HR MANAGERS AS ETHICS AGENTS OF THE STATE 141more likely to have HR and/or ER managers, but it is possible that there may
be some confounding of variables and thus one needs to be careful about
attributing causation to unionization status. It is this role of HRM that is
our focus here, even though, according to the AWIRS study, less than half of
Australian organizations have such roles (Deery, Walsh, and Knox 2001).
The HRM role
The role of HRM deserves special attention for a variety of reasons, none the
least of which is the ambivalence with which it is held and the changes that it
has purportedly undergone in recent years. Therefore, this section will discuss
the various roles of HR in respect to governance and legal compliance.
It is interesting to consider approaches to HRM developed in the UK as
well as in the USA. For example, a little over ten years ago Storey (cited
in Caldwell 2003), in discussing HRM within organizations, proposed two
bipolar dimensions to differentiate HR managers: intervention versus non-
intervention and strategy versus tactics resulting in a fourfold typology of
personnel roles in the UK: advisors, handmaidens, regulators, and change-
makers. Although adherence to EEO was not described as fitting within any
of these categories specifically, it could be seen to fit in any or all of the
roles, depending on how one perceives the value of EEO. For example, the
business case for EEO might argue that it fits well with the change-maker
role and that this will add significant value to the organization in the form
of organizational justice perceptions, ease in recruiting, selection on merit,
better decision-making, opening of new markets, etc., apart from avoiding
law suits based on allegations of discrimination. Hunter argues that the costs
of unethical behaviour should not be underestimated and suggests that these
include ‘deterioration of relationships; mistrust; negative impact on employee
productivity; stifling of employee creativity; information flows throughout
the company become ineffective; employee loyalty declines and absenteeism
and labour turnover increases’ (cited in Kantor and Weisberg 2002: 688). On
the other hand, some might perceive attempts to regulate or monitor EEO
as a regulatory role and one which might interfere with the achievement of
business objectives.
Adifferent approach was offered by Ulrich (1997) in the USA. He sug-
gested that it was time for HR practitioners to throw offtheir marginal-
ized positions and to become ‘champions of competitiveness in delivering
value’. Ulrich’s dimensions were based on two axes: strategy versus operations
and process versus people resulting in four roles: strategic partner, change
agent, administrative expert, and employee champion. Again, it is debatable
where adherence to EEO principles fits in this model, although it is likely