The Roles of HR Managers versus Line Managers - Essay Example

Critical examination of the roles of HR Managers versus line managers in the light of different models of and approaches to HR Introduction Different approaches to managing a firms human resources appear to be always in debate. Many organisations, today, have implemented firm HRM policies which focus on the employee as a primary resource for creating both competitive advantage as well as being instrumental to aiding in enhanced organisational performance. Often referred to as human capital, the modern HR approach to managing subordinate workers often portrays employees in a positive light as motivated, skilled learners in need of positive reinforcement in order to succeed. In direct contrast, the role of line managers, or those managers who manage the daily activities of the employees, is often a controlling position which enforces a strict set of rules and guidelines for employee performance. As such, it might well be argued that human resource managers regularly work toward creating a more positive work environment which focuses on improving employee morale. Under the same argument, line managers tend to be illustrated as more financially-focused and work toward enhancing that needs of the business as a primary management goal; thus they view employees as requiring more rigid controls in order to maximise their productivity. This paper is designed to offer a critical examination of various literature in order to illustrate a solidified role for HR managers. In similar accord, the role of line managers will be critically examined in order to identify approaches to managing workers in todays fast-paced business world. Once these roles have been identified, this work will further compare the roles of HR managers with that of line management in the pursuit of highlighting similarities and differences in approach to people management and make a competent determination as to which role is more effective in sustaining positive organisational results. HRM and Line Management Role Comparisons For years, management professionals have argued whether treating workers well is good for business as well as being virtuous (Plimmer, 2005: 9). In essence, this debate suggests that many business leaders continue to consider whether the needs of the business should be the primary goal of management or whether the employee, as a competent organisational resource, should be most important. The concept of human resources is a relatively new idea, as the establishment of a management system which actively engages and praises employees as valuable resources to organisational success is a contemporary idea much different than the historical, rigid management approach. However, many organisations still maintain a centralised leadership hierarchy, built on decision-making that is created by senior-level leadership. In this type of system, mid-level line managers are expected to coerce employees to comply with a rigid set of guidelines in the pursuit of sustaining strategic organisational goals. In such an environment, the employee is often overlooked as human capital and viewed more as merely a labourer. However, it appears that businesses are turning away from rigid controls and establishing a system of managerial professionals which act as employee champions; or those managers who actively pursue methods to establish stronger employee/business relationships and build on positive employee attributes to boost organisational performance. This might well be termed as the philosophy behind the establishment of HR policies. Huselid (1995 cited in CLMS, M2, U3: 5) suggests that the concept of HRM policies are to influence employee skills through the establishment of formal and informal training, coaching, and serves to aid in employee development. As such, the indication exists that the creation of a HR system is designed to maximize employee competencies and actively send workers the message that their contributions to the business will be rewarded with opportunities. Within a business which promotes growth and development for employees, the nature of HR tactics would be in creating the motivation to succeed and grow into more expert workers. Under this assumption, according to Guest (1999 cited in CLMS, M2, U3: 4), the role of HRM is to view workers as means to maintain organisational efficiency rather than view employees as merely objects. The author emphasises the idea that winning that hearts and minds of employees is a primary goal of HR management; thus boosting motivation and instilling a genuine desire to succeed in the pursuit of contributing positively to the business. This approach to building employee loyalty is termed the soft view of HRM and is built around the establishment of organisational commitment and relationships. In a different respect, Marsden (1999 cited in CLMS, M2, U2: 7) points out that the existence of the employment relationship is not adequate enough to resolve problems of assigning and managing the undertaking of work. Though the HR manager works toward establishing a more positive employee relationship, the physical management of worker productivity falls as a responsibility of line managers; who must ensure that subordinate workers are performing to the expectations of the firm. Line managers oversee the routine operational aspects of employee management, taking into consideration the strategic goals of the business, and thus regulate employee activities based on performance expectations. As such, under the two aforementioned management functions, there is a significant difference between building motivation through HR tactics and promoting employee performance through compliance. This highlights one rather noticeable difference between HR roles and that of line management. It might be best to highlight line management from the bottom line perspective, as organisational goals are often built around aspects such as sustaining competitive advantage and increasing the firms profitability. With this in mind, the role of line manager would not befit one of building employee motivation and nurturing the more emotional needs of employees, but simply to ensure adherence to managerial policies. However, Ramsey et al (2000 cited in CLMS, M2, U3: 4) offer that modern organisations often take a very different approach to management where fostering employee commitment and human resource development allows employee contributions to succeed in sustaining the bottom line. In essence, the role of line manager requires the merging of various HR tactics in the process of building employee commitment to succeed as well as utilising control mechanisms to ensure that desired employee outputs are produced. In such a scenario, it is quite possible for line managers responsibilities to inter-connect with that of HRM, ultimately leading to a more efficient management system geared toward the fulfilment of employee motivation. This role merging might best be illustrated by recognising that as an organisation continues to grow, more and more demands are placed on the organisational structure (CLMS, 2006: 7). Highly centralised firms, where decision-making stems only from the top leadership of an organisation, often hinder efficiency in terms of meeting demands in rapidly fluctuating business. It is in centralised organisations where line management, traditionally, takes the role of rigid administrator and less emphasis is placed on building employee relationships. However, as the organisation becomes more complex, line management is pressured to adopt employee relations models to best streamline organisational efficiency. When an organisation places stronger demands on employees to achieve ultimate performance, fostering motivation becomes key to ensuring productivity. Thus, line managers tend to adopt the lessons taught by HRM concepts and become less focused on rigid control systems and more open to aiding in building employee commitment. In reference to the purpose of this paper, line managements adoption of HR employee-manager relationships indicates how these two roles appear to be growing more and more similar. Paauwe & Boslie (2005 cited in CLMS, M2, U3: 4) astutely point out that there appears to be no professional consensus on the nature of HRM. Differing viewpoints which emphasise theoretical best practise methods to strengthen employee commitment are each likely with their own proven merits. However, there does appear to be a somewhat unified opinion that HR policies and related tactics are measured around securing the needs of the employees as a primary objective of businesses. In essence, whatever approach undertaken by HR professionals are strongly linked with building employee motivation. Where the largest discrepancy exists is in the role of line manager, who maintains the ability to regulate employee activities with a rigid control mentality or whether to actively engage in more employee-focused managerial policies. Line management can be referred to in the traditional sense as being a command-and-control style of management: An authoritarian attitude which reflects an underlying belief that management must counteract an inherent human tendency to avoid work; termed the Theory X approach (The Economist, 2006: 19). Under Theory X assumptions, line managers legitimately label employees as being in need of rigid controls to ensure that subordinates perform satisfactory work. Having previously established that line managers supervisory activities are created by the pursuit of sustaining organisational goals, the Theory X approach to management could be argued as being a logical tactic to ensuring employee compliance. Because of the theoretical controlling nature of line management in terms of maintaining employee order, Theory X appears more closely linked to line managers than that of HRM. Consider for a moment an organisation where employee productivity is low, profitability is down and strategic goals are not being met. In such a business environment, the reasonable conclusion might be to take a hardened approach to line management where rigid control mechanisms are put into place to secure the companys bottom line. In this scenario, the role of line manager is to scrutinise the work activities of the employees and sustain a visible viewpoint toward maintaining employee order. Theory Y is the direct opposite of Theory X which assumes that people will exercise self-direction and self-control in the achievement of organisational objectives to the degree that they are committed to those objectives (The Economist, 2006: 19). Much the same as the HRM concept, this more flexible managerial style allows for employee empowerment and the view that employees will actively contribute once their more psychological needs have been met. Witzel (2005) offers that empowered employees are productive employees, whereby giving subordinates greater control over how they perform their tasks and accomplish their work makes them more productive employees. One might argue, then, that managers which view employees under Theory X ideals is more identifiable to the role of line manager who must ensure compliance to performance expectations. Line managers maintain the responsibility to justify to senior leadership the levels of productivity in their particular business division, thus maintaining a Theory X approach to managing people may not foster growth in employee commitment. However, it does maintain a certain practicality in ensuring that employees remain focused on their individual tasks. This is likely the reason why more rigid, controlling leadership is often associated with line management as they are the implementers of policy rather than those individuals who formulate it. The Theory Y approach to management might well be considered a more liberal approach to managing people, and can be more closely linked to HRM activities, as this assumption actively pursues policies designed to enhance the employee/business relationship through various motivational tactics. Having previously established that HR managers maintain the responsibility of ensuring the needs of the business without dismissing the needs of the employee, the basic suggestion is that HRM theory is built much more in-line with Theory Y simply by its nature. Many HRM theories are built around boosting employee satisfaction in the pursuit of sustaining organisational goals. Thus, the logical assessment in comparing HR professionals and Theory Y approaches to managing people is quite similar; suggesting that todays organisations which place strong emphasis on their HR policies and HR management teams recognise that employees are more than merely labourers, but can be properly motivated to achieve optimal business performance. McDuffie (1995 cited in CLMS, M2, U3: 5) offers that skilled and knowledgeable workers who are not adequately motivated will likely not contribute any discretionary effort. The author further offers that even if innovative HR practises create competent workers, the entire HR system must be merged with a companys production strategy in order to generate legitimate employee effort and enhance performance improvements. Though McDuffie is comparing HR tactics and the role of line managers in a manufacturing environment, the close comparison to motivational tactics offered by HR policies and productivity generated by control systems must be inter-linked in order to sustain overall performance. What this suggests is that the Theory X approach, with its rigidity in management style, and Theory Y approach are not effective management systems when utilised alone. As previously addressed, many contemporary organisations are merging HR functions with that of line management, thus it could be argued that the union of Theory X and Theory Y approaches is the most effective system of management. In essence, a practical opinion can be drawn which points toward increased employee productivity being enhanced by a blend of control mechanisms and liberal managerial flexibility. This blend of two very different management styles indicates a growing similarity between the two roles in terms of recognizing how organisations build total performance through merging HR with line management philosophy. In terms of deciding which role is most suited to bringing long-term organisational results, both similarities and differences exist in terms of how each role functions in relationship to their employees. With the main goal of HRM policies having been established as building employee motivation and organisational commitment, a tool used to reinforce employee value is the performance management system. Specifically, the employee appraisal system, a system designed to emphasise the strengths and weaknesses of employees, can serve as a method of rewarding employees for their successes. Mathis & Jackson (2005) measure the performance appraisal as the process of evaluating how well employees perform their jobs when compared to a set of standards, and then communicating that information regularly to various employees. The HRM concept of performance appraisals are designed to build employee motivation, enhance organisational productivity and to identify areas where an employee needs further coaching or job-specific training. Delery & Doty (1996 cited in CLMS, M2, U3: 6) highlight two specific performance appraisals based on results and behaviour. The authors offer that behaviour-based appraisals focus on the behaviours of employees necessary to perform the job effectively, whereas results-oriented appraisals tend to focus on the specific consequences of employee behaviours. Thus, the indication is that performance appraisals maintain a use from a HRM perspective to build employee commitment as well as an administrative use, more geared toward line management as a tool to control productive employee outputs. As such, this represents another occurrence of merging HR roles with that of line management roles, again in the pursuit of building productivity. However, the nature by which performance appraisals are conducted can be distinctly different based on the content of the specific organisation. From a human resources perspective, performance appraisals are often conducted primarily for the sake of developing employee competencies. Mathis & Jackson (2005) refer to employee development as a system of coaching which rewards positive performance with recognition, explains what improvement is necessary and shows employees how to improve. The key word in the authors explanation is that of coach, which more closely identifies with the theories behind human resource management. From a strictly administrative standpoint, line managers assist in the performance appraisal process not in the pursuit of strengthening employee loyalty and commitment, but to sustaining corporate objectives. Mathis & Jackson refer to this as management by objectives (MBO), in which the line manager specifies the performance goals that an employee must achieve in order to receive performance-related rewards and can be used to dictate performance results. Under the MBO appraisal, the line manager is able to boost productivity as a rewards versus punishment tool used to drive employee efficiency in specific employee tasks. However, Mathis & Jackson suggest that management by objectives, when imposed within a rigidly controlled management system, often fails and leaves employees feeling overwhelmed by the threat of punishment for failing to meet objectives. The end result: Poor motivation to continue productive work habits into the future. With all of this being said, in terms of encouraging positive employee contributions, it would appear that the role of HR manager tends to bring the most positive long-term results in terms of employee productivity, suggesting that performance management systems are best designed when utilised as a coaching and mentoring device. Though the short-term gains in enhancing employee productivity is not without its merits, as with management by objectives, the more liberal HRM policies designed to build employee satisfaction would appear the most desired approach for sustaining long-term organisational commitment. However, in another situation where the merging of the two traditionally-differentiated roles is becoming a reality for contemporary management systems, the entire performance management system can be linked back to organisational strategy. Having established the role of line managers as that of ensuring the ultimate goal of meeting organisational objectives, the line manager acts as the regulator for employee performance. When organisational goals are not met, the line manager identifies weaknesses in employee performance in order to enhance productivity. In similar accord, the role of the HR manager is to actively participate in measuring employee performance and then offer the tools necessary to encourage higher performance. As such, it might be argued that line managers measure the quantity of outputs while HR managers measure the quality of outputs and work to secure better methods to enhance the employee work environment. In this situation, the HRM system remains in continuous contact with line management and both roles work jointly to boost employee productivity. The ultimate goal is the accomplishment of organisational objectives, thus both the line manager and the HR manager must be unified in recognising areas in need of improvement in order to achieve strategic results. In this scenario, the similarity between the two roles is quite clear as it is recognised both roles must work together to achieve maximum business results. Boxall (1996 cited in CLMS, M2, U3: 5) supports the inter-connected roles of HRM and line management by offering that competitive strategy and human resource strategy are inter-connected in a complete and active trend. As such, the indication is that the fulfilment of strategic organisational goals is the primary focus of both HR managers and line managers, but that both roles tend to take different directions on boosting organisational efficiency through either employee empowerment or establishing rigid control systems designed to sustain competitive advantage. The end result of both practises, it would appear, is increased efficiency, however HRM philosophy establishes a long-term employee commitment not necessarily achieved by more rigid line managers. In order for any characteristic of a firms human resources to provide a source of sustained competitive advantage, the firm must be organised to exploit the resource (Barney & Wright, 1998 cited in CLMS M2, U3: 35). As such, it is the role of HR managers to work toward fully recognising the systems and practises required to allow employees to reach their fullest potential. With this in mind, it would appear that HRM systems are required to actively engage in setting the appropriate organisational culture to breed commitment. Benkhoff (1997 cited in CLMS, M2, U3: 5) offers that employees tend to define themselves in terms of their membership within the organisation and will behave in line with the image of the firm. In order for this to occur, Benkhoff offers that different subgroups of the organisation should not maintain any noticeable different viewpoints regarding standards by which employees are expected to adhere. In yet another depiction of the merging roles of line managers and that of HR managers, Benkhoff suggests that line managers must support and practise the exact same policies as that of HR management. This may appear to be a somewhat common sense realisation, however with the idea in mind that employees tend to mould their behaviours according to organisational culture based on the receipt of unified messages, this indicates the need for line management and HRM systems to remain active in a continuous feedback cycle to promote a unified employee message. Purcell (cited in Hailey et al, 2005) offers that the HR department and line management together play a crucial role in stimulating appropriate employee behaviour on behalf of the firm. These authors support the inter-connected aspect of line management and HR management, which implies that when it comes to fostering positive employee behaviour, neither role is sufficiently effective without the assistance and cooperation of the other. Caldwell (2003 cited in CLMS, M2, U3: 4) quotes one specific challenge for HR managers as being lack of clarity or accountability in specifying the goals, business outcomes, or the contribution of the personnel function. What this suggests is that personnel professionals often find their role as being vague, without any solid, recognisable identity in the organisation. Hales (2005 cited in CLMS, M2, U3: 9) determines that the traditional line manager is responsible for planning, coordinating and controlling a specific area of work within constraints set by procedure and regulation. As such, the indication is that line managers maintain a solid identity within the organisation in terms of controlling the employee population. However, Hales further suggests that the traditional line manager is being replaced by expectations for performance-driven leadership which maintains the role of employee coach or mentor. But, what does this mean in terms of clarifying the roles of HR facilitator and that of line management? One of the main aspects of human resource management is the pursuit of accomplishing innovative methods to build employee loyalty. As such, the indistinct nature of their job function is not necessarily surprising. Where line managers have a clearly defined role in the organisation, it would appear that HR professionals roles are in a constant state of flux as the demands for boosting employee satisfaction and organisational commitment are continuously creating the need for flexibility in employee systems. To best illustrate, where line managers maintain a more recognised role function in terms of administration, it would appear that HR professionals are working hard to promote a more recognised position within the business and thus are actively searching for methods to streamline organisational efficiency through the utilisation human capital. The concept of human capital is a somewhat vague concept without professional consensus on best practise approaches to building employee relationships, leaving HR managers actively working to improve upon existing employee systems. Thus, the indication is that HR managers, by design, must be more flexible in terms of establishing the best methods for sustaining employee commitment while line management can actively justify their already respected employee control systems. Moreover, another noticeable difference between line management and HR management can often be attributed to differing levels of foresight regarding the strategic direction of a firm. Gomez-Mejia et al (2005) suggest that management which engages in human resource planning is the difference between where a firm is today and where the firm desires to be. Human resource managers tend to adopt various HR tactics to achieve corporate vision through the utilisation of human capital to reach organisational goals. Thus, the noticeable difference in HR management is a more proactive approach to building long-term employee commitment. It might be argued that line managers, working under a more rigid control system, tend to view the employee productivity situation more in terms of the here and now, looking for instant solutions to diminished employee productivity. As such, utilising HR theories builds the organisation, through recruitment, routine jobs analysis and motivational techniques to establish a unified business unit geared for long-term success in its industry. The line manager, under the theory of a controller, is not as actively involved in long-term personnel forecasts, but searches for means to ensure employee compliance to performance guidelines. Another difference in the two roles can be reflected by again referencing the performance appraisal process. HR managers use appraisal and feedback systems to boost employee motivation or in recognising areas where subordinates need further development and then determine whether training is necessary to enhance employee competency levels. In this scenario, the HR manager provides this assistance in recognising areas needing improvement, however it is the line manager that implements this training and oversees its completion. What this suggests, then, is that HR managers are more connected to the premise of being policy makers where line managers become policy administrators. Though the two roles are quite different, this reflects the inter-dependency of the two roles. This assumption is supported by Ulrich (1998 cited in CLMS, M2, U3: 22) who argues that HR managers must become administrative experts who constantly search for methods to improve organisational efficiency by redesigning administrative procedures. Thus, the indication is that HR managers maintain the ability to sustain a higher degree of authority in terms of dictating the needs of the employee and then subsequently directing line managers on how to implement new employee policies. There appears to be an avenue for HR managers to actively contribute to the administrative processes, especially in terms of commanding a certain level of line management compliance to new HR policies. Thus, it would appear that despite the struggle to remove the ambiguous nature of the HR function in modern business, HR managers are substantially more active in formulating employee-related policies and procedures. Ulrich (1998 cited in CLMS, M2, U3: 22) also suggests that HR managers must exist as change agents in modern businesses; or those who create a change within the organisational culture. As such, in the pursuit of streamlining policies that are geared toward building employee motivation and organisational commitment, it would appear that HR managers maintain the ability to reinforce line managements role in building employee relations by expecting a particular level of adherence to HR policies. Does this mean that the HR agent is ultimately more powerful in terms of maintaining higher levels of authority than that of line managers? The indication is that, in terms of employee-related policies and procedures, the HR manager is the primary resource for ensuring a less rigid line management system in favour of building positive employee relationships. The question of which role maintains more authority would likely be answered differently based on the nature of any particular business; in terms of culture or various command hierarchies. However, there is mounting evidence that HR managers, by design, are more suited-to and authorised-to define their role as employee champions through their ability to produce authoritative HR policies. Conclusion The pursuit of identifying which particular role, that of line manager or that of HR manager, is more effective in building employee relations is somewhat speculative in terms of which particular manager maintains the highest authority to promote the needs of the employee. The difference involves understanding the nature of the business in which these various managers are employed and are largely based on the specific strategic goals of an organisation. Companies which identify with a more centralised command structure often view the employee as merely objects which aid in organisational performance through their levels of productivity. In such an organisation, this role is often the responsibility of line management in terms of dictating policy. The end result of rigid control systems is categorically short-term gains in productivity and, generally, decreased employee commitment to the company. HR managers, whether working in rigidly centralised organisations or in more liberal organisations where employees are viewed as much more than merely labourers, maintain the ability to enhance the employee experience through the creation of various policies designed to fulfil employee needs. As such, the strongest disconnect between HRM philosophy and that of line management lies in how each particular role interacts with the worker. It has been established that the Theory Y approach to employee management views workers as naturally willing to contribute, but simply require a managerial system which promotes reward and motivation to succeed as contributory resources. The very design of HRM systems is much more geared toward this type of liberal approach to empowering employees to perform, suggesting that HR managers are most suited to building employee relationships. Increasingly, organisations are likely adopting the idea of human capital; in terms of recognising employees as valuable resources able to assist in reaching strategic business goals. Under this basis, traditional line management is being replaced with a more performance-minded leader who is pressured to actively consult with HR professionals to best determine the proper direction that should be undertaken to ensure employee productivity. The similarities, then, between the roles of HR manager and line manager are in their collaborative efforts and in maintaining focus on the needs of the employee as a primary business (strategic) objective. Baird & Meshoulam (1988 cited in CLMS, M2, U3) supports the assumption that it is the state of the particular industry which dictates whether HR managers are most effective in building employee commitment. The authors cite that HR managements effectiveness depends on its fit with the particular organisations stage of development and that as the organisation grows, HRM programmes, practices, and procedures must change to develop to meet the business needs (Baird & Meshoulam, 1998). What this suggests is that HR managers are rapidly changing employee-related policies based on the level by which an organisation changes. With this in mind, line managers maintain genuine insight into the activities of the employee and can work as feedback mechanisms to HR professionals to assist in developing workable policies. The original focus of this research paper was to show both the similarities and differences between HR managers and line managers, in order to determine which role is most effective in creating organisational performance. However, throughout the course of research, a conclusion can be determined which indicates both roles are virtually equally effective in encouraging employee productivity. The most noticeable commonality between HR management and line management is that each role must adapt to include both administrative and motivational tactics to successfully align employees to contribute positively to business success. It is in the form of managerial teamwork and collaboration where the roles of HR manager and line manager are able to streamline the organisation into a business with a competitive edge. Neither, it would seem, can accomplish this task individually and still produce long-term results. References: Baird, L. & Meshoulam, I. (1988). Managing Two Fits of Strategic Human Resource Management. Academy of Management Review 13(1): 116-128, in CLMS (2006) MSc in Human Resources Management and Development. Reading 1002. Barney, J. & Wright, P. (1998). On Becoming a Strategic Partner: The Role of Human Resources in Gaining Competitive Advantage. Human Resource Management. 37(1): 31-46, in CLMS (2006) MSc in Human Resources Management and Development. Reading 1010. Benkhoff, B. (1997). A Test of the HRM Model: Good for Employers and Employees. Human Resource Management Journal 74(4): 44-60, in CLMS (2006) MSc in Human Resources Management and Development. Reading 1007. Boxall, P. (1996). The Strategic HRM Debate and the Resource-Based View of the Firm. Human Resource Management Journal 6(3): 59-75, in CLMS (2006) MSc in Human Resources Management and Development. Reading 1004. Caldwell, R. (2003). The Changing Roles of Personnel Managers: Old Ambiguities, New Uncertainties. Journal of Management Studies 40(4): 983-1004, in CLMS (2006) MSc in Human Resources Management and Development. Reading 1012. CLMS (2006) MSc in Human Resource Management and Development, Module 2 Managing Human Resources, Unit 1, Leicester: Centre for Labour Market Studies: 7. Delery, J. & Doty, H. (1996). Modes of Theorizing in Strategic Human Resource Management. Academy of Management Journal. 39(4): 802-835, in CLMS (2006) MSc in Human Resources Management and Development. Reading 1005. Gomez-Mejia, L., Balkin, D., & Cardy, R. (2005). Management: People, Performance, Change. 2nd ed. McGraw Hill Irwin: 424. Guest, D. (1999). Human Resource Management – the Workers Verdict. Human Resource Management Journal 9(3): 5-25, in CLMS (2006) MSc in Human Resources Management and Development. Reading 1008. Hailey, V., Farndale, E. & Truss, C. (2005). The HR Departments Role in Organisational Performance. Human Resource Management Journal 15(3): 49-66, in CLMS (2006) MSc in Human Resources Management and Development. Reading 1011. Hales, C. (2005). Rooted in Supervision, Branching into Management: Continuity And Change in the Role of First-Line Manager. Journal of Management Studies 42(3): 471-506, in CLMS (2006) MSc in Human Resources Management and Development. Reading 1013. References: Huselid, M. (1995). The Impact of HRM Practices on Turnover, Productivity and Corporate Financial Performance. Academy of Management Journal 38(3): 635-672, in CLMS (2006) MSc in Human Resources Management and Development. Reading 1000. Marsden (1999). Unit 2: Concepts in HRM. University of Leicester – Centre for Labour Market Studies: 7. Mathis, R. & Jackson, J. (2005). Human Resource Management. 10th ed. Thomson South-Western. United Kingdom: 342,357. McDuffie, J. (1995). Human Resource Bundles and Manufacturing Performance. Industrial Labor Relations Review 48(2): 197-221, in CLMS (2006) MSc in Human Resources Management and Development. Reading 1001. Paauwe, J. & Boslie, P. (2005). HRM and Performance: Whats Next? Human Resource Management Journal 15(4): 68-83, in CLMS (2006) MSc in Human Resources Management and Development. Reading 1006. Plimmer, Gill. (2005). Theory Y is the clear winner. Financial Times. London: p.9. Ramsey, H., Scholaris, D. & Harley, B. (2000). Employees in High-Performance Work Systems: Testing Inside the Black Box. British Journal of Industrial Relations 38(4): 501-531, in CLMS (2006) MSc in Human Resources Management and Development. Reading 1009. The Economist. (Jan 21 2006). Survey: The X and Y Factors. London. 378(8461): 19. Ulrich. (1998). Section Four: The HR Function. University of Leicester – Centre for Labour Market Studies. Witzel, Morgan. (Aug 9 2005). Is it such a leap of faith to place trust in your workforce? Management sayings: Studies suggest increased responsibility leads to improved performance. Financial Times. London: 10. Read More