142 ANALYSING HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
that it would be perceived to fit within Storey’s regulator role. Respondents
in Caldwell’s study (2003) of HR managers in the UK suggests that some
managers thought that the regulator role might be rekindled by the new
social and employment legislation but overall they thought that the role had
declined.
Others still view HRM as having a role in compliance with employment
law and EEO/AA legislation, for example Baron and Kreps (1999) and Woodd
(1997). Grensing-Pophal asserts that ‘one value shared by virtually every HR
manager is to be an advocate for employees’ (1998: 116). It certainly used
to be assumed that HR had a strong role in EEO as it was believed that this
function inherently upheld desirable social justice values (Trice, Belasco, and
Alutto 1969). HR was always involved in recruitment, selection, and all other
key staffing processes, but, increasingly, together with the devolution of many
HR responsibilities (Torrington and Hall 1996), these important roles have
assumed less importance or perhaps preference has been given to external
providers who are less likely to oppose discriminatory practices in their quest
to meet client expectations and obtain repeat business (Bennington 2001). On
the positive side, research has found that the HR function is the main driver
of change on equity issues (Cattaneo, Reavley, and Templer 1994), and even
where there is support from senior managers, it has been found that diversity
initiatives (the follow-on from EEO), have been driven by HRM (Miller and
Rowney 1999). Moreover, it has been argued that one of the most significant
effects associated with AA has been the elaboration of the HRM function
(Konrad and Linnehan 1999).
It is very easy to become despondent about many of the published
approaches to HRM as they appear to put superficial assessments of business
requirements above ethical behaviour. However, recent work in the USA has
been more heartening. After urging HR managers to be business partners
for about a decade, the new call is for HR to become ‘players’ rather than
simply ‘partners’ (Beatty, Ewing, and Tharp 2003; Ulrich and Beatty 2001).
To become a ‘player’ it is argued that HR managers need to learn to coach,
lead, architect, build, facilitate, and to become the conscience to employers
(Ulrich and Beatty 2001). Of particular relevance to us are the roles of leader
and business conscience. Under this approach, the HR manager should model
the required behaviours for all managers (in respect to people and gover-
nance issues), ensure that HR is governed as it should be, and ensure that
‘organizations play by the rules’ (Ulrich and Beatty 2001: 305). These authors
suggest that HR is better placed than other functions such as finance and legal
because they usually find out about legal and ethical issues too late for problem
prevention. Ulrich and Beatty (2001) now argue that it should be HRM that
ensures that organizations are successful but only when they are playing by the
rules. The fact that the proper exercise of this role may result in job loss and