HR MANAGERS AS ETHICS AGENTS OF THE STATE 143ongoing retaliation is acknowledged but they argue that HR managers must
be prepared for such risks!
Beatty, Ewing, and Tharp (2003) argue that if HR managers perceive cus-
tomers and investors as more important than top management then taking
such risks is less difficult. Moreover, they extend their argument by stating
that it is HRM that needs to influence behaviour such that a culture of open-
ness and willingness to confront wrong-doing is created. In respect to legal
breaches, such as a breach of an anti-discrimination law, they point out that
HR has a fiduciary responsibility to ensure compliance.
However, the role of the HR manager is still far from clear in most organi-
zations (Gibb 2000). In fact, there has been a continuing concern about the
role and perception of HR staff(Eisenstat 1996). Most appear to have a poor
perception of HR (Gibb 2000). Seldom have HR decisions been viewed as a
source of value creation (Becker and Gerhart 1996), although, controversially,
Hart (1993) argued that HRM is concerned with adding value but often in the
ways that are managerial and amoral! The movement in HR values towards
the managerialist has led to strong criticism of the profession (Galang and
Ferris 1997). Yet, prior to this, HR managers were described as inflexible and
focused on rules, policies, and procedures (Church and Waclawski 2001), so
it is not surprising that we often hear calls in the literature for more flexible
HRM systems. But does this mean that HR should have flexible ethics and not
worry about compliance with the law?
While employees might like to think that the HR manager will be employee
focused, and an advocate for their rights, the changes over the last decade
or so have clearly tipped the balance towards a corporatist focus and away
from the so-called radical or employee focused approach. In the meantime,
HR managers have struggled to attain credibility (Wright et al. 2001b)and
have had to continually justify their existence to prevent their roles from being
outsourced or downsized (Mitchell 2000). In these circumstances, it could
hardly be expected that HRM would whole-heartedly embrace the EEO role,
especially as no matter what the origin of the role, it does not seem to have
been well received (Cassell 1997; Noble and Mears 2000). Even the newer role
of diversity manager has been criticized as being ‘captured by the systems they
are trying to change, trivializing discrimination...and relinquishing critical
human rights issues to the discretion of management’ (Sinclair 2000: 239).
The pressures that this context creates do not bode well for those who
believe that it is the role of the HR manager to promote, if not ensure, com-
pliance with the relevant legislation, especially if there are senior managers
who do not share the same views. Yet, as Mello points out, the literature is
‘conspicuously silent concerning any examination or study of this potential
conflict of interest’ (2000: 12). In the UK, Collinson and Collinson (1996: 240)
report that: