scholars also increasingly call for

scholars also increasingly call for examining HRM in context, due to the cultural and
institutional dissimilarities of different settings (Schuler et al., 2002).
This paper addresses the aforementioned challenges. The aims of the paper are:
to investigate the role of HR actors in the design and implementation of HRM in
organisations; and to gain insight into how interactions between HR actors enable or
constrain the design and implementation of HR practices. This paper addresses these
aims using qualitative case study data from seven tourist resorts in the Maldives,
thereby shedding light on a context that thus far has remained free from substantial
academic enquiry. This paper applies HRM devolution literature and social capital
theory to analyse the interplay between HR actors. For the purpose of this research, the
HR actors include the owners, general managers (GMs), HR and line managers. A key
argument is that the social capital of the HR actors affects the design and
implementation of HRM. The presence of high levels of HR actors’ social capital
enhances their HRM roles and helps them overcome the constraints to effective design
and implementation of HRM practices.
The reminder of the paper is organised as follows. The next section presents an
overview of literature on the HRM role of managers, and how the concept of social
capital, with its structural, relational and cognitive dimensions, may be useful
in framing an analysis of the design and implementation of HRM practices in
organisations. This is followed by discussion of the research methods. Findings are
presented in the third section. Finally, implications for practice and directions for
future research are discussed.
Literature review
HRM role of managers
According to Purcell and Kinnie (2007), HRM is often conceptualised as synonymous
with “the HR department”. As a result, the extent to which HR implementation roles
should be relinquished to line managers is an ongoing debate among academics
and senior managers. It is unclear what HR roles need to be given to the line managers
and what roles should be retained for the HR department in order to successfully
implement HRM practices. It is argued that to establish itself as a credible and valuable
strategic partner, the HR department has to devolve operational and people-oriented
HR responsibilities to line managers (Francis and Keegan, 2006; Harris, 2007),
which gives it more time to focus on SHRM activities (Ulrich, 1998; Whittaker and
Marchington, 2003). These scholars suggest that the HR department should retain
some indirect responsibilities towards employees and play roles such as advising and
training line managers. There are also business reasons for the devolution of
HRM responsibilities to line managers: to reduce HR department costs, to speed up the
decision-making process and to reduce the scope for HR outsourcing (Brewster and
Larsen, 2000). Nevertheless, given the importance of the HR department’s people
management role, it should be cautious in the devolution of HR responsibilities to line
managers (Francis and Keegan, 2006). By focusing only on strategic issues, the
HR department may become disconnected from employees with whom they are not in
direct contact. This disconnect may place them in a vulnerable position, as the HR
department may no longer be able to voice employee concerns with top management
(Gilbert et al., 2011). This lack of mediation between employees and senior managers
may weaken the HR department’s position in the organisation over time.
Management and leadership research increasingly recognises people issues as
a management responsibility. For instance, Mintzberg (1971) considers the leader role