Opportunities identified in the review
| Opportunities | Factor | Description | Studies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discourses and culture | A profit discourse | A profit or market discourse, low prioritisation of people issues, measurability culture, macho culture, and departmentalism negatively affect HR contribution | Andreescu (2004), Barton and Delbridge (2006), Francis (2007), Harris (2005), Heizmann and Fox (2019) |
| Exclusion of softer people issues | Using the dominating discourses to get influence and resources risks not including the softer parts of people issues, and success can be reversed by external events | Francis (2007), Heizmann and Fox (2019) | |
| Co-creation of dominating discourse | HR use of dominant discourses risks co-creating these | Parkes and Davis (2013) | |
| Consider culture locally | Local culture needs to be considered when adopting HRM models | Rees and Johari (2010) | |
| Organisational characteristics | Policies and standards | Policies and standards in favour of the intended change act as support and are more common in large organisations | Parkes and Davis (2013) |
| Lack of steering | A wide range of accountabilities, unclear reporting lines, large team sizes, insufficient performance measures and lack of consequences hinder change initiatives | Arrowsmith and Parker (2013) | |
| Public sector | A stronger effect of the HR change agent role is observed in the public sector, whereas a weaker position for HR is found in higher educational institutions | Edgley-Pyshorn and Huisman (2011), Sarvaiya et al. (2021), Zhang (2020) | |
| Private sector | A weak position for the HR function in the private sector | D’Cruz et al. (2014) | |
| Cost pressures | The labour intensity of the industry and cost pressures induce a need to balance progressive HR initiatives | Francis and Baum (2018) | |
| Management view and support of HR and HRM | Management fails to involve HR | Management expected cultural issues would solve themselves and did not involve HR | Shook and Roth (2011) |
| Management fails to recognize negative results | Management not recognising results can affect negatively, even when motivated to implement HR-related change | Bondarouk et al. (2009) | |
| Top management support | Top management’s view of, and advocacy for the HR function, can enable HR to establish legitimacy | Antila and Kakkonen (2008), Gollan et al. (2015) | |
| Supervisor support | Low supervisor support can negatively moderate the effect of top management support, as they meet the employees | Stirpe et al. (2013) | |
| Management skill levels | Previous bad management of changes combined with lacking management skills affected the culture change negatively | Barratt-Pugh and Bahn (2015) | |
| HR status and resources | Strong status | Status, credibility, and resources of the HR function important to succeed with change | Sarvaiya et al. (2021), Stirpe et al. (2013), Torka et al. (2008) |
| A place in the top management | A place in the top management team or in steering groups is important for the HR function to gain credibility, and signals to the organisation that value is put on HR issues | Antila and Kakkonen (2008), Francis (2007), Francis and Baum (2018) | |
| Weak status | Weak status affects opportunities negatively | D’Cruz et al. (2014), Edgley-Pyshorn and Huisman (2011) | |
| Digital resources | Digital resources can help effectiveness, contribute to a stronger strategic HR role, but do not ease tensions between managers and HR regarding who should do what | Francis and Baum (2018) | |
| Devolution of HRM free up time | Devolving HRM to managers can free up time for strategic work and increase the legitimacy of the HR function, even when decreasing HR resources | Gollan et al. (2015), Ruël and Gbur (2017) | |
| Devolution leads to distance | Positive effects of devolution counteracted by increased demand for HR services, more managers to support, time-consuming activities, and a greater distance to managers and employees | Francis and Baum (2018), Harris (2005) | |
| Autonomy, recognition, and resources | Autonomy, recognition, and resources motivate HR professionals to develop HR innovations | Amarakoon et al. (2018) | |
| HR role design | The HR business partner role | HRBP role can give increased business knowledge, credibility, clearer managerial expectations, and opportunity to influence HR processes | Andreescu (2004) |
| Dual reporting structures | Dual reporting structures can lead to unclear roles, and a need to negotiate between managers and headquarter HR | Barton and Delbridge (2006) | |
| Closeness to line managers | Good relationships and trust with line managers important to be involved in M&As decided at their level | Antila and Kakkonen (2008) | |
| Managerial role positive for role as change agent | HR managers, compared to non-managers, to a higher degree viewed their role in change as change agents | Baran et al. (2019) | |
| Involvement in change effort | Early involvement in change | Early involvement in changes emphasised as important on both a strategic and operational level | Alfes et al. (2010), Antila (2006) |
| Not involved in planning or decisions | HR not involved in planning or decision-making | Barton and Delbridge (2006), D’angelo et al. (2022), Shook and Roth (2011) | |
| Strict employment laws | Changes subject to strict legal regulation create a need for HR knowledge and involvement, this can still be reactive | Paik and Belcher (2012), Roche and Teague (2012) | |
| HR competence needed | The HR function’s competence perceived as needed in change that have focus on people issues, e.g. a focus on emotions and rapid implementation of new work practices | D’angelo et al. (2022), Misra et al. (2023), Ripamonti et al. (2020) | |
| Focus on people issues | Focus on people issues in M&As strengthened by a high level of integration, a longer time perspective, a standardised process, the project involves many people or is led by experienced project leader | Antila (2006), Antila and Kakkonen (2008) | |
| Cross-border acquisitions | Cultural issues in focus when the acquired organisation is in another country, induces integrating work and HR involvement | Antila and Kakkonen (2008) | |
| Non-involvement of local HR | Foreign acquirers have pre-planned processes and do not involve local HR | Abugre (2014), Łupina-Wegener (2013) |
| Opportunities | Factor | Description | Studies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discourses and culture | A profit discourse | A profit or market discourse, low prioritisation of people issues, measurability culture, macho culture, and departmentalism negatively affect HR contribution | |
| Exclusion of softer people issues | Using the dominating discourses to get influence and resources risks not including the softer parts of people issues, and success can be reversed by external events | ||
| Co-creation of dominating discourse | HR use of dominant discourses risks co-creating these | ||
| Consider culture locally | Local culture needs to be considered when adopting HRM models | ||
| Organisational characteristics | Policies and standards | Policies and standards in favour of the intended change act as support and are more common in large organisations | |
| Lack of steering | A wide range of accountabilities, unclear reporting lines, large team sizes, insufficient performance measures and lack of consequences hinder change initiatives | ||
| Public sector | A stronger effect of the HR change agent role is observed in the public sector, whereas a weaker position for HR is found in higher educational institutions | ||
| Private sector | A weak position for the HR function in the private sector | ||
| Cost pressures | The labour intensity of the industry and cost pressures induce a need to balance progressive HR initiatives | ||
| Management view and support of HR and HRM | Management fails to involve HR | Management expected cultural issues would solve themselves and did not involve HR | |
| Management fails to recognize negative results | Management not recognising results can affect negatively, even when motivated to implement HR-related change | ||
| Top management support | Top management’s view of, and advocacy for the HR function, can enable HR to establish legitimacy | ||
| Supervisor support | Low supervisor support can negatively moderate the effect of top management support, as they meet the employees | ||
| Management skill levels | Previous bad management of changes combined with lacking management skills affected the culture change negatively | ||
| HR status and resources | Strong status | Status, credibility, and resources of the HR function important to succeed with change | |
| A place in the top management | A place in the top management team or in steering groups is important for the HR function to gain credibility, and signals to the organisation that value is put on HR issues | ||
| Weak status | Weak status affects opportunities negatively | ||
| Digital resources | Digital resources can help effectiveness, contribute to a stronger strategic HR role, but do not ease tensions between managers and HR regarding who should do what | ||
| Devolution of HRM free up time | Devolving HRM to managers can free up time for strategic work and increase the legitimacy of the HR function, even when decreasing HR resources | ||
| Devolution leads to distance | Positive effects of devolution counteracted by increased demand for HR services, more managers to support, time-consuming activities, and a greater distance to managers and employees | ||
| Autonomy, recognition, and resources | Autonomy, recognition, and resources motivate HR professionals to develop HR innovations | ||
| HR role design | The HR business partner role | HRBP role can give increased business knowledge, credibility, clearer managerial expectations, and opportunity to influence HR processes | |
| Dual reporting structures | Dual reporting structures can lead to unclear roles, and a need to negotiate between managers and headquarter HR | ||
| Closeness to line managers | Good relationships and trust with line managers important to be involved in M&As decided at their level | ||
| Managerial role positive for role as change agent | HR managers, compared to non-managers, to a higher degree viewed their role in change as change agents | ||
| Involvement in change effort | Early involvement in change | Early involvement in changes emphasised as important on both a strategic and operational level | |
| Not involved in planning or decisions | HR not involved in planning or decision-making | ||
| Strict employment laws | Changes subject to strict legal regulation create a need for HR knowledge and involvement, this can still be reactive | ||
| HR competence needed | The HR function’s competence perceived as needed in change that have focus on people issues, e.g. a focus on emotions and rapid implementation of new work practices | ||
| Focus on people issues | Focus on people issues in M&As strengthened by a high level of integration, a longer time perspective, a standardised process, the project involves many people or is led by experienced project leader | ||
| Cross-border acquisitions | Cultural issues in focus when the acquired organisation is in another country, induces integrating work and HR involvement | ||
| Non-involvement of local HR | Foreign acquirers have pre-planned processes and do not involve local HR |
Source(s): Created by authors
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.