Human resource business partner lifecycle model: exploring how the relationship between HRBPs and their line manager partners evolves
The role of the human resource (HR) professional has changed significantly from the days of personnel departments, where the focus was on transactional tasks (Guest, 1991; Lawler, 2011), to the prevailing wisdom of today which suggests HR professionals must partner with line managers by aligning their work with the organisation’s strategic direction (Dany et al., 2008; Jackson et al., 2014). The first movement toward this partnership approach was the HR generalist role, where the practitioner was ‘the first point of contact for employees while also liaising with business managers regarding HR matters’ (Pritchard, 2010: 179). More recently, we have seen movement to the human resource business partnership (HRBP) role (Ulrich, 1998). The essence of the HRBP approach is that an HR professional can become a strategic partner with line managers to facilitate the attainment of business goals (Ulrich, 1998; Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2014). The influence of the HRBP approach is widespread, with some authors claiming it is ‘centre stage … with significantly less attention paid to other [HR] roles’ (Pritchard and Fear, 2015: 1). Thus, we wanted to understand how the HRBP role plays out in practice, over time, through the voices of those involved in the relationship, namely the HRBPs and their line manager partners (LMPs). In doing so, we sought to explore key skills and competencies, their relationships and the cultural influences at various points throughout our proposed HRBP Lifecycle. The lifecycle concept has often been used to examine organisational transitions. For example, the stages organisations go through over the course of their life (Quinn and Cameron, 1983; Smith et al., 1985; Lester et al., 2003) and product (or service) lifecycles from initial developmentto ultimate decline (Thietart and Vivas, 1984). In the present study, we use data from threeorganisations whose HR functions are at various stages of sophistication to illustrate the evolution of the relationships between the key stakeholders as they attempt to enact HR Business Partnering. In so doing, we highlight various issues and tensions, which emerged at what we saw as the critical stages of HRBP development. By understanding the relationship and cultural shifts, which occur as this approach unfolds, we suggest the key stakeholders will be better able to successfully manage this change. Such transitions have been noted in lifecycle theories as ‘crises’. For example in Quinn and Cameron’s (1983) much cited organisation lifecycle theory, it is proposed that after an initial period of creative expansion a ‘leadership crisis’ may occur where tough decisions have to be taken regarding the future direction of the immature organisation. A key aim of this article is to illustrate that, similar to the organisational lifecycle model, as HR business partnering is adapted and evolves a myriad of difficulties and tensions, as well as opportunities for the participants, can arise. While Ulrich’s (Ulrich et al., 2012) HRBP model does not explicitly reference obstacles to developing HR competencies, other studies have done so. Factors such as encouraging LMP buy-in to the HRBP approach and upskilling HR professionals to become more ‘business savvy’ are noted as problematic (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, 2012, 2014; McCracken and Heaton, 2012). Similarly, authors have identified the importance of balancing both transactional and strategic HR duties (Beer, 1997; Caldwell, 2003; Lawler, 2011) as well as tensions associated with the HRBP’s dual role as both partner to management and employee advocate (Kochan, 2004; Francis and Keegan, 2006; Pritchard and Fear, 2015). In many ways, such tensions are intrinsically related to the organisational context or cultural circumstances faced by the main stakeholders. Thus, we also suggest that organisations need to consider what role culture plays when considering the operation of the HRBP approach. With this in mind, we utilise the work of Goffee and Jones (1998) and Garrow and Martin (2012), whose perspective on culture can help us to understand key issues at the heart of the HRBP approach. Organisational culture has received significant attention and many authors have attempted to categorise its key ‘ingredients’ (see, for example, Schein, 1985; Handy, 1993; Deal and Kennedy, 2000; Martin, 2002). Given the importance of partnership and relationship building between HR professionals and line/functional managers Goffee and Jones (1998) Double S Cube model provides a useful lens from which to understand the HRBP process, because of its emphasis on how task and social relationships between stakeholders, in this case HRBPs and LMPs, can affect an organisation’s culture. This article contributes to the literature by examining in-depth, qualitative data from three organisations (one with a longitudinal dimension) where the HRBPs and their LMPs are at different stages of their individual relationships or lifecycle.
HRBP transition: considering competencies Ulrich et al.’s (2012, 2013) model of HR professional competency domains is a comprehensive theoretical framework and, therefore, grounds this study. This model presents six key HR professional competency domains, which evolved from the analysis of over 20,000 survey responses and employed a multi-stakeholder approach. These domains are: (a) strategic positioner, which focuses on understanding the business context, the implications of that context and the creation of business goals; (b) credible activist, which includes the individual’s interpersonal skills and results-oriented behaviour that builds trusting relationships; (c) change champion, where they demonstrate the ability to drive change, overcome resistance and build commitment; (d) capability builder, which invol
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
英语译文共 6 页，剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号：[469350]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
