Organizational scholars have studied equity sensitivity (ES) for nearly half a century. Yet, a lack of synthesis in the ES literature suggests important questions remain regarding our understanding of the concept, its nomological network, the theoretical role(s) it may play in shaping employee attitudes and behaviors, and its relations to adjacent theories of equity and organizational justice. In the current work, we address these questions via a theoretical and meta-analytic review of the ES literature encompassing 117 articles, 144 samples, and 36,177 participants. In synthesizing the literature, we (1) describe and alleviate existing tensions surrounding the construct's conceptualization, (2) provide empirical insights regarding the construct's associations and relative importance in the prediction of key workplace outcomes, and (3) present an integrative model of ES's potential theoretical moderating role in equity and justice relationships. Our work provides clarity regarding ES's nomological network and offers critical directions for future scholarship. Specifically, we draw special attention to opportunities for new work exploring ES's potential as a key linking mechanism among equity and organizational justice theories.
Due to technological developments, jobs disappear, new jobs arise, and existing jobs change. This leads to opportunities and challenges regarding human resource management (HRM) and the role of the HR function in the future of work. In this article, we explore how technological developments such as the use of smart technologies, artificial intelligence (AI), and robotics influence HRM and the role of the HR function. Through a scoping review, we highlight the influence of technological developments across macro (societal), meso (organization/HRM) and micro (individual workers) level work themes. We specifically focus on the dynamic interplay between technological developments and HRM. At the meso level, the analysis zooms in on how technological developments influence HRM at the strategic, tactical, and operational levels within organizational contexts. Our findings inform a future research agenda comprising avenues aimed at deepening our understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with technological change in the context of HRM. More specifically, we propose future research to explore how the HR function can prepare the organization, itself, and other stakeholders, including line managers and workers, for the impact of technological developments to enhance HRM for the greater good.
Leadership research has largely been built on the assumption that leadership behaviors exert linear and sign-consistent effects on organizational outcomes. However, converging evidence indicates that these relationships are often nonlinear, such that the same leadership style can produce both beneficial and detrimental outcomes depending on its intensity and contextual conditions. Despite these insights, research on nonlinear leadership effects remains theoretically fragmented and empirically under-integrated, lacking a coherent explanation of when, why, and in what forms such effects emerge. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic analysis of 60 empirical studies on nonlinear leadership effects across task-, relation-, and change-oriented as well as destructive leadership styles. We integrated evidence on functional forms, mediating mechanisms, moderating conditions, and methodological approaches. This analysis identifies consistent empirical patterns while revealing systematic limitations in the explanatory scope of existing theoretical perspectives.Building on this integrated assessment, we developed a leadership intensity threshold framework that conceptualizes leadership intensity as a continuous driver of qualitatively distinct outcome regimes. This framework specifies threshold-based mechanisms through which changes in leadership intensity produce discontinuous shifts in interpersonal dynamics. These shifts, in turn, shape the implementation and effectiveness of HR practices by line managers. By linking fragmented empirical findings with a mechanism-based theoretical account, the framework provides an organizing structure for cumulative theory development in human resource management (HRM). It advances a more precise understanding of how leadership behavior enables or constrains effective HRM implementation across contexts.
Self-managing organisations (SMOs) radically decentralise formal authority, fundamentally challenging traditional models of Human Resource Management (HRM). Drawing on a systematic literature review of 75 articles and adopting a Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) lens, this paper examines how HRM is enacted in the absence of formal managerial hierarchy. We analyse the reconfiguration of HRM actors, roles, and practices, revealing that people management in SMOs emerges through ongoing interactions rather than formal mandates. Specifically, HRM operates as a human-centred, relational, and adaptive ecosystem. As formal managerial hierarchies disappear, employees and teams become the primary HRM actors, replacing hierarchical control with caring practices and peer-based governance. Furthermore, we identify key contingencies and inherent tensions that challenge the long-term sustainability of these HRM ecosystems. By challenging four foundational HRM assumptions, we highlight both the potential and the paradoxical nature of self-managing practices. Ultimately, these insights advance theoretical understanding of the nexus between organisational design and people management, offering critical implications for HRM research and the future of the HR profession.
Organizations impact the common good for all stakeholders through their corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions, with human resource management (HRM) being a driver of employee CSR engagement and support. Employees' reactions to CSR actions are contingent upon their attribution of their organization's motive for engaging in CSR. However, the literature on the impact of employees' CSR attributions shows contradictory effects and terminological inconsistencies. To uncover the reasons for this, we conducted a systematic and cross-disciplinary review of the extant literature on employees' CSR attributions and their impact using keyword searches of eight EBSCOhost online databases. Our review of 61 articles catalogs the attribution construct, its measurement scale, the context of attribution (referent and nationality), accompanying theory, and the impact of the attribution. We find evidence of the jingle-jangle fallacy across studies, as well as the inconsistent impact of self-centered employee CSR attributions (i.e., those perceived as done to benefit the firm). Our review shows that inconsistencies in this literature stem not only from fragmented terminology, but also from deeper construct-level misalignment in how employee CSR attributions are conceptualized and measured. To promote greater precision and refinement, we organize the existing attribution constructs into other-centered, self-centered, and win-win categories and offer six recommendations to improve conceptual precision, measurement alignment, and theorizing. In doing so, this review helps clarify how employees attribute CSR, allowing for stronger theorizing on how HRM can drive CSR engagement.
