Relationship of Personnel Managers to Others
| Pages | 33-36 |
| Date | 01 April 1980 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb055423 |
| Published date | 01 April 1980 |
| Author | J.T. Akinmayowa |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Relationship of Personnel Managers to Others*
J. T. Akinmayowa
Department of
Business
Administration and Accountancy,
University of
Wales
Institute of
Science
and Technology
Abstract
This research investigates the relationship between
personnel managers and other managers in the
organisation. The evidence reported in this study
demonstrates that personnel managers, in the main,
perceived themselves to be in the forefront with other
professionals in contributing to corporate success,
whereas managers in sales, finance and production
departments have a less impressive view of personnel
managers' influence in achieving corporate goals.
However, they recognised the importance of personnel
managers and their functions in the organisation per se.
Point of Departure
In recent years, the position of personnel departments
within the overall authority structure of the enterprise
has been the subject of wide ranging debate. In several
research studies, personnel practitioners have been
portrayed variously as pursuing their roles within their
own "closed culture", that appears to be alien to and
not contributing positively to organisation success
criteria, as managers of conflict and discontent, as
having tenuous claims to personnel expertise and as
unable to sustain a positive relationship with their
colleagues. Studies in which some or a combination of
these views were implied include the writing of Crichton
[1],
Ritzer and Trice [2], Poole [3], Watson [4] and
recently Legge [5]. Their studies as well as others have
supplied the materials out of which a variety of theories
have been built, as well as providing much needed
empirical data with which to appraise the status of
personnel managers in the enterprise.
In this paper, we examine the personnel managers'
ratings of their ability/competence, confront-
ation/forcefulness/co-operativeness and the
relevance/difficulty of personnel functions is examined
and these findings are contrasted with the ratings of
these attributes by managers in sales, finance and
production departments. The importance and
implications of these findings are highlighted with
special emphasis on their wider significance for
personnel managers in developing and Western
industrialised countries.
Within the purview of these objectives, it is first
suggested that the personnel managers' perception of
their own ability/competence will differ from other
managers' perception of these attributes
{Hypothesis
I).
This idea stems from the theme that the self-perception
of personnel managers on various attributes is not
supported by their counterparts in the organisation.
*I am grateful to Dr Michael Poole and Professor Roger Mansfield
for their assistance during the preparation of this project.
Timm [6J is of the opinion that personnel managers
have problems in reconciling long and short term work,
they have good verbal ability, but may lack numerical
ability; similarly Crichton
[7]
notes that many personnel
managers have greater verbal than numerical aptitude.
The skills of personnel managers are those possessed by
everyone in some degree; other managers claim that
they possess skills to manage people [8]. By the same
token, Patten [9] is of the view that, "personnel
practitioners possess knowledge which is too general or
vague, such as unverified theory on organisational
effectiveness or too narrow and specific". More
recently Dryburgh [10] postulated that line managers
are practitioners of personnel skill, while Poole [11] saw
personnel departments as taking a backseat during
settlements of organisation disputes. Indeed personnel
managers' self perception of what they were actually
able to do (as opposed to what they feel they should be
doing) did not contradict line managers' view that they
were not risk takers, that they lacked influence with
management, lacked expertise, did not help to shape
management thinking and did not stand up to be
counted [12]. Second, the assumption that other
managers' view of personnel managers on
confrontation/forcefulness will be dismissive
{Hypothesis II) is examined. This is consequent upon
earlier observations; pivotal here is the tenet that
personnel managers are regarded as social isolates,
unable to mix freely with their colleagues [13].
Similarly,, McFarland [14] has observed
authoritarianism in personnel departments and noted
that under the guise of being advisors, personnel
managers were manipulating the decisions of line
managers. Personnel managers also recognised that
their "welfare image" was being used to firefight [15].
Third, from the above theme, it is plausible that the
co-operativeness between personnel managers and
others will be less supportive than the co-operativeness
existing amongst finance, marketing and production
executives {Hypothesis III). Finally, it is proposed that
while personnel managers consider their job as
relevant/difficult, others will have a less favourable
view (Hypothesis IV). A rationale for this assumption is
derived from the implications of earlier observations.
Albanese [16] observed that, "personnel is staff work
relative to the entire organisation because most would
agree, it does not contribute to the ultimate purpose of
the organisation", and this is consistent with the
findings of Foulkes [17] with his major theme that line
managers have a confused, hazy and/or stereotyped
perception of the potential nature and scope of a
personnel department's activities. Other managers
disagreed with the view that personnel specialists are
To continue reading
Request your trial