ABSTRACT. The article presents empirical research results referring to the architecture of HR function by locating the decision-making and executive powers in 100 capital groups operating in Poland at the background of capital group definitions, their Polish origins, as well as the discussion focused on the leading role performed by a holding company determining the capital group type. The latter, in the perspective of model oriented studies presented in literature references, constitutes the crucial determinant for HR function architecture in an organizational structure of a group. The research results presented in the article, however, do not confirm the presented thesis, which seems to result mainly from the short history and the specific nature of capital groups establishment in Poland.JEL Classification M54, M59, Z1Keywords: human resources management, capital group, organic function.IntroductionIn the conditions of turbulent environment economic units, attempting to meet the set goals and perform functions subject to these goals, become involved in numerous and diverse, either direct or indirect, relations with other enterprises. A capital group represents such an example. Managing it is, beyond any doubt, a difficult process if compared to a single company management. A holding company management does not have the possibility for issuing direct orders addressed to other companies in a group which constitute independent and legally separate economic entities. The effectiveness of management in a capital group is correlated, on the one hand, with the choice of a holding company leading role and, on the other, with defining the areas of its interference in management processes of the subsidiary companies and the selection of adequate instruments. All the above-mentioned problems, in the context of decision-making and executive powers, determine the architecture (location) of management processes in a group. The article focuses on one aspect, i.e. human resources management, manifested in the realization of HR function. It was presented in the perspective of empirical studies conducted, in 2013, in 100 capital groups in Poland. The main conclusion resulting from the research does not confirm the assumptions published in literature references in the light of which the role of the dominating unit determines the architecture of HR function in the capital group structure.1. Literature review1.1. The concept of a capital groupMulti-entity organizations are established as the result of a given enterprise cooperation with other economic entities. In the conditions of turbulent transformations occurring in their environment economic entities, wishing to meet the set goals and play the underlying functions, enter into numerous and diverse, direct or indirect, relations with other enterprises. The created interdependencies between enterprises decide about the occurrence of multi-entity operations within which each participant takes into account the activities of the others (Lichatrski, 2003, p. 384).Literature references offer different approaches to the typology of multi-entity organizations. They are, however, distinguished based on the main forms of enterprise integration, such as cooperation or concentration forms, and also enterprise division into smaller units. In this context, cooperatives, multi-plant enterprises and economic groups (capital groups) are distinguished among multi-entity economic units.A capital group is a structure comprised of at least two legally independent economic entities of which one (the dominating one - a holding company, a parent company) has the possibility of influencing decisions made by another entity (the dependent one - a subsidiary company, a daughter company) (Kreft, 1999, p. 43). The essence of capital groups functioning is to implement common economic objectives through independent, in legal terms, enterprises persisting in capital relations facilitating active cooperation. …