The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm

Juggling on the line Juggling on

the line
Front line managers and their management
of human resources in the retail industry
Samantha Evans 459
Kent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Received 12 June 2014
Revised 25 August 2014
Abstract Accepted 1 September 2014
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the interplay between the role of front line managers
(FLMs) and their contribution to the reported gap between intended and actual human resource
management (HRM).
Design/methodology/approach – The findings draw on case study research using 51 semi-structured
interviews with managers across two UK retail organisations between 2012 and 2013.
Findings – This paper argues that FLMs are key agents in people management and play a critical role
in the gap between intended and actual employee relations (ER) and HRM. The research found that
these managers held a high level of responsibility for people management, but experienced a lack of
institutional support, monitoring or incentives to implement according to central policy. This provided
an opportunity for them to modify or resist intended policy and the tensions inherent in their role were
a critical factor in this manipulation of their people management responsibilities.
Research limitations/implications – The data were collected from only one industry and two
organisations so the conclusions need to be considered within these limitations.
Practical implications – Efforts to address the gap between intended and actual ER/HRM within
organisations will need to consider the role tensions of both front line and middle managers.
Originality/value – This research provides a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between
FLMs and the gap between intended and actual HRM within organisations. It addresses the issue of
FLMs receiving less attention in the HRM-line management literature and the call to research their role
in the translation of policy into practice.
Keywords Employee relations, Line managers, Human resource management, Retail,
Front line managers
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
This paper sets out to examine the interplay between the role of front line managers’
(FLMs) and their implementation of employee relations (ER) and human resource
management (HRM). The importance of studying line managers is significant to our
understanding of ER/HRM in organisations because they act as key agents by taking
responsibility for translating policy into action (Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007; Brewster
et al., 2013; Guest and Bos-Nehles, 2013; Townsend, 2012a, b, c, 2013; Wright and Nishii,
2013). Previous studies have found a number of issues associated with the process
implying that line managers can either enhance or undermine ER/HRM effectiveness
(e.g. McGovern et al., 1997; Renwick, 2003, 2004, 2009; Hutchinson and Purcell, 2007;
Marchington and Suter, 2012; Townsend et al., 2013a). However, most research studies
place line managers as an adjunct to the main analysis and underplay the importance of
how they translate ER/HRM policies into practice (Brewster et al., 2013). Consequently, any
relationship between the problems already known about devolving people management to Employee Relations
the line and its relationship with the reported gap between intended and actual ER/HRM Vol. 37 No. 4, 2015
pp. 459-474
has received less attention (Khilji and Wang, 2006; Woodrow and Guest, 2014). In addition, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
research has tended to classify line managers as a generic homogenous group with little DOI 10.1108/ER-06-2014-0066
ER delineation between the hierarchal structures of management within organisations. This
37,4 paper contributes to the literature on ER/HRM and line management by focusing on a
group of managers who have been largely neglected in previous research – FLMs. These
can be defined as the first level of management to whom only non-managerial employees
report (Hales, 2005, p. 473). This paper examines FLMs’ implementation of ER/HRM policy
to learn about their contribution to the reported gap between intended and actual HRM. In
460 doing so it addresses the call for more research that places FLMs central to the main
analysis and differentiates between levels of management.
The paper is structured as follows. The first section considers research on line
managers and ER/HRM with a focus on the problems that have been identified in the
process of devolving HRM down the line. The fieldwork was conducted in the retail
sector and so the industry context is briefly outlined. A summary of the methodology and
presentation of the findings follows. The paper concludes with a discussion of the factors
that influence FLMs’ management of human resources in the case study organisations
and their contribution to any divergence between intended and actual HRM. The research
found that FLMs are key agents in people management and play a critical role in the gap
between intended and actual policy. The tensions inherent in organisational strategies of
quality enhancement alongside cost reductions resulted in a manipulation of people
management by FLMs in their efforts to juggle the demands of their role.

Line managers and ER/HRM

With relatively little work focused on FLMs and HRM, previous research has primarily
considered line managers as a homogeneous group who have been taking on more
responsibility in the area of ER/HRM (Holt Larsen and Brewster, 2003; Renwick, 2003,
2004, 2009; Armstrong-Stassen and Schlosser, 2010). Research has found that line
managers tend to be more heavily involved in recruitment choices, discipline procedures,
on-the-job training, decisions about who receives training and incentive pay (Renwick,
2003; Khilji and Wang, 2006). Previous research has identified a variety of problems
associated with this devolution of ER/HRM to the line, which Teague and Roche (2012)
summarise as delegation, alignment and monitoring issues. Issues concerning delegation
include the dissonant opinions on ER/HRM between line managers, senior management
and HR professionals (Buyens and De Vos, 2001; Maxwell and Watson, 2006; Nehles
et al., 2006; Bondarouk et al., 2009; Brandl et al., 2009). Line managers also cite a lack of
either time or personal motivation to carry out their HR responsibilities (McGovern et al.,
1997; Whittaker and Marchington, 2003; Renwick, 2004; Hutchinson and Purcell, 2010).
Alignment issues concern the organisational support and incentives offered to line
managers to execute their people management responsibilities. Studies have found that
line managers often experience a lack of support in their HR role (Renwick, 2003;
McConville, 2006; Hutchinson and Purcell, 2010), while their ER/HRM skills have been
questioned, with inadequate training highlighted as a particular problem (Cunningham
and Hyman, 1999; Maxwell and Watson, 2006; Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007; Townsend
et al., 2012b). The final problem relates to how line managers are evaluated in terms of
any monitoring or assessment of their implementation of people management. Few
organisations successfully evaluate line managers’ HR activities and there is sometimes little
organisational pressure on them to fully undertake their HR responsibilities (McGovern
et al., 1997; Tamkin et al., 1997).
While the problems associated with devolving HRM to the line have been well
documented, very few of these studies focus explicitly on FLMs. It has been argued that
the role of FLMs has become more “managerial” in recent years because of additional
responsibilities they now assume, particularly in the area of HRM, and that this Juggling on
distinguishes them from the role of Traditional Supervisors (Lowe, 1993; Hales, 2005, the line
2006/2007). FLMs tend to occupy a position within organisations that brings a range of
tensions to their role (see Roethlisberger, 1945; Mann and Dent, 1954; Child and Partridge,
1982; Lowe, 1993; Hales, 2005, 2006/2007), which may subsequently influence the
effectiveness of their ER/HRM implementation. Research that has studied the role of
FLMs in people management has found that they play a key role in the implementation of 461
ER/HRM policy. However, the majority of these studies have been concentrated in a
hospital context (e.g. Armstrong-Stassen and Schlosser, 2010; Hutchinson and Purcell,
2010; Townsend et al., 2012b, c; Woodrow and Guest, 2014) meaning that FLMs have been
“neglected by academics and practitioners” (Hutchinson and Purcell, 2010, p. 357),
particularly in industries aside of the healthcare sector. Consequently, little is known
about these managers and the interplay between their role and the implementation of ER/
HRM. A better understanding of FLMs has become critical to our understanding of the
ER/HRM process within organisations, particularly the factors that contribute to the
reported gap between intended and implemented ER/HRM policies.

Front line management in the retail industry

Retailing is a major sector in the UK economy (Skillsmart Retail, 2013) with retailers
being the UK’s largest private sector employers, employing around 10 per cent of the
country’s workforce (Skillsmart Retail, 2013). The significance of the retail industry to
the UK economy and the vital role of labour in terms of their costs and performance
underline the key role of ER/HRM in this context (Freathy and Sparks, 1996). Despite
this, and its people-oriented nature, research on ER/HRM in retailing is scarce. Almost
two decades ago Marchington (1996) drew attention to the lack of integration between
retail and HR specific research strands and while some developments in the area have
since taken place (e.g. Ogbonna and Whipp, 1999; Sparks, 2000; Ogbonna and Harris,
2001; Purcell and Hutchinson, 2007; Grugulis et al., 2011; Cathcart, 2013, 2014), little
work has been published in recent years.
The retail industry is characterised by increasing competition, internationalisation,
technological developments, rapidly changing market conditions, more selective customer
demands, longer opening hours and increases in the average size of outlet (Ogbonna and
Whipp, 1999; Cox and Brittain, 2000). It is dominated by large organisations that tend to
have centralised organisational systems, tight financial controls and strategies focused on
achieving a high share price by serving the customer better within an acceptable
cost base (Freathy and Sparks, 2000). Such a context consigns line managers to working
in an environment with a customer orientation while striving for greater efficiencies
(Korczynski, 2002). This paper focuses on FLMs working within retail stores
who occupy a key intermediary role between the corporate organisation, the store
operations and the marketplace. Recent organisational and technological changes
have altered the role of these managers resulting in a greater demand for enhanced
customer service and HRM skills (Netemeyer et al., 2010; Grugulis et al., 2011;
Smith and Elliott, 2012).
This study seeks to explore the role of FLMs and their implementation of ER/HRM
policy to establish their contribution to the reported gap between intended and
implemented HRM using the following research questions:
RQ1. What are the roles and responsibilities of FLMs in the case study organisations,
particularly in ER/HRM?
ER RQ2. What factors influence FLMs in the execution of their ER/HRM responsibilities?
37,4 RQ3. What contribution do FLMs make to any divergence between intended and
actual ER/HRM in the case study organisations?

Methodology
462 This study is part of a larger project investigating ER/HRM in retail organisations.
A case study approach was adopted to explore how ER/HRM policies and practices
operate in the retail industry and the role of different levels of management in the
process. This was to address the call for greater distinction between various categories
of management when considering how ER/HRM policies are translated into practice
(Sanders and Frenkel, 2011) and the need to better understand the processes of
ER/HRM (Brewster et al., 2013; Guest and Bos-Nehles, 2013; Woodrow and Guest,
2014). The aim of this study was to understand how and why FLMs executed their ER/
HRM responsibilities. As such, a case study approach was adopted as this was
considered most appropriate given that the focus of the study was on social processes
and consequences within a real-life context to address “how” and “why” research
questions (Yin, 2009).
This paper is based on the findings of two retail organisations operating across
distinct retailing sectors. Superco operates in the grocery market and Homeco operates
in the home improvement sector. Each organisation is concentrated in the superstore
sector of retailing, conducts large-scale store operations and hold the highest market
share in their respective sectors. Two stores within each organisation were used for
data collection to enable comparability between stores and increase validity by
reducing the risk of one particular store distorting the findings. The selection of stores
was determined through negotiation with the initial gatekeeper for the project, but was
ultimately controlled by each organisation.
A qualitative approach was adopted to collect and analyse the data to understand
FLMs’ roles and experiences of implementing HRM within a specific industry context.
The research objectives of the study required a depth of understanding that would be
more difficult to obtain using solely quantitative methods. The data were collected
using semi-structured, face-to-face interviews and document analysis. Interviews were
selected as the preferred data collection method because the research study sought to
investigate the experiences of FLMs in the execution of their ER/HRM responsibilities.
The interview sample for the larger research project translated to managers at each
level of the organisations’ hierarchy. Table I outlines the basic characteristics of
each retail store under investigation and details the interviews conducted with each
level of management. A total of 51 interviews were completed with a range of managers
operating at Head Office, Regional and Store level. For the reasons articulated earlier,
this paper focuses on FLMs, of whom a total of 27 interviews were conducted between
2012 and 2013. The number of interviews conducted at each store was determined by
the size of the store, which in turn dictated the number of FLMs employed at each site.
All interviews were one-to-one with no other persons present. A range of secondary
sources including corporate web sites, annual reports, strategic plans and ER/HRM
policy documents were also studied.
The aim of this study was to investigate the role of FLMs in ER/HRM so the
interview questions covered a range of topics including organisational context,
strategies and policies, management roles and responsibilities, the communication and
implementation of ER/HRM policy, and any associated problems or challenges with the
 Store weekly Number of Front line Senior Total
Store opening store manager manager Executive manager number of
Company Retail sector location hours employees Departments interviews interviews interviews interviews

Superco Grocery Surrey 83 450 Customer services Section Store HR Director (Head 33
Quays Trading (fresh foods) Managers × 11 Manager Office)
Trading (ambient) Senior store Employee Relations
Human resources Managers × 4 Manager (Head
Office)
Regional Director
Lewisham 126 291 Customer services Section Store
Trading (fresh foods) Managers × 9 Manager
Trading (ambient) Senior Store
Human resources Managers × 4
Homeco Home Essex 78 70 Hardside Supervisors × 7 Store Personnel Director 18
improvement Softside Manager (Head Office)
Administration Assistant Personnel Manager
Managers × 2 (Head office)
Department Regional Director
Managers × 3
Oxford 78 62 Hardside Department Store
Softside Managers × 6 Manager
Gardening Assistant
Customer services Managers × 2
Administration
Trade
Total 27 18 6 51

study methodology
Summary of case
the line

Table I.
463
Juggling on
ER ER/HRM process. The data were initially coded along the themes of the interview
37,4 as identified above with the problems and challenges of ER/HRM implementation
grouped according to Teague and Roche’s (2012) framework of delegation, alignment
and monitoring.

Superco case study

464 Superco operates in the multiple grocery retailing sector across a number of countries.
The company operated along functional lines with three divisions of Head Office,
Distribution and Retail. This research focuses on the UK Retail Division, which was
structured on a regional basis with 24 regions across the country. The study used two
stores for data collection, each of which was located in South London – Lewisham and
Surrey Quays – and both classified as superstores. Both stores had four departments
managed by a Senior Manager, who together with the Store Manager made up the
store’s senior management team. These departments were sub-divided into sections,
which were managed by Section Managers who reported to their respective Senior
Store Manager. For the purpose of this research, the Section Managers were classified
as FLMs because they represent the first level of management to whom only non-
managerial employees report (Hales, 2005, p. 473). Further descriptive details can be
found in Table I.
In terms of corporate strategy, Superco was committed to a customer centred
strategy alongside cost reduction targets. The organisation’s commitment to customer
service was emphasised in both company documentation and during interviews:
We’ve completely changed our attitudes towards customers and put them at the forefront
of everything we do, rather than as an afterthought as they were previously treated
(HR Director, Head Office).
Policies to support this included longer store opening hours and pledges for improved
customer service, including a reduction in the queues at checkouts, the introduction of
Customer Service Assistants and greater consumer benefits from its customer loyalty
card. The expense of this customer service programme was offset by productivity
initiatives focused predominately on cuts in labour costs through a ban on premium
rate overtime, a store management delayering exercise and reductions in the staffing
budgets. Alongside the cost cutting strategy was an emphasis on employees, which
manifested in a variety of ER/HRM policies, including a training programme and
performance management system to support the customer service initiative, a focus on
the increased employment of full time staff to create greater workforce stability and
improve the quality of staffing, a profit related reward scheme, regular staff attitude
surveys and staff open forums. Strategy was communicated using a cascade system
through the management hierarchy until it reached the operational level, where policy
was implemented by FLMs and experienced by employees.

Homeco
Homeco operates in the decorative and DIY sector multiple retailing sector employing
over 25,000 staff. The company was structured on a regional basis with nine regions
across the UK. The study used two stores for data collection; one located in Essex, the
other in Oxford, and both classified as superstores. The Essex store was termed a
“Traditional” store, which meant it had not undergone recent refurbishment, while
Oxford was a “Renewal” store, which had recently undergone major renovation. Each
store had a senior store management team comprising of a Store Manager and two
Assistant Store Managers. The Essex store was sub-divided into three departments: Juggling on
Hardside, Softside and Administration. Each department was managed by a Department the line
Manager, who had responsibility for a variety of sections within their department, which
were each managed by a Supervisor. As a “Renewal” store the Oxford branch had the
same senior store management team and then six departments overseen by Department
Managers, but there was no supervisory level. For the purposes of this research study,
Section Managers in the Essex store and Department Managers in the Oxford store were 465
classified as the FLMs as these positions were the last managerial level to which only
shop floor staff reported.
Homeco had a strategy of growth by means of a store refurbishment programme,
the introduction of a customer loyalty card, improvements to operational efficiency and
a focus on customer service. Homeco operated in a sector with fewer large competitors
than Superco, but the company was struggling to maintain profitability, particularly
due to the recession. Homeco was also facing a number of ER/HRM challenges
including concerns about employee performance, recruitment shortages and high
labour turnover. Consequently, their priorities were directed towards “recruiting
more part-time employees and investing heavily in training all its staff” (HR Director,
Head Office). As in Superco, strategy was communicated using a cascade system
through the management hierarchy.

Research findings
The role and responsibilities of FLMs
FLMs in both organisations were the direct interface between the shop-floor staff
and organisational policy with their roles primarily devoted to operational work
covering people management, customer service and budget control. FLMs across both
organisations commonly started their employment as school leavers and were
promoted from a shop-floor position. This was in contrast to senior Store, Regional and
Head Office managers who were more likely to be recruited as graduates. FLMs had
less opportunity for career progression (due to a preference for graduates at the
more senior management levels), were expected to fill staffing gaps on the shop-floor
when required, and were only paid on average 30 per cent higher wages than
shop-floor staff (compared to senior Store Managers who were paid upwards of 80
per cent higher wages than shop-floor staff). These factors compounded the pressures of
the role because of the divorce between their responsibilities and their status in the
organisation. Within their role they also held significant ER/HRM responsibilities
including recruitment and selection, on-the-job training, performance management
(including staff appraisals), staff scheduling and workload allocation. Unlike Homeco,
Superco employed in-store HR Managers, but the role largely involved duty
management responsibilities with only around a third of their working week devoted
to HRM. These in-store HR Managers typically had relatively little HR experience,
expertise or qualifications:
After the store restructuring, the job became more retail oriented and less HR focused.
But they make you do time in every senior management role to be promoted. So you’ve got
HR managers who don’t know a lot about HR and aren’t really interested in it, but just doing
their time in the role to try and get promoted (Senior Store Manager, Superco, Lewisham).
Therefore FLMs in both organisations did not receive particularly significant support
in the execution of their HRM responsibilities, even in Superco which employed
store-level HR Managers.
ER Some aspects of ER/HRM were centrally designed and controlled by Head Office.
37,4 FLMs were given support and guidance in those ER/HRM areas that held greater risk
of Employment Tribunals, such as equal opportunities, reward management, grievance
and disciplinary. For example, Head Office conducted diversity monitoring and
provided diversity training for line managers. Other examples of centralised ER/HRM
included company-wide recruitment and induction processes, as well as some selection
466 methods such as standardised application forms in both organisations, and assessment
tests at Superco. There was also a higher degree of centralised control over pay and
reward decisions whereby any FLMs’ decision about an employee’s appointment or
promotion to a particular pay grade, was subject to approval by their own Senior
Manager and constrained by the budgets set at Head Office. In addition, Superco
operated bonus payments, but these were related to the organisation’s performance,
rather than individual performance, and as such were centrally determined and beyond
the remit of FLMs. Centrally produced customer service training packages were
a feature in both organisations, with store-level HR Managers and FLMs at Superco,
and FLMs at Homeco, delivering the training to shop-floor staff. In summary, some
ER/HRM activities were centrally determined and not left to FLMs, although FLMs
working at Homeco appeared to have more autonomy over ER/HRM than those
at Superco.
Responsibility for the delivery of the organisation’s customer service strategy
also formed a significant proportion of a FLM’s role at both Superco and Homeco.
At Superco, these responsibilities included resourcing longer store opening
hours and the company’s pledge to reduce the length of checkout queues, the
recruitment of Customer Service Assistants, increasing the proportion of full time
employees to improve service delivery, and the achievement of customer service
performance targets set by Head Office. Data were gathered through technology,
mystery shoppers and Head Office visits to stores. The results were compiled
into regional league tables that published the customer service performance
achievements of each store. At Homeco, FLMs’ responsibilities including the
recruitment of customer service employees, the training of shop-floor employees
to fulfil the expectation of greater product knowledge amongst all staff and
achieving requisite performance standards during visits to stores from Head
Office managers to assess customer service performance. However, overall there
appeared to be lower demands for, and monitoring of, customer service standards
at Homeco compared to Superco. The methods of measurement and monitoring of
performance were less complex at Homeco and results neither were the results published
in any league tables.
The third key area of responsibility for FLMs was the management of budgets and
financial targets. A budget-driven context was dominant in both organisations, as
reflected in their cost minimisation strategy:
The company has become more ruthless. There are forever devising new ways to cut costs.
The staffing budget was cut by 12% this year even though we are open for longer than we
ever have before (FLM, Superco, Surrey Quays).
Staff budgets at Superco were determined by a non-conformance team based at Head
Office who would visit stores and allocate a labour allowance to each department,
which was then operationally managed by FLMs. At Homeco, budgets and targets
were set at store level as a proportion of its turnover, rather than through any detailed
analysis of labour use at individual departmental level. These differences in the level of
financial control had an impact on FLMs’ execution of ER/HRM, as detailed in the Juggling on
following section. the line
Factors influencing FLMs’ execution of their ER/HRM responsibilities
The factors influencing FLMs’ execution of their ER/HRM responsibilities were
analysed using Teague and Roche’s (2012) delegation, alignment and monitoring
classifications. FLMs at Superco cited delegation issues, particularly time constraints, 467
as a factor that limited their ability to fulfil the ER/HRM responsibilities of their role.
This was largely attributed to the large spans of control for these managers caused by
a high proportion of part timers and the recent management de-layering exercise within
stores. Conversely, FLMs at Homeco did not cite a lack of time to implement ER/HRM
practices as an influencing factor suggesting that delegation issues were less of a
problem. In neither organisation did FLMs disparage their ER/HRM responsibilities or
hold the dissonant opinions identified in previous research (e.g. Maxwell and Watson,
2006; Bondarouk et al., 2009). FLMs appeared committed in principle to their ER/HRM
responsibilities, but those at Superco believed they had inadequate time resources to
effectively implement ER/HRM policy. This appeared to be a consequence of Superco’s
response to the economic climate of pursing a cost cutting strategy with an accompanying
delayering exercise. While this was supported by some “high commitment HRM”
practices, this approach does align with Teague and Roche’s (2014) findings that
organisations are applying mixed bundles of ER/HRM policies in response to the
economic climate. FLMs at Superco bore the brunt of the delayering exercise as it
brought increased pressures to their role causing them to cite delegations issues as a
problem in their execution of ER/HRM. This was not evident at Homeco who took a
more incremental approach to their restructuring process and were not pursuing such
an aggressive cost cutting strategy.
The problem of alignment and institutional support for these managers to carry out
their HR responsibilities was also evident. Both company literature and interview data
emphasised employees as a key contributor to competitive success, particularly at
Superco. Yet, little explicit ER/HRM guidance was provided to FLMs:
All we have for our stores is a 12-point guide to best practice in managing human resources.
We don’t like to direct them specifically because they should know how best to manage their
employees (HR Director, Head Office, Superco).

Combined with the lack of expertise held by store level HR Managers, FLMs had little
institutional guidance or support when executing their ER/HRM responsibilities at
Superco. Similarly, at Homeco, the devolvement of ER/HRM to FLMs was accompanied
by few guidelines from Head Office:
Employment decisions depend very much on the Store Manager. There is very little direction
or impact from Head Office (FLM, Homeco, Essex).

This approach was in line with the company’s lack of centralised control, compared to
Superco, with FLMs describing the culture as “relaxed”, “very laid back”, and “informal”.
In terms of monitoring and evaluation, budgets and targets were a major
influencing factor on the role of FLMs and consequently their management of
human resources. This was particularly exigent in Superco where budgets and
targets were devolved to individual section level and more closely monitored
and evaluated by Head Office. Yet FLMs’ actual people management responsibilities
ER were less closely monitored or evaluated beyond an adherence to staffing budgets, even
37,4 in Superco:
As long as we meet the targets set by head office and keep within our budgets they don’t
really bother us too much about how we actually manage our staff (FLM, Superco,
Lewisham).

468 Such a context gave FLMs greater freedom in their implementation of ER/HRM and
enabled them to make decisions that were contrary to intended policy, but this was
particularly evident at Homeco where there was a lower degree of centralised control
and monitoring of budgets or targets. These findings confirm that the issues of
delegation, alignment and monitoring extend through the management hierarchy to
FLMs working at the forefront of the organisation.

The contribution of FLMs to divergence between intended and actual ER/HRM

To establish the contribution of FLMs to any gap between intended and implemented
HRM in the case study organisations, FLMs were questioned on the actual execution of
their ER/HRM responsibilities and links drawn between this and their identification
of delegation, alignment and monitoring issues.
The time constraints cited by FLMs at Superco lead to aspects of ER/HRM not being
fully executed:
I have so many part timers that doing all their appraisals is a nightmare so I can’t really give
them the time to do them justice (FLM, Superco, Surrey Quays).
All staff have a Personal Development Planner to support their training, but I don’t have the
time to sit down with staff and work through them and no one checks up whether I’ve done it
anyway (FLM, Superco, Lewisham).
A lack of alignment in terms of support and incentives offered to FLMs in
their management of human resources resulted in discrepancies between intended
policy and actual practice of ER/HRM. Examples of this included Homeco’s
policy to recruit more part timers. FLMs claimed to have no knowledge of such
a policy:
There is no pressure from head office to use part timers, to increase the number of part timers
or to go for more flexibility of employment. It’s all down to the personal preference of the store
manager (FLM, Homeco, Oxford).
At Superco, Head Office expressed a preference for an increased proportion of full
timers:
We want to employ more full timers to deliver our customer service promises because then we
will have staff genuinely committed to Superco. It will also reduce the costs of high labour
turnover and poor commitment that we get with shorter hour part timers and temporary
workers (HR Director, Superco, Head Office).
At store level, FLMs expressed an opposing view of labour resourcing:
More flexibility is demanded by the company because flexible employees are cheaper so the
company is looking to employ more part timers (FLM, Superco, Lewisham).
The lack of alignment and institutional support also resulted in significant variability
in the implementation of ER/HRM across the stores. One such example was the range
of recruitment and selection methods used at Homeco, aside from a company standard Juggling on
application form, which led one FLM to conclude: the line
I don’t really know how we reach a selection decision. Generally, HR decisions are totally
different according to different stores (FLM, Homeco, Essex).
A lack of monitoring of FLMs’ people management responsibilities also contributed to
unofficial practices such as the recruitment freezes used at Superco’s Surrey Quays 469
store to control labour costs:
Recruitment is financially controlled so you look at wage costs and look ahead to the budget
squeeze and so you don’t recruit but flex up the part timers instead. Then there is a desperate
shortage of employees, so there is a mad rush to recruit. Head Office doesn’t query this as
we’re keeping within our budgets, but I don’t know if they’d actually approve if they did find
out (FLM, Superco, Surrey Quays).
Further manipulation of staffing budgets was evident in the recruitment of Customer
Service Assistants who were introduced to support Superco’s customer service
strategy. FLMs viewed Customer Service Assistants as an extravagance at a time when
they were experiencing work intensification and cuts in their staffing budget and
instead used the funds to employ staff to their own departments:
I used the Customer Service Assistant budget when a vacancy in my department arose. While
we’re not supposed to use them in departments, when we’re trying to control budgets, it
frequently happens. I get a replacement employee, but the store doesn’t actually get a
Customer Service Assistant (FLM, Superco, Surrey Quays).
Similar contraventions of intended ER/HRM by FLMs were evident at Homeco.
Despite the priority at Head Office to recruit more part timers, the Oxford store
employed 85 per cent of its staff on full time contracts. Staff shortages within the
store were at times so acute that there was a regular surplus in the staffing budget
so that full time staff and premium rate overtime could be employed without
detection by Head Office. This was confirmed at both front line and senior store
management levels:
Officially we don’t use full timers to work overtime in the store because there’s a complete
ban – but unofficially yes we do use it. But we don’t go over our budgets so Head Office don’t
scrutinise us on this as it doesn’t flag up as a staffing problem (Assistant Store Manager,
Homeco, Oxford).
This most commonly occurred when Head Office managers were visiting a store to
assess customer service performance levels. Premium rate overtime was used to cover
staff shortages:
We really struggle when we know we’ve got a visit on. We make sure that everyone’s brought
in, even if it was supposed to be their day off, and just pay them overtime. So when we’re
visited there’s always plenty of staff working, right down to the door greeter to hand out
baskets to the customers (FLM, Homeco, Oxford).
Other examples of FLMs contravening central policies without detection included staff
scheduling:
Company policy requires staff schedules to be written four weeks in advance, but the reality
is that it’s easier to write the schedules every fortnight and so that’s what we do (FLM,
Homeco, Essex).
ER Official policy is 48 hours’ notice of any change in hours and then staff don’t have to work it.
But we often change their hours or ask them to work extra at much less notice because the
37,4 reality is that we have to and nobody challenges us (FLM, Superco, Lewisham).
These examples illustrate how the operational demands of the FLM’s role, particularly
the challenge of improving customer service on lower staffing budgets, considerably
influenced their implementation of ER/HRM. FLMs in both Superco and Homeco
470 adhered to budgetary controls and policies that were more centrally controlled, or where
any transgressions were more easily detected by Head Office. In addition, their
manipulation of workload allocation and staffing schedules appeared to be uncontested,
with evidence of support by their own line managers – the senior Store Managers. This
manifested in tangible budgets and targets dictating FLMs’ behaviours with ER/HRM
policies circumvented accordingly, resulting in a gap between intended and actual HRM.

Discussion and conclusions

This study investigated the organisational role of FLMs and their implementation of
ER/HRM policy to establish their contribution to the reported gap between intended
and implemented HRM. The research found that FLMs are key agents in people
management and play a critical role in the gap between intended and actual ER/HRM.
Delegation, alignment and monitoring problems contributed to this gap, but the tensions
inherent in the role of FLMs lead to a manipulation of their people management
responsibilities. This was facilitated by their high level of responsibility for ER/HRM, but
a lack of institutional support, monitoring or incentives to implement practice according
to central policy, which provided an opportunity to modify or resist intended policy.
While Superco maintained a closer monitoring of FLMs through budgets and targets this
did not negate the gap between intended and actual HRM.
Each organisation was under competitive conditions and the impact of the recent
recession compounded these pressures with FLMs ultimately at the forefront of
managing the ensuing challenges. As a result, the demands made on these managers
rested largely on the need to reconcile the downward pressure on costs with the goal of
raising the calibre and competence of employees to deliver a premium level of customer
service. FLMs became the players who facilitated necessary trade-offs to make these
conflicting strategies work. In answer to the call for research into the “actual HR role
line managers can realistically make in organisations” (Teague and Roche, 2012,
p. 235), this paper argues that FLMs working in the retail industry are constrained in
their people management role because their primary efforts are devoted to addressing
the conflicting strategies of cost reduction and quality enhancement inherent within a
customer service context. This conflict within their role is compounded by issues of
delegation, alignment and monitoring, particularly their performance being evaluated
through budgetary targets rather than HR outcomes. Within this context, ER/HRM
was primarily implemented to fulfil cost focused performance targets with FLMs acting
as “disturbance handlers” (Mintzberg, 1980, p. 128) due to the conflicts inherent within
their role and their contested position within the organisational structure.
This paper draws on data from only one industry and two organisations so any
conclusions drawn from the research study need to be considered within these
limitations. Nevertheless, the retail industry is similar to other service sector industries,
as well as the public sector, in terms of the formation of corporate strategies based on
quality enhancement and cost reduction in conjunction with a branch structure that
equates to detached reporting lines between HR professionals and line managers.
Therefore, some balanced conclusions can be made and parallels drawn from this Juggling on
research in the subject of FLMs and ER/HRM. the line
The implications for practitioners is that the context within which FLMs operate is
conducive, or otherwise, to the successful implementation of HRM and that corporate
strategies play an important role in this. Increased monitoring of FLMs’ performance,
particularly through budgetary targets is not necessarily the solution to achieving
greater conformity between intended and implemented ER/HRM. This research 471
suggests that FLMs will only find more sophisticated methods to circumvent central
policy when faced with contradictory demands and tensions within their role, as was
evident in Superco.
This paper highlights the critical role of FLMs in the implementation of ER/HRM
and confirms the problems of delegation, alignment and monitoring that have been
borne out in earlier research studies. In addition, it establishes that these issues extend
through the management hierarchy down to FLMs, who have, up to now, been largely
neglected in HRM-line management research. The cooperation, commitment and ability
of this group of managers is crucial in the HRM process if organisations want to close
the gap between intended and actual HRM. This research enhances our understanding
of the interplay between the role of FLMs, the context in which they operate, and the
problems of delegation, alignment and monitoring. In doing so, it provides a more nuanced
understanding of the ER/HRM process and the role of FLMs within this, particularly how
and why they contribute to the gap between intended and actual ER/HRM.
In terms of future research, the pivotal role of FLMs in ER/HRM presented in this paper
calls for a closer examination of the role of FLMs in a wider variety of organisational
settings, given that much of the current literature is concentrated on hospital contexts.
More detailed analysis of the tensions inherent in the role of both front line and middle
managers and the impact of this on the process of ER/HRM implementation is needed.
An examination of non-managerial employees is also needed to enable stronger links to
be drawn between intended, implemented and experienced HRM to support theory
development on the HR-performance causality chain.

References
Armstrong-Stassen, M. and Schlosser, F. (2010), “When hospitals provide HR practices tailored to
older nurses, will older nurses stay? It may depend on their supervisor”, Human Resource
Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 375-390.
Bondarouk, T., Looise, J.K. and Lempsink, B. (2009), “Framing the implementation of HRM
innovation: HR professionals vs line managers in a construction company”, Personnel
Review, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 472-491.
Brandl, J., Toft Madsen, M. and Madsen, H. (2009), “The perceived importance of HR duties to
Danish line managers”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 194-210.
Brewster, C., Gollan, P.J. and Wright, P.M. (2013), “Guest editors’ note: human resource
management and the line”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 52 No. 6, pp. 829-838.
Buyens, D. and De Vos, A. (2001), “Perceptions of the value of the HR function”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 70-89.
Cathcart, A. (2013), “Directing democracy: competing interests and contested terrain in the John
Lewis partnership”, Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 601-620.
Cathcart, A. (2014), “Paradoxes of participation: non-union workplace partnership in John Lewis”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 762-780.
ER Child, J. and Partridge, B. (1982), Lost Managers: Supervisors in Industry and Society, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
37,4
Cox, R. and Brittain, P. (2000), Retail Management, Pearson Education, Harlow.
Cunningham, I. and Hyman, J. (1999), “Devolving HR responsibilities to the line: beginning of the
end or a new beginning for personnel?”, Personnel Review, Vol. 28 Nos 1/2, pp. 9-27.
Freathy, P. and Sparks, L. (1996), “Understanding retail employment relations”, in Wrigley, N.
472 and Lowe, M. (Eds), Retail Consumption and Capital – Towards the New Retail Geography,
Longman, Marlow, pp. 177-198.
Freathy, P. and Sparks, L. (2000), “The organisation of working time in large UK food retail
firms”, in Baret, C., Lehndorff, S. and Sparks, L. (Eds), Flexible Working in Food Retailing,
Routledge, London, pp. 83-113.
Grugulis, I., Bozhurt, O. and Clegg, J. (2011), “No place to hide? The realities of leadership in UK
supermarkets”, in Grugulis, I. and Bozhurt, O. (Eds), Retail Work, Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke, pp. 193-212.
Guest, D. and Bos-Nehles, A. (2013), “HRM and performance: the role of effective implementation”,
in Guest, D., Paauwe, J. and Wright, P. (Eds), HRM and Performance: Building the Evidence
Base, Wiley, San Francisco, CA, pp. 179-196.
Hales, C. (2005), “Rooted in supervision, branching into management: continuity and
change in the role of first line manager”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 471-506.
Hales, C. (2006/2007), “Moving down the line? The shifting boundary between middle and first
line management”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 31-55.
Holt Larsen, H. and Brewster, C. (2003), “Line manager responsibility for HRM: what’s happening
in Europe?”, Employee Relations, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 228-244.
Hutchinson, S. and Purcell, J. (2007), “The role of line managers in reward, and training, learning
and development”, Research Report, CIPD, London.
Hutchinson, S. and Purcell, J. (2010), “Managing ward managers for roles in HRM in the NHS:
overworked and under-resourced”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 357-374.
Khilji, S.E. and Wang, X. (2006), “Intended and implemented HRM: the missing linchpin the
strategic human resource management research”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 1171-1189.
Korczynski, M. (2002), HRM in Service Work, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Lowe, J. (1993), “Manufacturing reform and the changing role of the supervisor; the case of the
automobile industry”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 739-758.
McConville, T. (2006), “Devolved HR responsibilities, middle-managers and role dissonance”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 637-653.
McGovern, P., Gratton, L., Hope-Hailey, V., Stiles, P. and Truss, C. (1997), “Human resource
management on the line?”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 12-29.
Mann, F.C. and Dent, J.K. (1954), “The supervisor: member of two organisational families”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 103-112.
Marchington, M. (1996), “Shopping down different aisles. A review of the literature on human
resource management in food retailing”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 21-32.
Marchington, M. and Suter, J. (2012), “Informality at work: patterns of voice in a non-union form”,
Industrial Relations, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 284-312.
Maxwell, G.A. and Watson, S. (2006), “Perspectives in line managers in HRM: Hilton Juggling on
International’s UK Hotels”, International Journal of Human Resource Management’, Vol. 17
No. 6, pp. 1152-1170.
the line
Mintzberg, H. (1980), The Nature of Managerial Work, HarperCollins, London.
Nehles, A.C., Riemsdijk, M., Kok, I. and Looise, J.K. (2006), “Implementing human resource
management successfully: a front-line management challenge”, Management Review,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 256-273. 473
Netemeyer, R., Maxham, J. and Lichtentein, D.R. (2010), “Store manager performance and
satisfaction: effects on store employee performance and satisfaction, store customer
satisfaction, and store customer spending growth”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95
No. 3, pp. 530-545.
Ogbonna, E. and Harris, L. (2001), “The performance implications of the work-oriented cognitions
of shopfloor workers: a study of British retailing”, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 1005-1028.
Ogbonna, E. and Whipp, R. (1999), “Strategy, culture and HRM: evidence from the UK food
retailing sector”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 75-90.
Purcell, J. and Hutchinson, S. (2007), “Front-line managers as agents in the HRM-performance
causal chain: theory, analysis and evidence”, Human Resource Management Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3-20.
Renwick, D. (2003), “Line manager involvement in HRM, an inside view”, Employee Relations,
Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 262-280.
Renwick, D. (2004) “Line managers and HR work”, Human Resources and Employment Review,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 262-280.
Renwick, D. (2009), “Line managers”, in Redman, T. and Wilkinson, A. (Eds), Contemporary
HRM, Pearson, London, pp. 227-242.
Roethlisberger, F.J. (1945), “The foreman: master and victim of double talk”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 283-298.
Sanders, K. and Frenkel, F. (2011), “HR line-management relations: characteristics and effects”,
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 1611-1617.
Skillsmart (2013), Retail: Key Facts and Figures, Skillsmart Retail, London.
Smith, A. and Elliott, F. (2012), “The demands and challenges of being a retail store manager:
handcuffed to the front doors”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 676-684.
Sparks, L. (2000), “Employment in food retailing”, in Baret, C., Lehndorff, S. and Sparks, L. (Eds),
Flexible Working in Food Retailing, Routledge, London, pp. 12-20.
Tamkin, P., Barber, L. and Dench, S. (1997), From Admin to Strategy: The Changing Face of the
HR Function. Report 332, IES, London.
Teague, P. and Roche, W. (2014), “Recessionary bundles: HR practice in the Irish economic crisis”,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 176-192.
Teague, P. and Roche, W.K. (2012), “Line managers and the management of workplace conflict:
evidence from Ireland”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 235-251.
Townsend, K. (2013), “To what extent to line managers play a role in modern industrial relations”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 421-436.
Townsend, K., Wilkinson, A. and Allan, C. (2012a), “Mixed signals in HRM: the HRM role of
hospital line managers”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 267-282.
Townsend, K., Wilkinson, A. and Burgess, J. (2012b), “Filling the gaps: patterns of formal and
informal participation”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 337-354.
ER Townsend, K., Wilkinson, C., Allan, C. and Bamber, G. (2012c), “Accidental, unprepared and
unsupported: the ward managers’ journey”, International Journal of Human Resource
37,4 Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 204-220.
Whittaker, S. and Marchington, M. (2003), “Devolving HR responsibility to the line: threat,
opportunity or partnership?”, Employee Relations, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 245-261.
Woodrow, C. and Guest, D. (2014), “When good HR gets bad results: exploring the challenge of
474 HR implementation in the case of workplace bullying”, Human Resource Management
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 38-56.
Wright, P. and Nishii, L. (2013), “Strategic HRM and organizational behaviour: integrating multiple
levels of analysis”, in Guest, D., Paauwe, J. and Wright, P. (Eds), HRM and Performance:
Building the Evidence Base, Wiley, San Francisco, CA, pp. 97-110.
Yin, R. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Further reading
Floyd, S. and Wooldridge, B. (1999), “Knowledge creation and social networks in corporate
entrepreneurship: the renewal of organisational capability”, Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 123-143.

About the author

Dr Samantha Evans is a Lecturer in Industrial Relations and Human Resource Management at
Kent Business School, the University of Kent. Her research interests include HRM and line
managers, retail trade union strategies in an international context, and social class inequality in
the workplace. Dr Samantha Evans can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]