Exploring the socio‐political dynamics of front‐line managers' HR involvement: A qualitative approach.

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 paper makes a meaningful contribution to the HR devolution research by delving into relational power dynamics that develop over an early phase of HR implementation. The resulting theoretical framework provides novel insights into the reasons behind FLMs' divergent forms of implementation behaviors. It shows that the ongoing multi‐lateral interactions and political maneuverings involving HR‐related actors trigger distinct HR involvement patterns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]