Divided we stand? Occupational boundary work among human resource managers and external organization development practitioners
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-07-2017-0160 |
| Pages | 848-867 |
| Published date | 06 August 2018 |
| Date | 06 August 2018 |
| Author | Shani Kuna,Ronit Nadiv |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations,Employment law |
Divided we stand? Occupational
boundary work among
human resource managers and
external organization
development practitioners
Shani Kuna and Ronit Nadiv
Department of Human Resource Management Studies,
Sapir Academic College, Sha’ar Hanagev, Israel
Abstract
Purpose –Understanding occupational boundaries is vital in the contemporary economy, in which
knowledge-based work is a central feature. The purpose of this paper is to identify and decipher boundary
work which affects the cooperation and demarcation between human resource (HR) managers and external
organization development (OD) practitioners during organization change processes.
Design/methodology/approach –Data are based on in-depth interviews with HR managers and external
OD practitioners in the Israeli business sector.
Findings –Encounters between HR managers and external OD practitioners are potentially volatile given
mutual experiences of occupational threat. Three distinct patterns of boundary work for negotiating OD-HR
jurisdiction are identified. These yield differential occupational and organizational outcomes.
Research limitations/implications –This study is based on a medium-sized sample of practitioners of
HRM andOD in the Israeli business sector.The data focused on one-sideddescriptions ofoccupational relations.
Practical implications –The findings shed light on boundary work associated with fruitful HRM-OD
partnerships. This may greatly advance the success of costly organization change and development
interventions which demand the collaboration of both parties. Implications are offered regarding the
academic education and practical daily management of both groups of practitioners.
Originality/value –Despitetheir growing relevance,empirical investigations of dailyHRM-OD interfacesare
scarce. This exploratory research addresses this gap in the literature and offers theoretical and practical insights.
Keywords External OD practitioners, HR managers, Occupational boundary work
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
As human capital is considered a strategic asset for organizations in their struggle to
survive the turbulent environment, the management and development of human capital
have become a major source of competitive advantages (Ulrich et al., 2017). Two disciplines
that share responsibilities in the management and facilitation of organizational learning,
change and development are human resource management (HRM), and organization
development (OD). HRM has the responsibility of overcoming business challenges by
investing in individual talent, organizational capability and leadership (Ulrich et al., 2017).
OD has been a prominent system-wide approach to planned organizational change based on
behavioral science (Burke, 2008; Burnes and Cooke, 2012; Cummings and Worley, 2014).
Practitioners of HRM and OD alike use their expertise in order to affect the knowledge,
skills, attitudes and behaviors of organization members. Thus, the success of multiple
change interventions aimed at increased organization effectiveness, in which HRM and OD
Employee Relations
Vol. 40 No. 5, 2018
pp. 848-867
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-07-2017-0160
Received 17 July 2017
Revised 28 November 2017
14 January 2018
Accepted 16 January 2018
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
The authors’greatest thanks are extended to Dr Katrina Pritchard from The School of Management at
Swansea University, for her fruitful and constructive remarks on an earlier draft of this paper.
848
ER
40,5
practitioners play a major role, demands their coordination and collaboration (Holbeche and
Cheung-Judge, 2015).
The HRM-OD encounter has become frequent given the magnitude of organizational
change initiatives nowadays. A framework for their collaboration is much needed given that
practitioners face “a paradox of specialization paired with synergy and interdependence”
(Ruona and Gibson, 2004, p. 62). Given the vast organizational resources invested in
interventions of learning, development and change, it is surprising that previous research
has not systematically analyzed the occupational relations among HRM and external OD
practitioners, who are typically central to these important change processes.
For understanding this intriguing occupational encounter, we rely on the term occupational
boundary work (Abbott, 1981, 1988) –the process of setting and negotiating boundaries which
differentiate between fields of knowledge and expertise. This exploratory qualitative study
aims to identify and decipher boundary work patterns which characterize the occupational
interfaces between human resource managers (hereinafter referred to as HRMs) and external
organization development practitioners (hereinafter referred to as EODPs).
We thus followed the call for authors to integrate theory and practice by “getting close to
where the action is”(Romme, 2011, p. 9) in authentic organizational settings, as well as the
invitation to greater methodological pluralism in HRM scholarship (Harley, 2015).
We conducted in-depth interviews with Israeli HRMs and EODPs for the purpose of
exploring and classifying forms of occupational demarcation and cooperation between
them. Our main research questions are:
RQ1. How do HRM and OD practitioners experience the management of their daily
mutual interactions during organizational change initiatives?
RQ2. What are the perceived outcomes of these interactions in terms of their
occupational and organizational implications?
Based on our findings, we identify three distinct patterns of boundary work that
characterize the dynamics between HRMs and EODPs, and suggest a preferred type of
interface that allows these practitioners to cooperate and collaborate for the sake of
enhanced organizational performance, benefit and effectiveness.
This paper is organized as follows. We start by elaborating on the problem of study –the
complex daily encounter between OD and HRM, which might compel practitioners to enter a
turf war. Following is a review of the literature regarding occupational boundary work. Next
we outline our methodology. We then present our findings –three patterns of boundary
work and their perceived differential outcomes. The paper concludes with a discussion
offering theoretical considerations and practical implications.
Turf war between HRM and OD
The literature manifests the complex relationship between the disciplines and occupations
of OD and HRM. Historically, OD and HRM evolved as distinctive fields (Ruona and
Gibson, 2004), yet they share conceptual roots (Francis et al., 2012). HRM emerged out of
the personnel administration that was prevalent until the 1980s. During the 1980s, HRM
underwent significant changes following a period of industrialunrest in the UK and in the
USA. Shaped mainly by the Anglo-American form of capitalism, HRM initially positioned
itself as representing employers’interests in the employment relationship (Francis et al.,
2012; Holbeche and Cheung-Judge, 2015). Stakeholders in that period expected HRM to
focus mainly on personnel services that enhance operational effectiveness and align
employees with the interest of the organization. Over time, employers have gradually
learnt to recognize HRM’s responsibility for managing the humanaspectoforganizational
processes such as change management, culture change and organizational redesign
(Holbeche and Cheung-Judge, 2015; Ulrich et al., 2017).
849
Occupational
boundary
work
To continue reading
Request your trial