Human resource management practice I also available by michael armstrong

Ambiguities in the role of HR 

practitioners

The  activities  and  roles  of  HR  specialists  and  the 

demands made upon them as described above appear 

to be quite clear cut, but Thurley (1981) pointed out 

that HR practitioners can be specialists in ambiguity. 

This continues in the age of Ulrich. As Hope-Hailey 

et al (2005: 51) commented: ‘Ulrich highlighted that 

HR professionals must be both strategic and opera-

tional,  yet  the  potential  role  conflict  this  could  

engender was not addressed.’ Caldwell (2004: 212) 

reached  the  following  conclusions  on  the  basis  of 

his research:

There is the issue of ‘powerlessness’ or the 

marginality of HR practitioners in management 

decision-making processes, especially at a strategic 

level. The HR function has an inward-looking 

tendency to identify professional expertise 

mainly with administrative concerns over who 

controls HR activities, rather than questions 

of HR practices or who has responsibility for 

implementing HR policy.

The difficulties that HR professionals face in dealing 

with  ambiguity  was  well  described  by  Guest  and 

King (2004: 421):

Much management activity is typically messy and 

ambiguous. This appears to apply more strongly to 

people management than to most other activities. 

By implication, the challenge lies not in removing 

or resolving the ambiguities in the role [of HR 

professionals] but in learning to live with them. 

To succeed in this requires skills in influencing, 

negotiating and learning when to compromise. 

For those with a high tolerance of ambiguity, 

the role of HR specialist, with its distinctive 

opportunity to contribute to the management of 

people in organizations, offers unique challenges; 

for those only comfortable if they can resolve 

the ambiguities, the role may become a form of 

purgatory.