Changing Role of HRM: The NHS

The Changing Role of Human Resource Management within the National Health Service: Feeling at Home in an Increasingly Complex Environment.

Abstract

In the context of a widespread programme of reform of the English National Health Service (NHS) this paper considers the changing role of Human Resources Management (HRM) within the service, and reports a study of the changing role of HRM in a large teaching hospital. Empirical research suggests that whilst the perception of the role and effectiveness of the HRM function remains varied, if managed correctly it is potentially capable of having a direct and beneficial impact upon service delivery.

Introduction

The reforms and changes within the National Health Service (NHS) and its management of staff and services has clearly been well documented, however research into the evaluation of these initiatives remains a neglected area. Walshe suggests that the reason behind this is that researchers do not have time to ‘painstakingly’ document and measure the progress and impacts of reform due to constant change caused by the initial ‘bright ideas’ having been poorly thought out (2002:106). Empirical research can though attempt to offer an understanding into the ‘complex relationships that exist between individuals and how they interpret policies within a wider social and cultural organisational context’ (Clarke 2006:202) and provide insight into the NHS managerial culture to examine how it ‘supports and facilitates the implementation of the recent wave of NHS reforms’ (Merali 2003:550). Through incorporating a review of the literature that surrounds the changing role of HRM within the NHS and empirically based qualitative research, a comprehensive insight into the current context and position of Human Resource Management within an NHS Trust is given. Whilst such research will hopefully be of academic interest, perhaps more importantly in order for the NHS and other public services to be aware of the impact of reforms upon employees and thus on subsequent service delivery, an awareness of HRM practices and their implementation should be a necessity for practitioners (Edgar and Geare 2005).

The Current Context of the NHS

“…the NHS is unique. To name but a few of its characteristics, it is in the public sector, exceptionally large in terms of its resources, activities and numbers employed; domestic not international in its operations; its tasks are infinitely varied, complex and difficult; its goals are unclear; it is subject to an exceptionally wide range of political and economic influences; and it is an organisation uniquely and specially close to the hearts (metaphorically), minds and bodies (physically) of British people. It is run by ‘special’ kinds of people too: dedicated, yet often ambitious, highly qualified and skilled, often bloody-minded and usually tough-minded, yet also caring and even tender.”(Glover and Leopold 1996:256)

The NHS is the largest employer in Europe, employing over a million clinical, infrastructure and support personnel (The Information Centre 2006). Whilst remaining close to the people’s heart in terms of its founding values of a universal and comprehensive health care with its service delivery freely and equally available to all in society (Rivett 1997; Talbot-Smith and Pollock 2006), it is also close to the people’s pockets, with billions of pounds having been invested into the NHS in the last ten years (Appelby 2007). In addition to providing a health service to the population, it is also claimed that ‘health and healthcare play a key role in generating social cohesion, productive workforce, employment and hence economic growth’ (Harrison 2005) and for this reason, as Bach notes, the means to reform health care systems effectively is an issue that confronts policy makers worldwide. (2001:1) As such, the challenges facing the NHS in terms of management, change and efficiency are important to an audience far wider than the UK and those who use and work within the organisation.

In consuming around £50 billion per annum it is no wonder that successive British governments have attempted throughout the history of the NHS to dictate from the centre the ‘minutia’ of the NHS’s activities. A key problem however is that due to the complexity of the organisation itself and the politics that surround it, the methods used are considered by many to consist merely of ‘a plethora of complicated targets and initiatives that confound those who are charged to implement them’ (Bradshaw 2003:90). In recognising the obvious public concern over the management, and expenditure, of the NHS both the previous Conservative and Labour governments and current New Labour invest considerable time, and tax-payers’ money, into attempting to improve the service. Yet it is considered increasingly apparent that in responding to health deficiencies ‘by throwing money at them to see the quick, comfortable resolution of the political conflict that these inevitably cause’ (Duncan-Smith 2002), continual change ‘for change’s sake’ has become the focus at the expense of the ultimate ‘telos’ that created the health service (Kelly and Glover 1996:31).

Changes in Management of the NHS

Since its conception, it is clear that the NHS has undergone many changes, both structurally and ideologically, but it is since the reforms of the early 1980s that the focus of NHS management has attempted to move away from obvious ‘command and control’ techniques and towards local management with local responsibility and accountability not only to the government but to the public that ‘experience’ the service. It was subsequent to these reforms and as a result of the Griffiths Report and policies such as ‘Promoting Better Health’, that ‘Working for Patients'(1989) was introduced which further emphasised the NHS’s aims of better health care, choice, complaints procedures, patient information, and overarching quality.

Currently a number of policy and management initiatives are transforming the structure and organisation of the NHS (Truss 2003). New Labour are heralding the benefits of ‘choice’ within the public services as a whole and many of the recent initiatives focus upon the ‘customer’ and the need for services to attract these customers and the money that they bring, to the extent that within the NHS ‘individual patient preference [is] determining where business will be placed’ (Bradshaw 2003:87). The logic behind this is claimed to be one of providing a new incentive for ‘providers to improve customer responsiveness’, for if money follows patients and patients have a choice of service the power is with the people rather than in the hands of a previous monopolistic service provider (ibid). Such market incentives are driving NHS hospital trusts to perform more like businesses, with a corporate focus based upon meeting the demands of all the various stakeholders, and thus requiring distinct business strategies which will account for all aspects of the organisation and services provided and ultimately ‘enhance their cash flow (Pollock 2004:218).

With the establishment of Foundation Trusts, NHS Trusts which are perceived as high performers can gain Foundation Status, thus becoming corporate bodies, free from the controls of the strategic health authorities and accountable only to those whom they represent – their own managers, staff, patients and local residents (Pollock 2004). The thinking behind this is seemingly one of moving away from what has been perceived as a ‘monolithic’, inefficient bureaucracy to a system of individual services which are autonomous healthcare provider organisations that could be flexible, responsive and innovative’ (Walshe 2002:109). As the Department of Health states:

“The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 establishes NHS Foundation Trusts as independent public benefit corporations modelled on co-operative and mutual traditions. Public benefit corporations are a new type of organisation, specially developed to reflect the unique aims and responsibilities of NHS Foundation Trusts. NHS Foundation Trusts exist to provide and develop services for NHS patients according to NHS principles and standards and are subject to NHS systems of inspection. Transferring ownership and accountability from Whitehall to the local community means that NHS Foundation Trusts are able to tailor their services to best meet the needs of the local population and tackle health inequalities more effectively.”(DoH 2007)

Walshe considers the introduction of Foundation Trusts as providing organisational stability due to them reducing the ability of ‘future Secretaries of State for Health to reorganise the NHS every two or three years’ and thus allowing ‘meaningful service improvements to take place (2002:109). However, it is also recognised that this in turn could potentially cause problems as there will be ‘no guarantee of good management and governance’ resulting in the replacement of ‘one set of dysfunctional behaviours with another’ (ibid).

Many interpret Foundation Trusts as forcing NHS trusts into having to respond flexibly to market forces similarly to private sector organisations, due to the public and political interest in the service it must also contend with the constant barrage of audits, inspections, monitoring, league tables and an increasingly demanding and knowledgeable public (Talbot-Smith and Pollock 2006). The NHS today can therefore be seen as remaining seemingly attached to the ideologies of the business world, and current government emphasis towards ‘modernisation’ suggests that the premise remains dominantly that:

“…no organisational context is immune from the uncertainties of unrelenting change and that, as a result, all organisations – public, private and voluntary – need to develop similar norms and techniques of conduct: if they do not do so, they will not survive. Thus all organisations need to look to current ‘best practice’…Government services are brought forward using the best and most modern techniques, to match the best of the private sector.”(Du Gay 2003:676)

These government initiatives reflect notions that by improving management and employee satisfaction, the NHS could become both an efficient and effective business, able to satisfy these consumerist needs of the customer. For example, the policy ‘Improving Working Lives’ aimed to encourage NHS employers to ‘develop a range of policies and practices which support personal and professional development and enable employees to achieve a healthy work-life balance’ (DH 2000). These management strategies have been labelled within this sector as New Public Management (NPM) and are considered to mark a clear differentiation from the previous strategies of ‘an administered service to a managed service'(Bach, 2000:928). Flynn argues that NPM clearly incorporates all of the changes that have occurred within the NHS following the reorganisations and new rhetorics of the 1980 reforms and the essential components that NPM consists of are clearly visible:

“…more active and accountable management; explicit standards, targets and measures for performance; a stress on results, quality and outcomes; the break-up of large units into smaller decentralised agencies; more competition and a contract culture; more flexibility in the terms and conditions of employment; increased managerial control over the workforce and efficiency in resource allocation.”(1991:28)

With the introduction of this managerialist emphasis in the NHS it has been suggested that there has been an investment of ‘faith in managers’. This faith has been based on the supposition that the ‘language, techniques and values of managerialism’ were, and are, ‘the only way actually to deliver change’; thus an ‘unparalleled’ position of ‘power and authority’ has been placed upon public managers (Exworthy and Halford 1999:5-6). Such managerialism, and its values and beliefs is based upon the assumption that ‘better management will prove an efficient solvent for a wide range of economic and social ills’ (Pollitt 1993:1), and in the case of the NHS these ‘ills’ are well documented in terms of a lack of capital and thus a shortage of resources yet with a need to provide an increasingly efficient and ‘quality’ driven service.

However, the notion of managerialism must be used with caution. ‘Faith’ in managers can be perceived as politicians having faith in their own management in that they have failed to ever relinquish control, instead taking even more tight control through the implementation of numerous health policies and operational procedures. Such a need to keep close reigns on the management of the NHS suggests a deep mistrust in the capabilities of the public servants within it rather than a desire to allow it its freedom.

Overall it is clear that the NHS is very complex for a range of reasons not least because of its complexity and variety of its duties, the range of skills it needs to draw on, the difficulty of reconciling competing priorities, the cost of healthcare, and the way the NHS has been stitched into the political fabric of England. From an organisational perspective too it is a hybrid mix of hierarchy, bureaucracy, market and network. To efficiently manage such an organisation is therefore a highly complex and unrelenting challenge.

HRM in the NHS

The role of HRM pre-reforms was mainly focused on administration and support with a lack of defined responsibility. Named Personnel rather than HR, the function was used to deal with general staffing issues of terms and conditions of employment, payment and holiday options, individual and local staffing issues and the well known ‘hiring and firing’ that it remains renowned for. From Personnel Managers came HR professionals, HR departments, and increasingly HR directors with voting rights on the Executive Boards of NHS Trusts. This has been considered a result of the changes that stemmed from the Griffiths reforms and continue today, and due to a particular focus on corporate business ideals, from which a clear, but nonetheless controversial role was carved out for a function that dealt with the management of the increasingly important resource of people.

‘…the effect of the reforms was to stimulate management to review custom and practice and historical staffing patterns, with a view to achieving better value for money. In this context the HR function was caught up in the continuing tension between those health care professionals who focused primarily on patient care, and those managers responsible for cost-effective use of resources but constrained by a lack of clinical knowledge'(Buchan 2000:320).

The current role of HRM in the NHS, its status within the service, and its success as an effective function has become especially important at this time where ‘human resources’ are considered the key to not only improved staff performance but also competitive advantage (Bach 2001; Clarke 2006). Despite the managerialist rhetoric that clearly surrounds the drive for increasing the role of HR, on a more simple note it is little wonder that such an emphasis has been placed upon the HR function considering the cost of staffing in the NHS – of the £19 billion cash increase in the NHS from 2004/5 to 2007/8 the increases in staff pay ‘swallowed up’ around 34% (Appelby 2007). To add to this, the growing importance of the function is particularly clear in situations where individual NHS trusts are being granted greater financial and operational independence within the increasingly competitive, consumer driven market that the government is creating through such initiatives as Foundation Trust Status. Barnett et al’s research demonstrated that the HR function within a Trust evolved through these changes in political and organisational focus and ‘generated a new focus on labour productivity and on value for money’ from which ‘a new and strategic approach to the management of the workforce was required’ and as a result they decided to ‘embrace the principles of human resource management'(1996:31).

So with the acknowledgement that service funding follows customers, customer satisfaction is linked to quality of service, and quality of service is linked to ‘the skills, motivation and commitment’ of service staff, within such a ‘labour intensive human service industry’ the role of HRM is imperative (Bach 2001:1; Pollock 2004).

The Changing Role of HRM in the NHS

Yet HRM’s move from an administrative role to a function that potentially impacts upon corporate strategy has been my no means plain sailing. Ham succinctly locates a key basis for conflict within the NHS in his suggestion that ‘there is continuing tension between the role of doctors in deciding treatment…and the attempt by managers and politicians to influence priorities at a national and local level’ (1996:96). There is much literature on the dominance of professionals and the conflict with managers within public sector organisations and in particular the NHS (Kember 1994; Skjorshammer 2001; Atun 2006; Hoggett 2006) and it is clear that their dominance remains not only because of their unique skills and knowledge but also because of their obvious importance within the service (Kelly and Glover 1996). However, within the changing NHS, the dominance of the professionals is subject to more and more management constraints, both on their resources and their autonomy and whilst some acceptance of management expertise is recognised by the professional groups their patience reaches a limit when this becomes encroachment on their ‘professional competence’, resulting inevitably in conflict (Ackroyd 1996).

Managers within the NHS are marked by a poor image, often both within the organisation and by members of the public. Merali’s study found that the ‘majority of the managers were convinced that the general public believed that doctors and nurses were the only professionals in the NHS who are motivated by a desire to serve/provide care to society’ (2003:558) and similarly within this research the public perception of management within the NHS was consistently negative: ‘There’s too many [managers] as it is’, ‘The NHS should swap most of the managers for doctors and nurses, then there wouldn’t be waiting lists’, “If you can find out what the management do then that’s an achievement in itself’. Overall it seems that management, especially in a context of attempting to rationalise the NHS and incorporate business ideals of value for money and efficiency which often results in cost-cutting through redundancies and closing services, are deemed by non-managers to hold an entirely different ideology that is a far cry from caring for people. Yet the function of ‘management’ is well placed within the NHS, and its conflict with the medical professionals whilst often cited can appear over-emphasised.

However with HRM now shifting in its role from administration and support to management and strategy at the same time as organisational change that is producing a complex and uncertain environment for many within the NHS, the HRM function faces a hostile crowd. This symmetry between the focus upon business and private sector ideals and the rise in HR as a function in its own right, can begin to explain perhaps the antagonism that many within the NHS express towards the HR departments. Those within the NHS who hold close to their hearts the original ideals of the NHS and their role within it rather than fighting against government initiatives and the corporate business world influence instead could hold to account the one group which was ‘created’ out of these initiatives – the HR function. Bryson et al in acknowledging both the power struggle between doctors and management and the increasing role of HRM note that, with a complex organisational strategy that seemingly has no clear direction and with few colleagues from the traditional management functions to align with, HRM are far from being seen as any part of the ‘NHS tribal club’ (1996:53).

Through becoming part of the ‘Corporate Business Team’ and gaining responsibility and a potential role of ‘power’ within the new NHS environment the HRM function has run into conflict. Starting off on the wrong-foot, as Bach explains, HR within the NHS must struggle with the constant accusation that it is illegitimate as its role does ‘not obviously contribute to patient care'(Bach 2001:12). It would also be expected that any role within the NHS service that had the role of scrutinising staff and reviewing quality of care when they were not medically knowledgeable would come to blows with the medical professionals, especially when the latter has enjoyed far-reaching autonomy and control in the service since its beginning (Buchan 2000). However, to also find few compatriots within the rest of management due to its timely rise with organisational change which has rationalised and constrained many other departments, many HR departments have been left in a no-man’s land.

There are few who would debate the continued dominance of the medical profession within the NHS, nor the importance of it remaining in such a position. However, their importance within the NHS as a business is becoming more complex. Management are increasingly holding the power to dictate for example the working patterns of doctors and they have the ability to withhold or reward resources depending upon clinicians abilities to achieve targets. And, with the introduction of Foundation Status, Trusts are running a competitive business within which all are dispensable, as Pollock describes:

“…in the past, doctors were free to speak out – in fact they were under a moral obligation to do so – if they felt it was in the interests of their patients. In a business culture, however, loyalty is said to be due above all to the shareholders. Where the survival of the hospitals depends on massaging the figures and performance ratings, doctors who expose the inadequacies in the system or rail against underfunding or lack of resources are seen to be criticising their own hospitals…”(2004:203)

With performance targets increasingly dominant in the NHS, to the extent that funding, resources and ‘Foundation Status’ can be given or taken away accordingly, accountability not only for service provision but also initiatives such as ‘Improving Working Lives’ have meant that HRM can also take a large piece of the managerial high-ground (Givan 2005). In addition, with the record investments in staffing and government focus upon improving service delivery through effective people management, HRM has been given legitimacy within the NHS through the Government’s ‘HR in the NHS Plan’ (DoH 2002) which represented the NHS’s ‘first generic HR strategy'(Truss 2003:49) and more recently ‘NHS Foundation Trusts: A Guide to Developing HR arrangements’ which highlighted the importance of the HRM function within Foundation Trusts (DoH 2006). With these initiatives in place the effective functioning of HRM is a measurable target – it matters not whether the medical professionals or other managers accept or value the role of HRM. This not only provides the HRM function with a place within the NHS, it gives it the opportunity to ‘adopt a more strategic role within the ‘new public management: ‘it is no longer consigned to a reactive and administrative role, interpreting and applying national rules, and can be proactive’ (Corby 1996 cited in Truss 2003:49).

A number of commentators have assumed that changes in the role and status of HRM in the public sector merely follow orientations developed in the private sector (Buchan 2000; Thomason 1990). Just as the NHS as an organisation can be seen to have taken on private, corporate business strategies, so too it is considered that private sector HR management techniques were established (Buchan 2000:320). Distinct similarities can indeed be seen between the developments of HRM in the private sector and what is currently expected of the HRM function within the NHS as Begley and Boyd summarise:

“The declining relevance of the command-and-control approach to business has extended into the roles played by HRM. Many companies regard their employees’ talents as providing a significant competitive advantage. they expect their HR professionals to formulate creative, flexible programs and policies to woo, develop, and retain that talent.”(2000:12)

This apparent mirroring of private sector HR techniques within the public sector environment has met with various hostile reactions, with accusations of public managers being forced to adopt private sector HRM styles with the possible ‘dangerous’ result that such language will cause the public domains to ‘neglect their values’ (Boyne, Jenkins et al. 1999:411).

Yet others, and especially some senior HR professionals within the NHS, take a different view. For them, the introduction of more efficient people management is an important and necessary development, one that is sorely needed in an environment where people are not only the service providers, but also the product and customer of healthcare services. The following empirical research and analysis demonstrates that far from being left out in the cold, the HRM function is capable of rising through an NHS Trust, effectively implementing government initiatives as well as producing its own, and finally reaching the position of designing and directing corporate strategy. Whilst the perceptions of HRM by other Trust members may vary, this is not necessarily a hindrance, but perhaps an organisational necessity that must be negotiated.

Methodology

The paper reports a research project that has followed the changing role of the HRM function within a large teaching NHS Trust (herein called ‘The Trust’) in the UK. It reports on in-depth interviews and observations of a number of meetings involving staff from across the hospital hierarchy. The Trust is facing many changes, both in its financial governance and organisational practices. Recently it was granted “Foundation Trust” status and, as a result, a competitive drive for value for money and the need to develop efficient recruitment and retention practices have become key issues.

Despite only requiring access to staff, rather than patients, researching an NHS Trust proved more difficult than originally anticipated. Currently researchers wanting to interview NHS staff are required to gain NHS Ethics Committee approval to the same degree that clinical researchers must do when requesting clinical trials on patients. This can be seen as associated with the increased awareness of the importance and value of hospital staff and their working lives at all levels of the organisation, requiring the researcher to ensure that the research is valid and that staff will not be adversely affected. It could be suggested that by not distinguishing between staff and patients and the need for ethical approval in research the NHS has adopted the understanding that to ensure quality of service and patient care staff must also benefit from an improved working life.[1]

The empirical research took place over a period of nine months within the one NHS Trust and included in-depth interviews with twenty-two members of The Trust’s staff and observations of key meetings with staff from across The Trust’s hierarchy in attendance. A Trust Executive P.A. provided a list of thirty-five potential participants for the interviews, ranging from Assistant Service Managers, Junior Doctors, Ward Managers, Nurse Specialists and Senior Staff (including members of the Trust Executive) who were contacted via email communication. Assurances were given that these participants had not been ‘cherry picked’ for their perceptions of HR or management initiatives (which was reflected in interview content at times).

The interviews were conducted either within an office provided by The Trust or at a location convenient to the interviewee, often a staff room or their office. Each interview was recorded, with the participants’ consent, and transcribed in full, with all distinguishing information such as names, exact details of roles and personal information destroyed to ensure anonymity, in accordance with the Ethics Approval criteria. The Director of Workforce and Corporate Affairs was interviewed twice, before subsequent interviews took place and again once interviewing was completed.

The three meetings observed (Patient and Staff Experience Meeting; Executive Governance Committee for Clinical Effectiveness; and Strategy Advisory Group) were chosen through knowledge of the different staffing groups that would be in attendance in order to attempt to gather information as to how different groups interacted. By chance observation of the RCN Clinical Leadership Programme Presentation to the Patient and Staff Experience Group was also possible. Notes were taken during the meeting regarding staff interaction, comments about policies and Trust issues, though individual names and some meeting content was not recorded due to either anonymity or irrelevance.

Due to the highly qualitative nature of this research and in valuing the need to attempt to provide an accurate and indepth understanding into the perceptions of those interviewed and how these relate to the role of HRM and its effectiveness, the following presentation and discussion of the research will use direct quotations, some at length, to highlight issues. It is felt that it is important to allow these views to be expressed clearly and as distinct from over interpretation thus enabling as honest a reflection of the current context as possible. In order to ensure the anonymity of participants they will usually be identified only by their generic role within The Trust.

Discussion of Empirical Research

The research demonstrates that perceptions of HRM within The Trust remain varied, a stance that is not unknown to those within the role:

“I think lots of different people have lots of different perceptions. I think …a lot of managers are starting to see the value of HR and what HR can actually offer them…Other managers would probably just think we are only here to make their lives difficult and not let them get on with the job but those are the people who perhaps have never really had any involvement or used HR to its capacity…” (Human Resources Staff #1)

This suggests that HRM within the NHS remains in a similar situation to when Currie and Procter researched the role of personnel within the NHS and highlight the differing perceptions that the personnel department, and it’s subsequent human resource strategies, had within a trust:

“Both executive directors and middle level managers see an advisory role as appropriate…They differ in their views as to whether the emphasis of the personnel department should lie with operational or strategic issues in an advisory role…middle managers view the personnel department unfavourably because it is distant from the operational aspects of health care…”(1998:383-384)

Indeed, many of the participants found it difficult to summarise the role of HRM and during the research the role was often described as ‘personnel’ or ‘medical staffing’. This lack of clearly defined role for some within The Trust may, as suggested by the HR staff, stem from minimal contact with the HRM department, other than in specific situations such issues with recruitment and pay-role[2].

“…lower grade staff will still see the HR as a sort of mini police force within the organisation and if you do anything naughty you get disciplined and I guess a lot of the lower grade staff don’t have a real idea of what the HR department does…”( Human Resources Staff2)

Perhaps another reason could be the constantly changing title of the head of the HR department. Initially The Trust employed a Director of HRM but as the Director developed and expanded the remit and function of the HR department’s role his title developed to one of Director of Workforce and Corporate Affairs. Within the period of this research the title has changed again, now to Director of Service Improvement. Such a move seems a fair distance from what people would immediately recognise as an HR role but does in fact seem to appropriately reflect the changing role of HRM within The Trust.

To some, HRM clearly does remain in their view firmly within the realm of an administrative function, essential in providing information and support within The Trust. However, many then expressed that past this point HRM is incapable of being closely involved in other areas, particularly the detailed management of specialist professional functions.

“I would describe it [the role of HRM] as one of support and advice, particularly in the instance of employment law. To assist in recruitment and to work with managers…It’s making sure there’s fair practice…” (Senior Nurse)

“They [HRM] have an operational and strategic role. Their strategic role is ensuring the workforce is fit for purpose and remains fit for purpose. Their operational role is ensuring that we have actually got the staff and that all the proper checks have been made” (Clinical Director).

“HR are not specialists in the clinical side are they?! They have a limited input in that way.” (Human Resources Staff #2)

Throughout the research however, many others did seem to find HRM a source of constant irritation and hindrance, interfering in areas where they are not needed, constraining the work of those trying to deliver a service, and generally personifying all that is wrong with management in the NHS. These perceptions often came across amidst discussions on topics such as problems with recruitment or with sick leave where, whilst the issues themselves were considered important, the actions of the HR department were seen as far from helpful. Those who were most critical of HR tended in fact to be those who had most to do with issues where HR would traditionally have a role, such as day-to-day dealings with regards to staff. Whilst describing problems with HRM and the recruitment of clinical staff one consultant was adamant that HRM was incapable of understanding his department’s needs and routinely caused unnecessary problems. It appeared that his dealings with HRM marred his opinions of many managers and his views below were expressed when asked how HRM affected his everyday working life, though he did later explain that he thought the Trust Executive level were slightly more ‘in-tune’ with what The Trust and the professionals within it were trying to achieve:

“Managers that you have to deal with on a day-to-day basis are the lowest of the low managers, who are put to talk to the clinicians, who can’t see the bigger picture…and we don’t seem to be able to keep people for long enough to develop a trusting relationship, or an understanding relationship.” (Consultant)

The initial perceptions of the role of HRM within The Trust were interesting, not only in providing an overall idea of the status of the function, but also for interpreting subsequent views on issues such as HRM’s involvement in other areas of The Trust as a health service provide. Aware of the majority of staff perspectives of the role of HRM, including the negative and sometimes scathing views, nevertheless the Director of Service Improvement and his immediate team not only remained secure in their vision that HRM was an integral part of the organisation, but that it also had a further, more influential role to play. Far from merely remaining within the grounds of previous the previous ‘personnel’ function, HRM instead is seen as being part of every aspect of The Trust

“The HR department is a sort of specialist unit but I see it having branches it is almost like a little tree and it has branches and it goes into every level and every area of the organisation and it helps to it underpins those really a lot of the work. I think the role of HR can be translated into lots of different areas and lots of different services but whatever this type of service we provide within the organisation you can identify an aspect of that there is an HR link to. So I don’t see it as a part of the organisation that is set aside…”(Human Resources Staff2)

Much of their rhetoric corresponds with the notion that the function of HRM within the NHS has a necessary and important role of ensuring that staffing issues remain a top priority if a quality service is to be delivered. Both the Director of Service Improvement and one of his HR staff members highlighted the relationship between HRM with success in relation to traditional medical priorities – namely saving lives:

“If I ask my HR staff how they’re contributing to patient mortality there’d be a look of horror on their faces… But how does HR contribute to one of our key outcomes, i.e. stop our patients from dying? You know, that’s the business that we’re in. And it does, but how does it do that? West’s articles portray the importance of making sure that people are fit for purpose and have the right skills to save people…There are lots of HR and OD interventions and the West stuff shows that where you have high levels of HR interventions there’s lower levels of patient morbidity and mortality. It’s quite a, what’s the right phrase, it’s a real headline isn’t it – ‘HR stopping people from dying’. But it’s what I believe.” (D.S.I)

It is interesting to note here not only his focus upon the ‘business’ aspect of why this is so important, reflecting the increasingly corporate ideals of The Trust, but also the apparent enthusiasm for having perceived legitimation for what he is doing. Whilst the other HR staff mirrored the assumption that HRM can have a role within the clinical aspects of service delivery, their reliance upon academic assurance, as opposed to the support of other staff within The Trust, is perhaps telling:

“I think that HR can quite easily be involved in that [clinical aspects], and certainly the more they’re involved in that and the more they can improve the type of service that’s offered it has a knock-on effect, whether it’s looking at the admin’ side, or from the more clinical side. Because the clinical side, although we don’t deliver hands-on care, we still can be involved in lots of different ways, and that’s what makes a good HR department. And ultimately if they want to get fit patients where possible out there again and with HR practice, as we know from Borril and West, good HR practices do have an effect on the patient and the service that the patients get.” (Human Resources Staff2)

This interpretation of the function of HRM and its impact upon service delivery is very clearly directly associated with the research and conclusions of West (2002) and West et al (2002) who, in a study of hospitals in England claim to have found ‘strong associations between HR practices and patient mortality’ (West 2002:31). Following on from this it has been widely publicised, especially within the health service HRM context, that through enhancing the HRM function by ‘implementing sophisticated and extensive training and appraisal systems, and encouraging a high percentage of employees to work in teams’ it is possible to significantly improve hospital performance'(West, Borrill et al. 2002:1309). In using ‘progressive HRM practices’ West argues that employees will be able to improve their overall ‘knowledge, skill, motivation and performance’ resulting in, what perhaps interests some Trust Executives the most, an increase in profitability (2002:32).

Such a legitimation for the HRM function may prove significant, especially in an environment where an ability to increase efficiency and profitability are key attributes for any department, not least one that has struggled to find its feet within an organisation. However, there are some commentators who suggest that such a process of using performance trends to justify organisational practices may merely be a ‘language game’ which uses the current climate of managerialism and corporate ideals to enhance their position (Harrison 2002).

Perhaps not surprisingly therefore there have been many who have dismissed the claims of West, not least from the clinical professions:

“…we have encountered considerable scepticism from doctors who seek demonstrations of how HRM practices improve individual surgeons’ performance in ways that reduce mortality rates…”(2002:35)

Within this research too, when other participants were questioned as to the role of HRM with regards to the clinical side of service delivery the vast majority instantly responded that this was not a function that they perceived HRM to have any part in. On consideration however, many seemed to re-evaluate this and began to give explanations as to ways in which they could perceive a role for HRM. Such a role however was dependent upon HRM extending its remit within areas that it already played a part, such as enhanced recruitment procedures with clinical staff or training and development. However, the idea that HRM may potentially enter into areas substantially more clinically orientated did not sit well all the clinical participants and also with many of those who were non-clinical

“I’m always suspicious of people who make decisions about something they know nothing on. And I think that on-call rotas, what is and what isn’t appropriate, pay-schemes, clinical skills and training and things like that, fair enough – why not have Human Resources as ultimately the people who are responsible for this. But NOT making the decisions themselves, because that’s just bollocks. There’s a lot of things in life where people who make the decisions have got no bloody idea about what it is they’re making the decisions about.” (Junior Doctor)

“… if we were talking about the HR department extending its reach into operational issues, around things like the effective running of certain departments or efficient use of resources, I think that would be counter productive…if…HR wanted to get literally directly involved in the operational processes, I think they would find it very difficult and I think the individuals would probably find it quite easy to resist HR’s role in that because they don’t have the experience operationally to be able to see that somebody is pulling the wool over their eyes a little, because they are not in that environment all of the time. So I think it is important that there is some separation.” (General Manager)

Prior to the empirical research it was thought that a conflict between management and clinical professionals would be observed and as such each participant was asked whether they considered such a conflict to exist, or to have ever existed. Overwhelmingly the answer to the former was no with the few who considered a conflict in the past suggesting that it had been nothing more than insignificant ‘bitching and blaming’. Many however understood that within the context of the NHS, where resources are stretched and aggravated by internal and external competition, a blame culture exists whereby clinicians blame management for restricting the service they are able to provide and management become frustrated with clinicians who seem not to understand the difficulties of managing such a complex and underfunded organisation. Recognising the potential for both differing opinions and priorities, the Director of Service Improvement and his team did not see conflict as being an issue of concern, suggesting instead that it was an area that should be worked upon in order to help each other through it:

“I think it’s an issue that has been eroded over the years. Previously you will have had those divisions; territorial; protectionism, that sort of thing, and now there is a recognition that we are all here to do the same things to provide an efficient, prompt, high quality health service with the patient at the core, it’s just we each have priorities which might be to break even, which might be to deliver so many operations or do so many within a specific time period, but we can help each other to do that.” (Human Resources Staff1)

Where highly negative views were expressed the Director of Service Improvement similarly did not see this as a distinct problem. Whether perceived as a ‘mini-police force’, as having no place in a clinical agenda or generally entering into areas that ‘did not concern them’ rather than attempting to resolve these perceptions, instead it was suggested that in some ways they could be beneficial, for example if staff were worried about ‘being sent to HR’ then they would perhaps have a better attendance rate. Perhaps more telling however about the Director of Service Improvements views upon the role of HRM was that he was adamant that, regardless of others’ perceptions he clearly identifies a role for HRM as a driving force behind organisational improvement and strategy, and if people are not happy with this then it really doesn’t matter. To those who remain cynical about whether or not HRM ‘deserved’ its increased status and influence within the organisation he explained his reasoning from a financial position:

“With recruitment and retention, basically we make every year a £15million investment in recruitment. If our turnover is roughly 10%, our salary bills are roughly £160-170million, so that’s £16-17million that is spent every year on recruitment. And it dwarfs any other investment that we have by far…” (D.S.I)

With such a vast expenditure on staffing he claimed that this current position of HRM was not only justified but necessary, a view cited previously within the literature on the rise in the function of HRM within the NHS as a whole.

Such a perspective raises the need for a reconsideration of the emerging priorities, at an organisational level and those of the different roles as clearly, whether ‘treated’ or not, to have such differing viewpoints can hardly assist the functioning of departments and the service as a whole. However, whilst inter-professional frictions have existed since the foundation of the NHS (Ham 1999; Klein 2001), in the present uncertain environment it may be a mistake to assume that tensions between the HR professionals, medical groups and others can or need to be resolved. Instead perhaps they need to be negotiated and used to the advantage of the service. It is here that the HRM department at The Trust hope to work with such issues and find a means to improve the working relationships within the organisation, via the ‘skills and influences’ that an ‘efficient HRM department should have’ (Human Resources Staff #1):

“I think there are lots of ways that HR can be involved in working relationships. I think one of the major things that HR needs to bear in mind are communication. How they communicate information to staff; how they communicate information to managers and I think there are lots of different ways that they can be involved in that. There are lots of different relationships. There is a relationship between managers and HR; senior HR managers and their teams; and I think also you can look at how we help to influence behaviour between staff…I think you approach it from lots of different angles by that sort of straightforward training, by example and by probably having more of a specialist knowledge of such things and being able to diagnose, I suppose, where you consider there are problems and things can be dealt with and improved.”( Human Resources Staff2)

Overall, it may be appropriate to consider that friction and conflict, arguments and negotiations, and an ongoing negation of roles and relationships is an inevitable part of the fundamentally uncertain situation changes caused by changes within the NHS (Ham 1999; Dent & Radcliff 2003; Kirkpatrick & Ackroyd 2003) that is not only natural but also potentially beneficial:

“…it is tribes…hospitals are full of tribes and they are all competing for the same turf…it is just the nature of thing. People’s perspectives are subtely different because they are seeing it from a different point. The key thing is to make sure that the core purpose of the organisation isn’t diluted by that difference, that that diversity should actually enrich the process not detract from it and that is about how something is introduced. The way that people speak, listen, react, it is those sorts of things that become important and HR can play a very central role in trying to educate an organisation to behave in a particular way.” (General Manager)

Whilst the Director of Service Improvement in the Trust studied here presents himself and his fellow ‘specialists’ as a confident, forward thinking group capable of initiating and driving change that is for the good of The Trust, in reality what is required probably demands an ongoing dialogue and will be associated with continuing tensions and mutual frustrations.

“Doctors have ruled the NHS absolutely, and no matter what’s said and what rhetoric goes out, doctors still run the NHS, and that’s not right. The NHS gets paid to deliver on a certain product and that product is not always in the best interests of the doctors, and that fact needs to be recognised…Clinical leadership, just clinical leadership, is not necessarily going to deliver on those, you need the combination. Neither should management completely hold sway, it’s got to be a team based approach. Clinicians know the business inside out, they’re the ones who are delivering the product, and any manager that believes that that has no value in the decision making is a very foolish manager. So it should be done in partnership and consultation and collaboration, and lots of the studies show that where you have a strong clinical leadership as well as strong managerial leadership, that is how you make effective change in the NHS, and that is absolutely my belief, absolutely.” (D.S.I.)

Conclusion

This paper has presented an empirically based evaluation of the changing role of HRM within the NHS. Through demonstrating the perceptions and opinions of those within an NHS Trust a picture has been given as to not only the current context of the NHS that HRM finds itself in but also the reactions of those who work within it and with it.

The thinking behind the approach to reform and management from an HRM level at The Trust are clear – different thinking is needed. Within the current context of the NHS there is a distinct drive for increased productivity and efficiency which is considered, appropriately so it can be argued, only achievable through the investment of staff. In a public sector service that relies upon people for its customers and for its service deliverers, to ignore the potential impact of HRM practices for the sake of lack of credibility seems churlish. Where corporate business ideals are becoming ever more prevalent within the NHS and with the introduction of Foundation Trust Status and therefore enhanced competition and a need for Trusts to remain profitable, ensuring communication and good working relationships must become second-hand to NHS Trusts rather than a chore. In order for this to occur perhaps instead of focusing on resolving the conflict between the different groups or for management to attempt to take full control, a compromise is needed. Whilst HRM must develop a closer partnership with line management and clinical professionals, they must also provide an efficient and responsive service that is recognisable and accessible to all (Guest and Peccei 1992:46). As a result, perhaps clinical professionals and other staff will prove less antagonistic and sceptical and realise the potential of HRM for assisting in improving the delivery of an efficient health service.

“If you have HR practices that focus on effort rather and skill; develop people’s skills; encourage co-operation, collaboration, innovation an synergy in teams for the most, if not all employees, the whole system functions and performs better.”(West 2002:35)

Should such a stance not be wholly accepted, the HRM function can be regarded as finally holding a strong enough position within the NHS not to be adversely affected. With performance targets not only auditing patient satisfaction, waiting times and clinical effectiveness, the satisfaction, training and development of staff through HRM practices is also being closely monitored. Trusts can therefore literally ill-afford to neglect the function of HRM within the NHS.

References

Ackroyd, S. (1996). “Organization Contra Organizations: Professions and Organizational Change in the United Kingdom.” Organization Studies 17(4): 499-621.

Appelby, J. (2007). NHS: Where’s the money gone? BBC Radio 4 Today Programme.

Atun, R. A. (2006). “Doctors and managers need to speak a common language.” British Medical Journal 326: 655.

Bach, S. (2001). HR and New Approaches to Public Sector Management: Improving HRM Capacity. Workshop on Global Health Workforce Strategy, World Health Organisation. Annecy, France.

Barnett, S., D. Buchanan, et al. (1996). “Negotiating the Evolution of the HR Function: practical advice from the health care sector.” Human Resource Management Journal 6(4): 18-37.

Begley, T. M. and D. P. Boyd (2000). “Articulating Corporate Values through Human Resource Policies.” Business Horizons July-August: 8-12.

Boyne, G., G. Jenkins, et al. (1999). “Human Resource Management in the Public and Private Sectors: An Empirical Comparison.” Public Management 77(2): 407-420.

Bradshaw, P. L. (2003). “Modernizing the British National Health Service (NHS) – some ideological and policy considerations.” Journal of Nursing Management 11: 85-90.

Bryson, C., M. Jackson, et al. (1996). Human resource managers as professionals in managing change in NHS trusts. Beyond Reason? the National health Service and the limits of management. J. Leopold, Glover, I. and Hughes, M. Aldershot, Avebury: 37-57.

Buchan, J. (2000). “Health sector reform and human resources: lessons from the United Kingdom.” Health Policy and Planning 15(3): 319-325.

Clarke, N. (2006). “Why HR policies fail to support workplace learning: the complexities of policy implementation in healthcare.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 17(1): 190-206.

Currie, G. and S. Procter (1998). “The role of the personnel department in the management of change in the UK NHS.” Strategic Change 7: 375-386.

DoH (2002). HR in the NHS Plan. N. W. T. a. H. Directorate, Department of Health: 41.

DoH (2006). NHS foundation trusts: A guide to developing HR arrangements. D. o. Health: 74.

DoH (2007). Purpose of NHS foundation trusts

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Organisationpolicy/Secondarycare/NHSfoundationtrust/DH_4062806.

Du Gay, P. (2003). “The Tyranny of the Epochal: Change, Epochalism and Organisational Reform.” Organization 10(4): 663-684.

Duncan-Smith, I. (2002). Time for Real Reform. Conservative Party Press Conference, Conservative Party Headquarters, Smith’s Square, London.

Edgar, F. and A. Geare (2005). “HRM practice and employee attitudes: difference measures – different results.” Personnel Review 34(5): 534-549.

Exworthy, M. and S. Halford (1999). Professionals and the New Managerialism in the Public Sector, Open University Press.

Flynn, R. (1991). Structure of control in health management. London, Routledge.

Givan, R. K. (2005). “Seeing stars: human resources perfomance indicators in the National Health Service.” Personnel Review 34(6): 634-647.

Glover, I. and J. Leopold (1996). The future: Realism and diversity? Beyond Reason? The National Health Service and the limits of management. J. Leopold, Glover, I. and Hughes, M. Aldershot, Avebury: 251-264.

Guest, D. E. and R. Peccei (1992). “The Effectiveness of Personnel Management in the NHS.” NHS Management Executive.

Ham, C. (1996). Public, Private or Community: What next for the NHS? London, Demos.

Harrison, S. (2002). “New Labour, Modernisation and the Medical Labour Process.” Journal of Social Policy 31(3): 465-485.

Hoggett, P. (2006). “Conflict, ambivalence, and the contested purpose of public organizations.” Human Relations 59(2): 175-194.

Kelly, M. and I. Glover (1996). In search of health and efficiency: the NHS 1948-1994. Beyond Reason? the National health Service and the limits of management. J. Leopold, Glover, I. and Hughes, M. Aldershot, Avebury: 15-33.

Kember, T. a. M., G. (1994). The NHS: a kaleidoscope of care: conflicts of service and business values /, Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust.

Legge, K. (1978). Power, innovation, and problem-solving in personnel management. UK, McGraw-Hill.

Merali, F. (2003). “NHS managers’ views of their culture and their public image: the implications for NHS reforms.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 16(7): 549-563.

Pollitt, C. (1993). Managerialism and the Public Services, Blackwell Publishers.

Pollock, A. M. (2004). NHS plc: The Privatisation of Our Health Care. London, Verso.

Rivett, G. (1997). From cradle to Grave: Fifty years of the NHS. London, King’s Fund.

Skjorshammer, M. (2001). “Co-operation and conflict in a hospital: interprofessional differences in perception and management of conflicts.” Journal of Interprofessional Care 15(1): 7-18.

Talbot-Smith, A. and A. M. Pollock (2006). The New NHS: A Guide. London, Routledge.

Truss, C. (2003). “Strategic HRM: enablers and constraints in the NHS.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 16(1): 48-60.

Walshe, K. (2002). “The Rise of Regulation in the NHS.” British Medical Journal 324: 967-70.

West, M. (2002). “A Matter of Life and Death.” People Management(21 February): 30-36.

West, M. A., C. Borrill, et al. (2002). “The link between the mangement of employees and patient mortality in acute hospitals.” International Journal of Human Resource Management 13(8): 1299.

[1] Alternatively, it could be that rather than spend time on developing a separate ethics approval system for staff the NHS has merely reproduced the same form, which could potentially adversely affect staff if key issues are not highlighted in the application process. In addition, this may also demonstrate the NHS’s disregard for research that is non-clinical.

[2] Alternatively, and here there is a need for further debate which cannot be produced here due to limited space, the definition of HRM as a whole is open to negotiation and depends upon not only the perspectives of those who experience the role, but also how the function itself interprets its position. Such a topic requires additional research and resources not available here, but for an introduction into the areas of this debate Legge (1978) provides a comprehensive starting point.