By

Asifa Tanveer
M.Phil. (MS)

25-11-2014

Bahria University Karachi Campus

Devolution of HR Responsibilities to the Line, Their Implications and Solutions

S.No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Title
Introduction
Rationale for Devolution
Implications for HR and The Line
Reality Vs. Perceptions
Costs and Benefits of Devolution
Solutions to minimize Implications
Conclusion

Devolution of HR Responsibilities to the Line, Their Implications and Solution

Introduction
In todays world, where technology is dominating the business world, people are so aware of their rights and
duties that they want themselves to be a part of management, where they could manage their own affairs
without undue interference from the management itself, while on the other hand, organizations also want their
employees to be so well versed with management activities that they are able to manage themselves and their
teams without putting a greater burden on organizations to waste their resources on handling small issues.
Organizations want their employees to work in teams and groups and participate in managing the organizations.
On the other hand, HR like any other department in the organization is expected to contribute towards attaining
competitive advantage for the organization. It is expected to bring an up in the revenues and help bring down

the costs for an organization to earn greater profits and attain a sustainable competitive advantage. Though, HR
departments cannot directly help an organization achieve greater profits and competitive advantage, they can do
it through enhancing the productivity of the employees within the organization. 21st century HRM is supposed
to deliver in four main areas: Enhance the productivity; Enhance Job satisfaction amongst the employees;
Reduce turnover; and Reduce Absenteeism. Here it should be of greater value to note that HR cannot directly
influence the employees of an organization to enhance their productivity and Job satisfaction and reduce their
turnover and Absenteeism. These tasks can only be performed with direct interactions with employees. The
group of managers, who are in direct contact with employees and have a greater degree of influence on them are
the Line managers. Line functions have direct impact on the accomplishments of the objectives of an
organization (Qadeer et al., 2011). Line managers have authority and considerable impact on the way employees
actually behave (Cascio, 2006).
Before the existence of a formal HR function in the organizations, HR management was a part and parcel of the
duties of line managers. They used to tend to the needs and rights of their employees. But with the advent of
trade unions, it was felt that the complications in the employee-worker relationship, another specialized
department should be formed that will deal exclusively with the issues of the workforce and will reduce the
burden on line managers to concentrate more on the vital tasks. Changes in organization of work increased the
power and influence of trade unions and shop stewards in the 1960s and 1970s, giving personnel managers to
co-ordinate management's response by negotiating and administering collective agreements (Renwick, 2003).
With the passage of time, trade unions lost their power and the conditions started to become normal, which
forced the line managers to crave for more power over their employees. As trade union influence decreased in
the 1980s and 1990s line managers re-asserted their prerogative to improve organizational performance in
increasingly competitive markets (Renwick, 2003).

Rationale for Devolution

21st century has witnessed an extensive evolution in the role of HR department, from a mere administrative
function to the role of strategic partner. This on one hand, has improved the image of HR and increased its
value, while on the other, it has burdened HR with not only strategy making but also daily activities that might
consume most of its time, leaving very little for strategy making. This very thought of releasing HR of some of
its day-to-day activities so that it may concentrate on its role of strategic partner, has forced the management to
devolve some of the responsibilities back to the line managers, who are the direct point of contact for
employees. The Advent of a more managerially focused HR department in recent years has coincided with a
pressure to devolve some or all of their authority to the non-specialist HR Managers (Larsen and Brewster,
2003).
Devolving the HR Responsibilities to Line Management
Bowen and Ostroff in 2004 proposed that in order for HR to be strong enough, it has to have three sets of
characteristics: Distinctiveness (Visibility; Understandability; Legitimacy of Authority; and, Relevance);
Consistency (Instrumentality; Validity; and, Consistent HRM Messages); and Consensus (Agreement among
principal HRM Decision makers; and, Fairness). In order to incorporate these characteristics in the organization
from top to bottom, they should be translated to the grassroots level with efficiency. Since Line managers are in
direct contact with the employees, they better can translate these HR practices with Distinctiveness and
Consistency to create a Consensus amongst the employees about HR practices. The line "should lead the way in
fully integrating HR into the company's real work" (Ulrich, 1998). According to Ulrich (1995), 21st century HR
has to play the role of a strategic partner of the organization. In order to play that role effectively, HR has to
shed some or all of its administrative activities and re-organize itself on the strategic footings. The devolution of
responsibility to the line and to HR consultants promises a liberation of HR professionals from the burdensome
toil of conducting routine techniques (Cunningham and Hyman, 1999, p. 10), leading them to be more
involved in strategic business decisions. New technology has further made the routine HR tasks easy to be
carried out by any manage in the firm on his/her own. HRM software have revolutionize the daily activities of
Human resource management, which suggests that day-to-day HR activities can be handed over to line
managers and they can carry them out with ease and effectiveness. The growing relevance of e-HR has added a

further rationale for devolution, as this should free up line managers, so allowing them to concentrate on other
(less mundane) areas such as training and development (Watkins and Higginbottom, 2002, p. 10). Brewster
and Larsen (2000) identify that development of cost-centre or profit-centre based approaches for managing
organizations, comprehensive approach to people management, growing influence of service industry, real time
decision making, and changes in the philosophy and structure of organizations are responsible for the
assignment of HR issues to the line.
Line Managers' Criticism
Line managers have a grievance that HR department does not readily respond to their queries and problems. HR
managers are unresponsive and slow to act, always wanting to check options thoroughly rather than pursuing a
series of actions and not worrying about the consequences until later (Cunningham and Hyman, 1999, p. 17).
Line managers think that HR department is not a mainstream department that makes it ineligible to draw out
strategic policies of the organization, since it does not have any idea of the main business of the organization
and is away from ground realities. HR practitioners are criticized for promulgating policies that may be ne in
theory but hard to put into effect, or inappropriate for their particular workplace (Whittaker and Marchington,
2003). Personnel practitioners are seen as out of touch with commercial realities, unable to comprehend the
nature of the business, its customers, or its corporate goals (Whittaker and Marchington, 2003). Line managers
see HR professionals as cutting on their freedom and autonomy. They try to restrict their authority on their
subordinates by trying to take matters related to workforce into their hands. HR is often seen to constrain the
autonomy of managers to make decisions that they feel are in the best interests of the business (Whittaker and
Marchington, 2003). These criticisms provide a convenient rationale for line managers to take even greater
responsibility for people management activities, although of course at one level this has always been one of
their jobs (Lowe, 1992). Line managers act as the first point of contact for employees, therefore they can play
their role to integrate HR policies and practices throughout the organization in all employees. They are closer to
employees demands, needs and problems, hence they can manage their affairs quite better than HR
professionals. Having ultimate responsibility may also enhance line management ownership of these issues, and
so increase their commitment to integrating HR with other objectives (Whittaker and Marchington, 2003).

Rationale For Devolvement

The rationale of line involvement in HRM is seen by Brewster and Larsen (2000) to have five main elements:

to reduce costs;
to provide a more comprehensive approach to HRM;
to place responsibility for HRM with managers most responsible for it;
to speed up decision making; and
as an alternative to outsourcing the HR function.

Reasons put forward for the growth of devolvement include:

The trend towards managing through cost-centres;

The need to link HRM with other aspects of day-to-day management;
the growing influence of the knowledge and service industries and the identification with the

"customers"; and
The Increasing "real-time" pressure on decision making.

Line managers operate at the workplace alongside the people they manage, it is suggested that their reactions
can be more immediate and appropriate. Moreover, their solutions are more likely to tie in with business
realities and therefore contribute more overtly to organizational goals and performance (Whittaker and
Marchington, 2003). Line managers are in the best position to take an active role in developing people whose
performance they have to manage (Heraty and Morley, 1995). Therefore, it is essential for HR to devolve some
of its responsibilities to Line, in order to incorporate HR practices in the organization. Only in this way, HR will
be able to enhance the productivity and job satisfaction of the employees and reduce their turnover and
absenteeism. Which, in turn will help organization achieve and sustain a competitive advantage. To be truly tied
to business outcomes, HR needs to join forces with operating managers to systematically assess the impact and
importance of initiatives (Ulrich, 1998).
Which HR activities are undertaken by The Line and to What Extent?
Several surveys indicate that line managers now have far greater responsibility for HR issues, typically in
conjunction with HR practitioners where they are employed (Whittaker and Marchington, 2003). Storey (1992)
detected some shifts in the early 1990s when line managers were at the forefront of various change initiatives
and communicating direct to their staff through team briefings ((Whittaker and Marchington, 2003). HR

function took the lead in developing policy, whilst, line managers played a much greater part in resourcing and
employee relations, while in employee development and employee reward, HR professionals still had a
signicant role in most issues (Hutchinson and Wood, 1995). Hall and Torrington (1998, p. 57) found that HR
managers played the biggest role in issues concerning pay and benets and the least in appraisals, quality
initiatives, health and safety and communications. In general, it would appear that HR involvement tends to be
highest where issues of consistency and specialist expertise are most important and lowest when line managers
are responsible for dealing with everyday management issues (Whittaker and Marchington, 2003).
Nevertheless, the conclusion from most studies is that HR specialists and line managers tend to work in
conjunction with each other across a wide range of issues.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
A comparative analysis, based on Nature of business, ownership, functional area and Length of service of line
managers, about the HR activities undertaken by Line Management is given below:
Items

Comments

Nature of Business

Line Managers in IT/ITES business appear to be slightly more

a) IT/ITES
b) Manufacturing
c) Service

associated with HR activities followed by Manufacturing and

Service Organizations

Ownership
a)
b)
c)
d)

Local MNC
Foreign MNC
Private Sector
Public Sector
Functional Area

a)
b)
c)
d)

Line Managers of Multinational Companies are slightly better

associated with HR activities than the others.

Line Managers working in systems area are better involved in HR as

Systems
Maintenance
Operations
Marketing

compared to other line managers in the functional areas of

Length of service

Line Managers with 5-10 years of service are slightly better

operations, marketing and maintenance.

a) Less than 5 years

b) 5 - 10 years
c) 10 and above years

associated with HR activities than their counterparts.

Implications of Devolvement for HR and the Line

It is essential to dig into the rationale behind the devolution of HR responsibilities to the Line, but it is of utmost
importance to realize and discuss the implications it may have for HR professionals and Line managers.
Hoogendoorn and Brewster (1992) argue that devolution creates both threats and opportunities for the HR
specialist. There are extensive implications from any move to assign responsibility for HR more to line
managers. These come under three headings:
1. Effects on the size of the HR department;
2. Effects on the role and shape of the HR department; and
3. Effects on the shape of the organization (Larsen and Brewster, 2003).
Effects on the size of the HR Department
With the devolution of HR work to line, it is extensively felt that size of the HR department needs to be cut
down and it should be downsized to reduce the burden on the finances of the organization. With more of their
work being handled by the line, there is less need for so many people in the "overhead cost" HR department
(Larsen and Brewster, 2003). Traditionally, Size of the HR departments used to vary by size of the organization
and by sector, but with this devolution, the size of the HR department tends to be of comparatively similar sizes.
Moreover, devolvement to line has shifted the focus of organizations from having more generalists to having
more specialists in the organization. It seems likely that where organizations have HR departments with a high
proportion of "specialists" they are more likely to be able to influence line management practice directly, thus
affecting the nature of the debate about allocation of HR tasks to the line (Larsen and Brewster, 2003). The
Cranet-E data are supported by a survey in the UK (of far fewer organizations) which found 40% cut the
number of central personnel employees in the last five years (IRS, 1996), and case study analyses show the
same thing (Gennard and Kelly, 1997). But it would be unfair to blame the reduction HR departments size
merely on the devolution of its responsibilities. The other factor behind this reduction is of financial pressures.

To have a small HR department surely reduces costs for the organization but Line managers working without
the support of HR may become a risk of increased costs for the organization. This concern has further
aggravated the debate on the role HR department needs to perform.
Effects on the role of HR Department
A situation, where HR has to act as a strategic partner, it has to devolve some of its daily responsibilities to the
line to free itself up for the greater task but it, indeed has increased the pressure on the personnel or HR
department to prove its value. Ulrich (1995) has examined the need for "21st century oriented" HRM and
offered a useful Conceptualization of the way that the HRM department itself is developing. He identifies four
possibilities: Administrative Expert, Employee Champion, Strategic Partner and Change Agent (Larsen and
Brewster, 2003). Though, there is no argument against the importance and essentiality of the roles of
administrative expert and employee champion, but in todays fast paced and challenging world, it is more
important for HR to pay greater attention to the roles of strategic partner and change agent.
Ulrich's 21st Century HRM Roles and Implications
Administrative Expert
HR professionals, who have been good at their jobs, and hold a treasure of knowledge are seen as a valuable
source of advice and "how to get it done" information by the line manager, but HR professionals who are less
good may be seen as worst kind of bureaucrats with little or no use to Line managers. The role of HR as an
administrative expert has been shared and reduced by various HRM software, which not only reduce the time
taken for these activities to be carried out but also with effectiveness. The development of smart computer
systems and the increasing outsourcing of many HR tasks may be that the department's "administrative expert"
work is sharply reduced (Larsen and Brewster, 2003). Alternatively, with the spread of intelligent information
and communication systems, much of this work will be available to the line manager without the intervention of
an HR specialist.
Employee Champion

They May find themselves at odds with the line manager, in a kind of loyal opposition role. Where, the HR
department acts as a "strategic partner" it may well be that it is the line managers who take on an "employee
champion" role; trying to protect their staff from hard-nosed interventions of HR. Where, the HR department
acts as a "strategic partner" it may well be that it is the line managers who take on an "employee champion"
role; trying to protect their staff from hard-nosed interventions of HR. Diminution of the administrative roles
will free up the department to concentrate on the change agent and strategic partner roles (Larsen and Brewster,
2003).
Strategic Partner and Change Agent
Line Managers share with them totally in the creation of policy and also in its implementation. They will not be
expected to agree with everything the line manager proposes, or expected to accept something when their
professional expertise tells them that it is wrong to do so. Objective is to use the Partnership to develop jointly
agreeable policies; and policies which, because they have been sensibly argued and thought through, will have a
more realistic chance of implementation (Larsen and Brewster, 2003).
Implications for the Shape of HR department
A report in 1995 argued that increasing devolution would have important implications for HR departments: they
would be smaller, because the work was being shared with line managers, so fewer specialists would be needed
(Larsen and Brewster, 2003). The departments would include more generalists able to turn their hands on any
aspect of personnel work: and an associated change would see them developing greater skills and competences
(Hutchison and Wood, 1995). In many cases the issue of assignment of responsibility between specialist HR
departments and the line managers is conflated with the issue of decentralisation. One implication may be that
moves towards line management involvement are being made at the same time that responsibility for HRM is
being decentralised to operating units. As organisations become more knowledge intensive, dependent on knowhow and service, HR becomes a more critical part of the operation and a more critical role for the immediate
manager. (Larsen and Brewster, 2003).
Implications for the Shape of the Organization

The debate about the line management role in HRM is confused inmany organizations by significant changes to
the way the organizations are structured. As a simple instance, in many cases the issue of assignment of
responsibility between specialist HR departments and line managers is conflated with the issue of
decentralization (Larsen and Brewster, 2003). As organizations decentralize, there are only two ways that a
personnel or HR department could maintain its previous role. One would be to take on considerably more staff
.. and .. the other would be to insist on a standardization of personnel policies across the decentralized
units, which somewhat defeats the objective of decentralization (Larsen and Brewster, 2003). Therfore, with the
devolution of HR is likely to accompany the decentralization of the organization to reduce the costs. By the
mid-1990s, Hutchinson and wood (1995, p.9) reported greater line management involvement in personnel issues
compared with five years before, devolution often being accompanied by decentralization within the
organization and with greater financial autonomy and responsibility (Whittaker and Marchington, 2003). The
managers are caught in a more extreme form of the classic dilemma: having to maintain their functional
expertise, as well as having to be people managers encouraging others to do the work, rather than doing it
themselves (Larsen and Brewster, 2003). A parallel trend is found in hi-tech, knowledge-intensive organisations
which are increasing the use of exible organisational stuctures (matrix, adhocracy, project teams, etc) where
hierarchical and rigid structures are irrelevant (Larsen and Brewster, 2003). In project-based organizations,
Bredin and Soderlund (2007) believe that being a legitimate player in the HRM of a firm, a line manager should
be given HR-oriented management role as against the traditional hierarchical and bureaucratic role. This new
approach also affects the organizational structure, content and the fundamental role of line managers (Larsen
and Brewster, 2003). In addition, the line manager roles in organisations become increasingly complex because
new organisational structures (e.g., virtual and network organisations) have less well-dened line manager roles
than the traditional hierarchical, bureaucratic organisation which moulded the line manager role in the rst place
(Larsen and Brewster, 2003).
Reality Vs. Perceptions
Problems, tensions, difficulties and differences among HR specialists and line managers are also a byproduct of
devolvement. The practical problems associated with this development, line managers:

may not want this responsibility;

may not have the time to deal with it properly;
may not have the ability to handle HR issues effectively, nor the training for it;
are often ignorant about recent developments in thinking about HRM;
may not take a comprehensive organisational or longer term view of the topic; and
are poor at making policy in this area.

Perceptions of Line Managers

Positive Perceptions
The Line are taking on

Negative Perception

General perceptions

The line have many duties, and

The line detail their role as

lack time to do HR work well.

shareholders agents.

responsibility and accountability in

HR work.
The line want reciprocity from
Flexibility is forthcoming from the

The line do not see themselves as

HR to deliver business targets

line to do HR work.

experts in HRM.
if the line do HR work.

The line are keen to take part on

Doing HR work dilutes the line's

doing HR work.

generalist managerial focus.

The line are managing large

Significant line inadequacies in

number of employees.

handling HR work.
Tensions between line and HR

The line take a professional and

over transfer and completion of
serious attitude to doing HR work.
HR duties.
The need to to reflect and be
Line managers are relatively happy
critical of their performance in HR
doing some HR work.
work.
The line are considerate of

The line are reliant on HR to do

HR work properly.
employee needs and wishes.
The line see HR as positive helpers

Differing line commitment and

in HR work.

discipline levels to doing HRM.

The line see career benefits for

The line have little authority in

them in doing HR work.

HR.
Little Appreciation of line
flexibility in doing HR tasks from
firms

Wright et al. (1998) indicates that involvement of HR executives in strategic management strongly relates to
line managers perception of the effectiveness of the HR function.
Perceptions of HR
There are complaints from HR that line managers either do not take advantage of preparatory training and
development opportunities or acquire general management skills rather than specialist employee relations
responsibilities. Whittaker and Marchington (2003) have discussed two major concerns about devolution of HR
to Line. First, because line managers have many other more pressing priorities than managing and developing
the people working for them, it is likely that people management issues will be taken less seriously than
production and service goals. Second, it is argued that line managers do not possess the skills and competencies
necessary to perform the HR aspects of their jobs effectively without support from HR practitioners (Whittaker
and Marchington, 2003). Line managers lack time, ability, training, updated knowledge, strategic focus and
policymaking skills to handle the patchy situation (Brewster, 2007). On the other hand, this devolution has
bettered the image of HR department in its own eyes and they consider them as important rather than only
Notions

YES

NO

The Line is forced to do HR

The line were not keen in doing HR work as it

The line being keen to do some HR work as part

Work? (Harris, 2001)

diluted their focus/didn't want to be experts in

of their job.

HRM/saw a price to be paid in making

supervisors do HRM.
The Line have HR work

The line were managing more employees than

Line saw a need to do HR work as "as it's my

dumped on them? (McConville

before on a day-to-day basis.

job anyway".

The Line are Capable in HRM?

The line does manage to complete some HR

Not all of this work was done well. The line

(Brewster and Larsen, 2000)

work (employee recognition/Redundancy

were not reflective on their performance in HR

selection/Sickness Absence

work.

Whether the line treated

The line were aware of the need to treat

Line can be "strong characters", "give staff a

employees fairly and

employees with respect, conduct appraisals and

hard time" and consider them as "shareholders

consistently?

be professional in employee relations.

agents".

and Holden, 1999)

overhead costs. Devolution has a positive effect on HR managers constructed image (that is, the HRs
perceptions of their units reputation among line managers) and changes in the HR function mediate this effect
(Kulki and Perry, 2008). There are certain other perceptions about devolution of HR responsibilities to the Line.
Renwick (2003) has identified those notions and has come up with for and against arguments on them. Below is
a table showing those notions and their positions.
Reasons of Differences between HR and Line
After assessing the perceptions of Line and HR about each other we can conclude that there are four possible
explanations for HR-line differences:

the HR function is not delivering the services expected,

traditional linestaff conflict,
line managers failure to implement well-designed HR systems, and
the lack of line managers involvement in HR activities (Wright et al., 1998; Mitsuhashi et al., 2000).

Benefits and Costs of Devolution

(adapted from Brewster and Larsen (2000), Budhwar (2000), Currie and Procter (2001), Harris (2001),
Marchington (1999), Sisson and Storey (2000), Sparrow (1999), Thornhill and Saunders (1998)).

Solution to counter the implications for HR and the Line

Some practitioners have suggested that the HR function could be disbanded if line managers are given and
accept this responsibility (Cooper, 2001). They are of the view that, if line is managing HR responsibilities
effectively, then it is no use to have HR department in place to become an overhead cost and a burden on the
organization. They think it appropriate to eliminate the HR function altogether. John (1998) has even gone so
far as to suggest that HR should be torn apart, outsourced and downsized. For most observers, however, the
solution is not to get rid of the function altogether, but to encourage HR practitioners to be accepted as
business partners by their senior management colleagues (Whittaker and Marchington, 2003). Without

Specialist HR support and clear procedures to follow, it is likely that inconsistencies will appear, most
noticeably in complying with procedures and legislation (Earnshaw et al., 2000). On the one hand it is argued
that HR resides properly with the people directly responsible for supervising staff whose primary purpose is to
manufacture products, sell goods and equipment or provide a public or customer service. On the other hand,
there are claims that effective HRM cannot be delivered by line managers whose primary responsibilities lie
elsewhere, namely in meeting service or production goals, and who have scant regard for learning how to find
ways to get the best out of their staff. Under this scenario, it is argued that line managers are bound to need
continuous and systematic support and training from HR specialists to ensure that they do not make mistakes
that can be costly at a later date. It would be more fruitful to identify how line managers and HR specialists
might work together in partnership. It is simplistic to assume that HRM should be undertaken either by line
managers or by the HR function, but instead we need to establish how tasks can be combined or divided up
between managers (Ulrich, 1998; Renwick, 2000; Marchington and Wilkinson, 2002). Jackson and Schuler
(2000) treat managing human resources as a responsibility shared by line managers, HR Professionals and
Employees.Teo (2002) believes that HRM is too important to be left to the specialists; therefore, it has to be
shared. Line managers have responsibility for HRM in their respective work floors and HR professionals have
to help line managers and coordinate HR function across the organization. Providing line managers with
training and support in HRM has a greater positive impact on perceived effectiveness in organizations that have
not devolved compared to those that have (Perry and Kulki, 2008). The line should adopt a "partnership"
approach between HR, line and employees to manage HR issues - "an HR triad" (Jackson and Schuler, 2000).
The Objective is to use the Partnership to develop jointly agreeable policies; and policies which, because they
have been sensibly argued and thought through, will have a more realistic chance of implementation
Conclusion
HR-Line relationship is complex, ambiguous and dynamic. Each of them has its own sets of grievances and
appraises for each other. With the ever-changing and ever-evolving world, it is essential to manage the Human
resources of an organization effectively to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage, because it is the only
resource which is non-replicable by any other organization. Every organization has its own unique sets of HR

practices that help it achieve its competitive advantage. With this growing trend, it was felt essential to devolve
some of the day-to-day HR responsibilities to the line managers, who are closer to the employees and their
problems, with essential HR backing and policy making, in order to make the HR practices, distinctive and
consistent to create a consensus amongst the employees about HR practices. Therefore, in modern
organizations, Line managers have been given higher responsibility with respect to performance management,
and training and development and lower responsibility in employee compensation systems. Some practitioners
consider HR as an unnecessary luxury (John, 1998; Cooper, 2001) but, it is an established fact that line
managers due to their other commitments and different expertise, cannot handle the HR responsibility alone.
There, indeed are some tasks that require special expertise and Knowledge, which can only be provided by HR.
Therefore a coherent and Systematic HR presence is mandatory. In order to devolve HR responsibility
effectively, HR needs to recruit, induct, appraise and reward and train up effective line managers in HR aspects.
For that matter, HR should pay more attention to senior line managers. The assumed split between HR taking a
strategic HR role and the line doing operational (perhaps devolved) HR work seems a false one. If HR and
Line do not work in partnership, a structural hole may appear in the organizations. Sharing Responsibilities and
Entering into a Viable Partnership may prove to be a better solution. Moreover, to be effective this process
needs to take place in a series of work relationships between these managers based on mutual trust and nonduplicity (MacNeil, 2003). Cunningham and Hyman (1999) find that devolvement promotes integrative culture
of HRM and works to secure employee commitment. The line managers may have the desire to do HR work,
and may have both the capacity and ability to do it well, but without proper training and guidance from HR,
they will not be able to achieve the desired results. Therefore, it is considered essential for HR and Line to work
in partnership to effectively manage the Human resources of the organization to achieve a sustainable
competitive advantage.