Human resources professionals and the cost/benefit argument: rational persuasion in action in municipal organizations

Abstract

This study examines the use of the cost/benefit argument by human resources professionals in municipal sector organizations. The analysis compares their approach to the social influence exercised by line managers. Drawing from critical incidents generated from in-depth interviews, the results suggest that human resources professionals and line managers use the cost/benefit argument in much the same way with greater use of the weak form. Both groups exert influence through rational persuasion in the form of ‘light’ financial arguments. A second wave of data collection was initiated to add the perspective of city managers relative to the use of this form of rational persuasion by human resources professionals and public works managers. Content analysis of the interviews conducted with city managers was revealing of different views of the public works and human resources departments, suggesting that the use of the stronger form of the cost/benefit argument by human resources professionals may actually be associated with lower influence capability.