Reconceptualizing HR change agency: introducing a framework and propositions for future research

In the rapidly evolving landscapes of global business and labor markets, several authors have proposed a central role for the Human Resource (HR) function in managing workforce dynamics and driving organizational change (Ammirato et al., 2023; Murugesan et al., 2023). The global disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic, combined with the rapid pace of digital and green transformations, have highlighted the critical role of HR in actively guiding and facilitating change processes to help organizations survive and thrive in these new realities (Bouncken and Qiu, 2021; Marques et al., 2021; Wallo et al., 2024). In particular, the COVID-19 experience highlighted the crucial role the HR function has in maintaining organizational resilience in times of crisis and change, for instance, by managing employees’ well-being, health and safety, implementing new work arrangements, handling furloughs and layoffs, and adapting HR policies and procedures (Aitken-Fox et al., 2022; Maddox-Daines, 2021).

The HR function’s involvement in change processes is often conceptualized through the lens of HR practitioners as change agents (cf. Caldwell, 2001; Storey, 1992; Ulrich, 1997). The term “HR change agency” refers to the capability of HR practitioners to actively initiate, manage, and stabilize change within an organization by leveraging their unique position at the intersection of strategic management and employee advocacy (cf. Wylie et al., 2014; Wylie and Sturdy, 2018).

However, the prevailing literature, often influenced by normative contributions like the Ulrich model (Ulrich, 1997; Ulrich and Brockbank, 2005), tends to oversimplify the role of HR in these processes (Caldwell, 2001). The Ulrich model categorizes HR roles into strategic partners, change agents, administrative experts, and employee champions (Ulrich, 1997; Ulrich and Brockbank, 2005), suggesting a clear-cut delineation of HR functions that often do not hold up under the messy realities of daily organizational life. This model, while influential, has been criticized for its romantic view that does not necessarily align with the nuanced and often contradictory roles HR practitioners find themselves performing in their daily work (cf. Ferm et al., 2023; Wallo and Coetzer, 2023).

Furthermore, while there are many competence maps outlining specific skill sets required for HR practitioners involved in change processes (e.g. Cohen, 2015; Ulrich et al., 2012), there is a notable scarcity of in-depth analyses that integrate these skills into a cohesive framework, thereby providing a holistic perspective on the interconnectivity of different aspects of professional competence and the factors that enable or constrain their practical applications in daily work.

Given these gaps, we argue that there is a compelling need to reevaluate existing research through an integrative literature review that critically dissects prior empirical studies. By doing so, we can discuss the competence necessary for HR practitioners to effectuate and sustain organizational change effectively and contribute to the understanding of how HR change agency is contextually situated (cf. Kim et al., 2017).

This article adheres to the methodological guidelines proposed by Callahan (2010) and Torraco (2016) for conducting integrative literature reviews. Our aim is twofold: First, we aim to critically review the empirical literature that focuses on the HR function in organizational change, highlighting necessary competence for HR practitioners and deficiencies of prior studies. Second, building on the review, we will outline potential directions for future research on HR change agency. This future research should be contextualized and study the varying organizational conditions that influence HR’s opportunities and strategies in leading change. From the review, we will develop a heuristic conceptual framework, and a set of research propositions designed to guide and focus subsequent empirical inquiries.

By reevaluating and expanding the understanding of HR’s role in organizational change, this paper seeks to contribute significantly to both theoretical development and practical applications, enhancing the impact of HR practitioners in transformative contexts.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Initially, we outline the paper’s key concepts. This part is followed by an account of the method used in the literature review. Then, the main body of the paper delves into the review findings. The paper ends with discussing the findings and formulating a conceptual framework and research propositions.

In the following section, we outline and define the two key concepts used in the integrative literature review and subsequent discussion: change agency and competence.

The concept of change agency in HRM literature varies significantly based on the research approach. Essentially, two strands of literature shape our understanding of this concept.

First, there is the normative strand, featuring research with a positive outlook on HR change agency, which is mainly concerned with the performative question of how HRM can be optimized for maximum effectiveness. In this strand, we find the previously mentioned Ulrich model (Ulrich, 1997; Ulrich and Brockbank, 2005) that emphasizes the strategic role of HR as change agents, aligning organizational goals with employee performance, and suggesting that HR’s involvement is crucial to the successful implementation of change initiatives. In this role, HR practitioners are expected to go beyond administrative duties and act as catalysts for change, fostering a culture that is receptive to new ideas and methods. They play a strategic part in helping the organization transition from current to desired future states. This involves identifying and responding to changes in the external environment, such as technological advancements, market dynamics, and regulatory changes, as well as promoting internal changes that align with the organization’s strategic goals.

Second, there is a more critical strand of research, which scrutinizes HRM’s inherent unitarist approach, challenging the assumption of an alignment between employee relationships and organizational performance. Proponents of critical research have a less optimistic view of the HR function as a change agent. For example, Legge’s (1978) questioning of the HR function’s autonomy has been highly influential to the critical strand. Legge argued that HR’s lack of power and status connects to factors related to opportunities, such as ambiguities in the role, difficulties in measuring the outcomes of HR’s work, challenges in attracting the best to the profession and the historically feminine perception and gendering of the HR function. This lack of power has led to an obsession with credibility in the field, a point also raised by Watson (1977). Recent analyses challenge this static perception and identify a need to apply a gendered perspective when examining HR work (Ainsworth and Pekarek, 2022). A critical perspective can also be linked to the emerging field of HRM-as-practice (Wallo and Coetzer, 2023), which emphasizes the daily, often mundane aspects of HR work (cf. Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2003). This approach shifts the focus from grand strategic roles to the practical, routine activities that HR practitioners engage in, offering a more grounded view of how HR contributes to organizational change.

Integrating the two strands, we can formulate a working definition that encompasses the dynamic and multifaceted role of HR practitioners. HR change agency refers to the ability of HR practitioners to initiate, support and manage organizational change, effectively leveraging their strategic position at the intersection of managing organizational goals and advocating for employee needs. This definition recognizes the dual nature of HR’s role: as strategic partners who align organizational change with external market forces and internal objectives and as advocates who address and navigate the complexities of employee relations and cultural shifts.

The concept of competence has been argued to be difficult to define (Delamare Le Deist and Winterton, 2005). Yet, there are theoretical models which have gained traction in previous research. In this paper, we draw on the competence taxonomy proposed by Ellström (1997) because it offers an empirically tested (e.g. Martin, 2019; Tillberg et al., 2024) foundation for understanding how professional competence is formed.

According to Ellström (1997, p. 267), competence can be defined as “the potential capacity of an individual (or a collective) to successfully (according to certain formal or informal criteria, set by oneself or by somebody else) handle certain situations or complete a certain task or job.”. Competence is made up of perceptual-motor skills (e.g. dexterity), social skills (e.g. communicative and cooperative skills), cognitive factors (different types of knowledge and intellectual skills), affective factors (e.g. attitudes, motivations), and personality traits (e.g. self-confidence). However, competence cannot simply be reduced to a static attribute of an individual or collective. Instead, as the definition implies, it is a concept that should be understood as a dynamic interaction between the individual’s or collective’s potential skills and motivations and the job’s specific opportunities (Ellström, 1997, p. 267). For example, opportunities for HR working with change are influenced by external factors, like societal trends, and internal factors, such as task specifics, job design, resources, and the work environment. These elements provide HR with the flexibility to act. The nature of these opportunities determines HR’s room to maneuver, either facilitating or limiting their impact. From this perspective, change competence is thus conceptualized as the capacity of an individual or collective not only to utilize existing competence but also to develop new competence in response to internal demands for change and to build resilience against external pressures for change (Reineholm et al., 2024).

For our integrative literature review, we have simplified Ellström’s (1997) competence model to concentrate on three key elements: skills, motivation, and the opportunities created by organizational conditions. By narrowing the focus to these components, the model allows us to explore how these elements interact and shape HR practitioners’ ability to act as change agents within their organizations. This approach enhances clarity and helps us gain deeper insights into the dynamics of HR change agency.

An integrative literature review of empirical research is a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on a topic in an integrated way to generate novel frameworks and perspectives (Torraco, 2016). This type of review is broader than the traditional systematic literature review and seeks to offer a more holistic view of a phenomenon (Callahan, 2010; Torraco, 2016).

The steps in the review have been guided by Torraco (2016). The first step of the review process was to establish focus, content, and limitations following the aim of the study. Second, criteria for inclusion and exclusion were formulated. Included studies needed to have a focus on the HR function and its role or contribution in relation to either (1) organizational change, (2) employee behavioral changes on an organizational level, (3) innovation processes or practices, (4) organizational transformation, (5) mergers and acquisitions, and (6) downsizing. By including multiple dimensions of change, we ensured extensive representation of the HR function’s breadth of involvement. Our exclusion criteria eliminated studies that did not detail the HR function’s contribution in the change process and those concerning changes restricted to HR practices that did not examine the impact on the organization.

Furthermore, to ensure rigor, reliability, and accessibility of the included data, the studies had to be peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals, written in English, and based on empirical data. To ensure relevance and quality, only studies published between 2002 and 2023 were included. Over the past 20 years, the HR function and organizations have undergone transformative changes—such as advancements in technology, strategic shifts, and significant devolvement of HRM responsibilities to managers—making older research potentially less relevant and of uncertain quality.

The searches were conducted in October 2023 in the Scopus and Web of Science databases. The search terms used to capture the HR function were, for example, variations of “HR professional”, “HR practitioner”, “HR partner”, or “HR manager”. Examples of search terms used to capture change were variations of “change agent”, “change management”, “organizational change”, “organizational development”, “organizational transformation”, or “innovation”. These terms were generated through a multifaceted approach. Initially, researchers with extensive knowledge and specialization in the field, along with librarians, were consulted to compile a comprehensive list of relevant terms. In addition to this, prior to starting the study we analyzed published studies that we were already familiar with to identify commonly used terms within the literature. The initial phase of the search included a broader array of terms; those yielding no results were subsequently excluded.

The unique studies (n = 1,078) were meticulously screened based on title and abstract in Rayyan, a piece of software for reviews and meta-analyses (Ouzzani et al., 2016), to determine whether the criteria for inclusion were met. All studies were screened using Rayyan’s predetermined categories: include, exclude, or maybe. The maybe category was used for studies where the decision to include or exclude was uncertain. Studies marked as maybe, along with those where team members had different assessments, were then discussed in the research team until consensus was reached. Following this comprehensive process, 148 studies were chosen for a detailed relevance check.

After reviewing the full texts for relevance, a total of 49 studies met all inclusion criteria. Each of these studies also underwent a rigorous quality assessment to ensure that the empirical and methodological foundations were sound. Ten studies were excluded in this step due to methodological weaknesses, such as a lack of a complete method description. The argument for excluding these studies is that a lack of a method section makes evaluating methodological credibility impossible. In the end, 38 studies were deemed to meet the standards and were included in the review. The search process is summarized in Figure 1.

The included studies were read thoroughly in the first step of the analysis. Information about the purpose, method of analysis, and results of each study was compiled in tabular form following a narrative synthesis method, which is used for synthesizing primary studies and descriptively exploring their heterogeneity (Booth et al., 2022).

The second step involved coding basic data such as the method used, theories, type of change, and findings. The findings were organized into themes based on Ellström’s (1997) competence model. In this step, because many articles focused on the tasks the HR function performed or needed to perform, rather than directly expressing these as skills, we clustered the highlighted tasks before interpreting what skills these tasks required. The same process was followed for motivation, where we interpreted the perspectives that HR was described as taking and clustered these. Regarding opportunities, we clustered both positive and negative factors into thematic categories. The studies we reviewed included a mix of individual and functional levels regarding the level at which conclusions were drawn and how respondents perceived the different levels. In the findings section, we present results regarding both the individual and functional levels. We synthesize key themes and contradictions concerning skills, motivation, and opportunities in the third and final step.

Starting with an overview of the included studies, the oldest was published in 2004, and the latest study in 2023. The papers were published in several different journals, not just within the field of HRM. Most of the papers were published in the International Journal of Human Resource Management, with eight papers; Personnel Review, with five papers; and the Journal of Organizational Change Management, with three papers.

Regarding the studied contexts, most studies were carried out in large private companies. About one-third of the studies were conducted in either the UK or Australia. Italy, the USA, and the Netherlands followed closely, with three studies conducted in each country. Additionally, several studies focused on multinational companies or non-specified countries.

The following sections present key findings from the reviewed studies relating to the skills, motivation, opportunities, and tasks the HR practitioners carried out.

We categorized the skills as cognitive, such as intellectual skills, or social, such as communication, supporting managers, emotion management, ability to influence stakeholders, cooperation and involvement, and leadership behaviors. Table 1 presents the skills and the change-related tasks they are relevant for.

As shown in Table 1, the identified tasks, with corresponding skills, are extensive, with the majority categorized as social skills, which depend on performance in relation to others. Still, technical and functional expertise also appear as vital (Abugre, 2014; Arrowsmith and Parker, 2013; Barratt-Pugh and Bahn, 2015; Björkman and Søderberg, 2006), together with the creation of HR practices supportive of the specific change (Abugre, 2014; Arrowsmith and Parker, 2013; Misra et al., 2023).

Social skills are highlighted mainly for three reasons: to manage emotions relating to change (Amarakoon et al., 2018; Paik and Belcher, 2012; Ripamonti et al., 2020), build credibility and trust to be invited as contributors to change driven by others (Gollan et al., 2015; Heizmann and Fox, 2019), and convince management to invest in the HR functions change initiatives (Shook and Roth, 2011; Torka et al., 2008). The emphasis on skills needed to influence stakeholders illustrates that the HR function is expected to influence both their mandate and stakeholder engagement in the specific change initiative.

The reviewed studies, with a few exceptions (Alfes et al., 2010; Zhang, 2020), did not emphasize skills specific to change management. However, some studies demonstrated HR tasks of managing emotions in change, such as reducing anxiety and resistance (Barratt-Pugh and Bahn, 2015; Paik and Belcher, 2012), keeping employee morale up in times of crisis (D’Angelo et al., 2022; Misra et al., 2023), and managing their own feelings of ambiguity and tension while supporting others (D’Angelo et al., 2022; Francis, 2007).

We found that the reviewed studies contained limited findings regarding motivation. However, Table 2 presents some recurring aspects concerning the HR function’s professional ethos, role development, and learning orientation.

A key finding is that the HR function is generally willing to partake in organizational change initiatives (Alfes et al., 2010; van Gestel and Nyberg, 2009; Roche and Teague, 2012). The professional ethos of the HR function is mainly linked to the managerial, business-oriented perspective (Alfes et al., 2010; van Gestel and Nyberg, 2009; Roche and Teague, 2012) and the employee well-being perspective (Bagdadli et al., 2014; Shook and Roth, 2011), although at times found to be more invested in legislative compliance (Bajawa and Woodall, 2006).

A few examples demonstrate that HR balances interests from both the managerial and employee side, striving to find solutions that fit multiple stakeholders (Alfes et al., 2010; Roche and Teague, 2012).

Findings also highlight how HR role development can be affected by individual HR practitioners’ motivation (Gollan et al., 2015; Harris, 2005), that loyalty can be affected by organizational belonging (Björkman and Søderberg, 2006), and individual motivation stifled by organizational leadership (Abugre, 2014; Arrowsmith and Parker, 2013). HR learning orientation is emphasized in two studies (Amarakoon et al., 2018; Sarvaiya et al., 2021).

Exploring the factors that affect the HR function’s prospects of contributing, that is, the opportunities, the reviewed studies provide examples of discourses and culture, organizational characteristics, management view and support of HR, HR status and resources, HR role design, and involvement in change efforts (Table 3).

As illustrated by Table 3, many studies portray factors that impact the HR function’s ability to contribute to change. Some of the main themes are the level of prioritization of people and cultural issues (Andreescu, 2004; Francis, 2007; Heizmann and Fox, 2019; Ripamonti et al., 2020; Shook and Roth, 2011); the management’s view of the HR function and of change initiatives (Bondarouk et al., 2009; Gollan et al., 2015; Stirpe et al., 2013); and the specific characteristics of the change (Antila, 2006; Łupina-Wegener, 2013; Paik and Belcher, 2012). For example, focusing on people issues in a change causes HR involvement to be perceived as necessary (D’Angelo et al., 2022; Misra et al., 2023). Additionally, the status and resources of the HR function are vital (D’Cruz et al., 2014; Edgley-Pyshorn and Huisman, 2011; Sarvaiya et al., 2021). Status can be signaled to the organization through a presence in the top management team and steering groups (Antila and Kakkonen, 2008; Francis, 2007; Francis and Baum, 2018), while digital tools and devolution of HRM to managers can free up time for strategic work (Francis and Baum, 2018; Ruël and Gbur, 2017). HR is sometimes not involved at the planning and decision-making stage (Barton and Delbridge, 2006; Shook and Roth, 2011), or at all (Baran et al., 2019).

Building on our integrative literature review of HR change agency, we now place the main findings within a larger theoretical discussion and outline a conceptual framework and research propositions. Together, these represent a first attempt to develop an empirically grounded understanding of HR change agency.

The competence required for HR practitioners to effectively act as change agents encompasses many skills, emphasizing intellectual and social abilities. Analytical skills are necessary for operational success (e.g. Abugre, 2014; Alfes et al., 2010), but social competence, like communication, coaching, and managing role contradictions, are equally important (e.g. Barratt-Pugh and Bahn, 2015; Rees and Johari, 2010). Effective HR change agents must also navigate interpersonal dynamics and facilitate stakeholder collaboration, which is critical in driving organizational change (Andreescu, 2004; Ripamonti et al., 2020).

A less emphasized but crucial skill involves managing emotions during change processes, such as building trust, mitigating anxiety, and addressing resistance. This skill, often overlooked, is a key factor in the success of change initiatives (e.g. D’Angelo et al., 2022; Francis and Baum, 2018). Contrary to Ulrich’s (1997) emphasis on HR’s need for strong business knowledge, recent studies highlight the importance of functional expertise over business acumen (Abugre, 2014; Arrowsmith and Parker, 2013). Skills in understanding human behaviour and labor legislation and operational effectiveness are seen as more central to HR’s ability to implement their own or contribute to others’ change initiatives. The motivation of individual HR practitioners also plays a critical role, with those who possess a strong professional ethos and learning orientation contributing more actively to change efforts. However, when organizational leadership undermines motivation, HR’s effectiveness diminishes (e.g. Harris, 2005; Parkes and Davis, 2013). Overall, the findings reveal a managerial bias in the literature, with less focus on employee well-being and advocacy. Despite this, some studies suggest HR’s role in crisis management is evolving to include a greater focus on employee health and well-being, particularly in enhancing organizational resilience during crises, thereby highlighting the potential for HR practitioners to make a significant impact (Aitken-Fox et al., 2022; Maddox-Daines, 2021).

The review highlights the significant role of HR practitioners in contributing to organizational change and the need for a context-sensitive HR change agency. It emphasizes the importance of providing HR practitioners with the appropriate opportunities to contribute to change, noting that prioritizing people and culture within organizations (e.g. Barton and Delbridge, 2006; Francis, 2007) enhances HR’s ability to engage in change activities. However, HR’s efforts are often hindered by organizational barriers such as unclear reporting lines, large team sizes, inadequate performance metrics, and the generally weak status of HR (e.g. Arrowsmith and Parker, 2013; D’Cruz et al., 2014).

The review also underscores the relational nature of HR’s role in change, where balancing control and consent from key stakeholders, particularly managers, is critical. This balance is further complicated by the growing involvement of managers in HRM practices, which forces HR to continually prove its value to management. The need to establish credibility can affect HR practitioners’ ethos and their ability to lead change (Watson, 1977). Their ethos includes advocating for fair employee treatment, ensuring compliance with labor regulations, and aligning with organizational policies. HR’s impact on change is more pronounced when it operates according to this professional ethos.

While the appeal of a general theory of HR change agency is clear, such models often fall short in practice, which may explain the scarcity of successful cases. This review shows that HR’s role within an organization is crucial, yet it can vary widely. In some cases, HR may be confined to an administrative role with limited influence on strategy or organizational change, as highlighted by D’Cruz et al. (2014) and Edgley-Pyshorn and Huisman (2011). In contrast, in people-oriented organizations that prioritize competence development, employer attractiveness, and employee motivation, HR’s expertise is more valued and actively sought (cf. Barton and Delbridge, 2006; Francis, 2007; Heizmann and Fox, 2019).

While the literature does not provide examples of highly successful HR change agency, it features several key factors to consider. One crucial point is the complexity of HR’s involvement in organizational initiatives, such as restructuring, and mergers (Antila, 2006; Björkman and Søderberg, 2006; Paik and Belcher, 2012; Shook and Roth, 2011). Ignoring these complexities is a form of wishful thinking that can result in costly organizational failures.

Another unrealistic expectation is the belief that HR can seamlessly switch between roles—serving managerial interests in one instance and advocating for employees in another. The reviewed articles provide no evidence supporting this flexibility. HR primarily aligns with managerial perspectives, often reinforcing management dominance rather than promoting employee-centric approaches (Alfes et al., 2010; van Gestel and Nyberg, 2009; Shook and Roth, 2011).

The dominance of a managerial viewpoint does not imply that HR lacks its voice in business matters. However, HR’s legitimacy is linked to its trustworthiness and alignment with established power structures rather than challenging them. To exert influence, HR must contribute to the organizational agenda through consistent actions rather than attempting to juggle multiple demanding roles.

A final example of wishful thinking is the notion that HR should act as master strategists, possessing deep expertise in HR processes and overall business operations. This would require HR to integrate business strategy with HR activities and guide managerial decisions. Contrary to Ulrich’s (1997) suggestion, the studies reviewed did not emphasize HR’s business acumen. Instead, functional expertise was more valued (Abugre, 2014; Arrowsmith and Parker, 2013; Björkman and Søderberg, 2006). While business knowledge is valuable, HR practitioners cannot be expected to master both business strategy and HR integration. Instead, HR should collaborate closely with managers and professionals outside the function to make joint decisions.

Books on management and leadership often portray senior executives as heroic figures, making bold, wise, flawlessly executed decisions. These narratives overlook challenges such as uncertainty, unintended consequences, power struggles, conflicts, and competence gaps (cf. Tengblad, 2012). Our review showed that HR’s contribution to change is more grounded in day-to-day work (cf. Wallo and Coetzer, 2023). In fact, empirical research has yet to capture any form of “heroic” HR change agency, and we strongly doubt that such a concept exists empirically. The power of the HR function is typically limited, and in broader change efforts beyond HR, HR practitioners are rarely given the responsibility to lead.

Viewing the role of HR change agency as a routine, everyday activity is consistent with other empirical research on managerial work (Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2003). From this perspective, HR contributes to change not by leading, directing, or guiding others, but by supporting, facilitating, persuading, and executing regular HR tasks. These tasks include recruiting, training, communicating, navigating regulatory issues, negotiating, and managing emotions. Moreover, HR responsibilities are often delegated to line managers, requiring HR to negotiate and persuade rather than make unilateral decisions (Stirpe et al., 2013; Francis, 2007; Heizmann and Fox, 2019). As evident in the reviewed articles, this dependence on the line management perspective forces HR to prove the value of people-related issues to managers continually. This ongoing need for credibility may influence HR’s professional ethos (Watson, 1977).

To create a foundation for guiding future research, we propose a conceptual framework (Figure 2) and research propositions that build on the insights from the review. The framework positions HR change agency at the intersection of two critical factors: HR change competence and organizational conditions (Ellström, 1997). HR change competence (cf. Reineholm et al., 2024) encompasses the skills and motivation needed for HR practitioners to effectively navigate change processes, including intellectual, social, and emotional skills, and professional ethos. On the other hand, organizational conditions shape the opportunities for HR to act as change agents, influenced by factors such as culture, managerial support, and HR status within the organization.

The framework highlights how the interplay between HR’s competence and the organizational context shapes how HR can successfully contribute to change. Skills equip HR practitioners with the necessary means to perform their roles. However, without the motivation to lead and the right opportunities to apply these skills, their potential impact on organizational outcomes will likely be limited. This holistic and situated approach highlights the importance of aligning HR change competence with the organization’s specific conditions. It also stresses the need to consider how these factors relate to the role in the change process. Leading a change initiative requires different skills, motivation, and opportunities than supporting a change led by others or managing externally imposed outcomes.

Based on this line of argument, we propose the following:

A suggestion for future research based on these propositions is to longitudinally explore how the interplay between HR change competence and organizational opportunities influences the efficacy of change initiatives within various organizational contexts over extended periods.

Based on the analysis of the articles included in this review, the typical normative descriptions of the change agent’s role (Ulrich, 1997; Ulrich and Brockbank, 2005) can be viewed as unrealistic as they fail to consider crucial contextual factors and nor do they address how skills and motivation interrelate in forming competence. To what extent do these results mirror the more prescriptive arguments where factors such as line managers’ conservative approach, insufficient budgets, and unreasonable demands on HR practitioners’ skills are downplayed? These models often wishfully portray HR roles in a somewhat normative manner, suggesting distinct responsibilities and a linear process of change management. However, the realities of organizational life mean that HR roles are often more fluid and contested than these models suggest (Wallo and Coetzer, 2023). Furthermore, our review further illustrates how the devolution of HRM responsibilities to managers increases constraints on HR’s role and their dependence on working through managers to achieve HRM goals.

Based on the above arguments, we propose the following:

To empirically investigate these propositions, we recommend conducting in-depth studies of HR practices. This approach should include shadowing or other direct observation techniques to gather detailed data on the execution of HR change agency across various types of change contexts. Additionally, these studies should examine how HR practitioners and managers collaboratively utilize change competence, focusing on the shared responsibilities and interactions that facilitate effective change management.

Finally, the integrative review elucidates that the articles examining HR change agency have not applied a critical gender perspective, nor explicitly examined the effect of masculine-coded and feminine-coded values, priorities, and norms (Ainsworth and Pekarek, 2022). These will likely impact the intra-organizational gendered culture, discourse, and HR’s status and resources. However, the review revealed that gendered coded practices, such as the management of emotions, are essential for reducing change resistance and coping with ambiguity, tensions, and the emotional burden of supporting others when change is unpredictable in a complex environment (D’Angelo et al., 2022; Francis and Baum, 2018; Ripamonti et al., 2020).

Based on the arguments presented above, we propose the following:

To address the gaps concerning the incorporation of gender perspectives, we recommend conducting mixed-methods studies. Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches will provide a comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding emotion management as a key skill within HR change competence. In-depth interviews with HR practitioners and managers can offer rich, contextual insights into how emotional responses are managed during organizational changes. Surveys can help quantify the prevalence and impact of these practices across diverse organizational settings.

To further extend the conceptual framework and research propositions, we suggest a set of research questions in Table 4. These questions address the role of HR’s social skills, motivation, and organizational conditions in facilitating change. They also explore the effects of delegating HRM tasks to line managers, the gendered dynamics of emotional management in change, and the collaborative potential between HR and line managers. These questions offer a roadmap for advancing theoretical and practical insights into HR’s role in organizational change.

The integrative literature review reveals several practical implications. First, managers must be aware of contextual factors and tailor change efforts accordingly, avoiding simplistic, one-size-fits-all models. A thorough examination of the contextual influences on change is essential to adapt strategies that fit each organization’s unique circumstances.

Second, acknowledging that organizational change efforts are complex, time-consuming, and resource-intensive is crucial. Change initiatives must be approached with determination, endurance, and resourcefulness. The HR function should carefully assess its resources to determine what it can and cannot offer to support these initiatives. Furthermore, HR practitioners require enhanced training in various vital skills for managing change effectively. This includes developing interpersonal skills such as communication, coaching, and emotion management—essential for handling change and addressing resistance.

Third, HR functions should avoid adopting a “heroic” role or assuming that grandiose efforts will guarantee success. Such approaches often meet resistance and may lead to scapegoating the HR function if things do not go as planned. While individual HR practitioners can positively influence the legitimization of HR’s role in change (Alfes et al., 2010; Harris, 2005), external factors can easily reverse any progress (Francis, 2007). Instead, HR should focus on supporting and facilitating change through communication, counseling, and consistent operational HR work. Increasing HR’s influence depends more on sustained, long-term negotiations and cooperation with other organizational actors (Andreescu, 2004). A practical implication of this is that HR practitioners also need to stay abreast of the new technology being introduced in HR practice, as technological competence will be crucial to their effectiveness in managing contemporary change initiatives.

Finally, this review suggests that organizations should elevate HR’s role in strategic decision-making, especially during times of transition. Involving HR early in a change process allows the function to shape strategies that reflect long-term goals and align management expectations with HR capabilities. By implementing these strategies, organizations can empower HR as effective change agents equipped with the skills and the motivation to contribute to impactful organizational change.

This paper significantly contributes to understanding the competence required of the HR function in organizational change. The first contribution is the detailed identification of factors that enable HR to contribute effectively to change, supported by a review of empirical studies that have investigated this topic directly or indirectly. We identified, categorized, and analyzed the empirical findings using a competence-based approach.

The second contribution is the development of an empirically-based framework for HR change agency, which broadens our understanding of how and under what conditions the HR function can act as a change agent. Our analysis suggests that typical normative descriptions of the change agent role are often unrealistic, as they fail to account for crucial contextual factors and do not adequately address the interrelation between skills and motivation in forming competence. Our proposed conceptual framework challenges the traditional static and prescriptive view of HR’s role, advocating for a more dynamic understanding that integrates individual skills, motivation, and context. This approach inspires a more open-minded view of HR’s role, underscoring the importance of considering HR’s motivations and professional ethos in specific change scenarios, as well as the impact of devolving significant responsibilities to line managers.

The third contribution lies in the propositions for future research, identifying the types of studies needed to further expand knowledge about how HR can contribute to organizational change. Our study provides a foundation for future research that integrates individual and contextual factors to deepen our understanding of HR’s impact on organizational change.

In conclusion, this integrative literature review addresses the knowledge gap regarding how and under what conditions the HR function contributes to change, referred to as HR change agency. We achieved this by synthesizing findings from previous empirical studies. The main findings are that HR change agency is context-dependent, that idealized expectations should be avoided, and that HR change agency is generally a routine, rather mundane activity. Although previous research offers valuable insights into how HR change agency is practiced, significant gaps remain in our understanding. Future research should address these gaps by adopting a more realistic and nuanced perspective on HR’s role in complex, dynamic and gendered organizational settings.

Funding: This research has been partly financed by the Swedish Transport Administration (Borlänge, SE) GRANT_NUMBER: TRV 2020/15310.