HR Managers’ trust relations and
the development of HR Enterprisewide systems projects
Carole Tansley
Nottingham Business School
The Nottingham Trent
University
HRIS DEVELOPMENT – A FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS
(see Tansley, Newell and Williams, 1999)
AUTOMATE
(Tech functionality
& data)
INFORMATE
(Tech &
information)
TRANSFORMATE
(Tech &
knowledge mgt)
HR resources
HRIS availability
Strategic alliances
Finance
Org. restructuring
Adding value?
EWIS strategies
Senior mgt (not HR) push
HRIS
Legacy systems
Politics
Challenges of EWIS development for
HR project managers




Big concept: wholesale company systems
integration but only managing HR pillar
Unknown territory e.g. crossorganisational/disciplinary working
Managing multi-disciplinary/temporary
team members
Lack of knowledge about IS project
processes
The study



Cross-case comparison of HRIS project
management in two transnational
organisations implementing EWIS
Focus on knowledge-development & trust
relations in the project manager/team
member relationship
Two conceptual frameworks:
• Newell and Swan’s (2000) trust typology
• Raub’s (2000) knowledge-based framework of
competency development

Raises questions about the knowledgebased competence necessary for an HR
EWIS project manager
Different ways of construing trust




As an ontological resource to draw upon to
guard the self in dealings with everyday
reality (Dibben, 2000)
As a personality trait (Rotter, 1967; 1971;
1980)
As rational choice or transaction cost
(Williamson, 1975)
Sociologically as ‘the expectation that
arises within a community of regular,
honest and cooperative behavior, based on
commonly shared norms, on the part of
other members of that community’
(Fukuyama, 1995, p26).
Trust in teams is said to be enhanced
when project managers…


provide team members with
feedback
give sufficient explanations for their
actions (e.g. Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991;
Sapienzo and Korsgaard, 1996)

discuss their ideas
(e.g. Butler, 1991; Hart et
al., 1986).

do not engage in politics or use
hostile and demanding tactics
A three-fold typology of trust
(Newell and Swan, 2000)

Commitment trust

Companion trust

Competence trust
Research Methods
Ethnography incorporating:
• Participant observation
• Interviews
• Document analysis
QEL and Epicurea: similarities






Both transnational organisations new
to EWIS development
Many legacy systems
Poor image of HR departments
Poor HRIS development history
Lead HR managers with no HRIS
development experience
Project teams temporary workers
Project manager competence development and
knowledge related processes (Raub, 2001)
Imagination
Know- Diagnosing: identifying
what
relevant strategic issues
and outlining a new
strategic logic
Know- Innovating: translating
why
the strategic logic:
exploring innovative
theories
Know- Identifying: localizing
how
individual and functional
know-how; identifying
external knowledge
sources
Implementation
Integration
Defining: Evaluating
and selecting new
initiatives; defining
the new strategic
logic
Deploying: aligning
organizational and
knowledge structures
Implementing:
defining standards
and procedures
establishing an
appropriate
knowledge
architecture
Integrating
knowledge between
projects


Interrelating: building
and maintaining links
to other know-how
carriers.
Improving: Adopting
new standards and
procedures;
codifying know-how
Project management competence development and knowledge related
processes in QEL & Epicurea
Imagination
Implementation
Integration
Knowwhat
Diagnosing: Nick late in
joining ERP project, no vision
& no success in gaining
funding. Shauna developed
HRIS vision linked to
business strategy, networked
with other EWIS mgt. &
gained funding for ‘HR’
project.
Defining: Process eng: Nick’s
messy processes with many
consultants. Ineffective &
expensive workshops.
Knowledge redundancy of
functional mapping teams not
taken into account.
Shauna: Macro mapping with
HR directors only worldwide
then HRIS team develop
methodology. Social events.
Deploying: Nick: still no
project funding because
business case still not proven.
Team sidetracked by providing
proof of concept. HR director
still not actively involving
himself so – little aligning of
organizational and knowledge
structures. Shauna: Linking
new initiatives & priority
maintenance of project.
Knowwhy
Innovating: Nick separate
from current HR
developments and sending
negative messages to senior
mgt about IS impact on HR.
Shauna working with HR
managers & team on
synchronous development of
HR strategy and policy.
Implementing: Nick keeps
team focused on procedure
writing. Process owners not
kept up to date nor checked
that they understood jargon.
Shauna’s team required to
analyze stakeholders’ needs &
report back to IS project
leader for project changes.
Integrating: Nick focused on
technical developments. IS
contractor takes over
meetings. Still no bringing
together of the process owners
in spite of requests nor part of
general ERP team. Shauna
working with US teams on
wholescale HRIS project.
Knowhow
Identifying: Nick: standard
recruitment ads ’s = staff HR
without IS skills + alienated
contract IS staff (ft).
Shauna: staff from network
& early mix of IS & HR (pt).
IS to lead at project level
and report to Shauna.
Interrelating: Poor
communication processes at
QEL. Few understood what
was going on as each stage
progressed. Nick not regarded
as a leader, though respected
for his knowledge. Shauna:
required continual team
reflection processes for team
Improving: Nick’s stop/start of
project meant piecemeal
adoption of new standards and
procedures; codifying knowhow had been difficult because
of garbage can of intranet.
Shauna’a project complete and
new standards & procedures
known.
Trust relations, PM competence development and knowledge
related processes
Imagination
Implementation
Integration
Nick: low team
companion trust –
e.g. induction
missing
Shauna: early
development of
individual companion
trust
Swift trust
(Meyerson et al.,
1996) an aspect of
competence trust in
both projects.
Because no risk or
uncertainty to
careers, no formal
commitment trust
needed to be
generated.

Nick: little socialisation
encouraged on the section,
treated lurkers, shirkers
and workers the same,
team fear for livelihoods
so negative social capital
generated = Low
companion and
competence trust. Team
ref to commitment trust.
Shauna: clear focus on
strategy, continuous social
capital generation &
reflection on practice
encouraged = high
companion and
competence trust. No
reference to commitment
trust

Nick: Loss of team
members, ‘hold’ on
project. Team focus on
commitment trust.
Reduced self trust.
Shauna: consideration
of integrating
mechanisms including:
alliance with emerging
strategies in HR and IS,
priority maintenance of
her project, expansion
of project to US,
development of
exchange tactics with
team members. =
maintenance of high
levels of competence &
companion trust.

Conclusions




Ethnographic research at project level can
enhance understanding at organisational level
Knowledge development processes in HR
EWIS projects are inherently linked to trust
relations between project manager and team
‘Types’ of trust are useful heuristic devices and
can be seen to be linked.
In developing competence trust, project
managers can usefully develop knowledgebased competence in:
• project priority maintenance with all stakeholders
• positive social capital in own and team’s networks
• an understanding of the mutual benefits of strategic
exchange with management of reciprocal relations
and
• a high level of self trust/emotional intelligence
Possible areas for future research




Relations between project management
leadership and self trust/emotional
intelligence
Ways in which strategic use of HRIS can
inform HR power relations
The difficulties inherent in taking a content
theory approach to knowledge
The challenges of taking a relational
perspective (i.e. knowledge development
in the social relations inherent in project
work).
Strategic Exchange
(Watson, 2002)
Non-work social
& economic
exchanges:
Culture
Discourse
Narratives
Employee
Life
strategy
Corporate social
& economic
exchanges:
Implicit
contract
Organisation
Organisation
strategy
Institutional
Context
Customers
Suppliers
State
Media etc