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