The evolution of devolution in HR
| Pages | 1796-1815 |
| Published date | 06 November 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2016-0010 |
| Date | 06 November 2017 |
| Author | Melissa Intindola,Judith Y. Weisinger,Philip Benson,Thomas Pittz |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
The evolution of devolution in HR
Melissa Intindola
Department of Management, Haworth College of Business,
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
Judith Y. Weisinger
School of Management, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, USA
Philip Benson
Department of Management, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces,
New Mexico, USA, and
Thomas Pittz
Department of Management, The University of Tampa, Tampa, Florida, USA
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to highlight the importance of a multi-level approach consisting of
individual, human resource management (HRM) team, and organizational contingency factors when
considering the efficacy of HR devolvement efforts. The authors accomplish this through a review of the
relevant devolvement literature to show how outcomes are impacted by contingency factors, which highlights
a gap in extant scholarship, and the authors organize the literature in a way that is meaningful to future
researchers interested in the topic as well as practitioners involved with its implementation.
Design/methodology/approach –The authors use a narrative review approach to describe previous
devolvement research (e.g. Hammersley, 2001; Harvey and Moeller, 2009). In contrast to a systematic review
more commonly seen in quantitative meta-analyses, a narrative review allows for a more descriptive and
detailed analysis and critique of quantitative, qualitative, and theoretical research (Bezrukova et al., 2012;
Posthuma et al., 2002). This methodology produced over 300 books, journal articles, magazine articles, and
discussion papers. In this review, the authors chose to focus only on those peer-reviewed papers reporting
empirical findings or developing theoretical arguments surrounding devolvement.
Findings –While the studies reviewed herein are admirable and help call attention to an important topic in
HRM, they nonetheless fail to provide a comprehensive understanding of contingencies affecting
devolvement as they do not consider the multi-level nature of the phenomenon. Therefore, the authors’
contribution lies in the identification and categorization of contingency factors affecting the occurrence of
devolvement operating at the individual, HRM team, and organizational levels.
Originality/value –As devolvement continues to be a viable means for assigning HR responsibilities from
the human resources department to managers, its effects can have an impact on organizational performance,
the strategic positioning of HR, and various job attitudes of line managers. Therefore, a clearer picture of
devolvement in order to understand its continued significance is an important contribution.
Keywords Mixed methodologies, Human resource management, Line managers, Devolution,
Devolvement, Narrative review
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
Devolvement,and the related notions of decentralization,suggests that fewer human resource
management(HRM) professionals will be requiredin the workplace of the future. In the 1990s,
large numbers of jobs were lost due to downsizing, restructuring and privatization
(Sparrow and Cooper,1998). These trends have had profound impacts on HRM, and Sparrow
and Cooper suggests that such trends result in the inevitable need for new, more flexible
organizationalforms. The impact of technology means that fewerpeople are doing more of the
work, necessitating a more generalized approach to HRM and an increased need for
understanding devolvement. Line managers will execute the required judgment in managing
the HR function, with less emphasis on the routine aspects of managing the workforce.
Devolvement may well reflect broad changesoccurringinthewaywemanagemodern
work. The “second machine age”(Brynjolfsson and McAfee, 2014) is a fundamental part of
Personnel Review
Vol. 46 No. 8, 2017
pp. 1796-1815
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/PR-01-2016-0010
Received 17 January 2016
Revised 18 August 2016
21 October 2016
1 December 2016
Accepted 6 February 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
1796
PR
46,8
the elimination of many middle-management jobs, and HRM is certainly included in this
trend. With increasing digitization, many jobsarebeingreframedinwayswecouldnot
anticipate, and the impacts will be easily as profound as those resulting from
the Industrial Revolution. Computers and information technology are changing the
fundamental nature of work in the modern era. Not all jobs, however, a re undergoing the
same degree of change (Levy and Murnane, 2004). The change among management
jobs is notable in that computers “substitute for the part of managers’work that
involves gathering and transmitting routine, easily understood messages”(Levy and
Murnane, 2004, p. 94). It is precisely those aspects of work that can be easily formulated
into rules of behavior that can most easily be assumed by the digital side
of employment.
Our goal is to explore the relevant devolvement literature through the lens of
contingency theory (Fiedler, 1964) in order to identify important organizational
contingencies for the successful implementation of HR devolvement. In this way, we
help to eliminate confusion about its meaning and function and, by identifying the
necessary pre-conditions for successful devolvement, we hope to stimulate a reassessment
of its effectiveness. To accomplish this, in the spirit of Hammersley (2001) and Harvey and
Moeller (2009), we present a descriptive, narrative review of devolvement in order to gain a
better understanding of its complexities. Our analysis of this literature has led us to
understand that devolvement is a multi-level phenomenon that necessitates support at
three different levels –individual, HRM team, and organizational –before the success of
its implementation can be assessed. This follows the logic of contingency theory, which
acknowledges tha t there is no optimal organization al form but that the appropriate for m
depends on the kind of task and/or environment (Hickson et al., 1971).
The second contribution that this research makes is to further the devolvement literature
by categorizing and classifying numerous contingency factors that impact outcomes of
devolvement in order to offer prescriptive advice for both researchers and practitioners.
These are presented in Table II. Taken together, these contributions provide a clearer
picture of the phenomenon and suggest that a multi-level view of the context is important
when considering the overall effectiveness of HR devolvement. This paper is structured as
follows: First, we discuss the current state of the devolvement literature and note its
limitations. Next, we discuss the methodology used to select articles for inclusion. Then, we
categorize contingencies of devolvement and consider whether these are at the individual,
HRM team, or organizational level. We conclude by considering the implications of our work
for future researchers as well as practitioners.
Literature review
Defined in a manner consistent with Kulik and Perry (2008, p. 542), devolvement is the
“transfer[ring] [of] responsibilities from HR [human resources] specialists working in, and
identified with,a centralized HR unit to line managersin other units.”This conceptualization
is similar to that used by Cunningham and Hyman (1999), Currie and Procter (2001), Larsen
and Brewster (2003), and Renwick (2003). The impetus for devolvement is most commonly
attributed to Guest’s (1987) proposition that in order for HRM to be considered important to
the organization,it should be “given away”(Gollan et al., 2015). In addition, devolvementhas
become the hallmark of strategic HRM –in its quest to be strategically involved in the
organization’sactivities, certain HR functionsmust necessarily be devolved (Huntand Boxall,
1998; Schulerand Jackson, 2007; Wright and MacMahan,1992). Recent scholarly researchhas
readily acknowledged the roles of both the HR department (e.g. Trullen et al., 2016) and the
line manager (e.g.Sikora and Ferris, 2014) in effectively devolvingtasks so as to link HR with
performance. Further evidence of devolvement’s existence and importance is found in
CRANET’s 2014/2015 summary report,which indicates that the HR department is workingto
1797
Evolution of
devolution
in HR
To continue reading
Request your trial