In the previous chapter we reviewed our findings about new and different HRM practices applied in the project-oriented organization. We found that project-oriented organizations need to apply HRM practices not previously recognized as specific to the project; and adapt the practices traditionally applied in the line organization to meet the needs of their projects. In this chapter we review our findings on where responsibility for the application of the practices lies. We find that in accordance with global trends, responsibility for the implementation of HRM practice is being delegated to the manager at the work interface, with the HRM department retaining responsibility for:

• Setting policy, guidelines, and rules
• Defining the standards for the organization
• Ensuring that the practices are implemented properly and at the appropriate time
• Providing guidance
• Acting as arbiter

However, there is a tendency to retain responsibility for the implementation of HRM practices in the line and not delegate them to project managers. While we think this is right for some practices, we believe that more responsibility could be devolved to project managers for the sake of motivating project team members and cohesion in the project team, as the project management literature has been suggesting (Graham, 1989; Turner, 1999).

THE HRM DEPARTMENT

The Nature of the HRM Department

In most of our respondent organizations, the responsibility of the HRM department is to set policy and provide guidance, but the exact nature of the HRM department depends very much on the size of the company.

Company I12 has a network of HRM departments, with a center at the head office, and a department in each division. They view the HRM department operating in a matrix-type structure, where managers in the HRM department offer help and guidance to managers at the same level throughout the organization. Company C3 also has a central HRM department and a small number of HRM personnel in each business unit. When there is a quasi-business unit, such as that for the London Olympics, a small number of HRM managers will be assigned to it, effectively giving the project or program its own HRM staff. Companies I8 (also C1) and I9 are both subsidiaries of the same American parent. The American parent has a central HRM department, overseeing a network of regional and local departments. The Dutch and Irish offices are both in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (EMEA) region. The Rotterdam, and the Netherlands office is also part of a Northern European division of the EMEA region which it manages, but also has its own Dutch group. The Irish office is part of a division covering the United Kingdom and Ireland, but has only 1.5 full-time equivalency (FTE) HRM personnel for an office of about 200 people. Company I10 is also a subsidiary of an American parent which operates a similar structure. In both cases, the American parent sets the overall policy, structures, and guidelines for HRM, but allows considerable flexibility for the local offices to adapt the guidelines to match local laws and culture.

With the smaller companies there are much smaller structures. Company I6 has an HRM department of just two people for a company of 300 consultants. In Company I11, the managing director (MD) of the French office is the HRM department of the French office. The MD works within the policies set at the head office in Britain, but also has the flexibility to adapt the practices to suit French law.

Setting Policies, Guidelines, Rules, and Standards

In all of our respondent organizations, as in most organizations, the central HRM department defines how HRM will operate. In Companies I8, (C1), I9, and I10, the American parent defines how HRM will work, which means an American culture pervades both organizations. As we have already noted, they allow sufficient flexibility locally, to deal with local law and culture. Both organizations maintain a computer system for annual appraisal, which reminds managers at the appropriate time when they should fulfill their duties. The system collects all the data, merges it into a global assessment, and determines bonuses based on the central calculation. Both organizations also operate an intranet to guide managers about HRM policies and practices, which all managers can access. In Company I6, the HRM department of two determines how HRM in the company will work and provides guidance to managers.

Some of our project management respondents reported dissatisfaction with the role of the HRM department, citing policies, for example, in recruitment and selection that are simply inadequate. As a result, project management personnel have developed various “rat runs” to circumvent the policies established by HRM. A reason given for this is the mismatch between the timescales required to follow policies established by HRM, and client and project demands for increased personnel resources. In some cases, the HRM department was described by respondents as remote and unhelpful. In others, the contribution of the HRM department to the effective carrying out of project work was rated as poor. Finally, respondents also claimed that the HRM department fails to protect the well-being of employees, being too passive in terms of promoting the worker's well-being in the face of business demands.

Providing Consultancy and Advice

In line with global trends, many of the organizations we studied have witnessed structural changes in how HRM operates. From an integrated HRM function where all activities, both administrative and strategic, are centrally coordinated, we have seen the introduction of forms of business partnership, shared services, and e-enabled HR systems. As we have already seen, many organizations operate an intranet where managers can seek information about how HRM practices operate. Some also operate a call center where managers can gain information. We also asked how employees could find information on how the systems operate. In most organizations with an intranet, the employees can also interrogate the intranet, but in some organizations the employees are not able to access the call center.

Advice and consultancy on projects are also present in our sample. Company I12 has created a Center for Program Management and Council for Program Management to oversee the development of project and program management within the organization. The council has responsibility for:

1. Ensuring that best practices are developed and shared across the company
2. Ensuring best use is made of expertise within the company, including the development of project management personnel
3. Ensuring standards are deployed as appropriate
4. Promoting professionalism through recruitment, development, training, and reward
5. Sponsoring good teamwork

The activities of the Center include the following contribution to HRM:

1. Coaching, mentoring, lecturing, and training
2. Supporting career development by attending recruitment events, helping in competence development, and assessing course content
3. Making and sustaining links with others in the profession to aid professional development
4. Establishing relationships with universities for recruitment and research

The company also maintains a network of development cells for ensuring the development of competence within the organization. The cells are responsible for identifying the development needs of individuals and ensuring that they are met. They also have the role of ensuring that managers do not Bogart good talent, holding on to it to the detriment of both the individual and company. Potential candidates for development are identified and developed to both the benefit of their careers and the competence development within the organization.

Acting as Arbiter

It is a legacy of HRM's foundations in the welfare function of companies at the start of the 20th century that one of its core roles is to act as arbiter between employees and management. However, the idea that the HRM department should act as arbiter between employees and managers is one that is not shared across the companies we studied. Company I9 had an HRM staff member whose job was to guide and advise employees and managers on HRM issues. But if a dispute arose between a manager and an employee, this HRM staff member would act as arbiter. Also if an employee had a problem that required specialist advice, they could raise it with this person.

In other organizations, the respondents told us that if an employee had a problem, he or she could raise it with the line manager. We asked what happened if the problem was with the line manager if, for instance, they were being harassed. The response was they could raise it with their project manager, the manager's manager, or some other manager in the organization. We believe that having to raise the issue with another manager could be a difficult step to take; it could be interpreted as disloyalty, or the two managers may be golfing partners. That may result in an employee putting up with abuse longer than necessary. He or she may find it much easier to turn to an independent arbiter. In some companies respondents seemed unwilling to accept HR's role as arbiter and continually reinforced the importance of line managers and employees working out their problems. The question of the employee's need for arbitration and the potential imbalance of power between management and employees remained unanswered at the conclusion of many of the interviews. One reason is the insistence in some of these companies that HRM is a business function, that the employment relationship is largely framed as one between employees and managers, and that HRM should not interfere.

On the other hand, an interviewee in Company C4 described a situation where it seemed to work very well with adult discussion between people. The interviewee was deputy project manager on a development project. He initially had a problem with his working relationship with one of the work area managers on the project. He did not have an issue with his competence; they just did not seem to be able to work together. So he raised the issue with the work area manager's line manager, and the work area manager was replaced. It did not reflect badly on the work area manager; it was just accepted that the two could not work well together. Then one of the engineers had a problem with the new work area manager and approached the deputy project manager. The engineer and the work area manager did not agree about the technical solution. In this case the deputy project manager sided with the work area manager and the engineer was replaced. But again it did not reflect badly on the engineer, and he transferred to another project. So the issues were resolved without the involvement of HRM. Perhaps that may reflect a difference between Americans and Europeans, or it may reflect the management style in that work environment which was very flat and open. Another division in the same organization has a hierarchical structure and it may not be possible to resolve the issues in the same way.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF LINE MANAGERS

In almost all of the organizations we interviewed, primary responsibility for appraisal, development, and reward remains with the line manager. By and large, we believe this is the correct approach. Projects are temporary organizations which come to an end. Projects are stepping stones in a career, but each project does not provide a career. Decisions about development especially, have to be taken over a time frame longer than an individual project, and, so they have to be taken in the line.

Company I6 had an appraisal and budgeting practice that reinforced this view. The appraisal process was integrated into the annual budgeting cycle. The annual budgeting cycle included twice-yearly appraisals of individuals. The departmental manager in developing the annual budget for the department would develop an annual budget for each individual that would include his or her regular pay, bonus, and money for personal development. Each individual's development budget would then be delegated to him or her on a use-it-or-lose-it basis. The individual would need to identify courses to achieve any personal development objectives set on appraisals, and could spend money up to the budget.

Companies where responsibility for appraisal was transferred to project managers were ones undertaking large projects:

• In Company I12, some projects would last years. Individuals would be seconded onto the project and the project manager would take responsibility for annual appraisal over the life of the project.
• In Company C2, contracts of employment require people to be transferred onto projects if the project lasts more than a year. This is a remnant of their days as a public company. The project manager will then conduct the annual appraisal and set development objectives for individuals.
• In Company C3, people will be transferred to the quasi-business unit managing a large project or program, and then managers in the quasi-business unit will conduct their appraisals. Even in the cases where somebody is only formally seconded to the quasi-business unit, the project manager on the project may still conduct their appraisal.
• In Company C4, some of the people working on the project come from the projects department, and some come from the technical or scientific department. The project manager conducts appraisals for the deputy project managers, the deputy project managers for work area managers from the projects department, and those work area managers for technicians from the projects department. Appraisals for engineers and scientists working on the project are conducted in the line, even though individual projects or programs can last for years, sometimes more than a decade, and somebody can work a project or program and be there for several years. There is a clear distinction between people from the projects department and engineers and scientists.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF PROJECT MANAGERS

The project management literature has suggested for almost 20 years now that project managers should be formally involved in the appraisal process to motivate the project team members and for team cohesion (Graham, 1989; Turner, 1999). Graham argues very strongly that the project manager should conduct project appraisals and feed those into the appraisal process in the line. However, in most of the organizations we interviewed, formal project appraisals were not conducted. In many, the line manager informally contacted the project manager to seek his or her opinion of the performance of the individual being appraised, but it was not formally required. Whether or not formal project appraisals were conducted depends very much on the project maturity and HRM maturity of the organization:

• In Companies I8 and I9, formal project appraisals are required, either on completion of projects, or once every three months if the project lasts longer than that. The routine appraisal which is conducted twice a year in the line must then be based at least in part on those project appraisals. Do the project appraisals get done? They tend to receive the same dedication as “compulsory” end of project reviews (Turner and Keegan, 2003) honored more in the breach than the observance.
• In Company I10, 360-degree feedback is formally conducted as part of the appraisal process. The line manager must seek the opinion of the project manager, and other project team members, clients, and subordinates if the project team member has them. In fact, the reports from these people must be entered into the company's computer system, which is designed to insist upon them. An appraisal cannot be closed until sufficient entries have been made. This company has very high project management and HRM maturity.
• In Company C4, which is very mature from both a project and HRM perspective, formal project appraisals are not conducted. However, the line manager will seek the opinion of the project manager or deputy project manager almost as a matter of course, so much so that the deputy project manager we were questioning perceived the requests as being formal.

TASK VERSUS PEOPLE ORIENTATION OF PROJECT MANAGERS

The issue of task versus people orientation came out very strongly in the interviews with Company C4. Project managers, in general, tend to be more task-oriented than people-oriented (Turner and Müller, 2006). In fact, Turner and Müller report on an interview with one project manager who said that in her organization project managers undergo a fundamental transformation as they are appointed. As project team members, they complain that their project manager is more task-oriented than people-oriented, but when they become project managers they become task-oriented. In Company C4, most of the employees are inspired by the science of what they do and the thrill of exploration, so they become highly focused on the task at hand. The deputy program manager we interviewed said this could have an impact on work life-balance. If the entire project management team on a given project was task-oriented, it could have a negative effect on the performance over the life of a project as people's health and family life suffered. So when appointing the three members of a project management team, they tried to ensure at least one of the three was more people-oriented. The management team for a project consists of three people: a project manager, a deputy project manager (technical), and a deputy project manager (resources). The deputy project manager (technical) has the most worker-management responsibility, being responsible for the work of all the project technicians, engineers, and scientists. The deputy project manager (resources) has mainly contract management and financial responsibilities. The deputy program manager said they tried to ensure that on a given project either the project manager or deputy project manager (resources) is people-oriented. The project manager and deputy project manager (resources) we interviewed were from different projects and both were people-oriented, which had given us a rather distorted image of the organization, though the first person we interviewed was a deputy project manager (resources) who was highly task-oriented, but also had little worker-management responsibility.