success of many practices often considered ‘‘high performance’’ hinges on the
nature of the inter-personal relations in the organisation.’ Truss ( 2001 : 1136 ) uses
the concept of agency and shows qualitatively and quantitatively in Hewlett
Packard that ‘managers act as a powerful mediator between the individual and
HR practices’. Social exchange theory (Whitener et al. 1998 ) has been used to
examine the antecedents of managerial trustworthy behavior and, more recently,
uses the term ‘leader–member exchange’ (LMX) and applies it to the HRM–
performance debate. LMX is seen to be critical since ‘more eVectively developed
relationships are beneWcial for individual and work unit functioning and have
many positive outcomes toWrm performance’ (Uhl-Bien et al. 2000 : 138 ). Man-
agers as agents can play important roles in the transmission of values and climate.
Becker et al. ( 1996 ) showed that there is a stronger relationship between commit-
ment to supervisors and performance than found between commitment to the
organization and performance. This ‘more cognitively proximal focus’ exerts
greater inXuence on employee behavior (Redman and Snape 2005 : 304 ). Percep-
tions of LMX provide evidence of the quality of the relationship, which may then
show the extent of ‘alignment or congruence between individual and managerial
goals’ (Bowen and OstroV 2004: 209 ) while simultaneously being more direct in
their inXuence over employee attitudes.
In our HRM causal model the distinction between ‘intended practices’ and
‘actual practices’ draws attention to the frequently experienced gap between
espoused HR practices and their enactment. While some HR practices may impact
on employees directly, most rely on line manager action or support. Employee
perceptions of HR practices are thus likely to be strongly shaped by how their
managers apply these HR practices, and inXuence the immediate work climate
where they work. Indeed, since the line manager is the dominant inXuence in both,
it is likely to be hard for employees to distinguish between them in any meaningful
way. There are numerous examples of line managers modifying HR practices and
of their diYculty or unwillingness to enact a whole range of HR policies (Whittaker
and Marchington 2003 ). Both Purcell and Hutchinson ( 2006 ) and Guest and
Conway ( 2004 ) observe that there is much greater variance in employee percep-
tions of their line manager’s ‘leadership behavior’ than in satisfaction with HR
practices. Guest and Conway ( 2004 : 19 – 32 ) show that supervisory leadership is the
strongest factor associated with organizational commitment and work satisfaction
as well as with other attitudinal factors such as loyalty to consumers. It is not just
the quality of the LMX relationship but also the extent to which line managers are
perceived to be the providers of eVective HR practices. This dual role leads Bowen
and OstroV( 2004 : 216 ) to suggest that ‘a strong HRM system coupled with a visible
supervisor may foster stronger relationships among HRM, climate and perform-
ance than each would individually.’
hrm and business performance 545