From Technical to Relational: Immersive Technologies and the Interfaces and Dichotomies Between HRM and PM in Organisational Practices in an RSL

Abstract

This systematic review critically analysed the differences, intersections, and trends toward convergence between Human Resource Management (HRM) and People Management (PM), highlighting the evolution of these approaches in organizational contexts marked by digital transformation. Conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, the study utilized the Web of Science and SCOPUS databases. Fifty-eight studies were selected and analysed narratively, prioritizing evidence with a lower risk of bias. The results confirm that, although HRM and PM have distinct rationales, a progressive convergence between the two is observed, driven by technological, organizational, and sociocultural changes. In this process, immersive technologies play a central role as socio-technical mediators, shaping organisational practices through configurations that reflect institutional logics and generate paradoxes between efficiency and experience. The analysed literature demonstrates that these technologies enable the integration of practices traditionally oriented toward efficiency, measurement, and standardization—characteristics of HRM—with experiential, relational, and subjective dimensions, which are specific to PM. It is concluded that the strategic adoption of immersive technologies enhances hybrid management models, capable of articulating strategic alignment, personalization of practices, engagement, and well-being at work. Thus, rather than merely serving as support tools, immersive technologies are emerging as foundational elements of modern people management, challenging traditional models, and paving the way for more integrated, sustainable, and people-centred practices.

1. Introduction

The distinction between Human Resource Management (HRM) and People Management (PM) remains essential, as these approaches reflect distinct assumptions about how organizations structure work, manage people, and achieve strategic objectives [1,2]. HRM has traditionally been associated with formalized systems, standardized processes, and strategic alignment, emphasizing efficiency in areas such as recruitment, performance management, training, and workforce planning [3,4]. In contrast, PM adopts a more human-centred orientation, focusing on employee experience, well-being, engagement, and the relational dynamics that shape organizational life [5,6]. Although analytically distinct, these approaches increasingly intersect in practice, particularly in contemporary organizational contexts marked by complexity and change [7,8].

Recent advances in digitalization—especially the emergence of immersive technologies such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), and extended reality (ER)—are accelerating this convergence [9]. These technologies enable interactive, experiential, and data-rich environments that expand Human Resource Management (HRM) beyond administrative and procedural functions, simultaneously operationalizing aspects traditionally associated with People Management (PM), such as engagement, learning, and socio-emotional development [10,11]. In doing so, they support a transition from predominantly technical and process-oriented models to socio-technical configurations that integrate performance, experience, and organizational meaning [12].

Furthermore, immersive technologies significantly enhance organizational learning and development processes, allowing for realistic simulations, safe experimentation, and the development of complex behavioural competencies, including leadership, communication, collaboration, and decision-making [9,10,13,14]. Such capabilities contribute to blurring the boundaries between the technical and relational dimensions of management, fostering more adaptable, integrated, and context-sensitive organizational practices [15,16]. In this sense, immersive technologies operate not merely as tools, but as socio-technical mediators that reconfigure how organizational practices are experienced and implemented.

Despite these advances, the literature remains fragmented in two critical aspects. Firstly, HRM and PM continue to be treated as analytically distinct domains, with limited understanding of the mechanisms by which their integration occurs in practice [1,2,17]. Secondly, although immersive technologies are increasingly positioned as facilitators of this convergence, there is still a lack of theoretically grounded explanations about how, under what conditions, and at what levels (organizational, team, and individual) these technologies simultaneously shape performance outcomes and employee experience [8,10,18]. As a result, the integration between instrumental and humanistic logics remains poorly theorized and empirically diffuse.

To fill this gap, the present study proposes an integrative perspective on HRM and PM, conceptualizing organizational practices as socio-technical configurations that simultaneously shape structural outcomes and subjective work experiences. Specifically, it seeks to identify the conditions that enable or restrict the integration of HRM and PM through immersive technologies, deepening the understanding of how organizational systems, technological mediation, and worker experience interact [7,12,15].

Based on a systematic literature review (SLR), this study develops a conceptual analytical model that articulates inputs, processes, and outcomes at multiple levels of analysis. In doing so, it contributes to the literature by offering a more precise, contextualized, and theoretically grounded description of how immersive technologies support—but do not determine—the convergence between instrumental and humanistic approaches in contemporary management [9,11].

2. Materials and Methods

The study presents a Systematic Literature Review (SLR). In this sense, following the PRISMA 2020 checklist as Supplementary Materials (Table S1) (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), the results of studies based on research from the Web of Science (WoS) and SCOPUS databases are mapped and summarised. The joint use of the SCOPUS and Web of Science (WoS) databases is justified by their high editorial quality, broad multidisciplinary coverage, and rigorous indexing criteria [19,20] and are recommended for systematic reviews because they ensure greater reliability and reproducibility. Thus, even when combined, SCOPUS and WoS may not retrieve relevant literature published in local journals, grey literature, or journals not indexed by impact criteria [21]. In addition, both predominantly feature publications in English, which can lead to linguistic bias and underrepresentation of studies in other languages [22].

The following keywords were used in the searches (15 January 2025): ‘Human Resources Management; HRM; People Management; Concepts; Immersive Technologies’, with the following search strategies: SCOPUS: (“human resource management” OR HRM OR “people management”) AND (technology OR digital* OR “immersive technolog*” OR “virtual reality” OR VR OR “augmented reality” OR AR OR XR) AND (engagement OR “work experience” OR wellbeing OR “employee experience”). SCOPUS: LIMIT-TO (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“ar”) OR LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE,“re”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE,“English”); WEB OF SCIENCE: (“Human Resources Management; HRM; People Management; Concepts; Immersive Technologies”) (All Fields). The databases generated 145 studies (SCOPUS: n = 85; WoS: n = 60). After removing duplicate articles (n = 52), titles and abstracts were read in a first phase, where studies that were not compatible with the research topic (n = 34) were excluded. The reasons for exclusion were: articles outside the organizational context (n = 7), studies unrelated to technologies (n = 24), and biomedical theoretical studies (n = 3). Subsequently, the studies were read in full to ensure the desired content, and one more study was excluded. Two researchers defined the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Studies included: (i) primary studies relevant to the research topic; (ii) studies with direct and/or indirect identification of the public and/or private sectors; and (iii) articles written in English, resulting in a total of 58 studies. Excluded studies: (i) letters, meeting summaries, theses, media reports, content feeds; (ii) articles not focused on HRM or PM. Agreement between assessors was substantial (κ = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.68–0.81). Following the final selection of studies, a coding scheme was constructed based on an inductive-deductive approach. In the first phase, an in-depth reading of a subset of the articles was carried out to identify preliminary categories aligned with the objectives of the review (e.g., types of technology, HRM/PM practices, relational mechanisms, outcomes such as engagement). These categories were progressively refined through an iterative process of constant comparison, until a stable coding framework was defined and applied to the entire set of studies. Coding focused on study characteristics (type, context, method), technological dimensions, HRM/PM practices, explanatory mechanisms (e.g., relational mediation, perception of support, resources), and organizational and psychosocial outcomes. Disagreements were not limited to the screening phase, being particularly relevant in the coding and interpretation of the data. To ensure analytical rigor, the process involved the initial independent coding of a sample of studies by more than one researcher; A reflective discussion of the discrepancies, focused not only on agreement but also on clarifying the different possible interpretations; revision and adjustment of the coding scheme when the divergences revealed conceptual ambiguity or insufficient definition of the categories; and a decision by consensus, favouring interpretations that are theoretically grounded and consistent with the objectives of the revision. Figure 1 shows the phases of the Prisma Flow Diagram. An RSL protocol was developed and registered on the INPLASY (International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) platform (Milwaukee, WI, USA) under DOI: 10.37766/inplasy2025.11.0015, available as a Supplementary Document (Table S2), ensuring transparency, reproducibility, and compliance with high-quality standards for systematic reviews.

To ensure methodological rigour and reduce potential sources of bias, two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the studies. The guidelines of Letts et al. [24] were used for qualitative studies, the framework of Sterne et al. [25] for quantitative studies, and the AMSTAR-2 tool [26] for systematic reviews. Although robust alternatives exist, such as JBI, NIH, or RoB 2, in practice, the quality assessment results were not used as a rigid exclusion criterion, but rather as an analytical weighting mechanism throughout the synthesis. Studies classified as having higher methodological quality were given greater weight in the interpretation of results, being prioritized in the identification of patterns, the construction of analytical categories, and the discussion of findings. On the other hand, studies with identified limitations were considered more cautiously, contributing mainly to contextualization or the identification of gaps. This procedure allowed for a balance between comprehensiveness and rigor, reducing the risk of interpretive bias and reinforcing the credibility of the conclusions, while ensuring transparency in the methodological decision-making process.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Evolutionary Milestones

The evolution of Personnel Management (PM) and Human Resource Management (HRM) can be understood through a historical timeline structured around nine key milestones (Figure 2). Before the Industrial Revolution, work was organized primarily by the natural division of tasks, such as agriculture and crafts, with rudimentary structures predominating and no formal management systems [27,28]. With the Industrial Revolution, between the 18th and 19th centuries, mechanization intensified the pace of production, creating precarious working conditions and spurring the emergence of the first labour unions [29,30].

In the early 20th century, Scientific Management emerged, with Taylor [31] and Ford [32] introducing methods of rationalization and production efficiency, giving rise to the first formal “Human Resources” departments. Starting in the 1930s, the Hawthorne studies conducted by Elton Mayo revealed the importance of social and psychological factors in performance, ushering in the Human Relations School [33]. By the 1950s, the focus shifted to motivation and human behaviour, with notable contributions from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs [34] and McGregor’s Theories X and Y [35].

The 1980s marked a strategic turning point for the HR field, driven by globalization and the view of the employee as a competitive resource. During this period, Ulrich [36] redefined the strategic role of HR, while Schein [37] established the concept of organizational culture as a key determinant of performance. In the 21st century, people management began to integrate emerging digital technologies, such as artificial intelligence, big data, and analytics, emphasizing the role of the worker as a competitive advantage and valuing topics such as hybrid work, diversity, and sustainability [38].

A trend toward convergence between PM and HRM is observed. Although HRM remains associated with administrative processes, PM takes on a more human-centred and development-oriented approach [39,40]. In contemporary discourse, issues such as human capital, engagement, and digital transformation shape new people-centred approaches, influencing more flexible and digitally adapted organizational cultures [41,42]. Thus, the historical trajectory reveals a continuous transition from a mechanistic model to a strategic and human-centred approach, in which people are increasingly understood as a central element for innovation, competitiveness, and organizational sustainability. This trajectory shows that, although HRM and PM have evolved in different ways, the emergence of immersive technologies creates opportunities to integrate strategic and humanistic approaches, highlighting gaps in the literature that have yet to be fully explored.

3.2. Evolution of Studies

Figure 3 shows the development of research in this field. Between 1998 and 2005, scientific output was very limited and sporadic, totalling just four publications over eight years. This period is characterised by a lack of annual continuity, with some years seeing no publications at all, and by occasional, essentially exploratory work. From 2006 onwards, the topic began to develop its own theoretical framework, though this was still in the process of conceptual and methodological definition. Between 2013 and 2019, it is evident that various organisational studies adopt approaches to PM and HRM in distinct or combined ways; the subject area begins to feature a greater diversity of empirical and theoretical approaches, reflecting progressive maturity and greater integration into established research agendas. The most recent period (2020–2024) shows a significant acceleration in scientific output (~45%), demonstrating that this is a rapidly expanding field of current scientific interest.

3.2.1. People Management (PM) and Human Resource Management (HRM): Focus and Functions

People Management (PM) and Human Resource Management (HRM) are often used interchangeably in the literature, although some studies recognise conceptual and historical distinctions between the two [39,42]. HRM has been defined as the set of policies and practices aimed at organising work and managing the employment of people within organisations [43], covering the employee lifecycle from recruitment and selection through to training, development, performance appraisal, remuneration and benefits [44]. Its strategic focus is to ensure that the organisation has the right people, at the right time, with the appropriate skills to achieve its objectives. Within the scope of Strategic Human Resource Management, HRM translates into a coordinated system of practices and policies geared towards aligning organisational and individual objectives, promoting internal and external social capital, and influencing organisational performance [45,46,47]. This perspective incorporates dimensions related to knowledge development—such as skills, talents, leadership, and organisational learning—and to the promotion of health and well-being at work, including work–life balance and stress management [46,48].

HRM thus emerges as the structural dimension of work management, influencing individual and collective performance [49], taking on new forms in turbulent contexts, such as the post-COVID-19 period, in which it reinforces organisational commitment through talent management, performance coaching and the use of motivational tools, such as gamification [50,51].

At the same time, PM has established itself as a strategic and multidimensional approach that goes beyond the traditional administrative role, focusing on creating organisational value through people [44,52]. Contemporary literature positions PM as a central agent in digital transformation processes [46], acting as a strategic partner in decision-making and organisational change [44]. In the context of Industry 4.0, HR promotes decentralisation, empowerment, horizontal communication, and teamwork [47], and is recognised as a facilitator of competitiveness in technologically advanced environments [48]. The integration of digital technologies, data and analytics redefines its scope, requiring the reformulation of recruitment, training, performance appraisal and career development practices [49,50]. Furthermore, HR is increasingly incorporating a sustainability dimension, integrating social and environmental concerns into organisational practices, with a simultaneous impact on employee performance and organisational outcomes [51,52].

Despite the analytical distinctions, HRM and PM do not operate in isolation. HRM practices are embedded within organisational routines and production and performance systems [43], whilst PM extends this logic by linking people, strategy, culture, and digital transformation. In contexts marked by rapid change, hybrid environments and growing demands for flexibility, the integration of HRM and PM practices into strategic planning is an essential condition for achieving sustainable performance and competitive advantage [53,54,55,56]. Thus, HRM can be understood as the structuring system of formal work management policies and practices, and PM as the strategic, cultural, and transformational dimension that guides these practices towards value creation, innovation, and organisational sustainability. Figure 4 presents a diagram illustrating the focus and functions of HRM and PM, whilst

Table 1. Summary of the literature on the differentiation and/or integration between HRM and PM, highlighting the main topics analysed.

Author (Year)	Emphasis	Integration/Differentiation
Al-Ameryeen et al. [57]	Strategic alignment	HRM prioritises strategic alignment and organisational efficiency, while PM emphasises human development and engagement, constituting distinct but progressively integrated approaches in contemporary people management.
Dubey et al. [58]	Cultural diversity	HRM, by structuring formal policies and practices for cultural diversity, differs from PM, which emphasises managers’ awareness, values and skills, both of which are complementary to building inclusive organisational environments.
Mikhlina & Saukkonen [59]	Organisational efficiency and human orientation	HRM structures and segments human capital for strategic purposes, while PM emphasises understanding the experiences, motivations and needs of workers, with people being an integrating mechanism between organisational efficiency and human orientation.
Piwowar-Sulej et al. [60]	Management 3.0	HRM maintains a structuring role in defining organisational systems and practices, while PM, expressed in approaches such as Management 3.0, favours autonomy, skills development and energising people, highlighting a conceptual differentiation and an integration that is still in its infancy in organisational practice.
Ferreira et al. [61]	Knowledge and career management	HRM structures knowledge, talent and career management systems with an organisational focus, while PM emphasises continuous development, personal fulfilment and individual trajectories, converging in an integrated model that articulates performance, retention and career meaning.
Edwards & Kakavelakis [62]	Knowledge sharing and flexibility	HRM establishes formal practices of collaboration and organisational culture to promote knowledge sharing, while PM highlights the reflective, relational and contextual processes that condition individuals’ adherence to these practices.
Stacho et al. [63]	Digitisation and gamification	HRM incorporates digital and playful tools as strategic mechanisms for organisational competitiveness, while PM emphasises the motivational, experiential and meaningful effects attributed by workers, revealing an integration mediated by digital transformation.
Bal & Brookes [64]	Sustainability	Sustainable HRM redefines itself by integrating the strategic rationality of management with a humanistic approach characteristic of PM, repositioning people practices as promoters of human dignity and planetary sustainability.
Qamar et al. [65]	Artificial intelligence	The incorporation of artificial intelligence into HRM reinforces the analytical and decision-making rationality of management, while PM questions its ethical and human impacts, creating a tense convergence between algorithmic efficiency and the centrality of the person.
Rajiani et al. [66]	Processes and innovation	HRM emerges as a process innovation by integrating capabilities, motivation and opportunities, aligning PM with green organisational practices and sustainability.
Taylor et al. [67]	Strategic innovation	Managing People in Sports Organisations highlights strategic innovation in HRM and People Management, integrating practices that promote sustainable performance and skills development in sport.
Karatop et al. [68]	Strategic innovation	Talent Management emerges as a strategic innovation in HRM and People Management in manufacturing companies, integrating employees’ skills, emotional capabilities and experiences to optimise performance and reduce skills gaps.
Bruns [69]	Strategic management	HRM and PM act as a strategic driver of modernisation, integrating people, processes and capabilities to align organisational change and generate differentiated impacts on management.
Mak et al. [70]	Sustainable practices	The incorporation of Confucian values into HRM promotes sustainable people management practices, highlighting the convergence between Western sustainability and Chinese organisational culture.
Jacobsen et al. [71]	Work environment and well-being policies	The concept of overlapping professional life highlights the need to integrate HRM, the work environment and welfare policies in order to strategically manage modern professional life, simultaneously addressing the roles of individual, employee and citizen.
Dörhöfer [72]	Knowledge management	The integration of knowledge management into HRM transforms people management, connecting formal and informal practices to promote the creation, sharing and strategic application of knowledge in organisations.
Dalton & Kennedy [73]	Leadership	The study reveals how Romanian companies and organisations absorb and adapt international HRM and leadership practices, showing the interaction between heterogeneous organisational experiences and national management culture.
Bredin [74]	Projects and capabilities	The article proposes a conceptual framework for HRM in project-based organisations, integrating “people capacity” with strategic, functional and project capabilities to optimise people management and organisational performance.
Dickmann et al. [75]	Strategic innovation	HRM in international consultancies differs between classic professional partnerships and managed professional companies, strategically integrating people and organisational practices to generate competitive advantage in the global context.
Marlow [76]	Organisational performance	HRM, although widely debated, remains a diffuse concept in small companies, requiring contextualised theorisation to align people management practices with organisational performance and competitiveness.
Taylor & Walley [77]	Resistance to change and strategies	The transition to market economies in Central and Eastern Europe has transformed HRM into a strategic tool for People Management, with multinational subsidiaries leading progressive practices while traditional forces resist change.

provides a summary of the studies that specifically address the differentiation and/or integration between HRM and PM.

The evolution of the field responsible for managing work and people within organisations has been marked by conceptual and terminological shifts that reflect economic, social, and organisational changes [78]. Initially, this field was associated with what was known as ‘personnel administration’, the predominant approach until the mid-20th century, characterised by an operational, bureaucratic, and legalistic focus centred on compliance with labour legislation, control of the workforce and administrative activities such as payroll and personnel records [40,79]. People Management (PM) is characterised by an individual-centred approach, whose fundamental concerns focus on psychological, behavioural, and developmental dimensions within the organisational context. In this sense, PM devotes special attention to employee motivation, understood as one of the main determinants of performance and engagement at work, and widely discussed in the organisational behaviour literature [75]. At the same time, the study of organisational behaviour constitutes another central concern, seeking to understand how attitudes, perceptions and interactions influence team dynamics and organisational outcomes. Furthermore, PM places emphasis on individual development, promoting skills acquisition, continuous learning and career management, recognising the role of human capital as a key element in organisational sustainability [40]. Well-being at work also stands out as a central pillar, encompassing satisfaction, psychological health, and work–life balance—aspects that have been increasingly valued in contemporary organisational contexts [79]. Thus, People Management establishes itself as an approach of a predominantly humanistic nature, centred on valuing the individual and promoting conditions that foster their holistic development at work. This perspective differs, albeit not entirely, from Human Resource Management (HRM), which tends to integrate these dimensions within a more strategic framework geared towards organisational performance, contributing to the frequent conceptual overlap between the two terms in contemporary literature [41,80].

It can be argued that Human Resource Management (HRM) encompasses and reinterprets the core concerns of Personnel Management (PM), insofar as it incorporates traditional dimensions such as motivation, organisational behaviour, individual development, and well-being at work, whilst framing them within a strategic perspective geared towards organisational performance [67]. The overlap between the two concepts stems from the historical evolution of the personnel function, as well as the growing integration between humanistic and instrumental approaches to management [80]. Thus, whilst PM favours an individual-centred view, HRM broadens this focus by aligning people management with organisational objectives, contributing to the frequent conceptual indistinguishability between the two terms in contemporary literature [40,41]. This convergence highlights an evolution of the field towards more integrative models, in which the individual is no longer perceived exclusively as a productive resource but is instead considered a central element for organisational and social sustainability.

Against this backdrop of transformation, the incorporation of immersive technologies, such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) and mixed reality (MR), emerges as a logical extension of this conceptual evolution. These technologies have been progressively applied in HRM processes, particularly in recruitment, selection, training, skills development, organisational socialisation and the promotion of diversity and inclusion [8,10]. By enabling simulated, interactive, and contextualised experiences, immersive technologies foster experiential and reflective learning, aligned with humanistic and individual-centred approaches [75,81].

In this sense, HRM structures people management policies and practices aligned with organizational objectives, focusing on performance, skills, and strategic adaptation, while PM emphasizes the human dimension of work, including motivation, development, well-being, and organizational culture. Despite these differences, both converge in practice: HRM provides the formal management systems, and PM reinforces the centrality of the person and the cultural and relational aspects. This integration reflects the evolution of people management from an administrative model to a strategic and humanistic approach, reinforced by digital contexts and emerging technologies.

3.2.2. Distinctions Between HRM and PM: Conceptual, Functional, and Strategic Perspectives

In the context of contemporary management, understanding the distinctions between Human Resource Management (HRM) and People Management (PM) is essential for the development of more strategic, people-centred and adaptive organisations. Thus, these differences are analysed from conceptual, functional, and strategic perspectives, highlighting both the uniqueness of each approach and their opportunities for convergence, particularly considering immersive technologies.

Conceptually, HRM focuses on objective and measurable practices geared towards productivity and organisational performance, whilst PM favours a more subjective approach, centred on holistic development and the employee experience [82]. HRM is predominantly strategic, geared towards aligning people management policies with medium- and long-term organisational objectives, treating employees as assets whose performance, skills and engagement contribute directly to achieving sustainable competitive advantages [1,83]. In contrast, PM adopts a humanistic, relational, and experiential approach, valuing well-being, the meaning of work, individual trajectories, interpersonal relationships, and the personalisation of management practices, drawing on socio-technical perspectives and positive organisational psychology [84]. Whilst HRM seeks to maximise the human contribution to strategy, PM seeks to harmonise organisational objectives with the holistic development of people, promoting dignity, autonomy, and enriching experiences.

Functionally, HRM is based on systemic, integrated and performance-oriented models, such as strategic HRM, competency-based management, high-performance work systems (HPWS) and talent and succession management, prioritising internal coherence, strategic alignment, and a central role for line managers [79,85]. PM, on the other hand, adopts flexible and adaptive models, including servant leadership, participatory practices and approaches centred on the employee experience, conceiving management as a continuous relational process in which dialogue, trust and co-creation are essential [36].

The distinction between HRM and PM can be understood through four interrelated dimensions: the prevailing logic, the role of the manager, management models, and expected outcomes. In HRM, the dominant logic is instrumental and technical, focused on efficiency, measurement, and control of results; in PM, a humanistic and relational logic predominates, centred on experience, the meaning of work and the valuing of the individual [79,84]. As for the role of the manager, HRM conceives of them as a policy implementer and strategy executor, whilst PM defines them as a facilitator, mediator, and developer of people, promoting trust, autonomy, and co-creation [85]. In terms of management models, HRM favours integrated systems aligned with strategy, whilst PM adopts flexible, participatory approaches centred on the employee experience [83]. Finally, regarding expected outcomes, HRM emphasises efficiency, productivity, and organisational performance, whereas PM values engagement, well-being, human development, and the quality of workplace relationships [63,72].

Immersive technologies—virtual, augmented, and mixed reality—represent a new axis of convergence and differentiation. In HRM, they serve as strategic tools for training, skills development, leadership simulations, performance appraisal, structured onboarding, and knowledge management, promoting efficiency, scalability, and standardisation [8,10,85]. In PM, they take on an experiential and relational role, fostering empathy, socio-emotional development, engagement, psychological well-being, and the personalisation of learning experiences, shifting people management from a technical paradigm to a humanised, individual-centred paradigm [9,86]. It is important to emphasize that the integration between HRM and PM, mediated by immersive technologies, has impacts that go beyond the organizational level, directly affecting individual experiences and team processes [10]. At the individual level, these technologies tend to increase engagement, experiential learning, and personalized development, but they can also reduce the perception of autonomy due to increased monitoring, as well as generate cognitive overload, digital fatigue, and concerns about privacy and control [8,10,47,77]. At the team level, improvements in collaboration, communication, and coordination are observed in virtual and hybrid environments, especially through simulations and immersive spaces that reinforce collective learning and relational proximity, although risks of depersonalization of interactions, weakening of trust, and technological dependence persist [75]. Thus, the literature shows that immersive technologies simultaneously reconfigure the worker experience and team dynamics, introducing gains in terms of engagement and collaboration, but also new tensions associated with control, well-being, and the quality of work relationships. This study shows that, although HRM and PM differ in their rationales, functions, and impacts, both complement each other and present opportunities for convergence, particularly with the incorporation of immersive technologies (Figure 5).

The proposed model structures the relationship between Human Resource Management (HRM) and People Management (PM) in an integrated way, highlighting how immersive technologies function as a mediating element between an instrumental logic and a humanistic logic. The model’s architecture follows a systemic logic of inputs, processes, and outputs, enriched by critical conditions, enabling factors, and limiting factors, which increases its analytical rigor [37,47].

In the inputs block, four fundamental dimensions are identified: (i) organization (strategy, culture, structure, and digital maturity), (ii) people (skills, expectations, diversity, and well-being), (iii) immersive technologies (VR, AR, RM, data, and analytics), and (iv) governance and policies (ethics, privacy, compliance, and usage guidelines). These inputs configure the initial conditions that shape the possibility of integration between HRM and PM [3,41].

In the processes, the model highlights a complementary duality. On one hand, HRM operates under an instrumental logic, focused on efficiency, performance, and strategic alignment (workforce planning, competency management, performance evaluation, talent management). On the other hand, HR adopts a humanistic logic, oriented towards the employee experience, well-being, empathetic leadership, and co-creation. Immersive technologies act as a bridge between these two logics, simultaneously enabling standardization and personalization, data analysis and socio-emotional development, scale and relational depth [1,63].

The outputs reflect multi-level results: organizational (strategic alignment, innovation, sustainable performance), individual (engagement, well-being, human development), management (more informed decisions, process integration), and systemic/ecosystemic (reputation, sustainability, and social impact) [2,55,77]. The model advances by explicitly outlining the conditions under which integration effectively occurs, highlighting: clear strategic alignment, a culture of trust, committed leadership, adequate technological infrastructure, digital and human skills, data and systems integration, and balanced metrics between performance and experience. In other words, technology only facilitates integration when inserted into a coherent and prepared organizational context [15,36,55].

In addition, it identifies enabling factors, such as clear purpose, data quality, technological usability, process integration, and people-centricity—organized in a value cycle that articulates technology, data, and human experience [4,5,63]. On the other hand, the model also recognizes limiting factors, which reinforces its analytical rigor: fragmented vision between HR and PM, use of technology as an end (and not as a means), resistance to change, skills deficit, low data quality, ethical and privacy issues, lack of adequate metrics, information overload, and cultural misalignment [3,5,62].

In summary, this is an integrative and contingent model, demonstrating that the convergence between HRM and PM is neither automatic nor technological per se, but depends on specific organizational, cultural, and analytical conditions. Immersive technologies emerge as catalysts—not determinants—of a simultaneously strategic and humanized management approach [41,44,63].

Thus, HRM and PM differ primarily on three levels. Conceptually, HRM is more instrumental and performance-oriented, focused on strategic alignment, while PM is more humanistic, centred on employee experience, well-being, and holistic development. Functionally, HRM relies on formal, results-oriented systems (such as performance and talent management), while PM prioritizes flexible, participatory, and relational approaches. Strategically, HRM focuses on organizational efficiency and performance, while PM emphasizes engagement, quality of relationships, and human development. Despite these differences, both converge in practice, especially with the use of immersive technologies, which in HRM support efficiency and standardization and in PM promote more personalized, empathetic, and person-centred experiences.

Although Figure 5 presents the integration between HRM and PM as a progressive and relatively harmonious process, in which immersive technologies act as a vector of convergence between both approaches, this visual representation relies on a functionalist and linear logic that tends to soften the structural tensions involved. By implicitly suggesting that technology leads to integration—that is, that the adoption of immersive environments automatically triggers the convergence between instrumental and humanistic rationalities—the model risks obscuring the socio-technical complexity that characterizes the real implementation of these systems. This reading, while useful as a conceptual synthesis, needs to be complemented by a critical analysis that recognizes that corporate virtual worlds are not neutral spaces, but configurations shaped by pre-existing institutional logics, where the dispute between efficiency and experience remains active and structuring, as we will see below.

3.2.3. Sociotechnical Configurations and Paradoxes in the Mediation of Immersive Technologies Between HRM and PM

Understanding the distinctions between HRM and PM becomes substantially more complex when one recognizes that the adoption of immersive technologies is deeply conditioned by the institutional logics that structure each organization. Technologies do not determine integration, but function as mediators embedded in specific organizational contexts, which implies that corporate virtual worlds do not emerge as neutral spaces, but as socio-technical extensions of already consolidated managerial rationalities. Thus, the design, governance, and algorithmic architecture of these environments reflect—and often amplify—previous orientations associated with efficiency, measurement, and control (typical of HRM) or with experience, development, and subjectivity (characteristics of PM) [1,3,4,5,6,12,39]. In organizations driven by instrumental rationalities, Virtual Reality tends to reinforce mechanisms of surveillance, standardization, and behavioural monitoring, expanding the logic of HRM centred on metrics and strategic alignment [43,49]. In contrast, organizations with a humanistic orientation configure the same technology to promote autonomy, experiential learning, and socio-emotional development, approaching the premises of PM [40,52].

This endogeneity reveals that corporate virtual worlds constitute socio-technical arenas where structural tensions are negotiated, and not mere tools for integrating management models. The literature analysed demonstrates that immersive technologies simultaneously reconfigure the worker experience and team dynamics, introducing gains, but also new tensions associated with control and well-being, showing that the dispute between efficiency and experience is inscribed in the technological materiality itself [8,10,18]. Algorithmic mediation introduces central paradoxes: the personalization of learning experiences—widely valued by studies on VR and AR [9,11,42]—depends on the intensive collection of biometric, emotional, and behavioural data, amplifying concerns about privacy, surveillance, and power asymmetry [3,41]. Similarly, experiential learning, while increasing engagement and knowledge retention [13,14], can simultaneously reinforce algorithmic control mechanisms, since each action in the virtual environment is recorded, quantified, and potentially used for performance evaluation [10,87].

In this sense, immersive technologies do not function as neutral bridges between HRM and PM, but as paradoxical mediators that can simultaneously humanize and intensify control, expand autonomy and reinforce surveillance, promote well-being and generate cognitive overload [47,77]. Technological mediation reconfigures the psychological contract by introducing new ambiguities: the promise of personalized experiences coexists with the possibility of continuous monitoring; the offer of immersive learning coexists with the expansion of algorithmic metrics; the valorisation of subjectivity coexists with the objectification of behaviours into data [46,48]. Thus, the integration between HRM and PM depends less on the technology itself and more on how institutional logics shape the socio-technical configuration of virtual worlds, determining whether these environments reinforce instrumental rationalities or expand humanistic practices. The dispute between efficiency and experience, therefore, is not resolved by technology—it is reproduced, intensified, and renegotiated within it.

Figure 6 summarizes the critical socio-technical reading, showing that the integration between HRM and PM depends on the institutional logics that shape the use of immersive technologies. The diagram highlights how the design, governance, and algorithmic architecture of corporate virtual environments materialize instrumental or humanistic rationalities, generating paradoxes between personalization and privacy, learning and control, autonomy and standardization. These paradoxes reconfigure the psychological contract between employer and employee, producing contingent results—reinforcement of the HRM logic, the PM logic, or hybrid forms marked by structural tensions.

Table 2. Socio-technical Configurations and Paradoxes in the Mediation of Immersive Technologies between HRM and PM.

Sociotechnical Element	Synthetic Description	Effect on HRM–PM Integration	References
Pre-existing Institutional Logics	Instrumental (efficiency, control) or humanistic (experience, development) rationalities that precede the technology.	Shape expectations, metrics, and possible uses of VR/AR.	[1,3,4,5,6,12,39]
Sociotechnical Configuration of Technology	Design, governance, algorithmic architecture, rules of use, and data integration.	Materialize and amplify pre-existing rationalities.	[3,10,41,42,63,87]
Mediation Paradoxes	Structural tensions: personalization—privacy; learning—control; autonomy—standardization.	Create tensions that simultaneously affect experience and performance.	[8,9,10,11,18,42,47,77]
Algorithmic Psychological Contract	Ambiguity, power asymmetry, continuous monitoring, and algorithmic expectations.	Reconfigure perceptions of fairness, trust, and autonomy.	[3,41,46,48]
Contingent Results	Reinforcement of HRM, reinforcement of PM, or tensional hybridization.	Integration is not determined; it depends on the dominant institutional logic.	[40,43,49,52,77]

presents the sociotechnical mechanisms that shape the mediation of immersive technologies and shows that integration depends not only on favourable internal conditions, but also on how institutional logics, technological configurations, mediation paradoxes, and algorithmically structured psychological contracts shape the use of VR/AR. In this way, it highlights that corporate virtual worlds are configurations shaped by pre-existing rationalities, capable of producing contingent results.

3.2.4. Immersive Technologies as Catalysts for Integration Between HRM and PM

In recent years, both organisational practice and research in Human Resource Management (HRM) have increasingly explored the role of immersive technologies, such as virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) and other forms of extended reality (XR), including mixed reality [62], in transforming traditional practices of work and people management. Beyond their instrumental use, these technologies are emerging as socio-technical infrastructures capable of reconfiguring the experiences of learning, development and interaction between individuals and organisations, contributing to a progressive convergence between the fields of HRM and People Management (PM) [79,87]. In this sense, it is proposed that immersive technologies function as mediating mechanisms that foster integration between historically distinct logics—the instrumental, performance-oriented logic, and the humanistic logic, centred on experience and human development.

The literature has identified VR and AR as promising technologies for supporting various HRM processes, including training, onboarding, recruitment, and organisational development [2,88]. These technologies are distinguished by their ability to simulate realistic environments and provide high levels of interactivity, enabling individuals to experience complex work situations in controlled and safe contexts. This feature simultaneously facilitates the learning and assessment of both technical and behavioural skills. In this context, VR has been widely used as a training and development platform, demonstrating the potential to enhance training effectiveness by enabling the repeated practice of skills in simulated scenarios, without the risks associated with the physical environment [11,42].

Beyond specific applications, the effects of immersive technologies can be understood through three interrelated analytical dimensions. Firstly, in the dimension of operational efficiency, which is more closely aligned with HRM, these technologies contribute to the standardisation, scalability, and optimisation of processes, as in the case of structured onboarding and performance appraisal in simulated environments [87]. Secondly, in the dimension of experience and engagement, which is closer to PM, VR and AR enable the creation of immersive, personalised and emotionally meaningful experiences, promoting engagement, well-being, and knowledge retention [89]. Thirdly, a dimension of socio-technical integration emerges, in which these technologies simultaneously articulate organisational objectives and individual needs, contributing to the hybridisation of management practices [86,90].

Empirical evidence supports this integrative perspective by demonstrating that the use of immersive technologies can: improve the onboarding experience and facilitate the cultural adaptation of new employees, reducing anxiety levels [11,86]; make recruitment processes more interactive and rigorous by simulating real-life work scenarios [45]; enhance skills development and continuous learning through immersive and repeatable experiences [2,91,92]; and strengthen relational closeness in remote or hybrid work contexts, contributing to the strengthening of organisational culture [89].

Ferreira et al. [62] also point out that most studies report positive impacts of VR and AR in key areas such as Learning and Development and Performance Management, which have traditionally been treated separately within the scope of HRM and PM. This trend suggests a reconfiguration of the functional boundaries of people management, in which previously separate practices are now being integrated through shared technological solutions [45]. Despite its transformative potential, it is important to recognise that the adoption of immersive technologies also raises significant challenges. Issues relating to privacy, excessive monitoring, inequalities in technological access and possible effects of cognitive overload or digital fatigue must be critically considered [10,87]. Furthermore, there is a risk of the employee experience being instrumentalised, whereby subjective dimensions are captured and used predominantly for control and performance purposes, which may undermine the humanistic promise associated with HRM.

Immersive technologies should therefore not be viewed merely as operational tools to support HRM, but as socio-technical mechanisms that facilitate the integration of organisational efficiency and the human experience [10]. By promoting the integration of performance metrics and subjective dimensions of work, these technologies contribute to the emergence of hybrid management models, in which HRM and PM cease to be dichotomous approaches and instead constitute interdependent dimensions of the same system [87,88].

In contrast to Table 2, where socio-technical mechanisms shape the mediation of immersive technologies,

Table 3. Favorable and limiting organizational conditions for the integration of Human Resource Management and People Management through Immersive Technologies.

Condition	Type of Condition	References
Clear strategic alignment between HRM and People Management	Favorable	[1,55]
Organizational culture based on trust and collaboration	Favorable	[15,36]
Committed and people-centred leadership	Favorable	[40,81]
Adequate technological infrastructure (VR, AR, data and analytics)	Favorable	[3,63]
Integration between HR systems, data and processes	Favorable	[8,41]
Development of digital and human skills	Favorable	[4,47]
Balanced metrics between performance and employee experience	Favorable	[2,77]
Clear purpose and people-centric orientation	Favorable	[43,48]
Data quality and governance (ethics, privacy and compliance)	Favorable	[3,5]
Technological usability and integration with organizational processes	Favorable	[10,11]
Lack of strategic alignment between HRM and People Management	Limiting	[12,39]
Organizational culture resistant to change	Limiting	[58,60]
Use of technology as an end and not as a means	Limiting	[37,63]
Deficit of digital and analytical skills	Limiting	[47,61]
Low quality or fragmentation of data	Limiting	[5,42]
Ethical, privacy and governance problems	Limiting	[3,41]
Absence of adequate metrics (performance vs. experience)	Limiting	[77,80]
Information overload and low analytical capacity	Limiting	[44,46]
Lack of integration between systems and processes	Limiting	[7,8]
Cultural and structural misalignment	Limiting	[1,36]

presents the organizational conditions that facilitate or limit the integration between HRM and PM (such as strategic alignment, culture, leadership, metrics, and data quality).

The appropriate conditions represent the elements that enhance this integration. Initially, a clear strategic alignment between HR and PM stands out, essential to ensure coherence between organizational objectives and management practices [1,55]. This alignment is reinforced by an organizational culture based on trust and collaboration, which supports environments conducive to innovation and the use of emerging technologies [15,36]. Committed and people-centred leadership also emerges as a decisive factor, as it guides technological adoption in an ethical and strategic way [40,81]. Additionally, the presence of an adequate technological infrastructure, combined with the integration of systems, data, and processes, constitutes the operational basis for the implementation of immersive solutions [3,8,41,63]. However, such resources only become effective when accompanied by the development of digital and human skills, allowing employees to use technologies critically and productively [4,47]. Another relevant aspect refers to the adoption of balanced analyses that simultaneously consider organizational performance and employee experience, overcoming exclusively quantitative models [2,77]. The table also highlights the importance of factors such as clear organizational purpose, people-centred orientation, data quality and governance, and technological usability, which are important for creating an integrated ecosystem in which technology, data, and human experience are synergistically articulated [3,5,10,11,43,48].

On the other hand, the limiting conditions reveal the main obstacles to the integration between HR, PM, and immersive technologies. The lack of strategic alignment and cultural and structural misalignment compromise the coherence of organizational initiatives, hindering the consistent adoption of innovations [1,12,36,39]. Resistance to change, often associated with organizational cultures, also presents significant barriers [58,60]. Another critical challenge is the use of technology as an end, rather than a means to improve processes and experiences, which can lead to ineffective investments that are misaligned with organizational needs [37,63]. Furthermore, the deficit in digital skills, low data quality, and lack of system integration limit the analytical and operational capacity of organizations [5,7,8,42,47,61]. Issues related to ethics, privacy, and data governance also stand out as critical factors, especially given the intensive use of digital technologies in people management [3,41]. Added to this is the lack of humidity variations, information overload, and the difficulty in transforming data into useful knowledge, which compromises decision-making [44,46,77,80].

Thus, the integrated analysis of the conditions presented in the table allows us to understand that the convergence between HR and PM, mediated by immersive technologies, is a contingent and multidimensional process.

In summary, immersive technologies (VR, AR, and XR) act as catalysts for the integration between HRM and PM, combining efficiency and standardization of processes with more personalized, interactive, and employee-centric experiences. In HRM, they support training, onboarding, and performance evaluation; in PM, they promote engagement, well-being, and human development. This convergence creates hybrid management models, but depends on conditions such as strategic alignment, organizational culture, leadership, technological infrastructure, and digital skills, and is also limited by factors such as resistance to change, skills deficits, and ethical issues.

3.2.5. Current Trends and Challenges

Recent changes in the world of work have driven a paradigm shift in Human Resource Management (HRM) and People Management (PM) practices, reflecting a transition from models centred on control and mechanical efficiency towards more humanised, strategic, and technology-mediated approaches [69,79]. This set of transformations can be understood in the light of a socio-technical dynamic, in which digital technologies, social changes and organisational practices converge to redefine the boundaries between HRM and PM. This evolution stems from the intensification of digitalisation, growing organisational complexity and the valuing of human capital as a central source of sustainable competitive advantage [1,7,83].

Digital transformation and immersive technologies. Digital transformation is one of the key drivers of this restructuring, simultaneously influencing the fields of HRM and PM. The use of artificial intelligence (AI), people analytics, automation and immersive technologies has been redefining practices such as recruitment, selection, training, performance appraisal and skills development [8,56]. Within HRM, these technologies enhance efficiency, standardisation, and predictive capabilities, enabling more informed decisions aligned with strategic objectives [55,62]. On the other hand, in PM, digital technologies—virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR) and extended reality (XR)—broaden the experiential and relational focus of management, promoting immersive learning, the development of socio-emotional skills and the personalisation of career paths [15,81,90].

These technological transformations do not occur in isolation; they are deeply intertwined with broader social and organisational challenges, particularly in the areas of diversity and leadership. In this sense, immersive technologies can be understood as socio-technical mediators, fostering a hybridisation between the instrumental logic of HRM and the humanistic logic of PM [89,91]. However, this very mediation introduces significant tensions: whilst, on the one hand, it allows for greater personalisation and engagement, on the other, it may reinforce processes of worker ‘datafication’, intensify control and surveillance mechanisms, and generate technological dependency [91]. Furthermore, despite the identified potential, the adoption of VR and AR remains in its early stages in many organisational contexts [55]. Qamar et al. [66] highlight that HRM professionals’ familiarity with these technologies is still limited, necessitating the development of specific skills, adequate infrastructure, and consistent organisational support. The integration of these technologies into environments such as the metaverse opens new possibilities for collaborative experiences and immersive remote learning, enabling the creation of virtual spaces for training, onboarding and collaboration among geographically dispersed teams [55,89]. This development represents significant potential for deepening the convergence between HRM and PM.

Additionally, the intensive use of digital and immersive technologies can contribute to phenomena of digital fatigue and cognitive overload, especially when associated with hyperconnectivity and the continuous demand for adaptation to new systems [8,47]. These factors tend to negatively impact employee well-being and experience, contradicting the promise of more engaging and humanized work environments [77,80]. In parallel, relevant ethical challenges emerge, particularly regarding privacy, algorithm transparency, and data governance, which call into question organizational trust and the legitimacy of management practices [41,63].

Finally, it is important to consider the risk of instrumentalizing human experience, insofar as technologies designed to improve engagement and learning can be appropriated as tools for control and performance enhancement, emptying their emancipatory potential [8,60,92]. Thus, the integration between HRM and People Management mediated by immersive technologies must be critically analysed, recognizing not only its transformative potential but also the tensions and paradoxes it introduces into contemporary organizational dynamics.

Diversity, inclusion, and organisational justice. Diversity, inclusion, and organisational justice are emerging as critical dimensions in this reconfiguration. From an HRM perspective, these issues translate into the need to develop formal policies and systems that ensure equitable practices throughout the employee lifecycle, reducing biases and structural inequalities [93,94]. Digitalisation can support this objective, particularly through AI systems applied to recruitment and assessment, but it can also reproduce or amplify existing discrimination if algorithms are not carefully designed and monitored [89,90]. From a PM perspective, diversity and inclusion are linked to the creation of psychologically safe environments, the recognition of individual differences, and the promotion of a sense of belonging. In this context, immersive technologies have been explored as tools for developing empathy and raising awareness, enabling simulations of experiences lived by minority groups [93,94]. Nevertheless, there remains a risk that such initiatives may amount to symbolic or superficial practices, not integrated into a consistent organisational strategy, which raises questions about the authenticity and effectiveness of these approaches.

Leadership, engagement, and new working models. The evolution of leadership and engagement models constitutes another key dimension at the interface between HRM and PM, particularly in a hybrid and digitalised working environment. HRM influences leadership through formal systems of development, assessment, and succession, promoting alignment between leadership behaviours and strategic objectives [16]. In contrast, PL emphasises more relational, participatory, and transformational leadership styles, geared towards human development, well-being, and engagement [94,95]. In this context, digital and immersive technologies play an increasing role in the training and development of leaders. VR simulation environments enable the training of complex skills, such as conflict management, decision-making under pressure and interpersonal communication, integrating objective performance metrics with subjective and reflective experiences [92]. However, the increasing technological mediation of leadership poses additional challenges, including the risk of depersonalisation of relationships, digital fatigue, and difficulties in maintaining authenticity and closeness in interactions.

Taken together, these trends point to a structural transformation in contemporary work management, characterised by the convergence of digital technologies, social dynamics, and organisational practices [91,93]. In this context, HRM and PM cease to be dichotomous approaches and instead emerge as complementary dimensions of the same socio-technical system [94], in which efficiency, experience and equity become interdependent elements. By highlighting this hybridisation of logics and the role of technologies as mediators of this integration, the present framework contributes to the advancement of the literature by proposing a more integrated, dynamic, and critical reading of people management in the contemporary context.

Trends in HRM and PM reflect digitalization and the increasing use of immersive technologies, which enhance efficiency in HRM and enrich the experience and development in PM, acting as a bridge between both approaches. However, they also bring risks such as surveillance, loss of privacy, digital fatigue, cognitive overload, and the potential dehumanization of work. Despite this, themes such as diversity, inclusion, and leadership are becoming more central, demanding strategic consistency.

4. Conclusions

Through a systematic literature review (SLR), this study highlights the complexity and evolution of Human Resource Management (HRM) and People Management (PM) approaches, emphasizing their conceptual, functional, and strategic differences. While traditional HRM focuses on administrative and operational processes, PM adopts a strategic perspective centred on human development, promoting engagement, continuous learning, and alignment with organizational objectives. The results also reveal opportunities for convergence between these approaches, particularly through the integration of immersive technologies—such as virtual, augmented, and mixed reality—into employee training, development, and engagement practices. These technologies enable more interactive, personalized, and effective learning experiences, with the potential to enhance individual and organizational performance.

This study contributes theoretically by systematizing the differences and similarities between HRM and PM, offering an analytical framework to guide future research on organizational innovation and strategic people management. In practice, it provides insights to help managers and organizations rethink their human development policies and programs, promoting solutions that combine operational efficiency with the enhancement of human capital. In summary, the findings reinforce the need to adapt HRM and PM practices to digital transformation, encouraging the adoption of immersive technologies that strengthen skills, engagement, and organizational results while also paving the way for future research on the effectiveness, applicability, and limitations of these innovative tools.

Immersive technologies—such as virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality—are emerging as catalysts for the integration between HRM and PM, allowing traditionally administrative practices to incorporate socio-emotional, well-being, and experiential learning dimensions. In addition, the reviewed literature points to emerging trends such as strengthening human capital, developing leadership, promoting diversity and inclusion, adopting sustainable practices, and adapting to new hybrid and digital work models. Furthermore, the results show that the integration between HRM and PM depends not only on favourable organizational conditions but also on how immersive technologies are configured and interpreted in their contexts of use. The analysis showed that VR/AR operate as socio-technical mediators that reflect and amplify pre-existing institutional rationalities, introducing paradoxes between personalization and privacy, learning and control, and autonomy and standardization. These mechanisms reconfigure the worker experience and the psychological contract, producing contingent results that can reinforce instrumental approaches, strengthen humanistic orientations, or generate hybrid forms marked by structural tensions. This perspective deepens the understanding of the convergence between HRM and PM, demonstrating that it is less a direct effect of technological adoption and more a dynamic process shaped by institutional logics, algorithmic mediation, and organizational practices.

Limitations of the study. Despite the methodological efforts undertaken, this study presents some limitations that should be considered in the interpretation of the results. First, the search strategy relied on two databases and included only publications in English, which may have excluded relevant studies published in other languages or indexed in other sources, thus limiting the overall representativeness of the sample. Second, the predominance of cross-sectional studies restricts the ability to infer causal relationships between the concepts analysed. In addition, the inclusion of reviews along with primary studies may result in double counting of results; to mitigate this effect, a careful approach was implemented to identify and separate redundant data, although some degree of overlap may persist. Taken together, these limitations highlight the need for caution when generalizing the results and suggest that future research should incorporate multiple databases, multilingual approaches, and longitudinal studies. From a methodological point of view, there is a scarcity of qualitative and mixed-methods research that captures the subjective perceptions of workers and leaders regarding Human Resource Management (HRM) and People Management (PM).

Suggested agenda for future research. The results provide a basis for outlining a future research agenda focusing on HRM and PM, summarizing the main guidelines emerging from the inductive analyses (

Table 4. Suggestions for future research.

Appearance	HRM	PM
Focus	Investigate how the strategic and results-oriented approach can be adjusted in dynamic and disruptive contexts.	Explore how human experience-centred approaches impact satisfaction, retention, and productivity in different organisational cultures.
People’s vision	Study how the perception of people as “strategic assets” affects ethics, motivation, and perception of value.	Investigate strategies to reconcile individual needs and values with organisational goals, especially in contexts of diversity and inclusion.
Central objective	Research the effectiveness of practices that align strategy and organisational performance in different sectors.	Evaluate methodologies to promote sustainable human development and balance individual and collective goals.
Management models	Analyse the integration of systemic models and HPWS with artificial intelligence and data analysis to optimise strategic HR decisions.	Explore participatory and humanised approaches in remote/hybrid contexts, evaluating impacts on engagement, creativity, and well-being.
Role of the manager	Investigate how managers can balance the role of strategic implementers with empathetic leadership in high-pressure environments.	Study mediation, facilitation, and coaching skills to maximise people development and collaboration in interdisciplinary teams.
Immersive technologies	Research the effectiveness of strategic immersive tools (VR/AR) in improving organisational performance and efficiency.	Evaluate how experiential-relational technologies promote empathy, motivation, and well-being at work.
Dominant logic	Analyse the limits of instrumental and strategic logic in highly complex and rapidly changing contexts.	Investigate how socio-technical and humanistic approaches increase resilience and innovation in teams.
Expected outcome	Explore metrics to measure the competitive advantage resulting from strategic HR management, including the return on investment of development programmes.	Study the impacts of engagement and meaning of work on sustainable performance, mental health, and talent retention.

), as well as the cross-cutting themes that connect them.

The convergence between Human Resource Management (HRM) and People Management (PM), enhanced by immersive technologies, represents a promising path for organizations seeking to balance organizational efficiency, engagement, human development, and sustainable innovation.