Introduction
Within the industry of human resource management, the roles of being an effective strategic partner and an employee champion, or an employee advocate are considered to be mutually exclusive. However, this could be a form of identity crisis throughout the organization because the HR operations may need the company to be a strategic business partner, however, it always will cause a form of conflict to be considered an advocate for the employees of the company Collins & Smith, 2006). For instance, the human resource manager primary focus is to maximize the full capacity of human capital that would strategically be aligned with the company needs to increase the overall profits; while at the same time, these goals are not designed to directly benefit the employees. When human resource managers attempt to act like a business partner and portraying an identity of an employee champion, then it would eventually suffer from a lack of an internal inconsistency which would be perceived as a weak function for both the employees and managers of the organization (Flinchbaugh, Li, Luth, & Chadwick, 2016).
Therefore, one of the main concepts to understand that when the human resource manager strives to balance the role of the employee champion and the partner, this would only lead to the failure of the organization because it causes conflict and confusion (Flinchbaugh, Li, Luth, & Chadwick, 2016). Not to mention, the company mission or values are not being successfully implemented. Throughout this discussion, we will discuss the solutions in solving this identity crisis so that the organization could add more potential from a strategic perspective. We also review the historical context of these conflicting roles which dates back as early as the 1940’s because by understanding the history, then it would enable us to understand the crucial need to separate human resource management and the managers from being an employee champion in the work environment. In addition, it offers a benefit to the concept of employee advocacy, while being consistent within the roles of strategic human resource management.
Historical Perspective
Being considered an employee champion or advocate did not come into existence until the Human Relations movement in the 1940’s (King, 2015). This movement received an incredible amount of criticism because many individuals thought that it was an antagonist of the concept of Scientific Management. In addition, it was also considered by several other individuals to be a substitution on the corporate scale for labor unions. One reason for this is due to the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, many unions have lost their power to help employees and the number of membership attendees began to rapidly decline; therefore, many human resource organizations decided it was time to step up their roles and become the representative of the employee needs or interests. Due to this realization, the concept of human resources was established and this enabled the organization to delegate the job functions to the employees who fit the necessary skills of the position.
Whereas, many years later in the 1990s, the human resource managers shifted their main focus from the individual employees, but more towards the strategies which are beneficial to the organization. In some instances, human resource managers are unable to commit to this sort of change because their methods of identifying as employee champions are not modern and needs to be updated to fit the priorities of everyone. In the next section of our discussion, we will review the various ways over the past several decades in how the overall society helped in developing the identification as an employee champion or advocate.
Changes of Employee Advocacy
Since there has been such a significant change within the legal and society sectors of human resources embracing the role of an employee advocate, it is imperative to understand the court system and legislatives created laws which enabled the employee to become their own advocate when the need, or situation arises (Kuennen, 2015). Such laws that enables the employee to be their own advocate for protecting their rights are the a) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits employers to discriminate against an employee due to their race or cultural background, or b) Americans with Disabilities Act of 2010 which prohibits employers to discriminate against an employee with a legally recognized disability or mental impairment. These sorts of laws have increased the level of employee’s protection throughout the workplace, and as a result, it caused the employee to become not as dependent on the employer because these federal, or state laws are in place (Marasi & Bennett, 2016). Additionally, the court systems have added many limitations to the employee contracts, along with the bargaining powers that could be implemented from these laws.
The change of employee advocacy was not only shifted by the laws, but by cultural attitudes and technology as well. For instance, the development of the internet greatly impacted employee’s attitudes because it allowed them to have more access to information rather than previous decades. This access to more knowledge is another reason why employees are able to advocate for themselves without the help of the employer that he or she is working for. The employee could easily access the information on legal issues, career salaries, benefits or compensation, among other components (McClean & Collins, 2011). As the digital age of technology continues to advance on a daily basis, the employees who seek out this information will only continue to advocate independently and represent their own interests, instead of waiting for the managers of the human resource management organization to fulfill them.
Employees are now more willing than ever before to seek out employment elsewhere when they believe that they are not being well-represented at the organization, or the company not holding their best interests. Research shows that the older aged workers are also being taught to utilize technology and learning how to broaden their horizons with other organizations who may be perceived as a more appropriate fit because society is realizing that there is no longer a sense of economic security from a company and the employee has to look out for themselves (Monks et al., 2016). But despite these advancements, we must still consider the potential of the strategic human resource management which consists of letting go of any past attitudes or barriers to build a new credibility or trust to the role of being the business partner as well. Understanding these essential components would enable the human resource manager to become more aware of the functions of the roles of where the organization belongs and most importantly, where he or she would be accepted (Schuler, Jackson, & Tarique, 2011).
Understanding the Potential of Strategic Human Resource Management
The roles within strategic human resource management are mainly geared towards organizational designs, optimal performances, increasing the awareness of employee engagement, strengthening the areas of benefits or compensation, and aligning the strategy that will fit the needs of the organization Schuler, Jackson, & Tarique, 2011). Whereas, the employees who are the most qualified should be expected to follow the functions of human resources on an individual level and act as a self-advocate as previously mentioned. The employee should use their knowledge pertaining to the organization, or the market in general to be open to greater opportunities that would enhance their career development or goals. The human resource managers are also expected to act within a role of a negotiator, rather than an employee champion.
This would consist of developing and fine tuning existing skillsets in either creative or strategic ways which would bring more potential value to the organization, while satisfying the needs of the employees. One of the most important points of this discussion is to reach the understanding of not focusing on the exclusiveness of each of these roles, but instead how these roles could prove to be beneficial to both the employee and the manager. The transition of being a strategic business partner could also bring identity issues partly due to where the employee would belong, or accepted among other types of leaders within the organization such as the marketing firm or board of directors, for example. Therefore, shifting from employee champion to business partner roles can be very difficult and it would require getting along with all sorts of people from professional backgrounds (Monks et al., 2016).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the human resources department will have various levels of the difficulty of fully understanding the employee champion role and the strategic business role, or vice versa. When the growing need of the economy demands a greater number of highly skilled workers, then the human resource department must ensure reasonable efforts to not implement any old-fashioned employee champion identities and embrace the modern methods of human resource management by allowing the employee to be independent enough to exercise their own talents and abilities, while in compliance with effective and efficient human resource strategies. This sort of autonomy, along with more access to the market information and technology would allow the employee to successfully advocate for themselves. A successful organization would understand that the primary goal is not about being an employee champion, but more about self-advocacy.
Then again, there are organizations that would insist on maintaining both roles. So it order to make this possible, it is important to understand that the establishment of a strategic partner relationship would require a great deal of skills and work. Both the employee and the human resource manager must be proactive in the creation of new expectations and defining the overall value to the roles. Any and all old behaviors must be immediately eliminated and most importantly, there must be a new type of credibility, trust, or level of openness that must be created to successfully implement these dual roles.
References
Collins, C. & Smith, K. (2006). KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE AND COMBINATION: THE ROLE OF HUMAN RESOURCE PRACTICES IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIGH-TECHNOLOGY FIRMS. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 544-560. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.21794671
Flinchbaugh, C., Li, P., Luth, M., & Chadwick, C. (2016). Team-level high involvement work practices: investigating the role of knowledge sharing and perspective taking. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(2), 134-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12098
King, K. (2015). The Talent Deal: How employees respond to global talent management. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2015(1), 10163-10163. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2015.10163abstract
Kuennen, J. (2015). Critical Reflection: A Transformative Learning Process Integrating Theory and Evidence-Based Practice. Worldviews On Evidence-Based Nursing, 12(5), 306-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12095
Marasi, S. & Bennett, R. (2016). Pay communication: Where do we go from here? Human Resource Management Review, 26(1), 50-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.07.002
McClean, E. & Collins, C. (2011). High-commitment HR practices, employee effort, and firm performance: Investigating the effects of HR practices across employee groups within professional services firms. Human Resource Management, 50(3), 341-363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20429
Monks, K., Conway, E., Fu, N., Bailey, K., Kelly, G., & Hannon, E. (2016). Enhancing knowledge exchange and combination through HR practices: reflexivity as a translation process. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(3), 304-320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12108
Schuler, R., Jackson, S., & Tarique, I. (2011). Global talent management and global talent challenges: Strategic opportunities for IHRM. Journal of World Business, 46(4), 506-516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.10.011
