Introduction
One of the areas currently being accentuated by organisations’ management is ways through which employees’ performances, engagements and commitments can be enhanced. In fact, most organisations focus on how they can improve their employees’ commitments to jobs and attainment of goals as well as the motivation of workforce to perform beyond expectations (Schuler, 2002).
In particular, organisations tend to focus on how line manages can improve the performance of workers under their supervision. The reason is that there is a shift in employees’ management perspectives particularly focusing on the way line managers can attain increased performance (Albrecht, 2010).
Studies indicate various factors that contribute to employees’ motivation resulting in increased performance. One of the factors is the engagement between employees and the line managers or immediate supervisors. Moreover, studies suggest that good relationship between employees and their immediate manager or supervisor contributes to increased happiness, engagements, commitments, loyalty and repeat business, which by extension result in increased performance (Armstrong & Baron, 2005).
The paper will critically evaluate the role of the line managers in enhancing employees’ performance particularly in Google.
The general roles and responsibilities of a line manager
Benchmark studies on employees’ performance within the workplace indicate that various factors that contribute to increased employees performance. The most influential is the personal relationships between the immediate manager and employees. As such, line managers play a critical role in enhancing employees’ performance. According to Currie and Procter 2011, line managers are not always trained as human resources managers.
In most cases, such managers have no skills on how they can manage their team members. Therefore, line managers need to be retrained on the employees’ management roles in order to improve the performances of their teams through professional conduct as well as other attributes.
Hutchinson and Purcell 2003 assert that line managers are the link between employees and the top management. Essentially, line managers are the primary conduit for the flow of information between the employees and the top management. The connecting role is critical particularly in organisations with hierarchical structure.
Under such structure, the goals, values and objectives of the organisation are imparted to the employees through the line manager (Lowe, 2002). On the other hand, the employees’ articulations, concerns as well as feedback are provided to the top management through the line manager. Therefore, line managers need to be tactical to ensure that employees and senior management are satisfied with their roles and responsibilities.
Moreover, line managers have the responsibility of training their teams on their roles and responsibilities as well as the expected outcome (Heraty & Micheal, 2005). Successful line managers understand that employees under their supervision need to develop the required skills and competencies to perform their tasks effectively and efficiently. Line managers have to provide guidance and motivation at all time.
The roles of line managers in Google
The benchmark industry survey that was conducted to establish the roles of line managers in enhancing the employees’ performance indicated that there are several factors that influence employees’ performance. However, personal relationship between the immediate supervisor and the employees remained the most influential factor. Moreover, employees’ motivation and performance are closely linked (Aguinis, 2013).
The study also discovered that highly motivated employees have increased performance. As such, organisations that focus on motivating employees have increased expected outcome. The study conducted in Google represented the technology industry and remain the focus area to understand the role of line managers in enhancing the employees’ performance.
Several actions are undertaken by the line managers to motivate and enhance the workers’ performance. Line managers have the responsibility of building trust and respect among employees. Floyd and Wooldridge 2008 argue that trust and confidence are not only built on employees but also on leadership. In fact, in Google, the line managers have adopted several practices that motivate and enhance employees’ performance.
The cross-functional management structure of Google has also enabled the line managers to adopt practices that enhance employees’ performance. Kirchmer 2009 asserts that management structure remains critical in encouraging practical engagement with the organisation and allows line managers to enhance employees’ attitudes towards work performance.
In Google, the management structure encourages the adoption of astral managerial leadership and innovativeness among employees. The line managers are encouraged to impart moral principles and practices that motivate employees. The behaviours of the line manager, actions and information provided have direct effect on the employees’ attitudes concerning their jobs as well as the organisation (Marchington et al., 2003).
The reason explains why personal actions of line managers are critical in determining the employees’ performance. In Google, line managers are held accountable for their personal actions right from the recruitment level. The personal accountability combined with freedom to operate explains individual innovativeness that encourages employees to do extra work not only for the organisation but also for personal goals (Whitaker & Marchington, 2003).
Studies indicate that in the circumstances where employees are dissatisfied with their line managers, the probability for the workers to identify with the vision of the organisation is reduced (Poole & Jenkins, 2007). On the contrary, engaged employees are proud of their assigned tasks, support the goals of the organisation and unlikely to shift on their jobs.
However, the employees’ management model, policies as well as practices have enabled workers to become more innovative and productive to the attainment of the organisation’s goals. The observations are in line with Othman and Poon 2000 findings that the employees’ management models adopted by the firm encourage work performances.
In Google, the line manager has the responsibility of presenting the work guidelines to the employees. However, the line manager has to give the workers an opportunity to schedule their time and work in collaboration with colleagues. In other words, the line management allows employees to work directly together instead of following the formal channels.
The model allows cross-functional management practices that encourage work processes and motivate employees. The cross-functional models are aided by open communication system that limits the organisational structure spectrum. In addition, the management model offers a sense of responsibility to the workers and the result is the greater contribution to the organisation’s objectives.
However, Thornhill and Saunders 2008 assert that line managers must understand their responsibilities under such cross-functional model in order to attain high performances. Google’s line managers allow employees to set their own goals and targets. In fact, the supervisors’ responsibility is to help workers achieve their own set of goals.
The management teams are supposed to inspire and empower the employees towards the attainment of the objectives that they have set (Martins, 2007). In fact, the responsibility of the line managers is to facilitate the attainment of employees’ assigned task and objectives as well as roles through functional controls. The evaluation of the success of the set goals is supposed to be conducted on a regular basis through the application of individual metrics choice.
Advice and suggestions are provided in the process by the management. The role of line managers at this stage is to ensure that employees progress towards the attainment of the set goals while they set individual benchmarks. Such practices have contributed positively to the attainment of the organisation’s objectives. In this case, employees see themselves as fully engaged since their roles and responsibilities are leveraged at personal levels.
Moreover, fully engaged employees will always feel empowered, confident and enthusiastic about their work processes (Cunningham & Hyman, 2005). In addition, the employees will have a value-based relationship with immediate manager and the organisation. To be successful, the line managers have to bring confidence in employees, make workers feel comfortable and have value for the organisation.
Essentially, positive relations between line managers and employees will result in increased productivity and high performances (Shields, 2012). In Google, positive relationship is created when line managers leverage decision-making processes. Such personal decision-making processes allow workers to change their occupational descriptions when the need arises.
In addition, employees are given the opportunity to handle their job processes and come up with methods as well as techniques of attaining the required results (Sission & Storey, 2000). Through the practice, employees are encouraged to be own leaders and in effect are highly motivated towards attaining their own objectives as well as the firm’s goals, which eventually result in general increased performance.
In addition, employees are encouraged to be innovative and conduct open discussions on the ways through which the objectives can be attained. In fact, the line managers encourage openness since every individual in the organisation is allowed to contribute to the progress of the firm.
As such, the managerial practices within the organisation have attracted the best talents since most people are given opportunities to grow talents. Moreover, the opportunities for the employees to set and maintain own standards also encourage innovativeness and growth of individual talents. The line managers of the organisation pursue strategies that encourage organisational work processes in building up and instigating the advancement of individual innovativeness (Priestland & Hanig, 2005).
Generally, the line management is supposed to be proactive, show strong leadership abilities and encourage constructive working environment. Torrington 2008 argue that employees that perceive their line manager as exhibiting strong leadership abilities, positive standards and interest in their personal interests have increased performance.
Successful line managers understand that teams under their supervision need to develop right skills to accomplish their assigned tasks effectively. Employees with the right skills and required competencies are optimistic and excited about their work processes and accomplish their roles and responsibilities (Sheehan, 2005). Such employees also have increased performances.
Ensuring that employees have the right skills and required competencies is the responsibility of the line managers. In fact, immediate supervisors have the responsibility of ensuring increased employees’ performances through setting clear goals and training the staff on the assigned tasks (Renwick, 2003). Training on the required competencies should be conducted regularly in order to keep up with changes that constantly occur.
Studies indicate that employees’ performances are greatly enhanced through constant training (Tsui, 2007). Moreover, most of employees attain the required skills from the immediate supervisors. Further, most of employees agreed that the management practices at Google are distinct. Employees pointed out that they are motivated to increase their work performances by the manner in which the line management leverage the work processes.
The line management provides direct training on how to attain the set objectives as well as an environment that encourage work processes. Moreover, the supervisors ensure that the employees have the right attitude on their jobs. In addition, the line managements’ attitude towards the employees is decisive.
In fact, most workers accepted that the line managers value their effort, which is a motivating factor towards attaining the expected outcome. The findings are in line with McGovern, Gratton, Hope-Hailey, Stiles and Truss 2007 assertions that firms engaging in activities that value workers efforts have increased performances and output.
Conclusion
The most important motivating factor towards increased performance among employees is the inspirational nature of the line managers. Studies indicate that employees’ performances are greatly increased when level managers are inspirational and motivating particularly in task performances. In addition, freedom in which the workers are left to perform duties is also cited as another motivating factor towards high performances.
Leveraging work processes is critical in attaining the set objectives. For instance, in Google, line managers leverage on how employees perform their tasks innovatively and creatively, which has resulted in enhanced performance. In fact, leveraging work processes allow employees to be innovative and provide suggestions on the way the required goal can be achieved.
References
Aguinis, H 2013, Performance management, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Albrecht, S 2010, Handbook of employees engagement: perspectives, issues, research and practice, Edward Elgar Publishing, UK.
Armstrong, M & Baron, A 2005, Managing performance: performance management in action, CIPD, UK.
Cunningham, I & Hyman, J (2005), “Transforming HR vision into reality: the role of line managers and supervisors in implementing change,” Employees Relations, vol.17 no.8, pp.5-20.
Currie, G & Procter, S 2011, “Exploring the relationship between HR and middle managers,” Human Resource Management Resource, vol.11 no.3, pp.53-69.
Floyd, S & Wooldridge, B 2008, “Middle management’s strategic influence and organizational performance,” Journal of Management Studies, vol.34 no.3, 465-485.
Heraty, N & Micheal, M 2005, “Line managers and human resource development,” Journal of European Industrial Training, vol.19 no.10, pp.31-37.
Hutchinson, S & Purcell, J 2003, Bringing policies to life: the vital role of front line managers in people management, Chartered institute of Personnel development, London.
Kirchmer, M 2009, High performance through process excellence: turning strategy into operations – smart and fast, springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Lowe, J 2002, Locating the line: the frontline supervisor and the human resource management, Sage, London.
Marchington, M, Wilkinson, A, Ackers, P & Goodman, J 2003, “The influence of managerial on waves of employees development,” The British Journal of Industrial Relations, vol.31 no.4, pp.553-576.
Martins, LP 2007, “A holistic framework for the strategic management of first tier managers,” Human Resource Management Journal, vol.45 no.3, pp.616-641.
McGovern, P, Gratton, L, Hope-Hailey, V, Stiles, P & Truss, C 2007, “Human resource management on the line,” Human Resource Management Journal, vol.7 no.4, pp12-29.
Othman, RB & Poon, JML 2000, “What shapes HRM: a multivariate examination,” Employee Relations, vol.22 no.5 pp.467-484.
Poole, M & Jenkins, G 2007, “Responsibilities for human resource management practices in the modern enterprise,” Personnel Review, vol.26 no.5, pp.333-356.
Priestland, A & Hanig, R 2005, “Developing first-level leaders,” Harvard Business Review, vol.83 no.6, pp.35-47.
Renwick, D 2003, “Line manager involvement in HRM: an inside view,” Employee Relations, vol.25 no.3, pp.262-280.
Schuler, RS 2002, “Strategic human resource management: linking people with strategic needs of the business,” organizational Dynamic, vol.21 no.3, pp.18-32.
Sheehan, C 2005, “A model for HRM strategic integration,” Personnel Review, vol.34 no.2, pp.192-209.
Shields, J 2012, Managing employees performance and reward – concepts, practices and strategies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sission, K & Storey, J 2000, The realities of human resources management, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Thornhill, A & Saunders, MN 2008, “What if line managers do not realize they are responsible for HR? Lessons from an organization experiencing rapid change,” Personnel Review, vol.26 no.6, pp. 460-476.
Torrington, D 2008, “Letting go or holding on? The devolution operational personnel activities,” Human Resource Management Journal, vol.8 no.1, pp.41-55.
Tsui, A 2007, “Defining the activities and the effectiveness of human resource department: a multiple constituency approach,” Human Resource Management, vol.26 no.1, pp.35-69.
Whitaker, S & Marchington, M 2003, “Devolving HR responsibilities to the line manager: threats, opportunities or partnership?” Employee Relation, vol.25 no.3, pp.245-261.