How do line managers differentiate HRM practices in multidisciplinary teams without compromising perceptions of equity and fairness?

This thesis examines how line managers differentiate Human Resource Management (HRM) practices in multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) without compromising assumptions of fairness. Line managers in contemporary team-working workplaces must respond to the needs of individuals with normal, equal treatment. This research investigates three MDTs in two organizations in Kyrgyzstan, drawing on seven semi-structured interviews with line managers and employees. From thematic analysis, four over-arching themes were identified: HRM Differentiation Strategies, Justification and Communication, Fairness Perceptions, and the Evolving Role of the Line Manager. The findings show that differentiated HRM-i.e., special support, training, or rewards-is common and widely accepted if perceived as fair. Workers did not expect to be treated equally but welcomed proportionality and situational suitability. Communication that was respectful and open was discovered to be a key motivation for legitimizing differentiated decisions and maintaining trust. The study contributes to the theory of HRM by emphasizing the importance of interactional justice in teams, where not just outcomes but also explanations and delivery of decisions contribute to determining fairness. The study also offers empirical support for the fairness-consistency paradox in that it illustrates how managers reconcile the tension between flexibility and impartiality. Practically, the research suggests that effective differentiation in HRM requires situational awareness, emotional intelligence, and good communication skills. These implications guide the managers attempting to build trust based on coherence and fairness in multidisciplinary teams.