Are-HR-Competency-Models-Effective.pdf

40

Applied H.R.M. Research, 2010, Volume 12, Number 1, pages 40-58

Are HR Business Partner Competency Models

Effective?

Raymond Caldwell

University of London

HR competency models have been vital to attempts to improve the selection and development of

HR business partners and establish a new mechanism for linking HR strategy with business performance. But how effective are they? This article proposes a research model of the links

between selection and development as antecedents of the HR-business strategy linkage, with HR

business partner performance as its outcome. The research model indicates that the creation of an

effective HR strategy-business strategy linkage mediates the association of selection and

development on business partner performance. The findings highlight the critical importance of

the HR strategy-business strategy linkage, and raise important questions about the ability of HR

business partners to develop this capability in the future.

There has been an enormous growth in the use of HR competency models

over the last decade as part of an overall attempt to realign the HR function and

transform HR professionals into business partners (Ulrich, Brockbank, Yeung, & Lake, 1995; Ulrich, 1997; Losey, 1999; Ramlall, 2006; Ulrich, Brockbank, &

Johnson, 2008). By focusing on the behaviors, knowledge and attributes required

in HR business partner roles, competency models offer the possibility of creating

an integrated and consistent framework for the selection, appraisal, training and

development of HR practitioners, as well as a mechanism for linking HR strategy

and business performance (Boyatzis, 1982, 1993; Ulrich et al., 1995; Baill, 1999;

Ulrich et al., 2008). But how effective are these models?

Despite the growth in business partnering competency models and their widespread advocacy, there have been few empirical or survey-based

investigations of the effectiveness of these models in making HR professionals

more strategic or business-oriented (Huselid, Jackson, & Schuler, 1997; Boselie

& Paauwe, 2005; Ulrich et al., 2008). This article presents UK survey data from

118 HR business partners in a variety of roles, mainly within large UK

organizations that have embraced business partnering. The findings suggest that

competency models are perceived to be broadly effective in selecting business

partners, but are less effective in developing business partners or linking HR

strategy with business strategy. Crucially, competency models are poor at

predicting effective performance in a business partner role.

To explore the survey findings a research model is proposed of the

relationship between four effectiveness variables: selection, development, HR

41

strategy-business linkage and business partner performance. The research model

indicates that business partner selection and development are the antecedents of

the HR strategy-business strategy linkage and that effective business partner

performance is the outcome of the HR strategy-business strategy linkage. The

findings highlight the limitations of business partner competency models and they

raise important questions about how business partnering will develop in the future

as HR roles are further stretched in the ever-ambitious drive to link HR with

business performance outcomes (Hope Hailey, Farndale, & Truss, 2005; Francis

& Keegan, 2006).

The article begins with a brief review of the use of competency models as

a mechanism for improving the effectiveness and performance of HR

professionals in new business partnering roles. The proposed research model and

the major hypotheses to be tested are then presented. This is followed by a brief

outline of the scope of the survey, including information on the survey

respondents and some the key findings on effectiveness. The correlation and

regression analyses used to test the research model are then outlined. Finally, the

findings are discussed in terms of the challenges of linking HR strategy and

business strategy.

HR Competency Models

Boyatziss pioneering study of The Competent Manager (1982) was undoubtedly a major influence on the enormous growth of management based

competency models during the early 1990s. His work promised a new, more

integrated and universal approach to management education, training and

development (Burgoyne, 1993). Boyatzis defined competency as: an underlying characteristic of an employee (i.e., a motive, trait, skill, aspect of ones self-image, social role, or a body of knowledge) which results in superior

performance (Boyatzis, 1982, p. 21). This definition allowed competencies to be objectified, analytically disaggregated and grouped into skills, knowledge, self-

concepts, traits and motives. It also allowed competences to be hierarchically

defined and rated by levels of proficiency, position and performance: essential, core or foundational competencies were contrasted with differential competencies that distinguished superior from average performance, and there were also higher level strategic competencies that appeared to be vital to organizational performance and competitive success. Despite this apparent

analytical precision and the promise of consistency, competency models were

rarely successful in defining performance linkages, and the proliferation of

definitional disputes and competing models has led to growing confusion as to

precisely what competencies are, how they are measured, and what precise impact

they have on performance (Boyatzis 1993; Antonacopoulou & Fitzgerald, 1996;

42

Huselid et al., 1997; Brockbank, 2003; Boselie & Paauwe, 2005; Delamare Le

Deist & Winterton, 2005; Grazeda, 2005).

When competency models were assimilated into the HR field the task of

defining the links between competencies and performance was paramount (Ulrich

& Yeung, 1989; Baill, 1999; Brewster et al, 2000). This was certainly true of the

most influential model of HR competencies originally developed by Ulrich (1995)

and his colleagues at the University of Michigan (Yeung et al., 1996). The initial

model-building process began with broadly universal-generic ambitions, but over

the years the model has undergone numerous updates and revisions (1987, 1992,

1997, 2002, 2008). In the earliest versions it was suggested that there were three

decisive HR competencies, irrespective of job role or title, and that these could be

ranked in terms of their impact on performance: change management, functional expertise and knowledge of the business. An updating of the research findings suggested, however, that there were two other important

competencies: culture management focused on changing employee behaviour and professional credibility, or how practitioners embodied the business values of their organization. This model was also later revised into five overarching

competency categories that sought to distinguish low from high performing

organizations: strategic contribution, personal credibility, HR delivery, business

knowledge and HR technology. The most recent reworking of HR competencies

by Ulrich (2008) and his colleagues has suggested yet another redefinition of the

competencies and roles of high performing HR professionals. They are now

expected to operate in six competence domains as a credible activist, cultural

steward, talent manager/organizational designer, strategic architect, business ally,

and operational executor. Despite all these revisions and updates the Michigan model of HR competencies is still characterised by definitional disputes, analytical inconsistency and the performance impact of specific competences has

proved to be shifting and elusive (Becker et al., 2001).

The relationship between HR competencies and HR roles has also proved

to be an area of considerable controversy. Many HR competency models were

explicitly designed with the programmatic intent of transforming HR

professionals into a new category of people manager with business knowledge:

the HR business partner. This was certainly true of Ulrichs famous attempt to classify HR professionals into four overlapping roles: strategic partners, administrative experts, employee champions, and change agents. These new roles sought to shift the focus from the narrowly defined domains of personnel

expertise and concentrate instead on HR as a delivery function that served the

strategic imperatives of business success. However, as the Ulrich model of business partnering became widely espoused and more and more HR practitioners assumed the business partner job title at the business unit or

corporate level, questions were raised as to how each role was precisely defined

43

and what specific competencies they required. Are business partner roles defined

by a universal set of competencies or does each role have a unique set of

competencies? How do competencies map on to HR generalist and specialist

roles; should they be differentiated? Why are some competencies (e.g. personal credibility) less important than others? Can behavioral competences really encompass the meta-qualities or capabilities required in demanding and increasingly complex business-facing HR roles? Should all HR practitioners

embrace business partner competencies?

Partly because of the disputes over HR competencies and roles, the

implementation of HR business partnering has rarely followed a single model, and

there is growing concern regarding the efficacy of the more generic and context-

independent competency frameworks propounded by advocates of business

partnering (Pitcher, 2008). Major issues still surround the range and definition of

functional and behavioural competencies and how they are formalised and

evaluated, both with respect to management and leadership (Buckley & Monks,

2004). There is also particular concern as to how much business knowledge, both formal and tacit, HR people need to ensure they are effective in a strategic

business partner role (Boselie & Paauwe, 2005). But by far the biggest issue for

practitioners is the link between new business partner competencies and

performance (Ulrich et al., 2008). Are HR business partner competency models

really effective in selecting and developing business partners, linking HR strategy

and business strategy, or predicting performance in a business partner role?

The Research Model

The classic rationale for competencies models is the belief that formalized

and tested competencies are the most effective way of predicting performance

(Delamare Le Deist & Winterton, 2005). This partly explains why competency

models have been very widely used in underpinning development and promotion

processes in organizations. However, the overarching question of effectiveness

has rarely been critically addressed in the HR competency literature, at least

directly. Instead, the primary inward-looking focus has been on reclassifying and

redefining behavioral attributes and indicators to fit the prescribed agendas of

selection, training, development and appraisal. The research model proposed here

shifts the focus to HR practitioners overall perceptions and evaluations of effectiveness. While this shift in focus does not offer a direct exploration of

empirical measures of effectiveness it does allow for an analysis of the perceived

effectiveness HR competencies models by those in a unique position to judge

them: senior HR professionals performing business partner roles (Rynes et al.,

2002).

44

Figure 1 presents a conceptual model of the relation of the four single-item

effectiveness variables: selection, development, HR strategy-business strategy

linkage and performance. It indicates that effective HR business partner selection

and development, the two primary independent variables, lead to the linkage of

HR strategy and business strategy. This linkage, in turn, affects the key outcome

variable of business partner performance. In other words, the model proposes that

the creation of an effective HR strategy and business strategy linkage is the

intervening variable defining the association of selection and development on

effective business partner performance (Cohen et al., 2003). The hypotheses that

underpin the model are outlined below.

Figure 1

Research Model

The Hypotheses

Many organizations that have embraced business partnering have used

competency models in their assessment tools for selecting business partners,

although the results have sometimes been very disconcerting. In one notable case,

less than 10 percent of existing HR staff subject to assessment had the

competencies to take on the new business partner role (Hesketh, 2006, p. 56).

However, the question also arises whether those that have been selected as

business partners using competency models can be further developed in this role

and whether this in turn influences perceived performance. This suggests the first

hypothesis within the research model:

HR Business

Partner

Selection

HR Business

Partner

Performance

HR-Business

Strategy

Linkage

HR Business

Partner

Development

45

Hypothesis 1: The perceived effectiveness of business partner competency models

in selecting business partners will be positively related to the effectiveness of

these models in creating a linkage between HR strategy and business strategy.

Most of the competencybased programmes used to develop business partners are expensive and intrinsically problematic, mainly because investments

in management development and leadership are notoriously unpredictable in

terms of outcomes. This partly explains why some organizations tend to separate

out selection tools from the competencies used to develop business partners,

although they are often conjoined in many competencies models. Within the

research model it is assumed that there may be a positive correlation between

selection and development as mutually reinforcing processes, and that together

they may have a positive performance impact on the HR strategy-business

strategy linkage the mediation variable (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998; Robertson & Smith, 2001). This leads to the second hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2: The perceived effectiveness of business partner competency models

in developing business partners will be positively related to the effectiveness of

these models in creating a linkage between HR strategy and business strategy.

Linking HR strategy with business strategy is absolutely fundamental to

the rationale of business partner competency models. However, this is one of the

most difficult challenges facing business partners as they seek to embrace cross-

functional managerial competencies that go beyond the comfort zone of

traditional HR expertise (Ulrich, 1997; Ulrich & Brockbank, 2006). But if the HR

strategy-business strategy linkage is achieved does it then have a positive impact

on predictions of business partner performance? This leads to the third

hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: The perceived effectiveness of the HR strategy-business strategy

linkage will be positively related to the perceived effectiveness of competency

models in predicting business partner performance.

Before exploring the hypotheses the scope of the survey and the main

characteristics of the organizations and respondents surveyed are outlined.

The Survey

The survey was conducted using a combined online and postal

questionnaire. Respondents were encouraged to complete the online version,

46

mainly because it offered advantages in terms of data input and analysis; but the

choice of a postal questionnaire was also offered to help improve the response

rate. The survey questionnaire was sent to 600 organizations and 118 completed

questionnaires were received from respondents in 114 organizations, representing

a response rate of 19 percent. Four organizations had two respondents each, but

this was considered acceptable as these organizations were very large, diversified

or recently merged businesses with distinct operating units. There were no

important differences in the data across the two survey modes.

The survey questionnaire was divided into eight sections, covering over 50

major items of information (Caldwell, 2008). Standard information was collected

on respondent characteristics, measures of organizational size and industry sector.

There was also a wide range of questions on the characteristic features of business

partnering, common pitfalls and the major obstacles to implementation.

The organizations included in the survey were identified from a variety of

published sources and proprietary databases that contained information on large

organizations pursuing business partnering or those in which the HR business partner job title was used. Most of the organizations in the survey (53) had well over 5,000 employees, and they included some major UK global companies, as

well as a range of central government departments and large public service

organizations. A few relatively small organizations are also included, but none of

them had less than 500 employees (Table 1). Most industry sectors are covered in

the survey, but global financial services institutions and a wide range of

diversified international businesses in consumer products, manufacturing,

retailing and pharmaceuticals are prominent. This is not surprising as business

partnering has often been associated with global businesses with geographical

dispersed or diversified business units. Overall the survey sample is largely

representative of large organizations and global businesses in the UK that have

embraced the HR business partnering approach (Table 1).

Table 2 offers a profile of the survey respondents. They are almost

equally split between male and female HR practitioners. In terms of age 42

percent are in the age range 35 to 44, while a small number (11) are in the age

range 55-65. The vast majority of respondents (88 percent) have followed a

mainly generalist HR career path and approximately 50 percent have been in their

current role for just 1 or 2 years. Overall, the respondents represent HR business

partners at all levels, with almost half using some version of the business partner job title based on the job title information provided in the survey.

47

Table 1

Organization Profiles

Category Profile of Organizations

Frequency Count Valid Percent

Size - Number of Employees 500-1000 (7)

1001-2500 (19)

2501-5000 (14)

over 5000 (53)

Missing (25)

7.5

20.4

15.1

57.0

Number of HR Staff

0-50 (44)

51-100 (18)

Over 100 (38)

Missing (18)

44.0

18.0

38.2

Number of HR Business

Partners

0-10 (66)

11-25 (22)

26-50 (10)

>50 (14)

Missing (6)

58.9

19.6

8.9

12.5

Private v Public Sector

Private sector (86)

Public sector (27)

Other (1)

76.0

24.0

In the survey respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point scale of

very effective (5) to very ineffective (1), how they rated HR business partner

competency models in selecting business partners, developing business partners,

linking HR strategy and business strategy, and predicting performance in a

business partner role. As most respondents, given their HR role and/or business

partner job title, were assumed to be broadly familiar with competency models, no standardized definition was given of competencies. It should also be noted that

over two thirds of the respondents indicated that they were familiar with the

Ulrich model of business partnering. The responses to the four questions on competencies were as follows: 63

percent of respondents believed that business partner competency models are

generally effective in selecting business partners, 46 percent thought they were effective in developing business partners and 47 percent thought they were effective in linking HR strategy and business strategy (Table 3). However, competency models appeared to be much less effective in predicting performance

48

Table 2

Respondent Profiles

Category Profile of Respondents

Frequency Count Valid Percent

Gender Male (52)

Female (57)

47.3

51.8

Age 25-34 (20)

35-44 (47)

45-54 (33)

55-65 (11)

18.0

42.4

29.7

9.9

HR Career Paths Specialist HR roles (12)

Generalist HR roles (90)

Other (14)

11.8

88.2

Years in Current HR Role 1-2 years (49)

3-5 years (39)

6-9 years (1)

Over 10 years (6)

Other (20)

50.0

39.8

1.0

5.1

Position Board Member (7)

HR Director/Head of HR (56)

Senior HR Specialist (12)

Senior Business Partner (15)

HR Business Partner (25)

Other (3)

6.1

48.7

10.2

13.0

21.7

Table 3

Responses Saying Very Effective/Effective

HR Business Partner Competency Models

(% Saying Very Effective/Effective)

Summary of Response

Data

Selecting

business

partners

Developing

business

partners

Linking

HR-

business

strategy

Predicting

business

partner

performance

Overall percentage

saying effective

63.1% (70) 46.5% (55) 47.5%(56) 24.5%(29)

Number valid 111 111 111 110

Mean 2.21 2.39 2.82 2.44

Standard deviation .955 1.011 1.089 1.088

49

in a business partner role; only 24 percent of respondents thought they were

effective in this area.

Results

Before we examine the proposed research model it is worth noting some

of the preliminary factors that were reviewed in evaluating the perceived

effectiveness of HR competency models. There appeared to be no significant

differences in ratings of perceived effectiveness by gender or seniority of position.

Nor did specialist or generalist HR career paths appear to influence ratings of

effectiveness. However, respondents in the age range 25-34 appeared to give

higher ratings of effectiveness than respondents in the age range 45 to 54 or 55 to

65. In other words, perceptions of effectiveness decrease with age. More broadly,

overall ratings of the perceived effectiveness of competency models do not appear

to be strongly associated with industry sector, although there are some variations

between the private and public sector. Nor do size factors, such as the number of

employees, appear to be significant.

The next section examines the proposed research model using correlation

and regression analysis.

Correlation Analysis

Table 4 presents mean and standard deviations for the four single-item

effectiveness variables. The mean score for three of the four variables are greater

than 3, on a Likert scale of 1 to 5, indicating broad agreement among the

respondents. In addition, the standard deviations for the four variable ranges from

.79 to .91, indicating the data were broadly homogenous. Table 4 also presents the

Pearson correlation results for the four variables as well as the Cronbach Alpha

reliability coefficients (bold) of internal consistency, which range from .81 to .86,

indicating the reliability of the five-point effectiveness scale.

As hypothesized in the overall research model, the values correlated

positively, with selection and development being most strongly correlated (.63).

However, selection is not positively correlated with performance, suggesting

other factors may influence perceptions of performance (Robertson & Smith,

2001). Moreover, the two antecedent variables of the HR strategy-business

strategy linkage, namely selecting business partners and developing business

partners are only modestly correlated with perceptions of the HR strategy-

business strategy linkage. Nevertheless, the hypothesized dependent variable of

the HR strategy-business strategy linkage, namely business partner performance,

had a substantial positive correlation (.56)

50

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

(N=110)

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4

1. Selecting business partners 3.64 0.79 .86

2. Developing business

partners

3.45 0.82 .63** .81

3. Linking HR-business

strategy

3.39 0.91 .28** .36** .84

4. Predicting performance 2.99 0.83 .128 .43** .56** .83

**p

51

considerable degree of confidence in interpreting the results. The relations were

significant at p < 0.01 providing support for H3.

Table 5

Regression Analysis for Hypothesis 2

Regression Analyses of Effect of Business Partner Selection

and Development on HR-Business Strategy Linkage

(N=110)

Dependent Variable Independent

Variables

Adjusted

R2

F t p<

HR-Business Strategy

Linkage

Selecting business

partners

.286

43.27

6.58

0.001

Developing business

partners

.341

57.42

7.58

0.001

Table 6

Regression Analysis for Hypothesis 3

Discussion

HR business partner competency models emerged well over a decade ago

on the back of the management-based competency movement (Burgoyne, 1993;

Yeung, 1996). Competencies promised a mechanism for reinventing HR roles, as

well as an alternative approach to establishing the performance impact of the HR

function (Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005; Ulrich et al., 2008). But there is growing

concern that generic and role-specific competency models are not working as

effectively as proposed by their most forceful advocates, and practitioners are

increasingly aware of the growing performance gaps (Pitcher, 2008). It is

therefore increasingly important to develop a critical awareness of the limitations

of competencies models and their potential effectiveness as a mechanism for

improving performance.

Most attempts to explore variations in the effectiveness of HR business

partner competency models have focused on issues of the range, mix and

Regression Analysis of Effect of HR -Business Strategy

Linkage on Performance

(N=110)

Dependent Variable Independent Variable Adjusted

R2

F t p<

Business Partner

Performance

HR-Business

Strategy Linkage

.529

123.44

11.00

0.01

52

weighting of competencies (Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005; Ramlall, 2006). This

usually leads to attempts to increasingly formalise, reformulate or introduce new

add-on competencies, with the assumption that new hybrid models will have more

general applicability or a greater performance impact (Ulrich et al., 2008). But

these approaches have often been unsuccessful at unlocking consistent

performance linkages over time in business partner competency models.

Rather than examine individual competencies or a specific competency

framework, this study explored overall evaluations of the perceived effectiveness

of competency models by practitioners. It sought to discover how evaluations of

effectiveness are interrelated and to what extent competency models are perceived

to be predictive of business partner performance. The rationale for this approach

was that HR practitioner evaluations of effectiveness matter because they are in a

unique position to judge how competency models work in practice (Rynes et al.,

2002).

The overall survey findings indicate that competency models for business

partners are not as effective as generally assumed, and they are particularly weak

in predicting performance in business partnering roles. There also appears to be a

weak link between business partner selection and business partner performance,

although the selection and development of business partners are strongly

correlated (Table 4). One practical implication of this particular finding is that

more emphasis should perhaps be placed on business partner development. But

perhaps the most important research finding is that selection and development

have a positive impact on the HR strategy-business strategy linkage, and this in

turn is predictive of the perceived effectiveness HR business partner performance.

The identification of the HR strategy-business strategy linkage as a key

variable within the overall research model is important. It highlights the critical

importance for business partners of making their primary strategic contribution in linking HR with the business. But this is by far the most difficult practical

challenge business partners face, mainly because they invariably lack

competencies in this key area (Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005; Ramlall, 2006; Ulrich

et al., 2008). In general, HR professionals are often successful at building their

personal credibility, although this has a very modest impact on business performance. In contrast, they are weak at creating the strategic competencies that

have a very major impact on business performance (Ulrich & Brockbank, 2005;

Ulrich et al., 2008). Not surprisingly these tensions between different

competencies appear to send mixed messages. Paradoxically, HR professionals

might increase their personal credibility through an internal focus on providing expert advice and administrative efficiency, but this seems to be interpreted

differently by different stakeholders who may value transactional efficiency and

an ethos of independent professionalism over business performance outcomes

(Graham & Tarbell, 2006). The recent reworking of personal credibility as

53

credible activist by Ulrich and his colleagues does not really adequately these issues.

Another area of potential difficulty is the business side of the HR strategy

linkage. Moving closer to the business by developing business knowledge or commercial acumen as a business ally may seem a natural way of overcoming the performance gaps in competency models (Ulrich et al., 2008). However, while business knowledge in itself may be perceived by HR professionals as enhancing their desired role this view may not be shared by line managers and

employees (Boselie & Paauwe, 2005; Hope Hailey et al., 2005). Line managers

are often deeply skeptical about the business knowledge claims of HR

professionals while employees are often mistrustful of HR professionals that are

primarily business-oriented (Graham & Tarbell, 2006; Han et al., 2006). Finding a

middle way as a HR business partner can therefore be very daunting.

More broadly, there is also a fundamental difficulty in focusing HR

business partner competencies on the linkage between HR strategy and business

strategy, because this may lead HR business partners into very demanding

strategic roles that are difficult to sustain. In practice, developing the linkage of

HR strategy to business strategy requires cross-functional managerial

competencies that may side-line or undermine conventional HR professional

expertise, so much so that it is seen as secondary or substitutable by others -

including outside consultants (Wright, 2008). HR expertise has always been

vulnerable to replacement, but HR business partner capability is by its very nature

more vulnerable to substitution by non-HR professionals and consultants. There is

already a growing talent gap for HR business partners, especially for those who can cross the HR-business divide (Reilly et al., 2007; Ulrich et al., 2008).

Besides the various practical challenges of implementing business

partnering, the survey findings raise another crucial question: If HR professionals

are broadly skeptical about the effectiveness of HR competency models in terms

of their predictiveness what implication does this have for practice? In many

respects valid prediction is the fundamental rationale for competency models, so

any undermining of perceived effectiveness must be a source of concern (Rynes et

al., 2002). Certainly such a perception might become a self-fulfilling reality in

that any valid measures of effectiveness might be underplayed or ruled out, thus

undermining the overall case for business partner competencies. One suspects,

however, that HR practitioners are simply highlighting how difficult it is to get

from competencies to capability. In practice what bridges the gap between

competency and performance is capability what someone actually does (Boyatis, 2008). Perhaps then HR practitioners are being more realistic about this

intrinsic gap and the limitations of their role than those who extol the high

performance virtues of business partnering competency models.

54

Finally, there is growing evidence that the achievement of a strong HR

strategy-business strategy linkage may only be practicable in contexts in which

the HR function as a whole is being dramatically transformed by the introduction

of shared services, centres of expertise, and significant outsourcing (Caldwell,

2008). These structural changes can lead to major reductions in transactional HR;

all of which potentially allows HR business partners to act more strategically.

Unfortunately, in many organizations business partnering may be implemented

without a fundamental shift in the organizational infrastructure of the HR

function, and this fundamentally limits the potential strategic contribution of HR

business partners.

More research needs to be undertaken to explore how business partners

can overcome the obstacles to the HR strategy-business strategy linkage. This

must include a greater focus on the competency-capability gaps in enacting

business partnering. For example, we need to know more about how

competencies vary at the corporate and business unit levels, and how HR

specialists and generalists cope with the challenges of performing business partner

roles. Related to this there is a need for more research which focuses less on a

constantly evolving portfolio of predefined or prescribed competencies and more

on how HR practitioners actually construct, reconstruct and make sense of their

changing roles in practice (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007). More broadly, within the

current economic climate, there is also an urgent need to support research that

questions why HR competency models have focused increasingly on the

instrumental logic of business performance (adding value) rather than a professional ethos or set of values which may allow individual practitioners to

critically question business outcomes (Kochan, 2004; Wright & Snell, 2005).

While these are challenging research agendas with their own limitations, the

initial research evidence presented here should be a rejoinder not only to those

who overstate the effectiveness of current competency models as a high road to

more strategic HR roles, but also to those who understate the potential pitfalls

business partners confront in facing-up to the strategic ambitions of HR business

partnering.

Conclusion

Are HR business partner competency models effective? The research

model investigated here identified the effects of two antecedent and one outcome

variable on the perceived effectiveness of business partner performance.

Specifically the research model tested the hypothesis that HR business partner

competency models of selection and development were the antecedents of the HR

strategy-business strategy linkage, and assessed the variable of business partner

performance as the outcome of the HR strategybusiness strategy linkage. The

55

correlation and regression analyses indicated that both antecedent variables have

an influence on the perceived HR strategy-business strategy linkage, with

development having more impact than selection. While the findings reveal the

critical importance of the HR strategy-business strategy linkage, they also

highlight the considerable challenges facing business partner competency models.

The findings require further in-depth exploration and systematic retesting

using a larger sample. One must therefore be cautious in generalising from a

modest sample based on the HR business partnering in mainly large international

organizations operating within the UK. It is also important to note that the

effectiveness measures used in the correlation and regression analyses must be

treated with considerable caution, as they are single items rather than

multidimensional composites subject to data reduction using factor analysis

(Cohen et al., 2003). A larger sample would make factor analysis more feasible.

In addition, it is important to emphasize that while the regressions may be

indicative of the linear prediction of a partial mediation effect they do not meet the robustness claims of full mediation as proposed in Baron and Kennys (1986) mediated regression analysis. This would require a three-step process: the

mediator is regressed on the independent variable; the dependent variable is

regressed on the independent variable; and the independent variable is

simultaneously regressed on both the independent variable and the mediator all of which must meet the necessary and sufficient conditions to establish mediation

(Shout & Bolger, 2002).

Finally, it is important to state once again that the findings are based on

HR practitioner self-perceptions of the effectiveness of competency models,

rather than factual or empirical measures of effectiveness (Wright et al., 2001;

Rynes et al., 2002; Han et al., 2006). Perceptions can of course be affected by

functional or self-interest bias, mainly because HR professionals may exaggerate the effectiveness of competency models or their strategic role as

business partners (Wright et al., 2001; Boselie & Paauwe, 2005).

Equally, however, it must be recognized that HR professionals are by

virtue of their position and experience often in a special position to offer well-

informed and realistic judgments on the effectiveness of competency models.

Paradoxically, these judgments matter even when they may be unfounded or

misguided. In principle, actual measures of effectiveness should have analytical

priority over perceptions of effectiveness, but sometimes we have to accept that

perceptions can become a self-fulfilling reality.

Despite the intrinsic limitations of the research, the findings broadly

suggest that current HR business partner competency models may face mounting

challenges in creating a new strategic role for HR professionals. The models may

be good at initially selecting business partners but they are widely perceived to be

very poor at predicting performance in a business partner role. More importantly,

56

competency models may ultimately be unable to deliver the HR strategy-business

linkage that is central to the strategic ambitions and performance goals of HR

business partnering. Perhaps it is now time for a realistic rethink of the

effectiveness of HR business partner competency models as well as a broader

examination of the intrinsic limits and potential pitfalls of HR business partnering

roles.

References

Antonacopoulou, E. P. & Fitzgerald, L. (1996). Reframing competence in

management development. Human Resource Management Journal, 6(1),

27-48.

Baill, B. (1999). The changing requirements of the HR professional: Implications

for the development of HR professionals. Human Resource Management,

38(2), 171-175.

Becker, B., Huselid, M. & Ulrich, D. (2001). The HR Scorecard: Linking, People

Strategy and Performance. Boston: Harvard University Press.

Boselie, P. & Paauwe, J. (2005). Human resource function competencies in

European companies. Personnel Review, 34(5), 550-566.

Boyatzis, R. (1982). The Competent Manager. New York: John Wiley.

Boyatzis, R. (1993). Beyond competence: The choice to be a leader. Human

Resource Management Review, 3(1), 1-14.

Boyatzis, R. (2008). Competencies in the 21st century. Journal of Management

Development, 27(1), 5-12.

Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable

distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and

statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

51(6), 1173-1182.

Brewster, C., Farndale, E. & van Ommeren, J. (2000). HR Competencies and

Professional Standards: WFPMA Report. Cranfield: Cranfield University,

Centre for European HRM.

Brockbank, W. & Ulrich, D (2003). Competencies for the New HR. Ann Arbor,

MI: University of Michigan.

Buckley, F. & Monks, K. (2004). The implications of meta-qualities for HR roles.

Human Resource Management Journal, 14(4), 41-56.

Caldwell, R. (2008). HR business partner competencies models: Re-

contextualising effectiveness. Human Resource Management Journal.

18(3), 275-294.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West. S. G., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied Multiple

Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

57

Delamare Le Deist, F. & Winterton, J. (2005). What is competence? Human

Resource Development International, 8(1), 27-46.

Francis, H. & Keegan, A. (2006). The changing face of HRM: In search of

balance. Human Resource Management Journal, 16(3), 231-249.

Graham, M. E. & Tarbell, L. M. (2006). The importance of the employee

perspective in the competency development of human resource

professionals. Human Resource Management, 45(3), 337-355.

Griffin, E., Finney, L., Hennessay, J., & Boury, D. (2009). Maximizing the Value

of HR Business Partnering. Horsham: Roffey Park Institute.

Grzada, M. M. (2005). In competence we trust: Addressing conceptual ambiguity,

Journal of Management Development, 24(6), 530-545.

Han, J., Chou, P., Chao, M. & Wright, P.M. (2006). The HR competencies-HR

effectiveness link: A study in Taiwanese high-tech companies, Human

Resource Management, 45(3), 391-406.

Haskett, A. (2006). Outsourcing the HR Function: Possibilities and Pitfalls.

London: Corporate Research Forum.

Hope Hailey, V., Farndale, E., & Truss, C. (2005). The HR departments role in organizational performance. Human Resource Management Journal,

15(3), 49-66.

Huselid, M., Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R.S. (1997). Technical and strategic

human resource management effectiveness as determinants of a firms performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 171-189.

Kochan, T. (2004). Restoring trust in the human resource management profession.

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42(2), 132-146.

Losey, M. (1999). Mastering the competencies of HR management. Human

Resource Management, 38(2), 99-103.

Maitlis, S. & Lawrence, T. B. (2007). Triggers and enablers of sensemaking in

organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 57-84

Pitcher, G. (2008). Backlash against human resource business partner model.

Personnel Today, January 28.

Ramlall, S. J. (2006). Identifying and understanding HR competencies and their

relationship to organizational practices. Applied HRM Research, 11(1),

27-38.

Reilly, P., Tamkin, P., & Broughton, A. (2007). The Changing HR Function:

Transforming HR? London: CIPD.

Robertson, I. T. & Smith, M. (2001). Personnel selection. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 441-472.

Rynes, S., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). HR professionals beliefs about effective human resource practices: Correspondence between research and

practice. Human Resource Management, 41(2), 149-174.

Schmidt, F. L. & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection

58

methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of

85 years of research findings. Psychology Bulletin, 12(2), 262-274.

Schrout, P. E. & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and non-

experimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.

Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.

Ulrich, D. (1997). Human Resource Champions. Boston, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Ulrich, D. & Yeung, A. (1989). Human resources in the 1990s: Trends and

required competencies. Personnel Administration, March, 38-45.

Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., Yeung, A., & Lake, D. (1995). Human resource

competencies: An empirical assessment. Human Resource Management,

34(4), 473-496.

Ulrich, D. & Brockbank, W. (2005). The HR Value Proposition, Boston, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Ulrich, D., Brockbank, W., & Johnson, D. (2008). HR Competencies: Mastery at

the Intersection of People and Business, Alexandria, VA: Society of

Human Resource Management.

Wright, C. (2008). Reinventing human resource management: business partners,

internal consultants and the limits to professionalisation. Human

Relations, 61(8), 1063-86.

Wright, P., McMahan, G., Snell, S., & Gerhart, B. (2001). Comparing line and

HR executives perceptions of HR effectiveness: Services, roles and contribution. Human Resource Management, 40(2), 111-123.

Wright, P. & Snell, S. (2005). Partner or guardian? HRs challenge in balancing value and values. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 177-182.

Yeung, A., Woolcock, P., & Sullivan, J. (1996). Identifying and developing HR

competencies for the future: Keys to sustaining the transformation of HR

functions. Human Resource Planning, 19(4), 48-58.

Yeung, A. K. (1996). Competencies for HR professionals: An interview with

Richard E. Boyatzis. Human Resource Management, 35(1), 119-132.

Author Information:

Raymond Caldwell

Professor of HRM and Organizational Change

Birkbeck College

University of London

[email protected]

0207 631 6620 This article forms part of a series that examine original survey data collected by the author. The

first article in the series addressed the contextual constraints on HR competency models (Caldwell,

2008). This article presents further in-depth analysis of the survey data using a regression model.