Between A Rock And A Hard Place: An Exploration Of Line Manager Partnership
Working With Trade Unions And The HR Function
Refereed Paper
McGuire, Fiona; McGuire, David; Sanderson, Mike
Introduction
In recent years, not only has there been a move to partnership working between HR and line
managers but with declining unionisation rates, there has also been a move to HR functions and
unions working in partnership with line managers. Oxenbridge and Brown (2002) report
substantial growth in the pursuit of workplace partnership arrangements, leading to greater trade
union presence in the workplace. Ackers and Payne (1998: 546) argue that partnership enables
trade unions to “swim among the fishes”, heralding the re-entry of unions to mainstream
workplace issues and strengthening union negotiating power with management. For her part,
Edwards (2003: 532) states that a ‘partnership model is based on a culture of information;
consultation and co-operation bringing mutual benefits to each side’ meaning that trade unions
are now becoming more active partners in workplace decision-making.
Partnership working takes place against a backdrop of increasing devolvement to line managers
and decentralised HR structures. Within Ulrich’s structure of devolved HR – the missing partner is
arguably that of the trade union. While research has focused on the sometimes fraught
relationship between HR and line managers (Larson and Brewster 2003; Renwick 2003; Perry
and Kulik 2008; Brandl et al. 2009), little attention has focused on the role trade unions play in
this partnership arrangement. Changes to HR structures have a critical relevance in determining
both who, how and to what standard HR is delivered. This paper seeks to shed light on how the
three parties interact and coexist within a unionised manufacturing environment. In particular, it
looks to clarify the role played by trade unions in working with line managers and the HR function.
The structure of the paper is as follows. First, the paper examines the changing nature of HR
structures, examining the impact of Ulrich and Brockbank’s work on HR roles and looking at how
devolvement pressures have affected line management roles and responsibilities. Within this
section, relationships between HR, line managers and trade unions are explored, paying
particular attention to how trade unions are working to support employers in dealing with HR and
employee-welfare issues. The second section explores the concept of “employee voice” within
this set of relationships. More specifically, it looks at representation roles within the modern
workplace and reviews how despite unitarist ideals of open communication, unions still offer an
effective mechanism for voicing employee views and concerns without fear of management
reprisal. The methodology section discusses the protocols followed for collecting data within the
host organisation as well as providing detail on the sampling techniques and data analysis tools
employed. The results section outlines the key findings from the study and the conclusion section
highlights some of the important theoretical and practical implications flowing from the study.
Structural Issues in HR Delivery
The reorienting of HR from a traditional, transactional, activity-based, administrative division to a
proactive, service-driven, business-led, strategically aligned function has forced a reconsideration
of the roles and structures through which HR is designed and delivered. The work of Ulrich and
Brockbank (2005) assigns five HR roles: employee advocate; strategic partner, functional expert,
human capital developer and HR leader and creates four HR delivery mechanisms: corporate
HR, embedded HR, centres of expertise and line managers. These changes have driven HR out
of centralised functions and placed HR at the business coalface, making HR accountable for
enacting and enabling business development. The focus of these changes has been to make HR
more visible, more responsive and more strategic. Fairbrother (2006) comments that within
manufacturing, that there has been a move to more open communication channels, therefore
making businesses more directly engaged with employees and increasing levels of participation
and involvement. Within such structures, line managers are playing a significant role, being
empowered to step up and accept many aspects of HR operational delivery (Truss and Gratton
1994; Mello 2007). The CIPD (2006: 1) highlight the importance of the these changes when they
state that ‘the devolution of HR work to line managers is a crucial issue for the future of the
profession...critical in delivering effective HR’.
Within this context, it is unsurprising that relations between line managers and HR practitioners
are at an all time low (Wilson 2005). One aspect of this faltering relationship is a perceived lack of
confidence in the skills of HR staff embedded within the business. Guest and King (2004) carried
out research which showed that line managers felt HR practitioners were not comfortable
discussing business issues. This research would suggest that line managers question the ability
of the individuals working in HR departments to add value to the organisation and understand the
strategic needs of the business. Renwick (2003) suggests that another reason for a declining HRline relationship is due to a lack of trust and the need to share information. This undoubtedly
undermines the effectiveness of business partnership models given the need for a close link
between HR and the line, thus enabling HR to become more strategic in their service delivery.
Caldwell and Storey (2007) question, if in changing the HR structure that we have in fact created
a more complicated system for employees and managers to work within.
Although much of the research has shown that line managers clearly have a role within HR
activities, it is suggested that difficulties exist in ‘securing line manager acceptance of HR
responsibilities’ (Watson et al. 2007: 32). This may be due to poor communication or poor support
for line managers from the HR function. Keegan (2006) highlights the fact that for line managers
to be successful in HR delivery, organisations need to ensure that line managers are trained and
have the time to carry out their duties. In discussing business partnership, the CIPD (2006)
highlight some of the common barriers experienced, namely, managers not having the skills to
carry out HR activities, HR not being strategic in their approach and poorly experienced HR
professionals. Morley et al. (2006) echo this work and comment that a lack of confidence from HR
in what they should be doing in an era marked by an ever growing demand for leaner structures
within organisations will result in managers feeling even more pressure to focus on HR related
tasks.
For devolved HR to work effectively in a pluralist environment, it is essential that there is a close
relationship based on trust between line managers, trade unions and the HR function. Such
arrangements may appear unnatural as Guest (1989: 48) commented that “an organisation
persuing HRM will almost always prefer a non-union path, emphasising individual rather than
collective agreements.” Such views have caused trade unions to re-examine their role with
MacShane (1999) and Ackers and Payne (1998) arguing that partnership working remains the
only viable route for trade unions to maintain relevance in the 21st century. For their part, Martinez
and Stuart (2002) point to an increasingly positive approach being taken by trade unions in the
workplace. They argue that trade unions have moved beyond adversarial stances to providing
employers with a wide range of information services through networking, marketing and
consultancy advice. In particular, they argue that trade union agendas are increasingly focused
on work-life balance, employee-led flexibility and issues related to managerial and employee
conduct and behaviour and that trade unions can provide organisations with a powerful ally in
legitimising organisational change. That said, Bryson et al. (2005) argue that the effectiveness of
trade unions in partnership working depends upon the union’s bargaining power, its efficacy as a
voice for workers and its relationship with management. Indeed in some cases, research
indicates that some employers have been working to mould their union
Employee Voice in the Workplace
For many years, it has been hypothesised that HRM practices have been antithetical to trade
unionism and that the direct communication and consultation principles at the heart of unitarist
HRM approaches negated the need for third party or trade union representation. Under this
approach, Fiorito (2001) argues that unions may become looked upon as redundant as positive
employer practices improve employee job satisfaction and foster closer workplace relationships
between employers and employees. For their part, Kim and Kim (2004) argue that such nonunion employee representation (NER) practices perform traditional union functions as effectively
as trade unions, but foster a less conflictual, adversarial system of employee representation.
They argue that NER provides effective communication between management and workers;
strengthens worker participation and involvement and expeditiously resolves workplace
grievances and complaints. Similarly, Kaufman and Taras (2000) posit that NER is generally
more effective at dealing with issues such as workplace health and safety, information sharing,
training and skill-building.
However, more recent research indicates that many organisations are operating hybrid
approaches through providing employee representation forums in unionised environments.
Research by Forth and Millward (2002) found that direct communication was unrelated to
management’s orientation towards trade unions in a unionised context – suggesting that
management identified value in directly seeks employees views even where unions existed.
Likewise, Machin and Wood (2005) identified evidence of complementarity between trade unions
and HRM practices and concluded that HRM practices are probably not an important factor
underpinning union decline in the UK.
Many organisations increasingly use a range of mechanisms for gauging employee voice in the
workplace. From an employee’s perspective, union representation can usefully counter attempts
to inculcate a “consensus culture” within the workplace and help employees adopt a more critical
stance towards management practice (Tailby et al. 2007). Union representation gives trade
unions an enhanced role in decision-making and unions through their relationship with employees
represent an important voice in the partnership building process. Kim and Kim (2004) also argue
that trade unions can perform a useful representation role, particularly as other employee voice
mechanisms do not allow employees access to financial resources and access to independent
trained professionals. However, Taylor and Ramsay (1998) urge caution in organisations where
unions coexist alongside other workplace representation mechanisms. They argue that unions
need to thread carefully lest they become seen as less effective than direct representation
mechanisms or become associated with organisational change and work intensification ambitions
of management.
Despite the presence of trade unions in workplaces, many employees often express a preference
for direct communications as this has sometimes been identified as more effective than union
representation (Tailby et al. 2007). Likewise, Gollan (2005) argues that amongst some workers
union voice may not be preferred and could represent a less optimal form of voice. A further
criticism is levelled by Guest and Peccei (2001: 23) who found that “within partnership working,
there is a constrained mutuality, with the balance of advantage leaning clearly towards
management”.
Methodology
Manufacturing Plc is a large unionised multinational company that has manufacturing facilities in
11 countries across the globe. This study focuses on partnership working across sites located in
the central belt of Scotland. A series of 10 semi-structured interviews were conducted with line
managers to investigate relationships that existed with the HR representatives and trade union
officials. The interviews focused on four key areas: HR devolution within the business; changes to
line manager roles within the devolved structure; partnership working with HR and partnership
working with the trade unions. The interviews were carried out in January 2009 and all interviews
lasted one hour in length and were recorded on dictaphone and transcribed. An interview guide
was used to structure the interviews and managers were assured of confidentiality and
anonymity.
A profile of interviewees is provided in Table 1. It shows that most managers were male and aged
between 28 and 55. Most managers had spent a long period of time working for Manufacturing
PLC ranging from 6 years to 35 years. In terms of devolved responsibility, the most common
areas transferred from the HR function to line management were recruitment and selection,
grievance and discipline, absence management and people development.
Table 1: Interviewee Profile
Gender Age Qualification
Male
55
A Level
Years
of
Management
experience
17
Years worked in
Manufacturing
PLC
17
Managerial
Grade
Areas
of
Responsibility
Male
50
HNC
32
17
4
Male
37
Degree
9
15
5
Male
53
Diploma
15
35
4
Male
40
Degree
17
18
3
Female
39
O Level
1
23
5
Female
39
Highers
5
19
5
Male
45
Diploma
11
17
5
Male
35
HNC
4
18
5
Male
28
Degree
4
6
4
Devolved
5
Recruitment & Selection
Grievance & Discipline
Data Information
Recruitment & Selection
Grievance & Discipline
Policy Making
Recruitment & Selection
Grievance & Discipline
People Development
Grievance & Discipline
People
Development
Absence Management
Recruitment & Selection
People Development
Capability Assessments
Recruitment & Selection
Grievance & Discipline
Absence Management
Employee Appraisals
Recruitment & Selection
Grievance & Discipline
People Development
Employee Appraisals
Recruitment & Selection
People Development
Absence Management
Recruitment & Selection
Grievance & Discipline
People
Development
Absence Management
Recruitment & Selection
Grievance & Discipline
Absence Management
Employee Appraisals
Findings
The following sections contain the findings of the primary research data collected. The first
section examines how HR services are delivered in Manufacturing PLC focusing on the changing
role of both HR and line management. The second section then looks at employee voice and the
role that is played by trade unions in partnership with the HR function and line management.
Structural Issues in HR Delivery
Devolution at Manufacturing PLC took place in 2005, when the HR structure changed from a
more traditional model with HR administrators, advisors and managers based on site or within
business areas looking after that area. The new model broadly follows Ulrich and Brockbank’s
(2005) framework and sees the creation of business partners and specialist departments
including resourcing, training and development and employee solutions. The rationale
underpinning the changes was to streamline operations, introduce cost reductions and allow HR
specialists to work within key business areas and develop a more strategic HR approach. Such
changes also placed greater responsibility on line managers for many areas heretofore delivered
by the HR function. Managers clearly exhibit concerns about the new structure and the belief that
the new HR structure was ineffective seemed to revolve around the fact that the personal touch
from HR was no longer apparent. One manager comments on the effectiveness of the HR
devolution process by saying:
“I don’t believe devolvement has been effective. HR first role is to deal with
people; it seems like a 3rd party HR now which is responsible for over 500
staff. People have many issues of which they would have taken to HR issues
like cancer or family or work problems; they don’t have anyone to go to.
There is an expectation that they now have to ask for emotional support
through e-mail or speak to someone which they don’t see, it leaves things
pretty flat”.
Male, Band 4 manager, 32 yrs management experience
In relation to the barriers experienced by line managers, many felt that they were inadequately
trained in areas where previously the HR function had accumulated significant expertise. While
some training was provided to line managers, the primary focus of this training was in the areas
of employee relations, absence management and grievance management. Managers also
reported being under significant time pressures and often experienced difficulty in accessing HR
expertise across the organisation. One line manager expresses concern about growing workload
levels and declining organisational support in the following terms:
Barriers for me are one around time management and the volume of activity
that we are seeing just now. How complete you get to do something and how
much time you get to spend on the development for people, it is very difficult
and a real struggle time wise. I do feel in terms of HR model itself that they
are quite a limited resource which is really stretched, the sheer number of
employees which HR are asked to support across Scotland so they have a
very limited amount of time which you can offer in terms of support to us. It is
quite clear at times that the two just don’t marry up’.
Male, Band 5 manager, 9 yrs management experience
While the structural changes introduced by Manufacturing PLC allowed for a more strategic
approach to HR and the concentration of HR and specialist functions such as training and
development, resourcing and reward, line managers often felt less than fully prepared to deal with
the consequences of such changes.
Employee Voice
Manufacturing PLC has had a collective partnership agreement with two trade unions since 1994
and adopts a proactive approach to engaging with staff at all levels and involving them in
organisational decision-making. The collective partnership agreement sets out the principles,
policies and procedures to which all parties will operate under and identifies specific areas that
the business will engage the union through consultation. The organisation has always been
heavily unionised and implementation of partnership working was something which took a long
time to take root within the organisation.
Managers were asked how they saw partnership working with the trade unions and often
described this relationship in very procedural terms. As one line manager commented:
‘My understanding is that the business and the unions agree on the policies
and wording in the partnership book and are both aligned with it. I know as
long as I am working within this booklet that I am working within the letter of
the law. Even if that means that sometimes an employee isn’t happy with the
decisions it is within the book and the union are going to be agreeing with me
on it. It is a great framework where everyone is aligned. It is clear for everyone,
clear for employees, clear for the unions, and clear for the business what we
are doing’.
Female, Band 5 manager, 5 yrs management experience
Many managers commented on the changing nature of interactions between Manufacturing PLC
and the trade unions describing a shift of working relationship from an adversarial approach to
more co-operative two-way stance. They indicated that prior to the coming into force of the
partnership agreement, there was a clear separation and division between the trade union and
the organisation and that partnership working had taken some time to become truly embedded
within the organisation.
‘In the pre 2000’s union representatives behaved in a commado way, it was a
them and us situation. It was always very hostile and never the twain shall
meet. They would try to fox the management and the management would try
to fox them was the perception. Now we talk to each other, we do disagree
sometimes but we agree to disagree, the behaviours have completely
changed, the person if they acted like the old days wouldn’t last in a trade
union role. If they worked like that I don’t believe it would be accepted’.
Male, band 5 Manager, 11 yrs management experience
A strong belief was expressed amongst the managers interviewed that relationships between the
trade unions and organisation had improved since partnership working commenced and that
although this has taken some time, a workable relationship between trade unions and
management now existed. Nevertheless, there was a recognition that partnership worked
differently across business divisions and often depended upon individual union representatives
and their buy-in and support of partnership principles. Managers also commented on the benefits
of working in partnership with the unions, where they can consult, negotiate and implement
together.
‘I think it is dealing with the collective rather than a group of individuals. When
we are going through a change it is really being able to form a work stream
and build the understanding of why we are doing the change and using the
trade union representatives to spread that message so that the onus isn’t on
the line manager to get round 30 people to explain that. I suppose they stand
side by side with managers when we are doing those communications so that
we can deliver the management perspective and the trade union perspective’.
Male, Band 5 manager, 4yrs management experience
The interviews indicated that many individuals believe that partnership had benefited the
organisation and that in fact it helped to implement change within the organisation. Some
managers expressed the view that the successful implementation of the change programme
could not have taken place without trade union support. However, managers also believed that
some disgruntlement existed amongst employees who felt that unions were on the side of the
company and not supporting them in the same way.
Conclusions
The purpose of the study was to explore line manager partnership working with trade unions and
the HR function. In so doing, it found that changes to HR structures led to significant role
adjustments for line managers and that line managers often experienced considerable difficulty
with new responsibilities. The finding is in line with research by Caldwell and Storey (2007) who
argue that the HR function has created a more complicated HR structure and this has made it
more difficult for managers and employees to know where to go to. Similarly, research by the
CIPD (2006) argued that difficulties were experienced in partnership working because of lack of
understanding of roles and clarity and definition of the roles that exist within the new structures.
Such changes to HR structures have inevitably affected the relationship between the HR function
and line managers. The interview data identifies amongst line managers a sense of distance and
isolation from the HR function, leading to anxiety and frustration. However, many of the barriers
cited in the literature such as a breakdown in trust (Renwick 2003) and a reluctance of the HR
function to share knowledge (McGuire et al. 2008) were not readily apparent. The interview data
also highlighted the need for increased training for line managers to boost their confidence and
ability to take on newly devolved tasks.
Although the role played by trade unions is greatly debated in the literature, the experience of
Manufacturing PLC shows that trade unions can play an important role in partnership working
within a devolved HR structure. There is some support for the view that trade unions have been
an important enabler of change and that they help bring about balanced decision-making. The
interviews conducted support research carried out by Oxenbridge and Brown (2002) who
comment on the fact that partnership has changed ways of working leading to changes in the role
and attitudes of trade union officials. However, there was little evidence to support Legge’s (1995)
finding that partnership allows organisations to mould the trade union to fit with their current HR
strategy and use them to enable their HR direction. Similarly, there was limited support for the
view that partnership working brought the balance of power to the side of the managers, with
them having the greater power and that it decreased the level of power amongst the trade unions
(Guest and Peccei 2001; Martinez Lucio and Stuart 2000).
Implications for Theory and Practice
While recent changes to HR structures have significantly improved the strategic intent and
delivery of HR solutions, a number of areas still exist which require attention. The primary data
presented in the paper identifies a need to provide greater training and support to line managers
in helping them adjust to their new responsibilities. There needs to be a greater recognition on
behalf of the HR function that their new strategic emphasis can only work, provided that they are
adequately servicing the needs of those now tasked with delivering operational HR solutions.
Further research could usefully examine how the HR function balances strategic priorities while
staying in tune with operational issues and providing a “listening ear” for employees requiring
emotional and personal support.
The paper also highlights the continuing important role being played with trade unions. It
emphasises the need for a clear framework to allow partnership working to operate in an effective
manner. It also points to the changing cooperative positive approach being adopted by trade
union officials – a trend already signalled by Martinez Lucio and Stuart (2002). It shows how trade
unions have become important change enablers in organisations: yet still providing a useful outlet
for employee feedback and reaction. It is arguable that trade union representation has also
shaped management decision-making in a positive constructive way. In this case, there is
evidence that trade unions provide valuable support to line managers in operational delivery.
However, as Munro (2002) points out, the growing demands on union representatives to
participate in organisational problem-solving and decision-making raises the danger of union
activities being channelled away from organising to managing the organisation. Further research
could therefore usefully examine how trade unions balance their role as change facilitators – yet
maintain their role as employee representatives.
References
Ackers, P. and Payne, J. (1998): British Trade Unions and Social Partnership: Rhetoric, Reality
and Strategy’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 529–
549.
Brandl, J., Madsen, M.T., and Madsen, H. (2009): The Perceived Importance of HR duties to
Danish Line Managers, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2, p. 194-210.
Bryson, A., Forth, J. & Kirby, S. (2005): High Involvement Management Practices, Trade Union
Representation and Workplace Performance in Britain, Scottish Policy of Political Economy,
Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 451-493.
Caldwell, R and Storey, J. (2007): The HR Function: Integration or Fragmentation? In: J. Storey
(ed.), Human Resource Management: A Critical Text, London: Thomson Learning.
CIPD (2006): HR Business Partnering, Available online at www.cipd.co.uk (accessed 2nd March
2007).
Edwards, C. (2003): Guest Introduction: Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management
in an Era of Accommodation: Selected Papers from the British Academy of Management
Annual Conference 2002. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 531-535.
Fairbrother, P. (1996): Trade Unions and Human Resource Management in Britain: Case Study
Evidence from the Public Sector, Utilities and Manufacturing, Employee Relations, Vol. 18,
No.6, pp.10-27.
Fiorito, J. (2001): “Human Resource Management Practices and Worker Desires for Union
Representation.” Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 335–54.
Forth, J. and Millward, N. (2002): The Growth of Direct Communication. London: Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development.
Gollan, P.J. (2005): Silent Voices: Representation at Eurotunnel Call Centre, Personnel Review,
Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 423-450.
Guest, D.E. (1989): “Human Resource Management: Its Implications for Industrial Relations and
Trade Unions.” In J. Storey (ed.) New Perspectives on Human Resource Management.
London: Routledge.
Guest, D. and King, Z. (2004): Power, innovation and problem-solving: the personnel managers’
three steps to heaven? Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 401-423.
Guest, D. and Peccei, R. (2001): Partnership at Work: Mutuality and the Balance of Advantage,
British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 207-236.
Kaufman. B.E. and Taras, D.G. (2000): Non-union Employee Representation: History.
Contemporary Practice, and Policy. New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Keegan, A. (2006) Facing Facts, available online at www.peoplemanagement.co.uk (accessed
2nd March 2007).
Kim, D.O. and Kim, H.K. (2004): A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Unions and Non-union
Works Councils in Korea: Can Non-union Employee Representation Substitute for Trade
Unionism?, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 1069–
1093.
Larsen, H.H. and Brewster, C. (2003): Line management responsibility for HRM: What is
Happening in Europe? Employee Relations, Vol. 25, No.3, pp.228-244.
Legge, K. (1995): Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities. London: Macmillan.
Machin, S. and Wood, S. (2005): Human Resource Management as a Substitute for Trade
Unions in British Workplaces, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 201220.
MacShane, D. (1999): Politics: Adieu to Trade Unions? Critical Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 165173.
Martinez Lucio, M. and Stuart, M. (2000): Assessing the Principles of Partnership: Workplace
Trade Union Representatives’ Attitudes and Experiences, Employee Relations, Vol. 24, No.
3, pp. 305-320.
McGuire, D., Stoner, L. and Mylona, S. (2008): “The Role of Line Managers as Human Resource
Agents in Fostering Organisational Change in Public Services”, Journal of Change
Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, p. 73–84.
Mello, J. A. (2007). Strategic Human Resource Management, Delhi: Thomson.
Morley, M.J., Gunnigle, P., O’Sullivan, M. and Collings, D.G. (2006): New directions in the roles
and responsibilities of the HRM function, Personnel Review, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp.609-617.
Munro, A. (2002). Working Together – Involving Staff: Partnership Working in the NHS. Employee
Relations, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 277-289.
Oxenbridge, S. and Brown, W. (2002) The two face of partnership? An assessment of partnership
and co-operative employer/trade union relationships, Employee Relations, Vol. 24, No.3,
pp.262-276
Perry, E.L. and Kulik, C.T. (2008): When Less is More: The Effect of Devolution on HR's Strategic
role and Construed Image, Human Resource Management, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 541-558.
Renwick, D. (2003): Line Manager Involvement in HRM: An Inside View, Employee Relations,
Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 262-280.
Tailby, S., Richardson, M., Upchurch, M., Danford, A. and Stewart, P. (2007): Partnership with
and without Trade Unions in the UK Financial Services: Filling or Fuelling the Representation
Gap? Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 210-228.
Taylor, P. and Ramsay, H. (1998): Unions, Partnership and HRM: Sleeping with the Enemy?,
International Journal of Employment Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 115–143.
Truss, C. and Gratton, L. (1994): Strategic Human Resource Management: A Conceptual
Approach. International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 663-686.
Ulrich, D. and Brockbank, W. (2005): The HR Value Proposition, Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.
Watson, S., Maxwell, G.A. and Farquharson, L. (2007): Line Managers Views on Adopting
Human Resource Roles: The Case of Hilton (UK) Hotels, Employee Relations, Vol. 29, No. 1,
pp.30-49.
Wilson, G. (2005): HR and the Line Manager - happily married or heading for divorce, HR
Network Scotland, Vol 1, No. 1, pp.22-24.