作者認為，人力資源線在人力資源下放水平上的差異具有很強的根源，對年齡、線的個人能力、官僚作風(人員)、組織支持等因素的感知存在差異(Op de Beeck et al.， 2015)。考慮到這篇文章的這些發現，一個眾所周知的事實是，直線經理和人力資源專業人員應該共同努力，為員工成功地交付共同的責任。這為人力資源合作提供了一些思路。並且，在這個概念下，直線經理和人力資源專業人員被認為是共享組織的人力資源管理職責(Op de Beeck et al.， 2015)。如果有有效的管理，這種夥伴關系會產生協同效應，同時增加社會資本和進一步改善組織的績效。在這篇文章中，影響HR角色期望和線管理經驗HR角色的關鍵因素依次描述了兩者與組織更廣泛背景的關系(Op de Beeck et al.， 2015)。盡管本文中確定的這些組織條件最初對所有個人都是平等的，但是可以看出人力資源專業人員和直線經理對這些條件的解釋是不同的。本文確定了若幹因素，但需要註意的是，並非所有這些因素都影響到人力資源界線的差異對人力資源權力下放水平的影響。
在本文中，歧視已被確定為所有選擇和招聘的故意屬性。工作將提供給一些申請人，而那些不適合這份工作，將被拒絕。從這一陳述中可以看出，雇主有責任以最大的適當性篩選潛在員工，同時排除那些不那麽適當性的員工(Warhurst et al.， 2009)。但是，這些標準的基礎被確定為合法的，而其他標準則被認為是非法的。在收集美國和英國的二手數據時，本研究考慮了為什麽員工的感知最終成為就業中的一個重要特征，以及如何成為一個重要特征。這有助於凸顯國家機構對外貌歧視的不同反應。這說明澳大利亞的司法管轄區導致了監管增加的趨勢(Warhurst et al.， 2009)。然而，盡管外貌歧視問題在澳大利亞的反歧視法中得到了認真的考慮，但似乎仍有必要對這一問題以及如何解決這一問題進行更多的研究。因此，我們可以得出結論，雇主傾向於歧視那些看起來更好的人，而懲罰那些被認為不那麽有吸引力的人。
According to the authors, discrepancy of HR line on the level of devolution of HR has strong roots with variations in perception on various factors that include age, individual capacity of line, red tape (personnel), and organizational support (Op de Beeck et al., 2015). Considering these findings of the article, it is a well-known fact that both, line managers and HR professionals should be working together for the successful delivery of shared responsibilities for the employees. This provides some ideas about HR partnership. And, under this notion, line managers and HR professionals are known to be sharing the HRM responsibility of the organization (Op de Beeck et al., 2015). If there is effective management, this partnership results in the creation of synergies, while increasing social capital and further improving the performance of organization. In the article, key factors impacting both role expectations of HR and experienced HR role of line management in turn results in depicting the relationship of both with the broader context of the organization (Op de Beeck et al., 2015). Even though, these organizational conditions identified in the article are equal for all individuals initially, both HR professionals and line managers can be seen interpreting these differently. A number of factors have been identified in the article, but it is important to note that not all of these impact the discrepancy of HR line on the level of devolution in HR.
The third article selected for the critical analysis is “Lookism: The New Frontier of Employment Discrimination?” by Warhurst, C., Vanden Broek, D., Hall, R., and Nickson, D. (2009).
In this article, discrimination has been identified as an intentional attribute of all selections and recruitments. Jobs will be offered to some applicants whereas those not fit for the job, will be rejected. From this statement, it can be stated that employers hold the responsibility for filtering potential employees with maximum appropriateness while excluding the ones that have less appropriateness (Warhurst et al., 2009). However, the bases of these criteria are identified as lawful, while others are considered as unlawful. While collecting secondary data from USA and UK, this research has considered why and how the perception of employees has ended up becoming a significant feature within employment. It then helps in highlighting the different responses of national institution towards lookism. This notes that the jurisdictions of Australia results in the trend for increasing regulation (Warhurst et al., 2009). However, even though the problems regarding lookism has been considered seriously by the law of anti-discrimination in Australia, there seems to be a significant need for conducting more researches on the problem and the way in which it needs to be addressed. Hence, it can be concluded that employers tend to discriminate while favouring individuals who look better, while penalizing the ones who are considered as less attractive.