The Lead Body Model of Personnel Management – A Critique

THE LEAD BODY MODEL OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT - A CRITIQUE

Stephen Gibb, University of Struthclyde

INTRODUCTION

Modelling personnel management As the rhetoric which has accompanied the human resource management (HRM) versus personnel management debate is increasingly subject to comparison with the reality of personnel practice (Millward, et ul 1992; Sisson, 1994; Storey 1994) a clearer picture of the balance between change and continuity in the evolution of LJK personnel management is emerging.

For some, the changes associated with HRM have primarily been about rhetoric (Keenoy, 1990; Legge, 1991) and therefore reflect changes in language rather than substance. For others, a distinctive HRM approach is identifiable, but there are fundamental bamers to developing a fullblown ‘HRM’ approach in the UK (Sisson, 1994). Various factors, from the nature of the UK economy to the status of the personnel function, make the take up of HRM approaches difficult or untenable.

Whatever the specific perspective taken on evaluating change and continuity in UK personnel management, there has been a general concern with identifying and analysing models of personnel management. This has not been an academic, abstract exercise. As Tyson (1987) emphasised, any assessment of personnel management is conditioned by the model adopted. In an era particularly concerned with assessing the effectiveness of personnel management (see for example Fernier et ul 1994; Guest and Peccei, 1994) it is no surprise that there has been a growing concern with trying to build useful models to help in that assessment.

In a recent article, Fowler (1994) identified at least 20 models of personnel management. He argued that it would be wrong to highlight any one of these as providing an exclusive framework for understanding personnel management theory and practice. Yet, in the midst of this process of analysing and modelling change and continuity in personnel management, one model is poised to have a considerable impact. This is the Personnel Standards Lead Body (PSLBf model of personnel management.

The PSLB model has been created in the course of determining national occupational standards for personnel management (Reid, 1992; Holmes, 1992; McKiddie, 1994). Diagram 1 gives an overview of the areas covered in the PSLB model. This model was ostensibly created by consulting employers, senior personnel practitioners and other stakeholders in an attempt to build a competence-based map of personnel management. It is claimed that, in the course of creating this model, around 1000 organisations have been consulted (PSLB, 1993a).

DIAGRAM 1 The areas ‘mupped’by the PSLB

1 PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT I

work processes key purpose values roles

60 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL VOL 5 NO 5


The research that underpins this model was designed around the methods of ‘mapping’ and functional analysis. ’Mapping’ means, in the first instance,

The process of identifying the scope of an occupational area/sector and involves determining boundaries, the nature and the overall purpose of the domain in question.

Caple et al, 1992: 7

This produces an ‘occupational‘ map. More detailed work is then done to d a r t the territory which has been delineated. This work of detailing the territory is termed functional analysis. Functional analysis (Stewart and Hamblin, 1992 30) is

. . .q uite simple. The question asked is basically, “What is the purpose (or function) of a given job or occupation?” The same question is then repeatedly asked of each answer. This has the effect of disaggregating the job into its component parts and activities.

Thus a ’functional’ map is created. What the method of occupational mapping and functional analysis produces is, in effect, a generic and detailed job description.

Apart from simply explaining the nature of this model of personnel management there are two key reasons, associated with the impact that this model will have, which make it necessary to analyse the PSLB model in detail.

Firstly, it is claimed that this model is a comprehensive, detailed and integrated picture of modern personnel management in the UK (McKiddie, 1994). It is, in effect, the ultimate job description. It can, therefore, displace and supersede previous models of personnel management. Thus the model is described as a’milestone for personnel’ (McKiddie, 1994 30) and ”a big step forward” (Whittaker et nl, 1994: 28). Clearly the extent to which this model does displace other models of personnel management (Legge, 1978; Tyson, 1987; Fombrun et al, 1984, Beer et nl, 1985) raises a number of issues that deserve closer consideration.

Secondly, the PSLB model will have a major impact on personnel practitioners. One impact will be on the educational systems that personnel practitioners go through. These systems will either be based on, or be redesigned to fit with, the PSLB model. Another impact will come through the promulgation of the PSLB model as a ’benchmark’ (McKiddie, 1994) for personnel management in organisations.

Before describing and analysing the PSLB model more fully, some background information on the PSLB is needed.

The PSLB The work of the PSLB was undertaken as part of the broader national programme to develop occupational standards which has been operating since 1986 under the guidance of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications (NCVQ) in England and Wales and the Scottish Vocational Education Council (SCOTVEC) in Scotland. This is an initiative to identify occupational standards for all forms and levels of work in the UK. These standards are the basis for a new system of vocational qualifications in the UK.

Standards are identified as the competencies required to perform the activities of the occupation to the levels of performance expected in employment. While there is continuing debate about what exactly is meant by ’competence’ (Carr, 1993; Holmes and Joyce, 1993; Hyland, 1993; Woodruffe, 1993) the implications are evident enough. Standards are developed

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT JOURNAL VOL 5 NO 5 61

STEPHEN GIBB, UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE

according to the view (Smithers, 1993: 16) that "it is what people can do that counts; what they know or understand can be inferred from what they do". So any description and analysis of an occupation requires research which aims to determine

what it is that people do in that occupation. The task of doing such an analysis was given to Lead Bodies. Lead Bodies are 'employment led' organisations responsible for determining the standards that should apply to the occupation under consideration. They involve employers and others from relevant bodies such as the NCVQ trade unions and professional institutions. For example, the chair of the PSLB was David Sieff of Marks and Spencers, Christina Townsend (who was then in NHS personnel) played a key roie and the Institute of Personnel Management (IPM,' were also involved. The research and practical work is undertaken, within a very rigid format, by consultants.

The primary focus for standards setting is the creation of a framework for new vocational qualifications. The rationale for al l this activity is that the development of competence-based standards and new qualifications will be a major lever through which current National Vocational Education and Training (NVET) policy in the UK is achieved. This is exemplified by the centrality of these new qualifications to the National Education and Training Targets (NElTs), (Bilsborough and Ross, 1993; Lowe, 1994) which are the key to the current NVET strategy.

The PSLB itself is now incorporated into an Occupational Standards Council (OSC), merging with several other lead bodies. The model of personnel management it has developed still represents a major exercise into modelling current personnel management in the UK.

THE PSLB MODEL OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

The model of personnel management that the PSLB have created involves a framework based on four components; a key statement of purpose, an identification of values, a description of the key roles of the occupation and an account of the work processes involved in the occupation. In this section these components are described and analysed in the context of considering change and continuity in the modelling of personnel management.

A 'key' statement of purpose for personnel management The PSLB define the key purpose of personnel management as:

to enable management to enhance the individual and collective contributions of people to the short and long term success of the enterprise. This will be achieved by the management and provision of inter-related activities and initiatives in strategy and policy, operational processes and specialist services. These activities will support and m o w the environment, climate and culture in which management operates.

PSLB, 1993 18

This is clearly an 'umbrella' definition of personnel management, attempting to capture one way of defining what personnel management is. It also clearly reflects elements of a definition I would associate more with the language of HRM approaches than with traditional personnel management. As Beardwell and Holden (1994 10) put it,

the 'liberal' conception of personnel management as standing between employer and employee, moderating and smoothing the interchange between them -is viewed as untenable; HRM is about shaping and delivering corporate strategies with commitment and results.



At this level, therefore, the PSLB can be seen to be reflecting the trend towards the normative use of HRM terms and concepts. The PSLB model embodies change at this level, therefore, in two key senses. First, it is a standardised, single ’umbrella’ definition and, secondly, it reflects ‘HRh4’ terms and concepts.

An identification of values An identification of the values which need to inform an understanding of personnel management and its practice is the next component of the PSLB model.

There are two different sets of values discussed in the PSLB model. Firstly there are ’core organisational values’ (PSLB 1993b: 5):

dealing with people fairly; maximising the development and training of the workforce to meet the current

and future needs of the enterprise; providing equal opportunities for all as a continuing feature of management

practice and personnel processes; handling disciplinary matters within the principles of natural justice; and creating and maintaining a safe and healthy working environment.

The second set of values are more specifically relevant to the personnel function itself. These are the values which specialists and generalist personnel practitioners should focus on. While these remain to be more explicitly articulated and explained, the themes are clear enough (PSLB, 1993b):

business professionalism; quality of service; adding value to the enterprise; and fostering mutual interests.

There is here a continuity with traditional ideas, particularly in the highlighting of two sets of values. The differentiation of, at least, two sets of values can be found in many forms. For example the long highlighted tensions and ambiguity between a ’people‘ and a ’business’ orientation in personnel management. One expression of this is found in the work of Watson (1977) and another interesting version of the debate can be seen in Legge‘s discussion of ‘conformist’ and ’deviant’ innovators (1978).

If the recognition of ’dual’ values is not new, the emphasis on the ‘business’ orientation as the key to occupational legitimation again reflects the thinking behind ‘HRM’ approaches.

An identification of the key roles of the occupation. The identification of key roles is a central element of the model. It indicates the major areas within which the constituent ‘parts’ of the occupation will exist. It is these roles which are disaggregated to produce the typical competence checklists which distinguish standards setting in the UK. These roles are now outlined as the PSLB has defined them, in the latest draft I have seen (PSLB, 1994). The following five figures detail the activities assodated with the five key roles; strategy and organisation, development, employee relations, reward management and resourcing.



FIGURE 1 Strategy and organisation: the core units 1 Contribute to developing and reviewing the organisation strategy and plans 2 Develop and review organisational structures and work processes 3 Develop and review the organisational culture and values

FIGURE 2 Development: the core units 1 Establish and maintain strategy and plans for developing individual and team performance 2 Establish performance planning and review processes 3 Introduce improvements to traning and development in an organisation 4 Promote long term individual development 5 Promote team development 6 Promote equality of opportunity 7 Support the development function

FIGURE 3 Employee relations: the core units 1 Develop and maintain strategies and plans for employee relations activities 2 Develop and maintain the commitment of employees in times of change 3 Promote effective communication within the organisation to support strategy 4 Provide employee support services 5 Manage health and safety provision 6 Ensure compliance with organisation policy procedures and legal requirements 7 Negotiate and consult with groups and individuals 8 Ensure effective grievance and disciplinary processes 9 Support the employee relations function

FIGURE 4 Reward management: the core units 1 Develop and maintain reward philosophy, strategies and plans 2 Establish levels of reward for jobs, roles and people 3 Deliver benefits and expenses 4 Pay employees 5 Support reward processes

FIGURE 5 Resourcing: the core units 1 Develop and maintain resourcing strategy and plans 2 Recruit into the organisation 3 Deploy the workforce 4 Release employees from the organisation 5 Support the resourcing function

To get to the form and language which the model currently embodies there have been several ‘redrafts’ of these roles. There have been changes in language in some cases. For example, the role now called ‘development! was initially entitled ‘enhancing performance’. There have been deletions and there have been additions within each role. Yet there is no commentaq available which explains why these changes were made.

In addition to the five occupational roles, there are specifications of roles related to ’professionalism’, ’management’ and ’administration’.



These roles can be analysed in terms of change and continuity. There are changes such as the high profile given to 'strategy and organisation' and the recasting of other roles as supporting strategic concerns. This clearly reflects the trend to thinking and talking about 'strategic HRM'. But, when the detailed content of these roles is scrutinised, there is considerable continuity with traditional descriptions of the role of personnel management. This can be seen by comparing the PSLB roles with the roles identified by the IPM and the roles used in a recent Industrial Relations Services (IRS) survey (see figure 6).

FIGURE 6 Examples of thefunctional division ofpersonnel management IPM (1992) IRS (1994) PSLB (1994) Employee resourcing Administration Strategy and organisation Employee development Industrial relations Resourcing Employee relations Staffing Development

Training Reward management Pay determination Employee relations Miscellaneous

Work processes in personnel management Using a model of work processes is meant to be the PSLB's major contribution to setting competence-based standards. It is claimed that, by using these work processes, it is possible to "fully integrate and specify" the competencies associated with a professional occupation such as personnel management (McKiddie, 1994 30).

The point at issue here is that competence-based frameworks have depended on specifying the outcomes people should achieve in an occupation; the things that it is guaranteed they should be able to do. Thus functional analysis is a sufficient method for setting standards and a good framework for developing a model. But, it is often argued, in many professions/occupations this straightforward specification of outcomes is often not possible (Buckingham and Elliot, 1994; Holmes and Joyce, 1993; Talbot, 1993). Simple outcomes cannot be identified or guaranteed.

One example used to illustrate this is that of a doctor. A doctor cannot guarantee to produce the outcome of a 'successful' operation or course of treatment ie a healthy or 'live' patient. What can and should be guaranteed is that in the course of dealing with a patient the doctor competently follows the procedures that should be followed.

So identifying work processes is one way to overcome the critique of competence-based models as failing to capture the 'whole' of a professional/occupational field. It leads to an emphasis on being competent in processes rather than competent in guaranteeing outcomes. The work processes the PSLB considered are defined in figure 7.

FIGURE 7 The work processes 1 Identify the need and opportunity to improve what you do 2 Setting the direction and objectives for change 3 Designing/ selecting tools, processes and systems to enable you to meet your objectives 4 Promoting the changes you have made 5 Implementing or setting up new ways of doing things 6 Monitoring and evaluating the impact on the organisation and the success of your intervention

The model of personnel management is not merely a set of 'boxes' identifying component parts of personnel management, it also entails a specification of performance in terms of a 'process'.


STEPHEN GIBB. UNNERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE

Previous models have taken a different approach to analysing the problems of effective personnel management performance which this model would, logically, exclude.

For example, Tyson (1987) considered, in relation to an analogy with construction, three different types of personnel management: the clerk of works, the contracts manager and the architect. Each of these had different criteria which would determine what an effective performance was. Tyson‘s approach would lead to an identification of different ‘work processes’ for each type of personnel management; it is not possible to standardise at the level of ’work processes’ as the PSLB have done.

Further, Legge (1978: 115) concluded her analysis of the problems facing personnel practitioners by suggesting that they take a ’contingent approach to problem-solving’. This would enable personnel practitioners to gain more authority by being both flexible and sensitive in making a professional and effective contribution to organisational success. Legge identifies five procedures associated with such a contingent approach: objective setting, classdying alternative choices, contextual modelling and analysis, matching alternative choices to context and evaluation.

While this echoes the PSLB concern with identifying ’work processes’ (see figure 7) Legge’s analysis is developed within a clear framework of the pmblems posed by power in organisations and the need to adopt a contingency approach. By its nature the PSLB model does not engage with issues about power; it is only concerned with ‘what people do‘. And it uses the ‘work process’ element to bolster its claims to be the one best model; it cannot display a concern with promoting a ’contingency’ approach.

In terms of change and continuity, then, this level of the model reflects, but does not resolve, a persistent problem in modelling personnel management. This is the problem of combining an understanding of the ‘technical rationality’ (Schon, 1987) or basic competence, with an understanding of the qualities which exist ’beyond competence’. The former is the necessary underpinning of effective performance in any professional role, but the latter is equally necessary for effective performance in the role. Some recent analyses, in the context of the competence movement generally (Holmes and Joyce, 1993; Wisher, 1994) and the PSLB specifically (Buckingham and Elliot, 1993; Fowler 1994) make this point well.

Indeed the PSLB model represents a step back from considering the key qualities required ‘beyond competence’. This is a problem when it is these qualities which may hold the key to effective performance in an era when so much emphasis is being placed on the contribution of management of people to organisational success.

Two explanations of the PSLB model: functionality and stakeholder analysis The previous section should have made it clear that the claims of the PSLB model to be a ‘milestone’, the one best model of personnel management, are not well founded. It was indicated that the PSLB map simply charts elements of change and continuity in UK personnel management. It does not provide the ultimate job description. The question remains, however, as to the value of this particular model of personnel management. Even if its grand claims cannot be substantiated, how useful an account of change and continuity in personnel management is this particular model?

My aim now is to consider two different explanations of this model which provide a basis for evaluating the work of the PSLB. These are the ‘functionality‘ explanation and the ’stakeholder’ explanation.



The functionality explanation is that the PSLB model emerges from a rigorous application of the ’mapping’ and ‘functional analysis’ methods explained earlier. McKiddie (1994: 30) claims that to overcome the acknowledged limitations of previous approaches to functional analysis the PSLB “...developed ’expanded’ functional analysis”. This emphasis on the model being derived from a method can be considered by analysing the research which was undertaken by the PSLB. If, for example, it can be shown that the emphasis on ’strategy and organisation’ in the model emerges from research that was done, then the functionality explanation will hold. Evaluation of the work of the PSLB is then bound up with an evaluation of the methodology used.

An alternative explanation is that the PSLB model has been built as it is in order to accommodate the interests of different stakeholders. Rather than research and analysis, a process of ’negotiation’ has determined the nature and content of the final PSLB model. Talbot (1993: 339) makes this point in relation to the creation of standards for management, involved in the Management Charter Initiative (MCI),

reading the MCIs ... own reports of generating standards, one is left with the clear impression that it was more of a political process, of bargaining, negotiating and reaching agreements, than a research process aimed at establishing what managers actually do, measured in competency terms.

Thus the model can be looked at from a stakeholder perspective; identifymg the ways in which the interests of different groups have influenced the creation of the model. The identification of such groups and an analysis of their influence is therefore the centrepiece of an evaluation of the work of the PSLB.

The functionality explanation If it can be shown that the PSLB model emerges from the use of mapping and functional analysis then the functionality explanation holds. It is not my intention to take the methods of mapping and functional analysis to task. The focus is on whether these methods can be demonstrated to have led to the model which the PSLB builds. This means considering, in the first instance, whether mapping and functional analysis were used. Secondly, it means reviewing the research undertaken by the PSLB. Considering the former question first, the answer is not as straightforward as might be expected.

Mapping was certainly undertaken (Caple et al, 1992) in the form of desk research. And there was certainly an attempt to define a ‘key purpose for personnel’ as the centrepiece of further analysis. The typical shape of a model derived from a functional analysis is also evident; particularly in the five key roles identified. Yet the express view of an important member of the PSLB (Townsend, in Reid, 1992 39) raises some questions about the methods used ”Rather than debate the techruque of analysis we have begun by setting out the outcomes we are seeking”.

There is here an avowed intention to avoid ‘functionality’ as it is a ’technicians paradise’ (Reid, 1992 37). The outcomes whch Townsend mentions were ’interesting chief executives’, ‘capturing the added value’, ’embodying key values‘ and ‘anticipating changing demands’. These aims may be laudable and relevant, but they do not sit easily within an exercise ostensibly devoted to determining standards via functional analysis. The fact was that whatever outcomes were envisaged, the PSLB model would have to be developed within the strict format for creating occupational standards. That was the point of the exercise. If there were misgivings about the suitability of functional analysis to provide a good model then there were, logically, misgivings about the ultimate value of a competence-based model of personnel.



There was, then, a degree of ambiguity about building a model using mapping and functional analysis. The endeavour to develop ‘extended functional analysis’ was one way of trying to create a degree of flexibility within the constraints of the competence-based model. As argued earlier, this did not help create a better model, it only opened up another set of contentious issues about modelling personnel management and also led to a very confusing graphic representation of the model (diagram 1 being a much simplified version).

So, functionality had to shape the development of the model. It provided a rationale (disaggregating the key purpose) and a framework (identify key roles and values). But it is obvious that there was considerable scope, as well as a predisposition, to carry out the actual research under the umbrella of this framework in ways which were less about sticking close to the method and more about developing an ‘acceptable’ model of personnel management. It is necessary, then, to consider more closely the actual research which was carried out.

It was reported in August 1992 (Reid, 1992: 31) that the required research to set standards for personnel management had been undertaken and was complete. Although it would be almost a year before any formal publication of the outcomes of this research were given, the ‘research’ phase appeared to be over. All that needed to be done was to consult with practitioners (and others) and validate the model while specifymg the details. Yet, at this point, the only evidence of any research activity was the ‘mapping‘ done by a consultancy firm (Caple ef al, 1992). The occupational ’map’ provides information in five areas (in theory) to support the development of a functional ’map’. These five areas are:

(i) Numbers employed or active within the occupation Information from Census Surveys and other sources was considered to try and identify how many personnel practitioners there were in the UK. This proved surprisingly difficult to calculate. Estimates vary between 150,000 and over 250,000. Given the espoused focus on creating standards for all involved in personnel management (not just personnel specialists) there is a marked lack of analysis of line manager involvement at this level of the occupational map.

(ii) Nature of the different roles within the occupation Here a variety of sources, from job advertisements to an IPM survey, were considered. In sum, there were three roles identified as priorities: employee relations, recruitment and selection and the overall personnel function.

(iii) Significant trends - economic and social A variety of secondary sources were used to identdy trends in employment, business/ company development and education and training. A typical conclusion (Caple et al, 1992 29) was, ”the two key growth factors - women and increasing age -may require a shift in thinking in terms of total reward packages, expected work patterns and career development paths”.

(iv) Significant trends in the occupation This was a central plank of the occupational map. Information was meant to have been collected from industrial representatives, though the nature of the data collected is never described or given for analysis.

(v) Variations between sectors or different parts of the economy The conclusion here was that sigruficant trends in the development of the personnel function are broad based and relate to organisational size.

There are a number of criticisms of the data used in all these areas. The occupational map uses a very selective set of secondary sources, depends heavily on a particular interpretation of future ’trends’ and involves little primary research.



The use of selective secondary sources is the first area of criticism. Existing studies were meant to form an important source of data. While there are a limited number of references to some studies, it is hard to find exactly where these inform the model being built. For example, in the area of strategy, which is seen as central, there is a notable absence of reference to studies which had been done recently (Brewster and Smith, 1990; Miller, 1990).

Another problem is the lack of analysis of evidence which does not support the general position being taken. For example, the different activities that personnel management involved inside organisations were considered in relation to an IPM survey. Summarised results are given here.

TABLE 1 IPM survey of personnel management activities Activities Employee relations Overall personnel function 15 I' " " " "

Recruitment and selection 12 " " " " "

Top three personnel management responsibilities over all job levels 35 per cent of all activity

This indicates that 35 per cent of personnel management appears to be related to employee relations activity. Yet the trends analysis undertaken hardly refers at all to collective bargaining issues, which most would identify as central to employee relations.

The second area of criticism of the occupational map is the use of an analysis of 'tpnds'. These are identified as economic, social and occupational trends. The view of economic and social trends is largely anodyne - reviewing a number of sources to conclude very little and certainly nothing 'new'. For example, the issue of potential skills shortages within organisations is highlighted. In the area of occupational trends, however, there are some significant claims being made. It becomes evident that much of the shape and content of the eventual PSLB framework originate here. The key occupational trends identified are given in figure 8 (Caple et al, 1992).

FIGURE 8 K e y occupational trends 1 Devolution - the redistribution of authority and responsibility 2 Integrating mechanisms - from a 'control' to an 'assurance' model 3 Attracting and retaining appropriate people 4 Managing career expectations - in the context of 'flatter' organisations 5 Creating a climate for new thinking and learning - around the notion of 'empowerment' 6 Collaboration and interdependency - in contrast to 'hierarchical' modes of operating

There are a number of problems with giving so much weight to this type of analysis in developing a model of an occupation. In addition to the fundamental problems of using speculative forecasts rather than hard analysis, there is the problem of definition.

None of the key terms used is fully or effectively defined. The example of 'empowerment' is illustrative. In a recent article (Pickard, 1993), there were several competing definitions of what empowerment is. Some see it as just another buzzword, or even a nonsense term, designed to gloss over the cutting out of middle-management layers rather than indicating a firm concept. Others think it incorporates the essence of approaches to organisational change. Whatever the evaluation of the usefulness of the term 'empowerment' it illustrates a key point, ie that the PSLB model may be based on mapping the rhetoric, rather than the reality, of personnel management.

The final criticism is the absence of original research. There is mention of discussions with a number of organisations and of contact with 'industrial representatives'. However, there is



no original survey or case study material made available in the occupational map. There is only anecdotal reference to interviews with chief executives and personnel directors. While subsequent survey results have been published (Smilansky, 1994), these were done to 'validate' the PSLB model, not to provide data for its creation.

In sum, there are problems with accepting the functionality explanation for the PSLB model. The 'shell' of the model reflects the format of a typical picture of an occupation following an occupational mapping and functional analysis. But the picture of the 'animal' inside the shell is that of a hybrid beast; derived from the imagainative interpretations of trends rather than data-based analysis.

The stakeholders explanation An alternative to the functionality explanation is that the primary rationale for the PSLB model is that it has been shaped by a 'political' process. By this I mean that the map reflects the negotiations undertaken among people concerned with creating the model, rather than any 'objective' research. It reflects, in short, sets of ideas about what personnel management should be and it is a synthesis of these normative influences rather than an analysis of practice. This explanation of the PSLB model does not of itself lead to a negative critical evaluation of its worth. Notwithstanding the points made some time ago by Legge (1978), about the problems of the normative and the prescriptive in personnel management, it is difficult to imagine any model of personnel management which is not, to some degree, influenced by its historical and cultural context. Stakeholders are merely those people who embody historical and cultural contexts and have the capacity to shape thinking about the occupation.

If the elements of change and continuity identified in the PSLB are to be seen as reflecting the influence of stakeholders rather than analysis then two questions need to be considered. Firstly, are there key elements of the model not directly related to functional analysis? Secondly, if such elements do exist, can they be attributed to balancing the views of different stakeholders?

The answer to the first question is 'yes'. It has been argued that the central features of the PSLB model are not directly linked to functional analysis. The key purpose, the identification of roles and the definition of values are all elements which are tenuously linked to original and robust research. For example, the identification of values owes more to a synthesis of existing codes of practice from established bodies than it does to any research and functional analysis. The influence of bodies like the Institute of Personnel and Development (IPD)', the Arbitration Conciliation and Advisory Service (ACAS) and others can be seen to be accommodated in this way.

Another important example would be the emphasis on 'strategy' in the PSLB model. Research since the PSLB was being built has continued to highlight that this is a problematic area of personnel activity (Armstrong, 1994; Boxall, 1994). It is hard to see how a rigorous research process could have come up with such an unequivocal emphasis. The focus of this section, then, is on considering the extent to which a 'stakeholder' explanation accounts for such elements of the PSLB model.

A stakeholder analysis would consider how the PSLB worked as a network of different groups, through several committees and bodies. The network of different groups involved are traditional groups (personnel managers, employers, trade unionists, professional institutes) and those groups involved in the competence system (educationalists, NCVQ consultants). The state, in the form of different government departments, had interests in both sets of groups. The committees and bodies which were part of the PSLB project were as follows:



0 The project management group: this undertook the management of the research and operational work involved in setting standards.

An advisory forum: this was the sounding board and ’referee’ for the research and the analysis being done to build the model. 0 A consultative group: this was made up of anyone else who expressed an interest in the work of the PSLB; mainly personnel practitioners and educationalists / researchers.

The overall picture was that the Lead Body itself dealt with strategy and policy; the project management group organised the operational work and gave advice, while the advisory forum reviewed the model being developed. In practice, the consultative group was seldom consulted. The practical research was undertaken by consultants within guidelines set down by the Employment Department.

Having identified the stakeholders and the arenas in which they will have ‘bargained and negotiated it is difficult, as an outsider, to get into any concrete analysis of which stakeholder had which influence over which part of the model. I have had to rely mainly on news reports and the limited documentation which the PSLB has made available. Some of these have been quite instructive. For example, there was considerable debate over the definition of the key statement of the purpose of personnel and associated matters (Personnel Management Plus, 1992).

I have also had some contact with ‘insiders’. This contact certainly bears out the basic stakeholder premise. It suggests that there has been considerable ’politics’ in the creation of the map. One example can be given with reference to the evolution of the ’employee relations’ element. Changes whch, to my knowledge, were not based on research occurred as the map was developed. Initially this unit was called ’relations with employees’ and, as well as the title changing, there were shifts in the analysis of ‘negotiation‘ as a personnel role. Such changes did not arise from the surveys or case studies but from the intervention of key stakeholders.

Another example which seems to be highly relevant is the emphasis on ’strategy and organisation’. It could be argued that the unequivocal adoption of a ’strategic HRM’ framework is the consequence of stakeholder attitudes rather than an analysis of practice. When the PSLB asked a sample of personnel practitioners if they agreed with the key statement of purpose for personnel, which incorporates the strategic concept, 99.4 per cent of those who replied said they did agree (Smilansky, 1994 7). However, this may be interpreted as evidence of these practitioners’ evaluation of their own importance, rather than reflecting an accurate depiction of what it is that personnel practitioners actually do.

In sum, it would not be surprising to find that stakeholder interests had influenced the shape of the PSLB model. A project such as that undertaken by the PSLB will only be successful to the extent that it provides a consensus definition and model of personnel management.

Accepting the face validity of the stakeholder analysis of the model obviously raises a number of questions. It raises questions about the claims being made for the PSLB model as the ‘ultimate’ model of personnel management. It also raises more general questions about the usefulness of functional analysis as a method for building models of occupations and, consequently, the value of the competence based education systems which are derived from those models. Perhaps most importantly, it reminds us that the attempt to build ‘master models’ is really a sterile pursuit. For such a master model can never help answer the crucial question: what is effective personnel management? The answer to that question will always be


that it depends what you mean by personnel management and there are many different ways in which theoreticians and practitioners will model personnel management.

CONCLUSION

Geoff Armstrong, the IPD director general, has commented that the ’standards will not, by themselves, tell anyone how to structure personnel activities’ (PSLB, 1993b: 29). This is undeniable, but also understates the case. The PSLB model is not just another interpretation of personnel management. It is a model which will have an impact on practitioners, educationalists and researchers. It is a model that will be used to ’market’ personnel on the basis of its value to organisations and it is a model which will be used to set an agenda for personnel into the future. That is how Townsend (in Reid, 1992) explains it. So, either the model is valid and should therefore be used to influence personnel practice and

theory, or it is not valid and the PSLB project has been a paper exercise. It would be unwise to think of the project in these terms. If nothing else, as I hope my analysis has shown, the work of the PSLB can contribute to the debate about the changes occurring in personnel management both in the UK and internationally.

What I have suggested here is that the work of the PSLB can be viewed in the context of analysing change and continuity in personnel management in the UK. The PSLB model reflects ideas about change and continuity. When the espoused explanation for this model - the functionality explanation - is considered, there are evident problems with accounting for some of the models key features. An alternative explanation, based on a stakeholder analysis of the creation of the model, was given and considered. A stakeholder explanation seems to offer at least some purchase on otherwise anomalous elements of the model and its creation.

Thus the model is a combination of technical analysis and subjective consensus building; or, to echo the terms often applied to the practice of HRM itself, it has a ‘hard’ side and a ‘soft’ side. Those who may have preferred a ’purer’ functional analysis (the hard side), or those who expected to be able to critique a pure functional analysis will be disappointed. No doubt there will also be some stakeholders who feel that their interests/influence have not been sufficiently considered. But, in the round, the PSLB model appears to be a typical UK contribution to the development of personnel management; a pragmatic grappling with managing both change and continuity.

Perhaps the real nettle which has not been grasped in this pragmatic exercise is exploring and dealing with the issues raised by being ‘strategic’. In this regard, the modelling done by the PSLB can be seen to reflect the weaknesses identified some time ago by Legge (1978: 1) in relation to personnel textbooks. Those were that the literature on personnel tends to be normative, prescriptive and discusses content removed from its context. Those criticisms apply to the modelling done by the PSLB, particularly at the level of ’strategy’. There can be little doubt that whatever future research and modelling needs to be done will have to go ‘beyond competence’ in order to mate models which can provide a useful means of thinking about, and analysing, the effectiveness of personnel management.



NOTES

1. The PSLB has now merged with other lead bodies to form an employment occupational standards council (EOSC). 2. The IPM and the Institute of Training and Development (ITD) came together in July 1994 to create a new institute which is now known as the Institute of Personnel and Development (IPD).

REFERENCES Armstrong, M. 1994. ’Blue-chip firms with a vision’. Personnel Management. Vol. 26, no. 10. Beardwell, I. and Holden, L. (ed.). 1994. Human Resource Management. London: Pitman. Beer, M. et al. 1985. Human Resource Management: A General Managers Perspective. New York Free

Bilsborough, M. and Ross, N. 1993. ‘The national education and training targets - p r o p s s made

Boxall, P. 1994. ’Placing HR strategy at the heart of business success’. Personnel Management. Vol.

Brewster, C. and Smith, C. 1990. ’Corporate strategy: a no go area for personnel?’ Personnel

Buckingham, G. and Elliot, G. 1994. ’Profile of a successful personnel manager’. Personnel

Caple, T. et al . 1992. ’The Personnel Standards Lead Body Occupational Map’, Prime Research

Carr, D. 1993. ‘Questions of competence’, British Journal Of Educafional Studies. Vol. IXL, no. 3. Fernier, S. et al. 1994. Does HRh4 Boost Employee-Management Relations? London: London School

Fombrun, C. et al. 1984. Strategic Human Resource Management. New York John Wiley & Sons. Fowler, A. 1994. ‘Personnel‘s model army’. Personnel Management. Vol. 26, no. 9. Guest, D. and Peccei, R. 1994. ’The nature and causes of effective human resource managemenf.

Holmes, L. 1992. ’Taking the lead on professional standards’. Personnel Management. Vol. 24,

Holmes, L. and Joyce, P. 1993. ’Rescuing the useful concept of managerial competence: from

Hyland, T. 1993. ‘Competence, knowledge and education’. Journal Of Philosophy Of Education.

IPM. 1992. ‘Professional Education Scheme; Syllabus’, IPM. IPM. 1993. Managing People: The Changing Frontiers. IPM. Consultative Document IRS. 1994. ‘The centre cannot hold: devolving personnel duties’. Industrial Relations Services

Keenoy, T. 1990. ‘Human resource management: rhetoric, reality and contradiction’. International

Legge, K. 1978. Power, lnnovation and Problem Solving In Personnel Management. Maidenhead:

Legge, K. 1991. ’Human resource management: a critical analysis’ in New Perspectives In Human

Press.

in 1992‘. Employment Gazette. August, 357-360.

26, no. 7.

Management. Vol. 22, no. 7.

Management. Vol. 25, no. 8.

and Development (Harrogate).

Of Economics.

British Journal Of Industrial Relations, Vol. 32, no. 2.

no. 11.

outcomes back to process.‘ Personnel Review. Vol. 22, no. 6.

Vol. 27, no. 1.

Employment Trends. no. 566.

Journal of Human Resource Management. Vol. 1, no. 3, 363-384.

McGraw-Hill.

Resource Management. J. Storey (ed). London: Routledge.



Lowe, K. 1994. ’Moving targets’. Personnel Today. March, p 17 McKiddie, T. 1994. ‘Personnel NVQs: preparing for take-off. Personnel Management. Vol. 26,

Miller, P. 1990. ‘Strategic human resource management: an assessment of progress’. Human

Millward, N. et al. 1992. Workplace Industrial Relations In Transition. Aldershot: Dartmouth. Personnel Management Plus. 1992. ’Lead Body’s work on qualifications now “much more

PSLB. 1993a. ‘In touch. newsletter of the PSLB, Issue 1. PSLB. 1993b. ‘A perspective on personnel’. PSLB/Employment Department. PSLB. 1994. ’Personnel standards draft 3’. Personnel Standards Lead Body, July. Pickard, J. 1993. ‘The real meaning of empowerment’. Personnel Management. Vol. 25, no. 11. Reid, W. 1992. ’Setting standards for the future’, Personnel Management. Vol. 24, no. 8. Schon, A. D. 1987. Educating The Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Josey Bass. Sisson, K. (ed). 1994. Personnel Management: A Comprehensive Guide To Theory and Practice.

Smilansky, J. 1994. Functional And Occupational Survey Results. Personnel Standards Lead Body. Smithers, A. 1993. All Our Futures. Channel 4 Publishing. Stewart, J. and Hamblin, B. 1992. ‘Competency based qualifications: the case a g d t change’.

Storey, J. 1992. Developments In the Management OfHuman Resources. London: Blackwell. Storey, J. 1994. ’How new style management is taking hold’. Personnel Management. Vol. 26,

Talbot, C. 1993. ’Twin peaks? MBA’s and the competence movement - a tale of two courses’.

Tyson, S. 1987. ‘The management of the personnel function’. Journal Of Management Studies. Vol.

Watson, T. J. 1977. The Personnel Managers; A Study In The Sociology Of Work And Employment.

Whittaker, J. et al. 1994. ’Personnel NVQs: a big step forward’. Personnel Management. Vol. 26,

Wisher, V. 1994. ‘Competencies: the precious seeds of growth‘. Personnel Management. Vol. 26,

Woodruffe, C. 1993. ‘What is meant by competency?’ Leadership and Organisation Development

no. 2.

Resource Management Journal. Vol. 1 no. 4,23 -37.

realistic“’. Vol. 3, no. 10.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Journal Of European Industrial Training. Vol. 16, no. 7.

no. 1.

Management Education and Development. Vol. 24, no. 4,330-346.

24, no. 5,523-532.

London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

no. 8.

no. 7.

Journal. Vol. 14, no. 1,29-36.


Documents

The Lead Body Model of Personnel Management – A Critique