
Personal HR support .05 .12 .07
Received HR training .06 .12 .10
HR information system .14 .14 .17
Time spent on HR tasks (hrs) .06 .05 .20
Step 3
(Constant) -.08 .73
The amount of devolution .01 .02 .07
Personal HR support -.12 .12 -.18
Received HR training -.08 .11 -.12
HR information system .13 .13 .15
Time spent on HR tasks (hrs) .04 .04 .14
HR role overload (R) .11 .10 .20
HR role ambiguety .37 .12 .51*
Amount of experience as a line manager (yrs) .01 .01 .10
Sense of responsibility & accountability .16 .15 .16
Note: R² = .00 for step 1, R² = .09 for step 2, R² = .37 for step 3. ∆R² = .28 for step 3 (p < .01). * p < .01.
45
Table 4: Regression results for Line manager effectiveness score
After reviewing the model as a whole, we continue with the individual variables in the
model. First I checked whether the t test associated with the b-value is significant (sig. <
.05). Only ‘HR role ambiguity’ (b = .37) is making a significant contribution to the model
(sig. = .003). This means that for every unit increase of ‘HR role ambiguity’, ‘Line manager
effectiveness’ is increased by .37 units. Translated to the questionnaire that means that
higher scores of ‘HR ambiguity’ result in higher scores of ‘Line manager effectiveness’.
Higher scores in the questionnaire represent disagreement with the statements. This could
indicate that increased feelings of HR role ambiguity leads to lower line management
effectiveness. Unfortunately, I did not find anything among the other variables.
Regression results for Line manager effectiveness score
B Std. Error Beta
Step 1
(Constant) 6.45 1.18
The amount of devolution .04 .05 .11
Step 2
(Constant) 8.05 1.66
The amount of devolution .01 .05 .04
Personal HR support -.09 .28 -.06
Received HR training -.42 .27 -.28
HR information system .22 .30 .11
Time spent on HR tasks (hrs) -.07 .11 -.11
Step 3
(Constant) 8.25 1.75
The amount of devolution .03 .05 .08
Personal HR support .12 .28 .08
Received HR training -.17 .27 -.11
HR information system .16 .31 .08
Time spent on HR tasks (hrs) -.04 .10 -.06
HR role overload (R) -.05 .24 -.04
HR role ambiguety -.78 .28 -0.47*
Amount of experience as a line manager (yrs) .01 .02 .10
Sense of responsibility & accountability .04 .35 .02
Note: R² = .01 for step 1, R² = .12 for step 2, R² = .31 for step 3. ∆R² = .18 for step 3 (p = .58). * p < .01.
46
With ‘Line manager effectiveness score’ as a dependent variable, I also checked whether the
t test associated with the b-value is significant. Again, only ‘HR role ambiguity’ (b = -.78) is
making a significant contribution to the model (sig. = .009). This means that for every unit
increase of ‘HR role ambiguity’, ‘Line manager effectiveness’ is decreased by .78 units.
Translated to the questionnaire that means that higher scores of ‘HR ambiguity’ result in
lower scores of ‘Line manager effectiveness score’. This supports my previous finding that
that increased feelings of HR role ambiguity could lead to lower line management
effectiveness. Again, I did not find anything else among the other variables.
In order to determine if there is no multicollinearity, I followed Field (2009) and calculated
the average VIF of all variables. For both regressions the average is 1.47, which is close to
1. That means that there is no concern for multicollinearity. However not all assumptions
are met, for example: ‘Line manager effectiveness score’ is constrained as no one scored
either a 1 or 10. So due to the low amount of cases, I’ll refrain from making any statements
about the entire population.
Originally I intended to do an analysis of the mediating effects of ‘HR role ambiguity’, ‘HR
role overload’ and ‘Amount of experience as a line managers’. However, the correlation
analysis showed that the ‘Amount of devolution’ has no significant relation with the other
variables. The regression analysis gave the same result. That means that I did not prove
that the ‘amount of devolution’ has a significant relation with ‘Line manager effectiveness’.
Therefore, it makes no sense to check if ‘HR role ambiguity’ has an impact on the relation
between those variables, as I did not establish that there is a relation.
47
Attributions about devolution and the impact on line manager effectiveness
Table 5: Attributions about line manager effectiveness
In an attempt to better understand what line managers think about devolution, I’ve added
a final question to the survey which asks participants to determine how each variable
contributes to their own effectiveness as a line manager. The results are shown in table 5.
Some variables have been rephrased in order to make it easier for participants to answer
the question.
Overall the majority of the participants feel that the variables make a positive contribution
to their effectiveness as a line manager. Around 64% of the participants feels that
experience and their personal sense of responsibility & accountability make a large positive
contribution. When dividing the results in either a positive contribution or no & negative
contribution it shows that most participants believe that personal HR support (78%),
experience (96%) and sense of responsibility and accountability (87%) make a positive
contribution. This matches the progressive staff-line relationship portrayed by some
authors in the found literature (Srimannarayana, 2010) (Lawler III & Mohrman, 2003)
(Brewster et al., 2015). In such relationships HR is treated as a shared responsibility
between the line and HR professionals.
To what extent do each of the following factors contribute to your effectiveness as a line manager?
Large
positive
contribution
Small positive
contribution Neutral
Small
negative
contribution
Large
negative
contribution
Devolution of HR tasks and responsibilities to you as a line manager? 33% 33% 22% 7% 4%
Personal HR Support 39% 39% 19% 2% 2%
Amount of HR training 7% 44% 37% 9% 2%
The time you spend on HR tasks 24% 35% 22% 19% 0%
HR information system 22% 43% 26% 7% 2%
Your experience as a line manager 65% 31% 4% 0% 0%
Increased load due to HR tasks (HR role overload) 4% 22% 37% 30% 7%
Clarity on the role of the manager in HR tasks (HR role ambiguity) 22% 30% 28% 15% 6%
Personal sense of responsibility & accountability 63% 24% 9% 2% 2%
Note: N=54
48
Roughly two-thirds of the participants think that devolution, time spent on HR tasks and
the HR information system make a positive contribution and around one-third states that
those variables make no or a negative contribution.
The amount of HR training and HR role ambiguity are almost equally split between a
positive contribution or no or a negation contribution. And around 75% of the participants
feels that HR role overload makes a no or a negative contribution to line manager
effectiveness. That makes HR role overload the only variable of which the majority of
participants believe that it has either no or a negative impact.
Although there doesn’t seem to be any similarities between the attributions and the results
from the regression analysis, the attributions do match some of the views on the staff-line
relationship mentioned in the literature review.
49
Discussion
This study intended to explore a possible foundation of HR devolution by bringing together
the theories and findings of various studies. In doing so it could provide valuable insights in
the relation between devolution and line manager effectiveness. Considering that line
manager effectiveness is not solely determined by devolution, but also other non-HR factors
such as knowledge, intelligence, leadership, etc. The results show that devolution does not
distinguish itself from these other factors. Does that mean that there is no relation?
Unfortunately, I cannot say that with certainty. Only that this study did not find any
evidence to support my theories.
The reason why I cannot say that there is no relation is because of different choices in the
design of the study. First, the choice of a case study meant that the sample was limited to
the population of line manager within Pantar. At the time of data collection, there were
some indications that not all line managers would be comfortable to answer questions about
their own effectiveness. For example, one of the business unit managers advised to make
the survey completely anonymous, so that results could not be traced back to individuals.
This meant that stimulation matters, such as prizes, could not be used to encourage
respondents to complete the questionnaire. Another important factor was that it was the
start of the vacation season for certain business units. Some business units receive a lot of
work during the summer and line management plan their vacations accordingly. The
combination of internal influences could have contributed to the low response rate.
However, as discussed in the previous paragraph, even if the response rate was 100%, it
wouldn’t have been enough to detect medium or small effect sizes in the regression
analysis.
50
The choice for a case study could have also influenced the value of the ‘Amount of
devolution’ variable. Devolution and the increase of devolution has been a part of the
organization strategy since 2014. Although the response was differentiated, the differences
could have been too small to cause a significant impact on the line manager effectiveness
variables. So, in order to properly differentiate between various levels of devolution and
increase the number of respondents: a cross organizational study would be a good next step.
Although the correlation analysis cannot be used to determine causal relations, it does
provide a base for further study. Certain variables such as ‘Received HR training’, ‘HR role
overload’ and ‘HR role ambiguity’ are correlated to either ‘line manager effectiveness’ or
‘line manager effectiveness score’. This study could not explain if and how these variables
are related. It would be interesting to see if a follow-up study that solves the limitations I’ve
faced in this study, would yield the same results.
The study was not without result: I did manage to find that ‘HR role ambiguity’ is a good
predictor for Line manager effectiveness. This find shows the importance of HR role
stressors on line management effectiveness. It contributes to the findings of Gilbert et al.
(2011) by showing the importance and possible uses of these variables.
51
Conclusions
Based on my own work experience I noticed that HR departments were focused on
empowering line management by increasing their responsibility for employee matters. I
also noticed that most line managers weren’t too happy with these new responsibilities. In
their views they spend too much time on these new tasks, which has a negative effect on
their operational results.
Searching for a subject for my thesis I explored literature on the moving of employee
related tasks and responsibilities to line management. I learned that this phenomenon was
named: the devolution of HR tasks and responsibilities to line management. I also learned
that I couldn’t find a cohesive empirical study that highlighted various aspects of
devolution. Most literature described certain theoretical elements of devolution, but they
did not research how these elements fit together. The literature was also primarily written
from a HR point of view and neglected the views of line management (Gilbert, de Winne, &
Sels, 2011). As such, in an attempt to contribute to devolution literature, I did a literature
review and combined various elements of other studies into one model. My aim was to focus
on an organization perspective by relating devolution to the effectiveness of line managers.
The main research question was:
Does devolution of HR tasks to line managers increase their effectiveness?
After reviewing various articles, I came to an adjusted definition of devolution within an
HR context: “Devolution is the process of redistributing HRM tasks and responsibilities
between line managers and HR specialists, with the aim of integrating HR strategy with
business strategy”. This definition combines both practice and intent with a focus on
aligning HR and business strategy.
52
Most articles thoroughly described the role of the HR department and the line manager. By
combining the various viewpoints, I was able to gain a picture of how devolution could
affect line manager effectiveness and drafted nine hypotheses. The most interesting
literature I found on how devolution impacts line manager effectiveness was a study done
by Gilbert et al. (2011). They applied role theory on devolution and tried to determine how
devolution affects role stressors such as overload and stress. Their research setup was used
as a base for my own model. However rather than focusing on the stressors themselves, I
wanted to see how the stressors affect line manager effectiveness. Finally, I intended to use
the attribution theory to possibly gain a deeper understanding of the possible outcomes.
Next I decided to do a quantitative case study within one organization as I did not have the
time to properly identify organizations that had implemented devolution. A case study
could be used to see if the model holds true in a small environment, before potentially
testing it using a large-scale survey. The organization that I currently work for wanted to
participate in the study. I created a questionnaire using the variables from the model and
sent it to all line managers within Pantar.
My statistical approach was straightforward: gather the data, apply a correlation analysis,
followed by a regression analysis and an advanced regression to test for mediating and
moderating effects. The correlation showed interesting relations between certain variables.
Variables that were measured in years, such as: tenure, age and amount of experience as a
line manager, were significantly correlated. Tenure showed a significant correlation with
HR role overload which was an unexpected find. Other significant correlations included: HR
support, HR training, HR role overload, HR role ambiguity and both line manager
effectiveness variables. Although I’m excited about these findings, I cannot use them to
53
establish causality. In a follow up study I would definitely review how various variables
interact with each other in the model.
The key variable ‘amount of devolution’ wasn’t significantly correlated to any of the other
variables. A finding which was confirmed in the regression analysis, which lacked power.
Although this means I failed to prove any of the hypothesis, the regression did show that
HR role ambiguity is a predictor for both line manager effectiveness variables. In layman’s
terms: HR role ambiguity has a negative impact on line manager effectiveness. Line
managers at Pantar that feel unclear about their HR tasks find themselves less effective.
Since this was a case study the results are not generalizable and as described in detail this
study ultimately lacked the power to discover small effects in the regression. Nonetheless,
this study contributes to existing research by providing a new definition of devolution, a
cohesive model of devolution that can be built upon and the creation of variables that can
be used in future studies. This study also adds to existing research from Gilbert et al.
(2011) and stimulates the further use of role stressors in business related research.
Future research should focus on examining the relation between the variables related to
devolution. In order to generalize the findings a cross organizational study is required. The
questionnaire could be altered to better suit such a study.
This study only focuses on the amount of devolution experienced by line managers. Since
this is a case study we cannot do a comparative analysis between various degrees of
devolution as I assumed that within the Pantar only one form is present. When conducting
a cross organizational research, it would be interesting to see if various degrees of
devolution have different outcomes on line manager effectiveness.
54
For Pantar it would be helpful to consider the importance of role ambiguity when further
developing devolution. Some of the data gathered in this study could be used to identify key
HR tasks and responsibilities were line manager are unclear about their role and
responsibilities. Next they could start by discussing these outcomes with line managers and
together draft clear descriptions of various people responsibilities and with whom these
responsibilities lie. If it unclear where certain responsibilities lie, policy should encourage
dialogue between HR and line managers.
Although direct cost reductions from an accounting point of view have been realized
(reduction of fte), it is unclear if these costs have been transferred to line managers. In view
of a continuing dynamic future, Pantar should think about how devolution could contribute
towards its strategic goals, how they can position line management as value creating assets
and better utilize their knowledge and lastly how they can improve their support through
the use of platforms. Potentially freeing up time for line managers to focus on their core
duties such as guiding, coaching and developing the labor skills of our employees.
Again I would like to thank Pantar and its line management for participating in this study.
Without their efforts this study wouldn’t have been possible.
55
References (2017). Retrieved from INN constructing theories, integrating research:
http://inn.theorizeit.org/
Andersen, K. K., Cooper, B. K., & Zhu, C. J. (2007). The effect of SHRM practices on
perceived firm financial performance: Some initial evidence from Australia. Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources 45:2, 168-179.
Andolsek, D. M., & Stebe, J. (2005). Devolution or (de)centralization of HRM function in
European organizations. The international journal of Human Resource Management,
16:3, 311-329.
Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc., Publishing as Allyn & Bacon.
Blok, P. (2013). Human Resource Management: Institutionele grondslagen, historische
ontwikkeling en perspectieven voor de economie van de 21ste eeuw. Amsterdam: FEB:
Amsterdam Business School Research Institute (ABS-RI).
Brewster, C. (2007). Comparative HRM: European views and perspectives. The
international journal of Human Resource Management, 18:5, 769-787.
Brewster, C., Brookes, M., & Gollan, P. J. (2015). The institutional antecedents of the
assignment of HRM responsibilities to line managers. Human Resource Management
Vol. 54 No. 4, 577-597.
Budhwar, P. S. (2000). Evaluating levels of strategic integration and devolvement of human
resource management in the UK. Personnel Review Vol. 29 Iss 2, pp. 141 - 157.
Budhwar, P. S. (2000). Strategic Integration and Devolvement of Human Resource
Management in the UK Manufacturing Sector. British Journal of Management, Vol.
11, pp. 285–302.
Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2004). The evolving Portuguese model of HRM. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 15:6, 959-977.
Cappelli, P. (2015). Why We Love to Hate HR and What HR Can Do About It. Harvard
Business Review July-August, 56-61.
Cascón-Pereira, R., & Valverde, M. (2014). HRM devolution to middle managers: Dimension
identification. Business Research Quarterly 17, 149-160.
Conway, E., & Monks, K. (2010). The devolution of HRM to middle managers in the Irish
health service. Personnel Review, Vol. 39 Iss. 3, 361-374.
Darwish, T. K., & Singh, S. (2013). Does strategic human resource involvement and
devolvement enhance organisational performance? International Journal of
Manpower, Vol. 34 Iss. 6, 674-692.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics using SPSS third edition. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
56
Gilbert, C., de Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2011). 'Antecedents of front-line managers' perceptions
of HR role stressors. Personnel Review, Vol. 40 Iss 5, 549-569.
Gollan, P. J., Kalfa, S., & Xu, Y. (2015). Strategic HRM and devolving HR to the line:
Cochlear during the shift to lean manufacturing. Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources 53, 144-162.
Harris, L., Doughty, D., & Kirk, S. (2002). The devolution of HR responsibilities -
perspectives from the UK's public sector. Journal of European Industrial Training,
Vol. 26 Issue 6, 218-229.
Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, Vol.
35, No. 4, pp. 519-530.
Holden, L., & Roberts, I. (2000). European managers: HRM and an evolving role. European
Business Review, Vol. 12 issue 5, 251-260.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2004). The strategy map: guide to aligning intangible assets.
Strategy & Leadership, Vol 32, Iss. 5, pp. 10-17.
Lawler III, E. E., & Mohrman, S. A. (2003). HR as a Strategic Partner: What Does It Take
to Make It Happen? Human Resource Planning, 15-29.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. (2011). Attribution theory in the
organizational sciences: A case of unrealized potential. Journal of Organizational
Behavior 32, 144-149.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S. C. (2007). The role, function, and contribution of
attribution theory to leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly 18, 561-585.
Morley, M. J., Gunnigle, P., O'Sullivan, M., & Collings, D. G. (2006). New directions in the
roles and responsibilities of the HRM function. Personnel Review, Vol. 35 iss 6, 609-
617.
Pantar. (2013). Transformatieplan: "Een vernieuwd Pantar". Amsterdam.
Pantar Corporate website. (2017). Retrieved from Pantar.nl: www.pantar.nl
Perry, E. L., & Kulik, C. T. (2008). The Devolution of HR to the line: Implications for
perceptions of people management effectiveness . The International journal of
Human Resource Management 19:2, 262-273.
Renwick, D. (2000). HR-line work relations: a review, pilot case and research agenda.
Employee Relations vol. 22 issue 2, 179-201.
Sanders, K., & Yang, H. (2016). The HRM process approach: The influence of employees'
attribution to explain the HRM-Performance relationship. Human Resource
Management Vol. 55, No. 2, 201-217.
Simon, H. A. (2002). We and they: the human urge to identify with groups. Industrial and
Corporate Change, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 607-610.
57
Srimannarayana, M. (2010). Line Management Responsibility in HRM: An Empirical
Study. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 45, No. 3, 470-480.
Strikwerda, J. (2003). An entrepreneurial model of corporate governance: devolving powers
to subsidiary boards. Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in
society, vol. 3 Issue 2, pp. 38-57.
Strikwerda, J. (2010). Shared Service Centers II. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum BV.
Whittaker, S., & Marchington, M. (2003). Devolving HR responsibility to the line. Employee
Relations Vol. 25 Iss. 3, 245-261.
Zuboff, S., Maxmin, J., & Hutton, W. (2004). The support economy: why corporations are
failing individuals and the next episode of capitalism . RSA Journal, Vol. 151, No.
5513, pp. 34-37.
58
Appendix
1 Pantar Organogram
59
2 Questionnaire (English & back-translation)
Engels-back Nederlands Engels
Control variables
1 Could you please fill out
the following:
Vul alstublieft uw: Please enter your:
Full name Naam Name
Seks Geslacht Gender
Function title Functietitel Job title
2 For what time have you
been working for Pantar?
Hoe lang werkt u
voor Pantar?
How long have
you been working
at Pantar?
<number of year> <aantal jaar> <years>
3 What is you highest
eduction finished with
positive result? If you are
currently in an eduction
track, please fill out your
current eduction level
Wat is uw hoogst
voltooide opleiding?
Indien u op dit
moment een
opleiding volgt, vul
dan alsnog uw
hoogst voltooide
opleiding in.
What is the
highest degree or
level of school you
have completed?
If currently
enrolled, highest
degree received.
Elementary school Basisonderwijs No schooling
completed
High school Lager/
voorbereidend
beroepsonderwijs
(lbo/ vmbo)
Nursery school to
8th grade
High school Middelbaar
algemeen voortgezet
onderwijs (mavo)
Some high school,
no diploma
High school Middelbaar
beroepsonderwijs
(mbo)
High school
graduate, diploma
or the equivalent
(for example:
GED)
College Hoger algemeen
voortgezet onderwijs
(havo)
Some college
credit, no degree
College Voorbereiden
wetenschappelijk
onderwijs (vwo)
Trade/technical/vo
cational training
60
University (BSc) Hoger
beroepsonderwijs
(hbo)
Associate degree
University (BSc/MSc) Wetenschappelijk
onderwijs (wo)
Bachelor’s degree
No answer Geen antwoord Master’s degree
Professional
degree
Doctorate degree
Devolution of HR tasks and responsibilities Het beleggen van
HR taken en
verantwoordelijkhed
en bij de
leidinggevende.
4 In the past 5 years the
involvement of the line
manager regarding
Human Resource
activities within Pantar
have:
In de afgelopen 5
jaar is de
betrokkenheid van
de leidinggevende bij
personeelsmanagem
enttaken binnen
Pantar:
In the last five
years has line
management
involvement in
people
management
activities within
Pantar:
Increased Toegenomen Increased
Decreased Afgenomen Decreased
Have not changed
significantly
Ongeveer hetzelfde
gebleven
Stayed about the
same
5 Please indicate where in
the organisation the
primary responsibility
lies for the following
human resources tasks
Geef aan waar de
primaire
verantwoordelijkhei
d ligt voor de
volgende
personeelsmanagem
enttaken:
Please indicate
where the
primary
responsibilities for
people
management lie:
Salary and contract
conditions
Het salaris en de
arbeidsvoorwaarden
Pay and
conditions of
employment
Recruitement and
selection
Werving en selectie Recruitment and
selection
Complaints management
and resource planning
Klachtenafhandeling
en
personeelsplanning
Grievance
handling and staff
planning
Job evaluation Beoordelingen appraisals
61
Non discriminating policy Toezien op naleven
gelijke kansen
Equal
opportunities
Employee education Opleiding van
werknemers
Training of
employees
Recruitement Werving Recruitment
Selection Selectie Selection
Onboarding proces Indiensttredingsproc
es
Placement
New employee
orientation
Oriëntatie van de
nieuwe medewerker
New Employee
Orientation
Identifying educational
needs
Identificeren van de
opleidingsbehoefte
Training needs
identification
To promote an employee
for a course
Het nomineren van
medewerker voor
opleidingen
Training
nominations
To evaluate training
courses
Het evalueren van
trainingen
Training
Evaluation
The design of a planning,
coaching and evaluation
cycle
Het ontwerpen van
de
beoordelingscyclus
Designing
performance
appraisal
To manage the planning,
coaching and evualation
cycle
Het aansturen van
de
beoordelingscyclus
Driving appraisal
process
Evaluation of achieved
results
Prestaties
beoordelen
Evaluating
performance
Coach employees Begeleiden van
medewerkers
Performance
counseling
Carrier planning Carriere planning Career planning
Transfer employees Overplaatsen van
medewerkers
Transfer decisions
To decide about
promotion
Beslissingen over
promoties
Promotion
decisions
To decide about salary
level
Beslissingen over
salarissen
Salary decisions
Stimula (bonusses or
other extra's)
Stimulansen
(Bonussen of andere
extras)
Incentives
Secondary and tertiary
contract conditions
Secundaire en
tertiaire
arbeidsvoorwaarden
Employee benefits
Disciplinary actions Disciplinaire
maatregelen
Discipline
management
Management of employee
abscence
Verzuimmanagemen
t
Managing
absenteeism
resource retention
management
Verloopmanagement Managing
attrition
62
Fire procedures Ontslagprocedures Employee
terminations
Personal HR Support Ondersteuning
vanuit de HR
afdeling
6 The HR department
offers the necesarry
means to facilitate me to
execute my human
resource management
duties.
De HR-afdeling
biedt de nodige
middelen om me te
helpen mijn
personeelsmanagem
enttaken uit te
voeren.
The HR
department
provides the
necessary
resources to help
me perform my
HR tasks.
7 The HR department
facilitates me in
executing my human
resources management
duties.
De HR afdeling
ondersteunt mij bij
het uitvoeren van
mijn
personeelsmanagem
enttaken.
The HR
department
supports me in
executing my HR
tasks.
8 The HR department is
always willing to offer a
helping hand in assisting
me with executing my
human resources duties.
De HR afdeling
staat altijd klaar om
mij te helpen met
mijn
personeelsmanagem
enttaken.
The HR
department is
always ready to
help me with my
HR tasks.
9 When executing my
human resources duties, I
can always count on
getting support by the
expertise of the human
resources department.
Indien nodig kan ik
rekenen op de
expertise van de HR
afdeling bij het
uitvoeren van mijn
personeelsmanagem
enttaken.
If necessary, I can
count on the
expertise of the
HR department to
execute my HR
tasks.
10 When I encounter any
challenges, while
executing my human
resources duties, I can
always count on support
from the HR department
Als ik problemen
ondervindt bij de
uitvoering van mijn
personeelsmanagem
enttaken, kan ik
altijd op de HR-
afdeling rekenen.
If I encounter a
problem in the
execution of my
HR tasks, I can
always count on
the HR
department.
Amount of HR training De hoeveelheid HR
training
11 I am sufficiently educated
to succesfully execute my
human resources duties
Ik ben voldoende
opgeleid om mijn
personeelsmanagem
I am sufficiently
trained to execute
my HR tasks.
63
enttaken uit te
voeren.
12 I have the knowledge
required to execute my
human resources
management duties.
Ik heb de kennis die
ik nodig heb om mijn
personeelsmanagem
enttaken uit te
voeren.
I have the
knowledge I need
to execute my HR
tasks.
13 I am sufficiently qualified
to execute my human
resource management
duties.
Ik voel me bekwaam
genoeg om mijn
personeelsmanagem
enttaken uit te
voeren.
I feel sufficiently
competent to
execute my HR
tasks.
14 The organisation is
ensuring continuous HR
training
De organisatie zorgt
voor continue HR
training.
The organization
provides
continuous HR
training.
15 De aangeboden HR-
trainingen zijn
uitgebreid.
The HR training
programs
provided are
comprehensive.
16 The training courses and
programmes, make that I
am able to acquant all the
required HR-specific
skills and knowledge.
De
trainingsprogramma
's geven mij de HR-
specifieke
vaardigheden en
kennis die ik nodig
heb.
The training
programs provide
me with the HR -
specific skills and
knowledge I
require.
Time spent on HR tasks Tijd besteed aan HR
taken
17 Could you please indicate
the average amount of
time that you spend daily
on human resources
activities?
Geef alstublieft de
gemiddelde
hoeveelheid tijd die
u dagelijks aan
personeelsmanagem
enttaken besteedt.
Please specify the
average amount of
time you daily
spend on HR
tasks.
Uren dagelijks
besteed aan
personeelsmanagem
enttaken
Hours daily spent
on HR tasks
HR information system HR
informatiesysteem
(Workforce)
64
18 I am satisfied in using
the system
Ik ben tevreden met
het systeem.
I'm satisfied with
the HR
information
system.
19 The system is easy to use Het systeem is
makkelijk te
gebruiken.
The system is
easy to use.
20 The system is easy to
understand
Het systeem is
gemakkelijk te
begrijpen.
The system is
easy to
understand.
21 The information produced
by the is system is
accurate
De door het systeem
geproduceerde
informatie is
nauwkeurig.
The information
produced by the
system is precise.
22 The information produced
byt the system is useful
for its users
De door het systeem
geproduceerde
informatie is nuttig
voor de gebruikers.
The information
produced by the
system is useful
for the users.
23 The information produced
by the system is up-to-
date
De door het systeem
geproduceerde
informatie is up-to-
date.
The information
produced by the
system is up to
date.
Experience as a line manager De hoeveelheid
ervaring als
leidinggevende
24 Please specify how many
years you have
experience as a manager
Gelieve te
specificeren hoeveel
jaar ervaring u heeft
als leidinggevende.
Please specify
how much years
of experience you
have as a line
manager.
Number of years Aantal jaar Amount of years
HR role overload Overload as a
consequence of the role of
executing human
resources duties
Overbelasting als
gevolg van de rol bij
personeelsmanagem
enttaken
My duties regarding
human resource
management make that
my workload is too high.
25 I do not have time to
execute my human
resources duties
thoroughly
Ik heb geen tijd om
mijn
personeelsmanagem
enttaken grondig uit
te voeren.
I don't have time
to execute my HR
tasks thoroughly.
65
26 My duties regarding
human resource
management make that
my workload is too high.
Mijn
personeelsmanagem
enttaken leiden tot
een te hoge
werklast.
My HR tasks lead
to a work load
that is too heavy.
27 The number of human
resource management
duties are inhibiting to
deliver the quality that I
want to deliver
De hoeveelheid aan
personeelsmanagem
enttaken belemmert
de kwaliteit die ik
wil leveren.
The amount of HR
work interferes
with the quality I
want to maintain.
28 I need more hours in a
day to execute all the HR
responsibilities that are
expected from me.
Ik heb meer uren
nodig in een dag om
alle personeels-
verantwoordelijkhed
en uit te voeren die
van mij verwacht
worden.
I need more hours
in a day to
perform all the
HR
responsibilities
that are expected
of me.
29 My action list regarding
human resource
management tasks are
never fully signed off.
Mijn takenlijst met
personeelsmanagem
enttaken komt nooit
af.
My to-do list with
HR tasks never
gets finished.
HR role
ambiguity
Twijfel over de rol
van de
leidinggevende bij
personeelsmanagem
enttaken
30 I know exactly what is
expect from me with
regards to the execution
of human resource tasks
Ik weet precies wat
er van mij verwacht
wordt met
betrekking tot de
uitvoering van
personeelsmanagem
enttaken.
I know exactly
what is expected
of me regarding
the execution of
HR tasks.
31 I am feeling secure about
the amount of HR
responsibility that has
been given to me
Ik voel me zeker
over de hoeveelheid
HR
verantwoordelijkhed
en ik heb.
I feel certain
about how much
HR
responsibilities I
have.
32 I know what my HR
responsibilities entail.
Ik weet wat mijn HR
verantwoordelijkhed
en zijn.
I know what my
HR
responsibilities
are.
33 My human resource
management duties are
clear to me
Mijn
personeelsmanagem
enttaken zijn
duidelijk voor mij.
My HR tasks are
clear to me.
66
Sense of responsibility & accountability Persoonlijke gevoel
van
verantwoordelijkhei
d en
aansprakelijkheid
34 As manager I have a
great responsibility for
the work results of others
Als leidinggevende
heb ik een grote
verantwoordelijkhei
d voor de
werkresultaten van
anderen.
As a line manager
I have large
responsibility for
the work results
of others.
35 As manager I feel a great
responsibility to take care
of my team
Als leidinggevende
voel ik een grote
verantwoordelijkhei
d om voor mijn team
te zorgen.
As a line manager
I feel I have a
large
responsibilty to
care for my team.
36 As manager I am
responsible for the
mistakes made by my
team
Als leidinggevende
ben ik
verantwoordelijk
voor de fouten van
mijn team.
As a line manager
I am accountable
for the mistakes
of my team.
37 As manager I have the
feeling that if necessary I
need to work additional
hours to achieve my goals
Als leidinggevende
heb ik het gevoel
dat, als het nodig is,
ik meer uren moet
werken om mijn
doelen te bereiken.
As a line manager
I feel I need to put
in extra time if
needed to reach
my goals.
38 I feel the duty to execute
my human resource
management duties.
Ik voel dat ik de
plicht heb om
personeelsmanagem
enttaken uit te
voeren.
I feel that I have a
duty to perform
HR tasks.
39 Additional human
resource management
duties make me
experience a bigger
responsibility for my
team
Extra
personeelsmanagem
enttaken geven mij
een grotere
verantwoordelijkhei
d voor mijn team.
Additional HR
tasks give me a
greater
responsibility for
my team.
Line manager effectiveness Effectiviteit als
leidinggevende
40 Please evaluate your own
effectiveness as a
manager on a 1 to 10
scale
Gelieve uw eigen
effectiviteit als
leidinggevende op
Please rate your
own effectiveness
as a line manager
67
een schaal van 1 tot
10 te beoordelen.
on a scale from 1
to 10.
41 I am confident to execute
my responsibilities as a
manager
Ik voel me
zelfverzekerd om
mijn
verantwoordelijkhed
en als
leidinggevende te
vervullen.
I feel confident to
perform my duties
as a line manager.
42 I have a good connection
with my team
Ik heb een goede
band met mijn team.
I have a good
bond with my
team members.
43 I am confident that my
team trusts me
Ik denk dat mijn
team weet dat ze me
kunnen vertrouwen.
I feel my team
members know
that they can
trust me.
44 I am the right person to
take decisions for my
team
Ik denk me dat ik
het beste in de
gelegenheid ben om
beslissingen te
nemen over mijn
team.
I feel that I am in
the best position
to make decisions
about my team
member.
Attributions about the impact of devolution
on line manager effectiveness
Beelden over de
impact van devolutie
op de effectiviteit
van de
leidinggevende
45 How do the following
factors contribute to your
effectiveness as a
manager?
In hoeverre dragen
elk van de volgende
factoren bij tot uw
effectiviteit als
leidinggevende
To what extent do
each of the
following factors
contribute to your
effectiveness as a
line manager?
Delegating HR duties and
responsibilities at the
manager
Het beleggen van
HR taken en
verantwoordelijkhed
en bij de
leidinggevende.
Devolution of HR
tasks and
responsibilities
Support from the HR
department
Ondersteuning
vanuit de HR
afdeling
Personal HR
Support
The relative amount of
HR training
De hoeveelheid HR
training
Amount of HR
training
68
Time spent on HR duties Tijd besteed aan HR
taken
Time spent on HR
tasks
HR information system HR
informatiesysteem
HR information
system
The level of experience as
manager
De hoeveelheid
ervaring als
leidinggevende
Experience as a
line manager
overload due to executing
HR duties
Overbelasting als
gevolg van de HR
taken
HR role overload
Having second thoughts
about executing the HR
duties of the manager
Twijfel over de rol
van de
leidinggevende bij
HR taken
HR role ambiguity
Feeling responsibility and
accountability
Persoonlijke gevoel
van
verantwoordelijkhei
d en
aansprakelijkheid
Sense of
responsibility &
accountability
69
3 Questionnaire (Final Dutch version)
Enquête over de relatie tussen
personeelsmanagementtaken en de
effectiviteit van de leidinggevende
Start of Block: Openingsvragen 1
Q27 <b>Wat is je functietitel?</b>
o Teamleider of Werkleider
o Afdelingshoofd
o Staf Manager
o Manager Werkeenheid of Directielid
Q28 <b>Voor welke werkeenheid ben je werkzaam?</b>
o Productie
o Groepsdetachering
o Diensten
o Openbare Ruimte
o Staf
End of Block: Openingsvragen 1
Start of Block: Openingsvragen 2
70
Q26 <b>Vul alstublieft je leeftijd in jaren in:</b>
________________________________________________________________
Q4 <b>Geslacht:</b>
o Man
o Vrouw
End of Block: Openingsvragen 2
Start of Block: Openingsvragen 3
Q7 <b>Hoe lang werk je voor Pantar?</b> <i>Vul het aantal jaar in.</i>
________________________________________________________________
71
Q8 <b>Wat is jouw hoogst voltooide opleiding?</b> <i>Indien je op dit moment een
opleiding volgt, vul dan alsnog jouw hoogst genoten opleiding in.</i>
o Basisonderwijs
o Lager/ Voorbereidend Beroepsonderwijs (LBO/ VMBO)
o Middelbaar Algemeen Voortgezet Onderwijs (MAVO)
o Middelbaar Beroepsonderwijs (MBO)
o Hoger Algemeen Voortgezet Onderwijs (HAVO)
o Voorbereidend Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs (VWO)
o Hoger Beroepsonderwijs (HBO)
o Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs (WO) - Bachelor
o Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs (WO) - Master
End of Block: Openingsvragen 3
Start of Block: Het beleggen van personeelsmanagementtaken en
verantwoordelijkheden bij de lijn1
Q6 <div><b>Het beleggen van personeelsmanagementtaken en verantwoordelijkheden bij
de leidinggevenden</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div>De volgende vragen hebben
betrekking op de personeelsmanagementtaken en in welke mate deze zijn belegd bij
leidinggevenden binnen Pantar.</div><div><br></div><div><i>Met
personeelsmanagementtaken<strong> </strong>worden alle taken bedoeld die betrekking
hebben op jouw medewerkers. Denk hierbij aan verlof, verzuim, arbeidsvoorwaarden,
etc.</i></div>
72
Q7 <b>In de afgelopen 5 jaar is de rol van de leidinggevende in
personeelsmanagementtaken binnen Pantar:</b>
o Toegenomen
o Afgenomen
o Ongeveer hetzelfde gebleven
End of Block: Het beleggen van personeelsmanagementtaken en
verantwoordelijkheden bij de lijn1
Start of Block: Het beleggen van personeelsmanagementtaken en
verantwoordelijkheden bij de lijn2
73
Q8 <b>Geef aan waar de primaire verantwoordelijkheid ligt voor de volgende personeelsmanagementtaken:</b>
74
Leidinggevende is
volledig
verantwoordelijk
Leidinggevende is
verantwoordelijk in
overleg met HR
Leidinggevende en
HR gezamenlijk
verantwoordelijkheid
HR is volledig
verantwoordelijkheid n.v.t. Ik weet het niet
Beleid op salaris en de
arbeidsvoorwaarden o o o o o o Beleid op werving en
selectie o o o o o o Personeelsplanning
o o o o o o Klachtenafhandeling
(klachten van allerlei
aard van de
medewerker) o o o o o o Beoordelingen
o o o o o o Toezien op naleven
gelijke kansen
medewerkers o o o o o o Opleiding van
medewerkers o o o o o o Werving
o o o o o o Selectie
o o o o o o Administratief
indiensttredingsproces
na selectie o o o o o o Introductie van de
nieuwe medewerkers o o o o o o In kaart brengen van
de opleidingsbehoefte o o o o o o Het aanmelden van
medewerker voor
opleidingen o o o o o o Het evalueren van
trainingen o o o o o o Vormgeven beleid
omtrent de
beoordelingscyclus o o o o o o Regie
beoordelingscyclus o o o o o o
75
Coachen van
medewerkers op het
gebied van
arbeidsprestaties o o o o o o Loopbaanbegeleiding
o o o o o o Overplaatsen van
medewerkers o o o o o o Beslissingen over
promoties/
bevorderingen o o o o o o Beslissingen over
salarissen o o o o o o Gratificaties
(bonussen of andere
extra's) o o o o o o Secundaire en
tertiaire
arbeidsvoorwaarden o o o o o o Disciplinaire
maatregelen o o o o o o Verzuimmanagement
o o o o o o Verloopmanagement
(Managen van
ongewenste uitstroom) o o o o o o Ontslagprocedures
o o o o o o
End of Block: Het beleggen van personeelsmanagementtaken en
verantwoordelijkheden bij de lijn2
Start of Block: Ondersteuning vanuit de HR afdeling
Q9 <div><b>Ondersteuning vanuit de HR
afdeling</b></div><div><b></b><br></div><div>Deze vragen hebben betrekking op de
mate van ondersteuning vanuit de HR-afdeling. Onder de HR- afdeling wordt verstaan: alle
HR afdelingen (bv. Advies, Administratie, Opleidingen, Specialisten) binnen Pantar. </div>
76
Q10 <b>Geef aan in welke mate je het eens of oneens bent met de volgende stellingen: </b>
Helemaal
mee eens Eens Neutraal Oneens
Helemaal
mee
oneens
n.v.t.
Ik
weet
het
niet
De HR-afdeling biedt de
nodige middelen om mij te
helpen mijn
personeelsmanagementtaken
uit te voeren.
o o o o o o o
De HR-afdeling ondersteunt
mij bij het uitvoeren van mijn
personeelsmanagementtaken. o o o o o o o De HR-afdeling staat altijd
klaar om mij te helpen met
mijn
personeelsmanagementtaken. o o o o o o o
Indien nodig kan ik rekenen
op de expertise van de HR-
afdeling bij het uitvoeren van
mijn
personeelsmanagementtaken.
o o o o o o o
Als ik problemen ondervind
bij de uitvoering van mijn
personeelsmanagementtaken,
kan ik altijd op de HR-
afdeling rekenen.
o o o o o o o
End of Block: Ondersteuning vanuit de HR afdeling
Start of Block: De hoeveelheid HR training
Q11 <div><b>De hoeveelheid HR-training</b></div><div><b><font face="Thread-
00000ae4-Id-00000024"><br></font></b></div><div><font face="Thread-00000ae4-Id-
00000024">Deze stellingen hebben betrekking op de training die als leidinggevende op HR
gebied hebt ontvangen. Je kan hierbij denken aan cursussen, workshops en opleidingen
over HR gerelateerde onderwerpen zoals verzuim, de beoordelingscyclus, etc.</font></div>
77
Q12 <strong>Geef aan in welke mate je het eens of oneens bent met de volgende
stellingen: </strong>
Helemaal
mee eens Eens Neutraal Oneens
Helemaal
mee
oneens
n.v.t.
Ik
weet
het
niet
Ik ben voldoende opgeleid
om mijn
personeelsmanagementtaken
uit te voeren. o o o o o o o
Ik heb de kennis die ik nodig
heb om mijn
personeelsmanagementtaken
uit te voeren. o o o o o o o
Ik voel me bekwaam genoeg
om mijn
personeelsmanagementtaken
uit te voeren. o o o o o o o
De organisatie zorgt voor
continue HR-training. o o o o o o o De aangeboden HR-
trainingen zijn volledig. o o o o o o o De trainingsprogramma's
geven mij de HR-specifieke
vaardigheden en kennis die
ik nodig heb. o o o o o o o
End of Block: De hoeveelheid HR training
Start of Block: Tijd besteed aan HR-taken
Q14 <p><span lang="NL" style="margin: 0px;"><b>Geef alstublieft de gemiddelde
hoeveelheid tijd (in uren) die je per dag aan personeelsmanagementtaken
besteedt:</b></span></p>
________________________________________________________________
End of Block: Tijd besteed aan HR-taken
78
Start of Block: Het HR-informatie systeem (Workforce)
Q15 <div><b>Het HR-informatie systeem (Workforce - Mijn
HR)</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div>De onderstaande stellingen gaan over het HR-
informatie systeem. Je kunt hierbij denken aan jouw workforce portaal (Mijn HR) waar je
informatie kunt vinden over jouw medewerkers en bijvoorbeeld het verlof kunt
bijhouden.</div>
Q16 <strong>Geef aan in welke mate je het eens of oneens bent met de volgende
stellingen: </strong>
Helemaal
mee eens Eens Neutraal Oneens
Helemaal
mee
oneens
n.v.t. Ik weet
het niet
Ik ben
tevreden met
het systeem. o o o o o o o Het systeem
is makkelijk
te gebruiken. o o o o o o o Het systeem
is
gemakkelijk
te begrijpen. o o o o o o o
De door het
systeem
geproduceerde
informatie is
nauwkeurig.
o o o o o o o
De door het
systeem
geproduceerde
informatie is
nuttig voor de
gebruikers.
o o o o o o o
De door het
systeem
geproduceerde
informatie is
up-to-date.
o o o o o o o
79
End of Block: Het HR-informatie systeem (Workforce)
Start of Block: De hoeveelheid ervaring als leidinggevende
Q17 <p><span lang="NL" style="margin: 0px;"><b>Gelieve te specificeren hoeveel jaren
ervaring je hebt als leidinggevende (binnen en buiten Pantar):</b></span></p>
________________________________________________________________
End of Block: De hoeveelheid ervaring als leidinggevende
Start of Block: Overbelasting als gevolg van de rol bij
personeelsmanagementtaken
Q19 <div><b>Werklast als gevolg van
personeelsmanagementtaken</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div>Deze stellingen gaan
over de belasting die personeelsmanagementtaken geven. </div>
80
Q18 <strong>Geef aan in welke mate je het eens of oneens bent met de volgende
stellingen: </strong>
Helemaal
mee eens Eens Neutraal Oneens
Helemaal
mee
oneens
n.v.t.
Ik
weet
het
niet
Ik heb geen tijd om mijn
personeelsmanagementtaken
grondig uit te voeren. o o o o o o o Mijn
personeelsmanagementtaken
leiden tot een te hoge
werklast. o o o o o o o
De hoeveelheid aan
personeelsmanagementtaken
belemmert de kwaliteit die
ik wil leveren. o o o o o o o
Ik heb meer uren nodig in
een dag om alle personeels-
verantwoordelijkheden uit te
voeren die van mij verwacht
worden.
o o o o o o o
Mijn takenlijst met
personeelsmanagementtaken
komt nooit af. o o o o o o o
End of Block: Overbelasting als gevolg van de rol bij
personeelsmanagementtaken
Start of Block: Twijfel over de rol van de leidinggevende bij
personeelsmanagementtaken
Q20 <div><b>De rol van de leidinggevende bij
personeelsmanagementtaken</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div>De onderstaande
stellingen gaan over in hoeverre het duidelijk is wat er van jou als leidinggevende verwacht
wordt bij de uitvoering van de personeelsmanagementtaken. </div>
81
Q21 <strong>Geef aan in welke mate je het eens of oneens bent met de volgende
stellingen: </strong>
Helemaal
mee eens Eens Neutraal Oneens
Helemaal
mee
oneens
n.v.t.
Ik
weet
het
niet
Ik weet precies wat er van
mij verwacht wordt met
betrekking tot de uitvoering
van
personeelsmanagementtaken.
o o o o o o o
Ik voel mij zeker over de
hoeveelheid HR-
verantwoordelijkheden die ik
heb. o o o o o o o
Ik weet wat mijn HR-
verantwoordelijkheden zijn. o o o o o o o Mijn
personeelsmanagementtaken
zijn duidelijk voor mij. o o o o o o o
End of Block: Twijfel over de rol van de leidinggevende bij
personeelsmanagementtaken
Start of Block: Persoonlijke gevoel van verantwoordelijkheid en
aansprakelijkheid
Q22 <div><b>Verantwoordelijkheid en aansprakelijkheid als
leidinggevende</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div>De volgende stellingen gaan over
de verantwoordelijkheid die je voelt als leidinggevende voor je medewerkers. Dat is het
team waar je leiding aan geeft en de verantwoordelijk die je voelt binnen jouw eigen
afdeling of werkeenheid.</div>
82
Q23 <strong>Geef aan in welke mate je het eens of oneens bent met de volgende
stellingen: </strong>
Helemaal
mee eens Eens Neutraal Oneens
Helemaal
mee
oneens
n.v.t.
Ik
weet
het
niet
Als leidinggevende heb ik
een grote
verantwoordelijkheid voor de
werkresultaten van anderen. o o o o o o o
Als leidinggevende voel ik
een grote
verantwoordelijkheid om
voor mijn team te zorgen. o o o o o o o
Als leidinggevende ben ik
verantwoordelijk voor de
fouten van mijn team. o o o o o o o Als leidinggevende heb ik
het gevoel dat, als het nodig
is, ik meer uren moet werken
om mijn doelen te bereiken. o o o o o o o
Ik voel dat ik de plicht heb
om
personeelsmanagementtaken
uit te voeren. o o o o o o o
Extra
personeelsmanagementtaken
geven mij een grotere
verantwoordelijkheid voor
mijn team.
o o o o o o o
End of Block: Persoonlijke gevoel van verantwoordelijkheid en aansprakelijkheid
Start of Block: Effectiviteit als leidinggevende 1
Q24 <div><b>Persoonlijke effectiviteit als
leidinggevende</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div>Deze stellingen gaan over uw eigen
effectiviteit als leidinggevende. Met effectiviteit wordt bedoeld de mate waarin jij in staat
bent jouw doelstellingen (bv. KPI's of resultaatafspraken) te realiseren. </div>
83
Q25 <p><span lang="NL" style="margin: 0px;"><b>Gelieve jouw eigen effectiviteit als
leidinggevende op een schaal van 1 tot 10 te beoordelen:</b></span></p>
o 1
o 2
o 3
o 4
o 5
o 6
o 7
o 8
o 9
o 10
End of Block: Effectiviteit als leidinggevende 1
Start of Block: Effectiviteit als leidinggevende 2
84
Q24 <strong>Geef aan in welke mate je het eens of oneens bent met de volgende
stellingen: </strong>
Helemaal
mee eens Eens Neutraal Oneens
Helemaal
mee
oneens
n.v.t.
Ik
weet
het
niet
Ik voel me
zelfverzekerd om mijn
verantwoordelijkheden
als leidinggevende te
vervullen.
o o o o o o o
Ik heb een goede band
met mijn team. o o o o o o o Ik denk dat mijn team
weet dat ze me
kunnen vertrouwen. o o o o o o o Ik denk dat ik het
beste in de
gelegenheid ben om
beslissingen te nemen
over mijn team.
o o o o o o o
End of Block: Effectiviteit als leidinggevende 2
Start of Block: Attributions
Q25 <p><span lang="NL" style="margin: 0px;"><strong>In hoeverre dragen elk van de
volgende factoren bij (positief of negatief) aan jouw effectiviteit (effectiviteit is de mate
85
waarin jij in staat bent jouw doelstellingen te realiseren)</strong> <strong>als
leidinggevende:</strong></span></p>
Grote
positieve
bijdrage
Kleine
positieve
bijdrage
Neutrale
bijdrage
Kleine
negatieve
bijdrage
Grote
negatieve
bijdrage
Het beleggen van
personeelsmanagementtaken
en verantwoordelijkheden bij
jou als leidinggevende. o o o o o
Ondersteuning vanuit de
HR-afdeling o o o o o De hoeveelheid HR-training o o o o o
Tijd die jij besteed aan
personeelsmanagementtaken o o o o o HR-informatiesysteem o o o o o
Jouw ervaring als
leidinggevende o o o o o Belasting als gevolg van de
HR-taken o o o o o Duidelijkheid over de rol van
de leidinggevende bij HR-
taken o o o o o Persoonlijke gevoel van
verantwoordelijkheid en
aansprakelijkheid o o o o o
End of Block: Attributions
86
4 Survey correspondence
Invitation email
Beste leidinggevende,
Hierbij ontvang je de digitale link naar mijn onderzoek. Ik wil je uitnodigen om deze in te
vullen.
Het duurt ongeveer 15 minuten en je kan het via de onderstaande link doen op de computer
of mobiele telefoon.
Volg deze link naar de enquête:
${l://SurveyLink?d=Take the Survey}
Of kopieer en plak de onderstaande URL in je internet browser:
${l://SurveyURL}
Als er vragen zijn of iets werkt niet, dan kan je contact opnemen met Jeremy Buitenhuis
(Jeremy.buitenhuis@pantar.nl).
Alvast bedankt voor het invullen.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Jeremy Buitenhuis
HR Adviseur Pantar &
Student Universiteit van Amsterdam
Als je niet mee wilt doen, klik dan op de onderstaande link:
${l://OptOutLink?d=Ik%20wil%20niet%20meedoen.}
Reminder email
Beste leidinggevende,
Graag wil ik je herinneren aan het onderzoek en je vragen om de enquête in te vullen. Het
onderzoek loopt nog minimaal één week. Het zou enorm helpen als je de tijd kan vinden om
deze in te vullen.
Hierbij ontvang je de digitale link naar het onderzoek.
Het duurt ongeveer 15 minuten en je kan het via de onderstaande link doen op de computer
of mobiele telefoon.
87
Volg deze link naar de enquête:
${l://SurveyLink?d=Take the Survey}
Of kopieer en plak de onderstaande URL in je internet browser:
${l://SurveyURL}
Als er vragen zijn of iets werkt niet, dan kan je contact opnemen met Jeremy Buitenhuis
(Jeremy.buitenhuis@pantar.nl).
Alvast bedankt voor het invullen.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Jeremy Buitenhuis
HR Adviseur Pantar &
Student Universiteit van Amsterdam
Als je niet mee wilt doen, klik dan op de onderstaande link:
${l://OptOutLink?d=Ik%20wil%20niet%20meedoen.}
Thank you email
Beste collega,
Bedankt voor het invullen van mijn onderzoek!
Met vriendelijke groet,
Jeremy Buitenhuis
88
5 SPSS Frequencies
Line manager effectiveness score (1 to 10)
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 4 1 1.4 1.9 1.9
5 4 5.5 7.4 9.3
6 6 8.2 11.1 20.4
7 17 23.3 31.5 51.9
8 19 26.0 35.2 87.0
9 7 9.6 13.0 100.0
Total 54 74.0 100.0
Missing System 19 26.0
Total 73 100.0
Age (yrs)
Tenure
(yrs)
The
amount of
devolution
Personal
HR
support
Received
HR
training
HR
information
system
Time spent
on HR
tasks (hrs)
HR role
overload
(R)
HR
ambiguety
Amount of
experience
as a line
manager
(yrs)
Sense of
responsibil
ity &
accountabi
lity
Line
manager
effectivene
ss
Line
manager
effectivene
ss score (1
to 10)
N 54.00 53.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 48.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00
Mean 52.74 13.16 22.04 2.42 2.70 2.68 3.46 3.36 2.43 22.31 1.95 1.79 7.30
Median 55.50 10.00 22.00 2.40 2.67 2.58 3.00 3.40 2.25 21.50 2.00 2.00 7.00
Std.
Deviation9.07 9.80 3.11 .74 .77 .59 1.69 .89 .75 9.16 .49 .50 1.18
Minimum 30.00 .50 15.00 1.00 1.33 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 4.00
Maximum 64.00 37.00 27.00 4.00 4.67 4.33 8.00 5.00 5.00 40.00 3.40 3.25 9.00
Statistics
89
6 SPSS data transformations
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error Skewness Kurtosis
Age (yrs) 54.00 30.00 64.00 52.74 9.07 -1.12 .32 .36 .64 -3.46 .56
Tenure (yrs) 53.00 .50 37.00 13.16 9.80 .66 .33 -.57 .64 2.01 -.88
The amount of devolution 54.00 15.00 27.00 22.04 3.11 -.33 .32 -.63 .64 -1.02 -.99
Personal HR support 54.00 1.00 4.00 2.42 .74 .12 .32 -.44 .64 .36 -.68
Received HR training 54.00 1.33 4.67 2.70 .77 .43 .32 -.26 .64 1.31 -.41
HR information system 54.00 1.67 4.33 2.68 .59 .59 .32 -.02 .64 1.81 -.04
Time spent on HR tasks (hrs) 48.00 1.00 8.00 3.46 1.69 .63 .34 -.01 .67 1.83 -.01
HR role overload (R) 54.00 1.00 5.00 3.36 .89 -.37 .32 -.29 .64 -1.14 -.45
HR role ambiguety 54.00 1.00 5.00 2.43 .75 .83 .32 2.10 .64 2.56 3.28
Amount of experience as a line manager (yrs) 54.00 5.00 40.00 22.31 9.16 .04 .32 -.68 .64 .11 -1.06
Sense of responsibility & accountability 54.00 1.00 3.40 1.95 .49 .38 .32 .20 .64 1.16 .32
Line manager effectiveness 54.00 1.00 3.25 1.79 .50 .37 .32 .10 .64 1.15 .16
Line manager effectiveness score (1 to 10) 54.00 4.00 9.00 7.30 1.18 -.68 .32 .25 .64 -2.10 .39
Valid N (listwise) 48.00
log10 transform:
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
AGE1RLOG 54 0.00 1.54 .9672 .34507 -.375 .325 .043 .639
TENURE1LOG 53 .18 1.58 1.0199 .37661 -.631 .327 -.417 .644
DEVSTRLOG 54 0.00 1.11 .7029 .27441 -.733 .325 -.104 .639
HRSUPLOG 54 .30 .70 .5235 .09728 -.421 .325 -.053 .639
HRTRNGLOG 54 .37 .75 .5591 .09016 -.018 .325 -.571 .639
HRISLOG 54 .43 .73 .5601 .06811 .255 .325 -.576 .639
HRTIMELOG 48 .30 .95 .6182 .16797 -.142 .343 -.654 .674
HROVERLOG 54 0.00 .70 .3950 .15631 -.478 .325 .042 .639
HRAMBLOG 54 .30 .78 .5256 .09344 -.133 .325 1.116 .639
LNEXPLOG 54 .78 1.61 1.3270 .20328 -.934 .325 .538 .639
LNRESPLOG 54 .30 .64 .4637 .07218 -.069 .325 -.237 .639
LNEFFLOG 54 .30 .63 .4384 .07741 -.044 .325 -.588 .639
LNSCORELOG 54 0.00 .78 .3892 .20124 -.429 .325 -.152 .639
Valid N (listwise) 48
1/X transform
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
AGE1RREC 54.00 .03 1.00 .15 .16 3.40 .32 15.25 .64
TENURE1REC 53.00 .03 .67 .14 .15 1.93 .33 2.90 .64
DEVSTRREC 54.00 .08 1.00 .25 .20 2.29 .32 6.13 .64
HRSUPREC 54.00 .20 .50 .31 .07 1.02 .32 1.05 .64
HRTRNGREC 54.00 .18 .43 .28 .06 .45 .32 -.37 .64
HRISREC 54.00 .19 .38 .28 .04 .04 .32 -.78 .64
HRTIMEREC 48.00 .11 .50 .26 .10 .89 .34 .25 .67
HROVERREC 54.00 .20 1.00 .43 .17 1.51 .32 2.83 .64
HRAMBREC 54.00 .17 .50 .31 .07 1.06 .32 2.15 .64
LNEXPREC 54.00 .02 .17 .05 .03 2.14 .32 4.98 .64
LNRESPREC 54.00 .23 .50 .35 .06 .48 .32 -.10 .64
LNEFFREC 54.00 .24 .50 .37 .07 .38 .32 -.74 .64
LNSCOREREC 54.00 .17 1.00 .46 .24 1.41 .32 1.22 .64
Valid N (listwise) 48.00
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
AGE1RSQ 54.00 .00 5.83 3.08 1.34 .32 .32 -.30 .64
TENURE1SQ 53.00 .71 6.08 3.34 1.44 -.02 .33 -.87 .64
DEVSTRSQ 54.00 .00 3.46 2.08 .81 -.56 .32 -.01 .64
HRSUPSQ 54.00 1.00 2.00 1.54 .24 -.28 .32 -.19 .64
HRTRNGSQ 54.00 1.15 2.16 1.63 .23 .12 .32 -.52 .64
HRISSQ 54.00 1.29 2.08 1.63 .18 .36 .32 -.43 .64
HRTIMESQ 48.00 1.00 2.83 1.80 .46 .11 .34 -.58 .67
HROVERSQ 54.00 .00 2.00 1.21 .41 -.83 .32 1.40 .64
HRAMBSQ 54.00 1.00 2.24 1.54 .24 .13 .32 1.23 .64
LNEXPSQ 54.00 2.24 6.32 4.61 1.03 -.44 .32 -.35 .64
LNRESPSQ 54.00 1.00 1.84 1.38 .18 .03 .32 -.16 .64
LNEFFSQ 54.00 1.00 1.80 1.32 .19 .04 .32 -.46 .64
LNSCORESQ 54.00 .00 2.24 1.18 .57 -.75 .32 .39 .64
Valid N (listwise) 48.00
Descriptive Statistics
Skewness Kurtosis
Descriptive Statistics
Skewness Kurtosis z-score
Descriptive Statistics
Skewness Kurtosis
Descriptive Statistics
Skewness Kurtosis
top related