An investigation of how human resource managers add value: a theory of HR implicit in HR job description

Abstract

HR managers have long been concerned by the question of how they add value to organisational life. That is, they have been concerned to identify the results, outcomes or ends to which HR contributes. As a staff function, where their primary role is to provide advice and guidance, it can be difficult for HR managers to demonstrate the unique contribution that they make to organisational success. Hence, for a long time, members of the HR profession have been concerned that their credibility is low, that they are marginalised, that they suffer from role ambiguity and have low status.

This study explores how HR managers perceive that they add value to their organisations through an examination of HR job descriptions. The study is based on the assumption that HR job descriptions contain an implicit theory of how the HR role adds value to their host organisations. Job descriptions usually provide a list of job duties, and sometimes document expected results. Thus a job description constitutes a direct statement of how the role is perceived to contribute. We hypothesised that:

1. That job descriptions would conform to "best practice", with clearly stated "Key Result Areas" (KRAs) and "Key Performance Indicators" (KPIs).

2. That KRAs would cover the main functional areas of HRM described in texts.

3. That KPIs would provide clear measures of performance in terms of the guidelines provided by Cooper & Schindler (2006) and Mackey & Johnson, (2000).

4. That, given the nature of HR work, there would be an emphasis on process rather than results.

We approached members of the HR Institute of NZ and asked them to submit their job descriptions (see appendix 1). By this means we obtained over 100 job descriptions, and analysed 53 senior job descriptions (reporting to the CEO).

We coded the parts of the job descriptions that provided descriptions of duties and key results areas (KRAs), identifying 29 distinct sets of responsibilities. For each of the 11 most frequently mentioned KRAs, we then examined the measures of performance (KPls), deriving 12 categories of measurement.

In conclusion, we found that:

1. Only 20 of the job descriptions distinguished clearly between KRAs and KPls.

2. KRAs and job duties were generally clear and similar to the lists of HR functions contained in HR texts.

3. However, KPls were generally unclear, subjective and not amenable to measurement. The dominant forms of measurement are "reputation" (whether an HR manager has a good reputation) and "documentation" (whether procedures are well-documented and follow "best practice").

4. Overall, there is a strong emphasis on process rather than results in HR work.

I conclude that the contribution of HR will continue to be questioned while there is so much emphasis on process and so little emphasis on measurement and results.