۱- The role of line managers in HR practice implementation

۲- Authentic leadership and the dynamic construction of alignment

۳- The role of authentic leadership in creating strategic HR alignment

۴- The mediating role of consistency, consensus, and distinctiveness

۵- Limitations

۶- Discussion

References

Abstract

Prior work has questioned whether human resource management (HRM) lives up to the organizational benefits it espouses. The intentions underlying human resource (HR) practices often differ from how they are implemented by line managers or how they are ultimately perceived by followers, thus undermining the strength of the HR system in influencing organizational outcomes and with them the overall reputation of HRM. We argue that line managers, specifically those who display authentic leadership behaviors, can strengthen an HR system (i.e., aligning intended, actual, and perceived HR policies and practices) by implementing HR practices in a way that they are perceived as distinct, consistent, and reflecting consensus. Authentic leadership theory departs from more traditional, top-down fit perspectives in strategic HRM to consider the dynamic way in which individuals within an organizational context co-create felt and perceived authenticity in interaction with others. In other words, by providing a more dynamic approach to creating alignment in HRM, authentic leadership helps HRM attain more authenticity and credibility in the organization.

The role of line managers in HR practice implementation

Line managers too often play a significant role in the misalignment between intended, actual, and perceived HRM because it is through line managers that HR policy is operationalized (Holt Larsen & Brewster, 2003; Nishii et al., in press; Sikora & Ferris, 2014). Managers play an important sensemaking role in translating the HR department’s espoused messages for employees (Nishii et al., in press). It is the HR practices that line managers enact (Sikora et al., 2015) and employees subsequently experience (Piening et al., 2014; Purcell et al., 2003) and perceive (Nishii et al., 2008), rather than the practices that HR practitioners intend to implement, that influence behavior and outcomes. Prior empirical work highlights a strong relationship between line managers’ and employees’ perceptions of HR practices (rather than the actual practices) and subsequent performance (Woodrow & Guest, 2014) consistent with the notion that line managers are preferred points of credible information for employees (Larkin & Larkin, 1996). Whilst HR policy may reflect best practices (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006), the quality of implementation may be poor if line managers fail to see the value of a practice (or HRM in general) and this may be further exacerbated if the HR practice appears to be at odds with managers’ competing operational agendas or they are not resourced to implement the practice effectively. In other words, line managers must have the opportunity to influence employee outcomes (Sikora et al., 2015) and may not handle HR issues effectively based on a lack of ability or motivation (Holt Larsen & Brewster, 2003). Further, managers may struggle to meet the differential needs of employees through a “one size fits all” practice or struggle to implement HR practices in a dynamic context. Thus, line managers are challenged to align HR practices with individual needs and (changing) contextual demands. Next, we elaborate on the various ways in which leaders may create misalignment.