How and where are HR practitioners acting strategically? 51

2.4.4.1 Aspiration’s for boardroom representation

While HR practitioners have aimed their sights on the boardroom, in cases where these aspirations have been achieved evidence largely does not support

- 52 -

any significant strategic impact resulting from a board position. Longitudinal research by Lawler and Boudreau (2015) illustrated that the manner in which the HRF has helped boards has in fact been limited. They report that from their findings few significant changes had occurred between 2003 in 2013 because of the HRF having boardroom representation. They did however find - while it was not a strong relationship – that boards are more likely to use HR’s help on strategic issues if the organisation has a strong strategic focus. The overall impact of strategic involvement and boardroom interaction is, however, perhaps best summed up with their statement: “Overall, it is clear that in most companies, HR has its foot in the boardroom door, but that is all, and there is no evidence of this changing” (p. 24).

It is true that evidence shows boards are spending more time devoted to strategy (Anderson, Melanson, & Maly, 2007), but within the literature varied empirical and theoretical positions have garnered little agreement on

understanding how boards contribute to strategy (Hendry et al., 2010). This poses problems for understanding how an HR practitioner contributes to strategy, especially if we look beyond merely having a seat at the table. In one of the few studies to address how board members and senior management contribute to strategy, Hendry et al. (2010) – using an SAP approach - identified varied states of strategic contribution in which boards and management conform to. They found that, like both the active and passive schools of behaviour purport, how ‘the manner boards’ act in their strategic role can be very context dependent.

- 53 -

Accordingly, how the board of directors interacted with management in their strategic role were found to range from procedural strategising to interactive strategising. In the first instance, the former engaged in either a minimalist approach to strategy, or, an oversight position that favoured management engaging in strategic decisions, with the board having high structural legitimacy. In the case of the latter, such a position was formed by either a high engagement towards episodic calibration with management for the transformation of the firm, or continuous and ongoing collaboration with management.

Such findings first align to Lawler and Boudreau (2015) assertions that boards were more likely to employ HR’s help if the organisation has a strong strategic focus. Second, they add to an array of approaches that seek to look beyond what practices are being used, to focus on how such practices emerge, and how they are carried out. In terms of the implications of their findings, Hendry et al. (2010) found context seems to play an important role in such positions being adopted, and in turn becomes a strong influencer on how strategy is shaped.

Along these lines in the HR domain, thus far, there appears to be insufficient explanations regarding what conditions HR strategic interactions function under, and under what conditions they would likely occur. Similarly, at this level of analysis, scholarship has yet to sufficiently demonstrate an

understanding of how the HRF’s ability to contribute to strategy is influenced by organisational dynamics, and how strategic influence occurs in practical terms. Certainly, a small number of finer grained enquiries have made

- 54 -

advancements in this respect (Pritchard, 2010; Truss et al., 2002; Welch & Welch, 2012), but our understanding regarding what being strategic actually entails, and the phenomena around this, still remains constrained (Björkman et al., 2014).

2.4.4.2 Strategic activity beyond the boardroom

A possible limitation that has hindered progress towards understanding how strategic activity is carried out between organisations and the HRF stems from the levels of analysis being employed within scholarship. Being confined to the senior management level of analysis alone (Wright & Nishii, 2007; Wright & Nishii, 2013), in the pursuit of understanding how HR is strategic, may be ill-conceived. As Caldwell (2011) points out, from a SAP perspective, the focus on the strategic importance of the board room may be somewhat

misguided. He notes that high level representation is of little importance if one is unable to exercise influence. He draws on the findings of Jarzabkowski and Balogun (2009) to note: what is important is that “HR can exercise influence and make a business contribution at whatever level is appropriate” (p. 54). Subsequently, other avenues of strategic influence that are available to the HRF are dependent on context.

Indeed, HR scholarship would point to this. Kelly and Gennard (2007), in their research on the locus of strategic decision making, showed that board of director membership is not required to influence strategic formulation and strategic decisions. Rather, influence occurs with proximity to the CEO in committees, with informal channels also available to exert influence. Other scholarship by Brandl and Pohler (2010) notes that the constraints upon the

- 55 -

CEO narrows or widens the strategic role he or she can bestow upon the HRF. The scope the CEO has for action, their willingness to delegate responsibility, and their perceived aptitude of the HRF all influence how much strategic responsibility the HRF has. Such findings have significant implications for how the HRFs and various HR actors assert agency – discussed in section 2.8 – if one is attentive to the emergent and dynamic nature of strategy

(Mintzberg, 1978).

That is not to say that boardroom placement does not play a role in strategic action. Caldwell (2011) found that HR directors within the boardroom are more confident in their ability to exert strategic influence, yet noted that many of their interviewees asserted executive committees, as well as partnerships with line management, were both equally important in the emergent process of strategy formulation. They reported that a seat at the boardroom table was therefore not required to exert influence, yet the status and legitimacy granted from a seat was still profoundly important to HR practitioners. Such findings would suggest that while understanding how HRM strategic influence occurs within the boardroom would be useful to HRM scholarship, other levels of analysis will likely bear more immediate impact when seeking to understand how HR acts strategically.

In respect to HR interactions with other BUs as a means to be strategic, social capital research by Mäkelä et al. (2013) illustrates that despite the intuitive notion that centrality and proximity to key decision makers would yield strategic influence, such proximity to strategic decision makers does not always result in the actualisation of strategic influence. The premise of

- 56 -

structural social capital acting as a pathway to influence strategy is certainly inviting. Close proximity between the HRF and BU heads could easily be conceived as a critical condition for individual action (Sumelius, Björkman, & Smale, 2008).

Yet, Mäkelä et al. (2013) found no meaningful relationship between structural capital and strategic capabilities. Rather, relational social capital presented as a strong and significant relationship (i.e., the degree of trust, norms and

expectations embedded within relationships). As their findings illustrate, structural capital may present an opportunity for proximity to establish a relationship between HR practitioners and business actors, but the nature of the relationship is what impacts strategic capabilities (Mäkelä et al., 2013).

SAP scholarship by Jarzabkowski and Balogun (2009) further supports these findings. In research reviewing how strategic planning delivers strategic integration, they argue that integration is unlikely to stem merely “from bringing people together” (p. 1256). In their work, exclusion from strategic discourse was found to be possible, even if physical inclusion is granted, and actors are active. These findings add to a growing body of literature that advances the idea that the strategic influence of HR can be achieved without a position in the boardroom (Armstrong, 2000; Kelly & Gennard, 2001; Stiles & Taylor, 2001; Torrington & Hall, 1996).

Influence therefore cannot be either assumed or assured merely because structurally one is granted proximity to senior managers, or any key strategic stakeholder. Such research, however, also reflects that legitimacy issues remain highly relevant within the HR profession. If proximity to board

- 57 -

members and senior managers by HR professionals does not guarantee

strategic influence, understanding how strategic interaction occurs despite this, or in response to this is worthy of investigation. Given that legitimacy

concerns have been a factor in the literature already discussed, it is perhaps not surprising that this is also the case in other areas of scholarship.