Continuity and Change: The Role of the HR Function in the Modern Public
Sector
2
Continuity and Change: The Role of the HR Function in the Modern Public
Sector
ABSTRACT
As the public sector has modernised and sought to become more efficient
and cost-effective, the effective and strategic management of people has
received increasing prominence and there have been calls for the HR
function to play a more strategic role. However, not much is known
about whether the role of the HR function has changed substantively. In
this paper, we present empirical evidence from six matched-pair public
sector organisations in the UK to assess whether HR functional roles have
changed, as envisaged, into a model more akin to the private sector.
The findings highlight the complex and often contradictory nature of HR
functional roles, and suggest that new and more strategic roles have not
replaced traditional approaches but, rather, have been grafted on, giving
rise to a variety of hybrid HR forms.
3
Continuity and Change: The Role of the HR Function in the Modern Public
Sector
Introduction
The reform of structures, systems and processes within public services over the past
20 years has been well documented at an international level (Massey and Pyper,
2005; Boyne et al., 2004; Skalen, 2004; Harel and Tzafrir, 2002; Kessler et al., 2000;
Bach and della Rocca, 2000; Barnett et al., 1996). The main purpose of these
changes has been to increase the efficiency, cost-effectiveness and performance of
public organisations, and has involved an increasing pressure from government on
organisations to emulate private sector managerial practices, including performance
management, customer orientation, and a heightened strategic focus (Boyne et al.,
2004; Horton, 2003; Corby and Higham, 1996).
Since salaries can amount to up to 80% of organisational costs in the public sector,
the domain of human resource management (HRM) has received renewed attention
under these reforms (Horton, 2003; Barnett et al., 1996; Corby and Higham, 1996).
Potentially, it has been argued, improved human resource management could
facilitate the recruitment and retention of valued staff, enhance organisational cost-
effectiveness and serve to promulgate a performance-driven culture through the
adoption of a more strategic HR role (Bach and della Rocca, 2000; Jaconelli and
Sheffield, 2000; Ferlie et al., 1996).
However, despite the acknowledged significance of HRM under New Public
Management (NPM), evidence as to whether or not there have been any substantive
changes in the role of the HR function remains both partial and inconclusive (Selden,
2005; Lupton and Shaw, 2001; Boyne et al., 1999). This paper contributes to this
important debate over the reality of change in the public sector, and seeks to answer
the question: is there any evidence that the role of the HR function in the public
sector has become more strategic?
First, we review the relevant literature, focusing particularly on the contested
meaning and enactment of strategic HR roles within a public sector context. We
then explain the methods used in our research study before presenting the findings
from six case studies. In the discussion and conclusions, we highlight the complex
4
and often contradictory nature of HRM approaches in the six organisations and argue
that new, context-specific ‘hybrid’ HR roles are emerging.
The Role of Human Resource Management in the Public Sector
In the UK, up until the Conservative reforms which began in the 1980s, public
administration was closely associated with the Weberian centralised, hierarchical
model of public services, where administrative rules were determined by central
government and implemented by public organisations with relatively little scope for
strategising at a local level (Bach and della Rocca, 2000). Notions of paternalism,
standardisation, job security, collectivism, developmental-humanism and the
aspiration to be a ‘model employer’ were the values underpinning the management
of people (Lupton and Shaw, 2001; Jaconelli and Sheffield, 2000; Boyne et al., 1999;
Farnham and Horton, 1996).
Under NPM, this traditional approach came to be seen as something of a liability,
undermining performance and demotivating individuals (Bach and della Rocca, 2000;
Farnham and Horton, 1996). In a move mirrored by governments around the
developed world (Selden, 2005), what were perceived as ‘best practice’ concepts of
people management derived from the private sector were held up as ideals to which
the public sector should aspire (Harris, 2004; Horton, 2003; Morgan and Allington,
2002; Kessler et al., 2000; Bach and della Rocca, 2000). Some of the core
components of this imported model were performance-based rewards for staff,
reducing the costs of employment, empowering organisations to take strategic
decisions in the HRM field, increased flexibility in order to respond to customer
demands, increased individualisation of the employment relationship, and
decentralisation (Skalen, 2004; Horton, 2003; Farnham et al., 2003). Critical to this
was the notion that HR functions could move away from their traditional
administrative roles and become more strategically involved in their organisations
than had hitherto been the case (Bach and della Rocca, 2000; Jaconelli and
Sheffield, 2000).
However, this raises two important issues. First, what precisely is meant by a
‘strategic’ role for the HR function and, second, how can it be applied in a public
sector context?
5
The extensive conceptual literature on HR functional roles in the private sector has
generally distinguished between roles that are largely concerned with administration,
and those that are strategic in some way (Marchington and Wilkinson, 2005;
Caldwell, 2003; Ulrich, 1998). Strategic roles have generally been viewed as focused
on activities that will have long-term implications, such as the development of
integrated HR strategies, involvement in organisational strategic decision-making,
and managing organisational change. Administrative roles, on the other hand, are
regarded as routine, reactive and tactical tasks associated with the operationalisation
of HR policies, and employee-facing roles such as welfare and industrial relations
(Marchington and Wilkinson, 2005; Boxall and Purcell, 2003; Caldwell, 2003; Truss et
al., 2002; Ulrich, 1998).
The consensus within the prescriptive literature is that a move towards a more
strategic role is desirable, if not essential, to the future of the HR function (Jamrog
and Overholt, 2004; Ulrich and Beatty, 2001), whilst the conclusion within the
empirical literature is that the role enacted by HR functions in most organisations in
fact remains primarily administrative or reactive (Selden, 2005; Guest and King,
2004; Wright et al., 2004; Caldwell, 2003; Lawler and Mohrman, 2003; Truss et al.,
2002).
The reality is that the HR function in almost all organisations is required to play
multiple and, often, conflicting roles, torn between the competing demands of
employees, employers and professional norms (Caldwell, 2003; Legge, 1995;
Kamoche, 1994). There is no evidence that one clear ‘model’ of strategic HR
function roles exists within the private sector either conceptually or empirically that
could be adopted by the public sector (Harris, 2004; Truss et al., 2002). Harris
(2002) questions whether private sector HR roles can be held up as a model to which
the public sector should aspire, even supposing one single model existed.
Substantial contextual differences have been highlighted between the public and
private sectors that impact significantly on the role that the HR function may play.
With a greater degree of openness to their environment, coupled with higher levels
of public scrutiny and monitoring, public organisations have a much broader range of
stakeholders than their private sector counterparts (Ring and Perry, 1985). These
