Devolving HR responsibilities to the line is a distinguishable feature in modern human resource management (HRM). Given its considerable influence on the modus operandi of adopted HRM systems, scholars have delved into barriers to and facilitating conditions of line managers' fulfilling their HR duties and its subsequent outcomes over the past several decades. To deepen our understanding of the current state of the HR devolution literature, we adopt an evolutionary approach that moves beyond a conventional theme-centric review. Exploring the extant literature from a chronological stance offers a unique perspective since such an approach allows us to track and evaluate the development trajectory from its inception. Indeed, our evolutionary review reveals that critical observations on HR devolution practices documented by early studies (e.g., conflicts between line managers and HR professionals) have not been as articulated as they should be in recent endeavors (e.g., focus on line managers' competency and motivation). Through this review, we shed new light on the HR devolution literature and call for revisiting important yet unresolved issues that still resonate today. In addition, we contemplate the future of HR devolution practices amid a changing business landscape and suggest promising research avenues accordingly. By looking back at the road taken and paving the path forward, the current review will offer a guidepost benefiting both aspiring researchers and seasoned scholars in the field.

No abstract

No abstract

Moving beyond the extant HR implementation research that has often viewed the implementation decisions primarily as front-line managers' (FLMs) prerogative, this article explores interactive processes involving three key actors: HR managers, senior managers, and FLMs. Drawing on a political lens, the authors find that the way in which FLMs enact HR practices depends on the relative power of the enforcing actors (i.e., HR managers) and the endorsing actors (i.e., senior managers). The study findings reveal that while the enforcers employ a range of influence tactics (e.g., legitimization, pressure, rational persuasion, and consultation) to facilitate strict HR enactment, the endorsers use counter-influence tactics (e.g., legitimization, assertiveness, and inspirational appeal) in support of deviant HR implementation behaviors. Carefully navigating both sides' influence tactics in light of past involvement experiences, FLMs choose subsequent implementation behaviors accordingly. The research has devoted relatively little attention to relational dynamics

No abstract