British Journal of Management, Vol.

33, 410–434 (2022)

DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12570

Surviving Covid-19: The Role of Human

Resource Managers in Shaping
Organizational Responses to Societal
Paradox
Layla Branicki ,1 Senia Kalfa 2
and Stephen Brammer 3
1
Open University Business School, The Open University, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, UK, 2 Macquarie Business
School, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, NSW 2113, Australia, and 3 School of Management, University
of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
Corresponding author email: layla.branicki@open.ac.uk

This study examines the role played by Australian human resource (HR) managers in
shaping organizational responses to the Covid-19 pandemic from the perspective of para-
dox theory. We argue that the Covid-19 crisis triggered a ‘societal paradox’ – protecting
lives and the economy – that cascaded to organizations of all types. While studies sug-
gest paradoxes cross levels of analysis, little is known regarding organizational responses
to a societal paradox entailing interdependent and yet contradictory demands between
socially significant objectives. We focus on HR managers because of their key role in
providing Covid-19 advice and support. Using a combination of cross-sectional survey
data (n = 680) and detailed semi-structured interviews (n = 43), we examine variations
in HR managers’ experience of, and responses to, organizational tensions generated by
societal paradox. We find that HR managers play a key role in shaping whether orga-
nizational responses ‘replicate’ the initial societal paradox, or ‘magnify’ existing latent
paradoxical tensions in the organization. We show how applying a societal lens adds in-
sight to paradox theory, elucidate the HR-related mechanisms that underpin variations
in organizational experiences/responses and produce an inductive model to guide future
studies.

Introduction abkowski et al., 2019, p. 127). Paradox research

Paradox, characterized as ‘contradictory yet in-
terrelated elements embedded in organizing pro-
cesses’ (Smith and Lewis, 2011, p. 389), is of grow-
ing importance within both management (Berti
and Simpson, 2021; Hahn and Knight, 2021; Jarz-
abkowski et al., 2019; Pradies et al., 2021b) and
human resource (HR) scholarship (Beletskiy and
Fey, 2020). An HR focus is common in para-
dox research (see Aust, Brandl and Keegan, 2015;
Ehnert, 2014; Francis and Keegan, 2020; Pradies
et al., 2021b), because HR managers ‘have a
core role in boundary work between different
stakeholders with contradictory objectives’ (Jarz-
has tended to focus on organizational paradoxes
(e.g. Hahn and Knight, 2021; Schad, Lewis and
Smith, 2019), typologize the different forms that
organizational paradoxes can take (Schad, Lewis
and Smith, 2019; Smith and Lewis, 2011), or illu-
minate how organizational actors respond to or-
ganizational paradox (Jarzabkowski and Lê, 2017;
Sheep, Fairhurst and Khazanchi, 2017; Smith and
Lewis, 2011).
However, while research offers insights into
paradoxes that cross intra-organizational (Jarz-
abkowski, Le and Van de Ven, 2013) and
inter-organizational levels of analysis (Jarz-
abkowski et al., 2019), less is known about how

© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 9600 Gars-
ington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
The Role of Human Resource Managers in Shaping Organizational Responses
organizations respond to paradoxes that arise
at the societal level. Existing research has em-
phasized how environmental factors shape the
salience, nature and intensity of organizational
paradoxes (Carmine et al., 2021; Smith and Lewis,
2011). Emerging conceptual work has addressed
the organizational tensions that arose during the
Covid-19 pandemic crisis (Carmine et al., 2021;
Pradies et al., 2021a), suggesting that ‘[b]y focusing
attention on the tensions that organizations expe-
rience during the pandemic and their responses,
the paradox literature can provide shards of clarity
to this otherwise incomprehensible event’.
As the British Journal of Management call for
papers notes, ‘Governments, organizations and de-
cision makers are… pursuing strategies to protect
the lives and health of their citizens and employees
on the one hand and reorienting operations, as well
as providing support to reduce the critical threat
of complete collapsing of established systems on
the other hand’ (Budhwar and Cumming, 2020b,
p. 1). Considering the profound effects of Covid-
19 on societies and organizations (Brammer et al.,
2020; Budhwar and Cumming, 2020a; Verma and
Gustafsson, 2020), we propose that these compet-
ing demands – protecting lives and the economy –
can be understood as a societal paradox. We char-
acterize ‘societal paradox’ as (a) arising at the so-
cietal level of analysis (see Brammer et al., 2020)
and (b) involving interdependent and yet contra-
dictory demands between socially significant ob-
jectives. Little is known about how organizations
respond to societal paradox. Gaps include identi-
fying the mechanisms by which societal paradoxes
are rendered organizationally salient (cf. Knight
and Paroutis, 2017a; Lewis and Smith, 2014) and
empirical insights into organizational experiences
of, and responses to, societal paradox (Carmine
et al., 2021). These gaps are important because
how organizations respond to societal paradox can
be deeply socially consequential. For example, in
the context of Covid-19, how an organization han-
dles the societal paradox can literally be a matter
of life or death.
Considering these gaps we ask, ‘How do HR
managers experience and respond to the organi-
zational tensions generated by societal paradox?
How and why do these experiences and responses
vary?’ We explore these questions using cross-
sectional survey data (n = 680) and detailed semi-
structured interviews (n = 43) focused on HR man-
agers’ experiences and responses during Covid-19.
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
411
Data were collected in Australia between March
and September 2020. The need to keep employees
safe and keep organizations economically viable in
this period generated significant human resource
issues (e.g. decisions around who could work re-
motely), and as a result HR managers became key
‘supporting actors’ (Pradies et al., 2021b) during
the crisis. We therefore draw on HR manager ac-
counts to understand how societal paradox gen-
erates tensions for organizations and their actors,
and to explore the mechanisms that underpin orga-
nizational responses. We make three contributions
through our study: first, we show how applying a
societal lens adds insight to paradox theory; sec-
ond, we elucidate the HR-related mechanisms that
underpin variations in organizational experiences
and responses to societal paradox; and third, we
produce an inductive model to guide future studies.
Literature review
Human resource managers and organizational
paradox
The HR functions, and the activities of HR man-
agers, are often examined in paradox research be-
cause paradoxical tensions arise frequently in the
context of managing people (Aust et al., 2017; Bar-
doel, 2016; Gerpott, 2015). Marchington (2015,
p. 176) notes that ‘HRM has always been located
at the interface of potentially conflicting forces
within organizations’, while Aust et al. (2017,
p. 1) suggest that ‘one cannot imagine an area
where tensions are more evident than in human re-
source management’. Paradoxes are endemic and
persistent features of organizational life (Smith
and Lewis, 2011), taking a wide variety of specific
forms and arising in the context of many organiza-
tional practices, processes, routines and functions
(Cunha and Putnam, 2019). As a meta-theoretical
lens (Lewis and Smith, 2014; Schad et al., 2016),
paradox theory suggests that leadership and
management need to develop the capacities to
simultaneously address opposites to navigate the
multiple competing tensions that organizations
encounter daily (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009;
Miron-Spektor, Erez and Naveh, 2011).
HR scholars (Aust, Brandl and Keegan, 2015;
Aust et al., 2017; Gerpott, 2015) have encoun-
tered and studied many forms of organizational
paradox – learning paradoxes (Das and Teng,
2000; Slawinski and Bansal, 2015), belonging
412
paradoxes (Besharov, 2014; Lüscher and Lewis,
2008; Wareham, Fox and Cano Giner, 2014),
performing paradoxes (Naldi et al., 2007; Pant
and Ramachandran, 2017; Smith, Gonin and
Besharov, 2013), organizing paradoxes (Burgers
et al., 2009; Gebert, Boerner and Kearney, 2010;
Smith and Tushman, 2005; Sundaramurthy and
Lewis, 2003), discursive paradoxes (Mease, 2016)
and pragmatic paradoxes (Berti and Simpson,
2021). In the context of HR, Ehnert (2009, 2014)
highlights paradoxes including the consumption–
reproduction paradox (deploying employees to
organizational objectives while not harming
employees’ wellbeing and health), the efficiency–
responsibility paradox (attending to economic
rationality while retaining social legitimacy) and
the present–future paradox (employees’ needs to-
day and in the future). HR studies have highlighted
contradictions inherent to many routine HR prac-
tices and processes (Daubner-Siva, Vinkenburg
and Jansen, 2017; Fu et al., 2020; Kozica and
Brandl, 2015; Mabey and Zhao, 2017; Poon and
Law, 2020).
The role of human resource managers in navigating
paradox
Paradox theory entails much more than a de-
scriptive research agenda (Lewis, 2000; Smith
and Lewis, 2011) in that how organizations han-
dle paradoxes is understood to shape short- and
long-term organizational performance and success
(Raisch, Hargrave and Van De Ven, 2018; Schad
et al., 2016; Smith and Lewis, 2011; Sundara-
murthy and Lewis, 2003; Tsoukas and Cunha,).
If how paradoxes are ‘handled’ is of significance
to organizational success, then it is surprising
how little we know regarding how organizational
actors ‘work through’ tensions (Bardoel, 2016;
Lüscher and Lewis, 2008; Putnam, Fairhurst and
Banghart,). Conceptually, paradox theory has dis-
tinguished between ‘acceptance’ (Poole and Van
de Ven, 1989; Smith and Lewis, 2011) in which
‘decision-makers distinguish the two poles of a
paradox, accept the resulting tensions and seek
ways to live with this situation, thus keeping the
paradox open’ (Hahn et al., 2015, p. 300) and sep-
aration and synthesis (or ‘integration’) strategies
that address a paradox through temporal or spa-
tial prioritization (‘splitting’) of effort (Smith and
Lewis, 2011). Acknowledgement and recognition
of tensions is the ‘vital groundwork’ (Smith and
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
L. Branicki, S. Kalfa and S. Brammer
Lewis, 2011, p. 392) for their navigation, because
this involves exploring the underlying tensions and
relationships that cause and characterize them. Re-
sponses to paradox in the HR literature are largely
categorized as responsive or defensive (Daubner-
Siva, Vinkenburg and Jansen, 2017), the former
fostering virtuous and the latter vicious cycles.
Examples of pro-active responses are acceptance,
confrontation or transcendence and examples of
defensive responses are suppression, splitting or
regression (see Keegan, Brandl and Aust, 2019a).
However, there remains a lack of empirical evi-
dence about ‘how tensions are worked through in
organizations’ (Keegan, Brandl and Aust, 2019b,
p. 211).
Research has long recognized that HR man-
agers experience organizational tensions (Legge,
1978; Marchington, 2015) and has begun to ex-
plore their contribution to paradox navigation
(Aust et al., 2017). While HR managers often place
employee concerns subsidiary to those of employ-
ers (Keegan, Brandl and Aust, 2019a; Podgorod-
nichenko, Edgar and McAndrew, 2020), their role
affords them opportunities to support the han-
dling of tensions. Emerging research proposes that
actors who are insiders to organizations but out-
siders to particular paradoxes (termed ‘support-
ing actors’) can help organizations navigate para-
doxes. For example, Pradies et al. (2021b) explore
the role of HR professionals in breaking dys-
functional paradox dynamics, noting that ‘sup-
porting actors can alter contextual elements to
help remove persistent obstacles that impede fo-
cal actors—those directly embroiled in tensions—
from working through paradox’ (Pradies et al.,
2021b, p. 1242). Similarly, Lindström and Jan-
honen (2021) explore the role of HR managers
in enabling paradox navigation in the context of
Finnish high-growth small and medium-sized en-
terprises, showing that HR managers help in nav-
igating belonging and learning paradoxes through
the development of HR interventions, and Gara-
van et al. (2021) highlight the ‘value of using what
we term outsiders-within to cope with paradoxical
tensions’ (p. 289).
Human resource managers and paradox: A
multilevel framework
Prior research has recognized that both paradoxi-
cal tensions, and the roles of HR managers in nav-
igating them, arise and are experienced at multiple
The Role of Human Resource Managers in Shaping Organizational Responses
levels of analysis (Aust et al., 2017; Jarzabkowski
et al., 2019; Schad and Bansal, 2018). Some re-
searchers have begun to argue for more context-
sensitive approaches to theorizing paradox at mul-
tiple levels of analysis (Fang, 2012; Pradies et al.,
2021b). Multi-level research is essential to ad-
vancing understanding of how organizations are
shaped by, and contribute to, systems-level phe-
nomena (Jarzabkowski et al., 2019; Schad and
Bansal, 2018). Next, we elaborate on the relation-
ship between paradox and HR managers across
levels of analysis.
Paradox research has tended to neglect both
macro-environmental phenomena and interdepen-
dencies across levels of analysis (Jarzabkowski
et al., 2019; Schad and Bansal, 2018). In contrast,
HR research has long recognized tensions at the
societal/institutional level of analysis. For example,
critical HR research suggests that many organiza-
tionally experienced tensions derive from deeper
systemic tensions within contemporary capitalism
(Aust et al., 2017; Dobbins and Dundon, 2017).
Alternatively, tensions are understood to arise
from endemic change in the regulatory, macro-
economic and technological spheres (Boxall and
Purcell, 2016). A small number of studies ex-
plore how paradoxes are enmeshed and interde-
pendent with each other, both across levels of
analysis and over time (Andriopoulos and Lewis,
2009; Jarzabkowski, Le and Van de Ven, 2013;
Sheep, Fairhurst and Khazanchi, 2017). For exam-
ple, Jarzabkowski, Le and Van de Ven (2013) exam-
ine how a central paradox between market and reg-
ulatory demands faced by a telecommunications
company contributed to cascading performing and
belonging paradoxes for managers in the organi-
zation as they attempted to navigate the tensions
generated by competing regulatory and market
imperatives.
While paradox research has arisen at all levels
of analysis (Schad et al., 2016), most paradox re-
search implicitly or explicitly operates at the or-
ganizational level of analysis, focusing on tensions
and contradictions as they are experienced by or-
ganizations or their leaders (Waldman et al., 2019).
The most prominent paradox theorizations limit
attention to extra-organizational phenomena, to
recognizing their role in increasing the salience
of pre-existing organizational tensions (Smith and
Lewis, 2011). HR managers’ activities and experi-
ences are implicated in a wide range of tensions
at the organizational level of analysis (Aust et al.,
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
413
2017). HR research has emphasized structural ten-
sions such as those between centralization versus
decentralization and hierarchy versus lack of hi-
erarchy (Boselie et al., 2009), attributing the rise
in contradiction in organizations to increases in
organizational complexity, hierarchy and central-
ization (Cunha, Rego and Clegg, 2011). Keegan,
Brandl and Aust (2019b) review HR research con-
cerned with paradox, highlighting that ‘paradox
theory in HRM is moving from the conceptual to
the empirical’ (p. 211), and that empirical research
has mostly consisted of case study approaches that
have described how categories of paradox emerge
in particular contexts (e.g. Keegan et al., 2018;
Guerci and Carollo, 2016; Keegan, Brandl and
Aust, 2019a; Peters and Lam, 2015). Nonetheless,
research suggests that HR managers can reduce
tensions inherent to HR functions and activities,
and contribute to broader organizational paradox
handling.
Recent research on the roles of HR managers
in paradox at the team and individual levels of
analysis reflects a growing concern to progress
micro-foundational research that describes how
tensions arise and are experienced by specific ac-
tors (Dameron and Torset, 2014; Leung et al.,
2018; Miron-Spektor et al., 2018). For example,
team effectiveness arguably requires the tension
between conflict and harmony to be successfully
navigated (Miron-Spektor et al., 2018), while bal-
ancing team and individual goals and incentives
to shape team performance. Fu et al. (2020) study
the implementation of HR practices by the man-
agers of 60 consulting project teams, focusing on
how managers navigate tensions between consis-
tency across individuals and responsiveness to in-
dividual needs and concerns. Their findings high-
light the complementary impacts of practices that
address these two tensions in driving team perfor-
mance, thus emphasizing the importance of man-
agers being able to navigate paradox at team level.
Greater consideration of individuals in para-
dox thinking is warranted because ‘individuals
and their social interactions often serve as the
micro-foundations for higher level organizational
paradoxes’ (Waldman et al., 2019, p. 1). At the
individual level of analysis, research has em-
phasized cognitive and emotional dimensions to
identifying, experiencing and navigating tensions
(Keller, Loewenstein and Yan, 2017; Smith and
Tushman, 2005; Vince and Broussine, 1996).
This research has proposed the construct of
414
Table 1. Multi-level framework of paradox and HR managers
Origins and illustrative forms of
Level of analysis paradoxical tensions
Societal/ Macro-economic/societal-level
institutional changes which affect organizations;
endemic forces of exploitation,
exclusion, financialization and
subjectification in contemporary
capitalism; regulatory and
legislative change over time
Organizational Challenges in addressing multiple
organizational objectives;
contradictions experienced between
centralization and localization,
increasing tiers of hierarchy and
complexity; tensions provoked by
intensifying competitive landscape
and technological change; tensions
between trust and surveillance of
employees; wellbeing and efficiency
contradictions
Team/intra- Tensions between self- and collective
organizational interests, contradictions between
the value of harmony and conflict,
commitment versus free-rider
problems; tensions between
autonomy and control in team
direction
Individual Contradictions between treating
colleagues as individuals and
ensuring equality and inclusivity in
decisions; tensions between privacy
and transparency; tensions between
closeness and distance; the need to
harmonize versus the need to
individualize; the contradiction
between seeking differentiation and
conformity
‘paradox mindset’ to capture the inclination to
search broadly for solutions to problems, the
capacity for increased cognitive complexity and
the openness to ambiguity and plural experience
(Miron-Spektor et al., 2018). HR managers have a
critical role in enabling the development of para-
dox mindsets in organizations. For example, prior
research has suggested that organizations should
seek to identify and recruit employees with para-
dox mindsets and that leaders who communicate
a comfort with contradictions encourage greater
openness to paradox in other organizational
members (Liu et al., 2020; Smith and Tushman,
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
L. Branicki, S. Kalfa and S. Brammer
Roles/implications for HR Key citations
Responding to institutional Aust et al. (2017);
imperatives/pressures; ‘fitting’ and Boxall and Purcell
‘balancing’ HR practices to shifting (2016); Dobbins and
tensions; navigating employee rights Dundon (2017);
and employer responsibilities Keegan and Boselie
(2006)
Development of support tools and Bednarek, Paroutis and
frameworks to surface differences in Sillince (2017); Berti
mental models or frames; and Simpson (2021);
cross-fertilization/sharing of best Mease (2016)
practice from other organizations;
collating and communicating
divergent/dissonant perspectives
and meanings in order to challenge
assumptions and conventions;
providing anonymized
opportunities for communication to
overcome power gradients
Mediation in conflict to de-escalate Amason (1996);
and reduce emotional intensity; Derksen et al. (2019);
design pay and incentive systems to Gebert, Boerner and
reward team/collaborative activity; Kearney (2010);
creation of ‘developmental spaces’ Miron-Spektor and
to promote freedom of expression; Paletz (2020)
socialization activities that
strengthen relationships;
encouraging team exercises that
surface shared/unshared
assumptions and goals
Training and developmental activities Miron-Spektor and
to activate individuals’ paradox Erez (2017);
frames and mindsets; introducing Miron-Spektor, Erez
cross-cultural workshops to and Naveh (2011);
illuminate and share culturally Waldman et al.
distinct paradox mindsets; (2019); Zhang et al.
developing coaching interventions (2015)
to build capacity to cope with stress
and anxiety provoked by paradox
2005). Additionally, paradox mindsets are likely
susceptible to education, training and develop-
ment (Knight and Paroutis, 2017b), an activity in
which HR managers play a leading role, and thus
HR managers could contribute to organizational
development approaches to building paradox
mindset among employees, possibly through
cross-cultural interaction (Zhang et al., 2015).
Building on these insights, we propose that a
multi-level framework (summarized in Table 1) is
needed to fully encompass the multiple mecha-
nisms and practices through which HR managers
influence how organizations handle and navigate
The Role of Human Resource Managers in Shaping Organizational Responses
paradoxes, especially those originating outside or-
ganizations. In the following sections, we detail
how we apply this framework to exploring the ex-
periences of, and roles played by, HR managers
in shaping organizational response to the societal
paradox generated by Covid-19.
Data and methods
We examine how HR managers experience and
respond to the tensions generated by the soci-
etal paradox provoked by Covid-19 in the Aus-
tralian context. Australia is an important context
to explore paradox in the context of Covid-19
because the Federal Government took relatively
quick and decisive action to reduce the spread of
the virus. At the start of our research (30 March
2020), Australia was experiencing its first wave
of Covid-19 cases. Australia’s strong policy re-
sponse, its ‘health dictatorship’ (Smith, 2020), saw
the federal borders closed to non-Australians, the
introduction of compulsory quarantine periods
and restricted outward travel for Australian citi-
zens. During the period of data collection (March–
September 2020) on a state/territory level, retail
and hospitality spaces were closed, individuals
were ordered to transition to working from home
where possible, and for most states schools were
closed for a period of approximately 10–15 weeks.
Australian residents were either ordered or advised
(depending on their state’s public health orders) to
stay at home and only leave to exercise outdoors
or shop for necessities. Covid-Safe plans (NSW
Government, 2021) to reduce virus transmission
were encouraged in all workplaces (Safe Work
Australia, 2020) and were compulsory for some
organizations.
To address our objectives, we adopted a two-
stage study design. The first stage drew upon large-
scale survey evidence to provide a comprehensive
national picture of HR manager perspectives on
the tensions that Covid-19 was generating for or-
ganizations across Australia. The second stage in-
volved 43 in-depth semi-structured interviews with
HR managers, enabling us to examine HR man-
agers’ experiences and responses to the tensions
generated by Covid-19. We focus on HR man-
agers because the societal-level paradox triggered
by Covid-19 – protecting lives and the economy
– had significant implications for the types of
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
415
boundary work that constitutes their role (Jarz-
abkowski et al., 2019).
Quantitative analysis: Survey of HR managers
HR manager perceptions of the challenges pro-
voked by Covid-19 among Australian organiza-
tions were captured through a survey conducted by
the Australian Human Resource Institute (AHRI),
the Australian representative body for human re-
source professionals. Collaborating with AHRI
provided unparalleled access to nationally repre-
sentative, large-scale and rapidly implemented sur-
vey evidence. However, the urgent and collabora-
tive nature of the research constrained the research
team’s influence on survey design and implemen-
tation. In particular, the exploratory focus of the
survey and the need for brevity excluded the pos-
sibility of using previously validated multi-item
scales and meant that pre-testing of the survey
was limited to AHRI colleagues and the research
team. The survey comprised both open and closed
(Likert-scale and fixed-choice) questions in three
sections that captured: (i) the respondent’s role, or-
ganization size (number of employees), sector and
location; (ii) the nature and extent of Covid-19’s
impacts on the organization; and (iii) organiza-
tional responses to Covid-19.
The survey was administered using Survey
Monkey and was open between 30 March and 6
April 2020. The very short – 1 week – window for
responses mitigates against varying respondent
experiences over time. In total, AHRI received
854 complete survey responses, and our analysis
focuses on the 680 of these that were from HR
managers, an overall response rate of approxi-
mately 30%. 24% of the organizations surveyed
had 99 or fewer employees, 35% between 100
and 500 employees, 10% between 500 and 999
employees, and 31% over 1,000 employees. 48%
of respondents worked in the private sector, 28%
in public-sector organizations and 24% in the
not-for-profit sector. Organizations were located
across all of Australia’s states and territories, with
the largest proportions of respondents located
in Victoria (31%), New South Wales (28%) and
Queensland (17%). Our key focus – experiences of
tensions and challenges provoked by Covid-19 –
were captured through survey items that reflected
specific challenges. Respondents were asked
to indicate the extent to which each challenge
was a ‘stress point for HR in your organization
416
currently?’ on a four-point Likert scale anchored
on 1 = ‘not at all challenging’ to 4 = ‘very chal-
lenging’.
Qualitative analysis: Interviews with HR managers
We conducted 43 semi-structured in-depth tele-
phone interviews with HR managers. Participant
recruitment was performed with the support
of AHRI. Potential interviewees were required
to have 5 years of HR management experience
and have been involved in their organization’s
response to Covid-19. Interviews ranged in du-
ration between 30 and 74 minutes. All interviews
were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim
to ensure reliability. The interview protocol was
designed to capture tensions and contradictions
although ‘it did not include terms such as tension,
contradiction or dilemma’ (Andriopoulos and
Lewis, 2009, p. 699). Interviews began with intro-
ductory questions about the individual’s working
history and their organization’s profile, followed
by questions regarding organizational responses
to Covid-19. Table 2 provides some contextual
information on the interview respondents, their
roles and their industry sectors.
We adopted an inductive, grounded-theory,
approach to data analysis (Strauss and Corbin,
1998), which is especially relevant for understand-
ing interviewees’ lived experiences (Gioia, Corley
and Hamilton, 2013). Drawing on Fendt and
Sachs (2008) and Gehman et al. (2018), we tai-
lored the analytical process to focus on navigating
tensions, as in other studies on paradox manage-
ment (e.g. Jarzabkowski and Lê, 2017; Pamphile,
2021; Smith, 2014). Building on Corley’s obser-
vation that ‘interpretivists have a rather different
way of thinking about variance; we’re much more
interested in capturing variability and trying to
understand why that variability exists’ (Corley, in
Gehman et al., 2018, p. 295), we actively sought
to identify and understand variance across orga-
nizations in our inductive analysis. Analysis was
supported by NVivo 12 and we coded for how
HR managers experienced and responded to the
contradictory demands provoked by Covid-19.
The analysis process included coding, categorizing
and abstracting (Gioia, Corley and Hamilton,
2013; Locke, Golden-Biddle and Feldman, 2008)
and while the process was nonlinear and iterative
(Strauss and Corbin, 1998), our analysis broadly
proceeded in three steps.
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
L. Branicki, S. Kalfa and S. Brammer
• Step 1: Identifying first-order codes. In step 1,
we sought evidence regarding the nature and
forms of paradoxical tensions and contradic-
tions provoked by Covid-19, by looking for
words such as: ‘balance’, ‘challenge’, ‘yet’, ‘still’
and by searching for contradictory statements
within each transcript. As themes emerged, we
compared them across the transcripts. Two early
themes concerned the dimensions of the soci-
etal paradox, such as societal-level effects and
temporal complexity. Statements reflecting these
themes were made throughout the interviews,
but in particular in response to questions about
challenges faced during the pandemic. As we
compared statements reflecting these themes,
further distinctions arose regarding tensions sur-
rounding HR managers’ experiences of societal
paradox and how the societal paradox generated
tensions at the organizational level of analysis.
• Step 2: Grouping codes into second-order themes.
Next, we searched for patterns to ‘strategically
reassemble the data that was split or fractured
during the initial coding process’ (Saldaña, 2016)
into second-order themes. We understood this
process of axial coding as ‘putting together pat-
terns of observations expressed across codes’
(Locke, Golden-Biddle and Feldman, 2008),
which allowed us to reduce the number of
first-order codes into conceptual categories. The
move from open to axial coding was marked by
moving away from ‘common statements’ (Pratt,
2008, p. 484) to more theoretical and abstract
ones that ‘leap out’ (Gioia, Corley and Hamil-
ton, 2013) because of their relevance to our re-
search question. For example, looking at state-
ments about tensions surrounding HR man-
agers’ experience of societal paradox, it became
evident that they experienced two distinct ten-
sions – those between prioritizing people ver-
sus profits, and focusing on short- versus long-
term perspectives. Drawing on Boeije (2010) and
Eisenhardt, Graebner and Sonenshein (2016),
we used memoing, especially as we were tran-
sitioning from open to axial coding. In our an-
alytic memos we looked for: routines common
among HR managers, regardless of the sector in
which they worked, that shaped their response to
the tensions experienced; interactions that HR
managers had with a particular focus on who
they were interacting with as well as the conse-
quences of these interactions as they pertained
to the organizational response to the Covid-
The Role of Human Resource Managers in Shaping Organizational Responses 417

Table 2. Interview sample composition

Size of Interview conducted Duration of

Pseudonym Sector Sex organization State in… the interview

P1 Disability F Medium NSW April 37:34

P2 Healthcare M Large QLD May 30:35
P3 NFP F Medium ACT May 24:53
P4 NFP F Medium VIC May 33:33
P5 Telco F Large NSW May 40:22
P6 Digital Media F Medium VIC May 27:20
P7 Logistics M Large NT May 30:33
P8 Publishing F Medium NSW May 34:55
P9 Healthcare F Medium QLD May 41:54
P10 Manufacturing F Large NSW May 26:39
P11 Healthcare F Large NSW May 38:15
P12 NFP F Large VIC May 27:23
P13 Aged Care F Large NSW May 35:09
P14 Education F Large NSW May 49:45
P15 Education F Medium VIC May 38:23
P16 Manufacturing F Medium VIC May 39:17
P17 Retail M Large NSW May 28:12
P18 Energy F Large TAS May 38:54
P19 NFP F Medium VIC June 39:06
P20 Education F Large TAS June 26:34
P21 Government M Large NSW June 38:21
P22 Technology F Large NSW July 44:54
P23 Energy F Medium NSW July 34:13
P24 FMCG M Large NSW July 46:14
P25 NFP M Medium VIC July 28:44
P26 Professional Services F Medium VIC July 40:27
P27 Professional Services F Large NSW August 44:39
P28 Professional Services F Medium NSW August 41:35
P29 Professional Services F Medium NSW August 56:22
P30 Healthcare F Large NSW August 30:59
P31 Building & Construction F Large VIC August 39:15
P32 NFP F Large VIC August 38:06
P33 Healthcare F Medium TAS August 41:14
P34 Aged Care M Medium NSW August 48:31
P35 Sport F Small VIC August 34:28
P36 Government F Large ACT August 49:17
P37 Healthcare M Large QLD August 46:38
P38 Commodities F Large VIC August 41:40
P39 NFP F Medium NSW August 46:01
P40 Manufacturing F Large VIC August 39:19
P41 NFP F Large VIC August 45:32
P42 NFP F Large NSW August 37:55
P43 Government M Large QLD September 74:43

19 pandemic. Memoing allowed us to progres- societal paradox appeared to magnify previously

sively produce better-defined second-order cat-
egories (Eisenhardt, Graebner and Sonenshein,
2016). This stage also involved analysing emer-
gent themes about the different ways that HR
managers were navigating the competing de-
mands imposed upon them. This observation
eventually led to identifying a key bifurcation
in our data; that in some organizations societal
paradox is replicated, whereas in other situations
latent organizational paradoxes. We continued
to seek guidance from the literature as we made
sense of the emerging categories, in line with
grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1988).
• Step 3: Synthesizing second-order themes into ag-
gregate dimensions. In the final stage of analysis,
we sought to combine the second-order themes
into an empirically grounded model that rep-
resents how societal paradoxes ‘trigger changes

© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.

418
Figure 1. Qualitative data structure
in an organization’s external and internal envi-
ronment… [which] surface conflictual tensions
for HRM by requiring it to simultaneously sup-
port incompatible organizational goals and play
conflicting roles’ (Podgorodnichenko, Edgar and
McAndrew, 2020, p. 14). We summarized this
stage of our analysis as aggregate dimensions
(Gioia, Corley and Hamilton, 2013). Our con-
cepts, themes and dimensions are summarized
in Table 3. Following Cloutier and Ravasi (2021,
p. 113), tables help increase transparency about
data collection, analysis and findings and ‘also –
and no less importantly – organize and analyze
data effectively’. This process also showcases the
‘puzzles’ (Grodal, Anteby and Holm, 2021) we
focused on during the analytical process and
which we believe are salient to our research ques-
tion. The authors had several meetings to discuss
emerging constructs and ensure alignment be-
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
L. Branicki, S. Kalfa and S. Brammer
tween the constructs and related codes, revising
our analysis when necessary (Miles and Huber-
man, 1994). Our data structure is summarized in
Figure 1.
Quantitative findings
Cross-organizational variation in challenges
provoked by Covid-19
The first stage of our analysis examines the
challenges provoked by Covid-19, both to con-
textualize our interview data by providing a
perspective at a different scale (Schad and Bansal,
2018, p. 1498) and to illuminate variation across
organizations in their experience of the societal
paradox. Respondent perceptions regarding the
tensions and challenges provoked by Covid-19 are
captured using Likert-scale variables which are
 Table 3. Ordinal probit models of the influences on health and economy challenges experienced by organizations during Covid-19

Health/wellbeing challenges Economic challenges

Wellbeing of the Managing effec- Impact of Understanding shifting Managing a The need to
workforce tive employee carer duties on business priorities – decrease in stand down
engagement workers short, medium and business activity staff
long-term
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Organization size 0.213*** 0.138** 0.250*** 0.193*** −0.017 −0.055

(0.068) (0.067) (0.067) (0.066) (0.065) (0.066)
Location
Australian Capital Territory 0.675 0.291 1.057** 0.104 −0.015 −0.358
(0.432) (0.425) (0.425) (0.423) (0.418) (0.428)
Western Australia 0.281 −0.137 0.147 −0.197 0.204 −0.071
(0.374) (0.369) (0.369) (0.368) (0.363) (0.366)
Victoria 0.338 −0.043 0.327 0.062 0.414 0.194
(0.311) (0.306) (0.307) (0.305) (0.301) (0.303)
Queensland 0.421 0.295 0.393 0.082 0.026 −0.181
(0.336) (0.331) (0.331) (0.33) (0.325) (0.329)
New South Wales 0.272 −0.093 0.395 0.033 0.383 0.221
(0.316) (0.311) (0.312) (0.31) (0.306) (0.308)
Tasmania 0.066 0.097 0.712 0.024 −0.155 0.044

© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.

(0.643) (0.633) (0.629) (0.63) (0.622) (0.618)
Northern Territory 0.971 −0.008 −0.299 −0.835 0.327 −0.625
(0.896) (0.883) (0.889) (0.889) (0.868) (0.93)
Rural/Regional Australia −0.138 −0.323* −0.067 −0.432** −0.325* 0.040
(0.19) (0.188) (0.186) (0.187) (0.184) (0.184)
Activity/sector
Construction and Real Estate 1.092*** 0.001 −0.412 0.746* 0.840** 1.251***
The Role of Human Resource Managers in Shaping Organizational Responses

(0.405) (0.398) (0.401) (0.397) (0.39) (0.391)

Primary Industries (Agriculture 0.886** −0.128 −0.261 0.248 −0.260 0.406
and Mining) (0.422) (0.416) (0.417) (0.413) (0.414) (0.413)
Hotels, Leisure, Arts and 0.761* 0.312 −0.609 0.748* 2.048*** 1.678***
Restaurants (0.429) (0.423) (0.428) (0.422) (0.424) (0.42)
Education and Training 0.820*** 0.376 0.579** 0.586** 1.430*** 1.203***
(0.301) (0.296) (0.295) (0.295) (0.295) (0.295)
Electricity, Gas and Water 0.394 0.926** 0.517 0.679 0.132 −0.121
(0.462) (0.457) (0.453) (0.454) (0.449) (0.461)
419
 420

Table 3. (Continued)

Health/wellbeing challenges Economic challenges

Wellbeing of the Managing effec- Impact of Understanding shifting Managing a The need to
workforce tive employee carer duties on business priorities – decrease in stand down
engagement workers short, medium and business activity staff
long-term
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Finance and Insurance 0.831** 0.381 0.684** 0.213 0.379 −0.294

(0.338) (0.332) (0.331) (0.331) (0.327) (0.343)
Healthcare and Social Assistance 0.717*** 0.190 0.574** 0.545** 0.638** 0.291
(0.274) (0.269) (0.268) (0.268) (0.265) (0.27)
IT and Media 1.259*** 0.629 0.130 0.835** 1.345*** 0.536
(0.414) (0.405) (0.404) (0.405) (0.4) (0.399)
Other Services 0.955*** 0.501* 0.326 0.501* 1.279*** 0.927***
(0.273) (0.267) (0.266) (0.266) (0.266) (0.267)
Professional, Technical and 0.456 0.296 0.603** 0.025 0.851*** 0.374
Scientific Services (0.307) (0.302) (0.301) (0.301) (0.298) (0.302)
Retail and Wholesale 1.488*** 0.978** −0.060 0.962** 1.298*** 1.731***
(0.405) (0.397) (0.395) (0.396) (0.389) (0.395)
Transport, Postal and Warehousing 1.644*** 1.663*** −0.284 0.970* 0.633 1.267**
(0.537) (0.533) (0.524) (0.525) (0.512) (0.511)
Intercept 1 −2.578*** −1.985*** −1.056*** −2.212*** −0.539 −0.007
(0.461) (0.388) (0.379) (0.398) (0.367) (0.37)
Intercept 2 0.744** 0.371 1.241*** 0.196 1.156*** 0.952**
(0.378) (0.372) (0.374) (0.37) (0.369) (0.372)
Intercept 3 2.915*** 2.401*** 3.036*** 2.104*** 2.748*** 2.042***
(0.395) (0.384) (0.39) (0.379) (0.381) (0.378)
Number of observations 680 680 680 680 680 680
Pseudo R-square 0.069 0.051 0.079 0.054 0.112 0.108
-2 Log likelihood 971.24 1,086.57 1,095.33 1,071.74 1,167.18 1,197.66

Notes: Figures in parentheses are standard errors. *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01. Manufacturing and South Australia are the reference categories.

© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.

L. Branicki, S. Kalfa and S. Brammer
The Role of Human Resource Managers in Shaping Organizational Responses
ordinal in nature. Therefore, to model the influ-
ences on the extent of perceived challenge, an
ordered probit modelling approach is adopted
(Daykin and Moffatt, 2002; Greene and Hensher,
2010). To examine influences on the tensions
between protecting lives and the economy, three
survey items were chosen to exemplify each pole of
the societal paradox for modelling purposes. On
average, these challenges had among the highest
overall mean values across the sample, indicating
their high degree of overall salience. Table 3 re-
ports the results of the ordered probit modelling.
Each model examines the influence of organiza-
tional size, location (both state/territory and the
distinction between rural/regional and metropoli-
tan locations) and activity/industry sector on the
extent to which an organization experiences a
given challenge. Models 1–3 examine the influ-
ences on the extent of health/wellbeing challenges
faced by organizations, while models 4–6 explore
influences on the extent of economic challenges.
Comparing and contrasting across these models
indicates the conditions under which organiza-
tions experience tensions between protecting lives
and the economy most severely.
Regarding the severity of health-related chal-
lenges, results in models 1–3 indicate that greater
challenge is experienced among larger organiza-
tions (p = 0.002, 0.038 and 0.000, respectively).
Models 1–3 show that health-related challenges
aren’t hugely influenced by an organization’s loca-
tion, with the exceptions that the impacts of caring
responsibilities are found to be higher among or-
ganizations located in the Australian Capital Ter-
ritory (p = 0.013) and that organizations located
in regional and rural Australia experience lower
challenges relating to employee engagement (p =
0.085). The limited influence of location on health
challenges likely reflects the early stage of the
pandemic in which different regional experiences
(especially the higher impacts in Victoria and New
South Wales) had yet to emerge. Industry sector is
a particularly significant influence on the intensity
of health-related challenges organizations experi-
ence during Covid-19. Results show that employee
wellbeing concerns were especially prominent in
the Transport, Postal and Warehousing, Retail
and Wholesale, Construction and Primary indus-
try sectors (p = 0.002, 0.000, 0.007 and 0.036,
respectively). These are all labour-intensive sec-
tors where the continuity of the organization calls
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
421
upon employees to continue to work in spite of the
dangers associated with Covid-19, and in the first
two cases they are also sectors where employees
come into frequent and close contact with large
numbers of people. The difficulty of navigating
these challenges is reflected in similar sectoral
patterns in relation to the challenges of employee
engagement. In contrast, different sectors (mostly
professional/office-based) are shown to experience
greater challenges in relation to navigating caring
responsibilities provoked by Covid-19 (in contrast
to high levels of direct health risks).
Models 4–6 examine the influences on the inten-
sity of economic challenge faced by organizations
during Covid-19. In contrast to health concerns,
organization size is found to be less significantly
related to economic stress, and there is a clearer
pattern of regionality to economic challenge in
which shifting business priorities and a decrease in
business activity are less intensely felt among rural
and regionally located organizations (p = 0.021
and 0.077, respectively). As for health challenges,
economic challenge is significantly linked to an
organization’s sector/activity. For example, in re-
lation to managing a decrease in business activity,
especially high levels of challenge are seen in the
Hotels, Leisure, Arts and Restaurant, Education
and Training, Retail and Wholesale, and IT and
Media sectors (p = 0.000, 0.000, 0.001 and 0.001,
respectively). These are sectors that were severely
impacted by restrictions on large gatherings of
people, and in the case of Education and Training
were also impacted by border closures.
Contrasting the two sets of models, it is possible
to cluster industry sectors into four broad clusters
on the basis of the relative intensities with which
they experienced the health both/and economy
paradox provoked by Covid-19: (i) those that ex-
perienced most severely health both/and economy
tensions (e.g. Retail and Wholesale, Education and
Training, Construction and Real Estate, Health-
care and Social Assistance, Transport, Postal and
Warehousing); (ii) those for which Covid-19 pre-
sented primarily health-related challenges (e.g. Fi-
nance and Insurance, Primary Industries); (iii)
those for which Covid-19 generated most intensely
economic challenges (e.g. Hotels, Leisure, Arts and
Restaurants); and (iv) those for which Covid-19
generated comparatively low levels of both chal-
lenges (e.g. Electricity, Gas, Water, Professional,
Technical and Scientific Services, Manufacturing).
422
Qualitative findings
Our qualitative analysis revealed three dimensions
in which interview respondents, or an important
proportion of them, experienced the Covid-19
pandemic. First, our analysis identifies a number
of characteristics of societal paradox, highlight-
ing the nature of paradoxical tensions at the so-
cietal level of analysis. Second, our analysis finds
tensions surrounding HR managers’ experiences
of societal paradox. Third, findings relate to re-
garding HR managers’ responses to societal para-
dox. Our coding at each step, as well as additional
representative quotations, are presented in Table 4.
We discuss each of these dimensions below.
Characteristics of societal paradox
Many respondents reflected upon their first-hand
experiences of the societal paradox provoked by
the pandemic, identifying three core dimensions to
societal paradox. First, societal paradox necessar-
ily entails societal-level effects, including contra-
dictory yet interrelated demands between socially
significant objectives. In the case of Covid-19,
the primary socially significant objectives were the
need to protect public health, saving lives and the
need to protect the economy, saving livelihoods.
A second sub-theme of societal-level effect
arises from the disruption across multiple spheres
of society, leading to a blurring of boundaries be-
tween spheres. Respondents reported Covid-19’s
effects on many aspects of social, cultural, fa-
milial and economic life, affecting working prac-
tices, family life and religious participation. Thus,
societal paradox tends to be characterized by
far-reaching interdependent impacts on multiple
spheres of society. Third, the societal-level impacts
of societal paradox are affirmed by calls upon gov-
ernment to rapidly implement new regulatory, leg-
islative and economic interventions to coordinate,
support and ensure effective responses.
Respondents highlighted that societal para-
doxes entail significant temporal complexity. Soci-
etal paradoxes are not immediately and universally
recognized as such – individuals, organizations
and communities question the scale and scope of
the impacts of the societal paradox, generating
considerable ambiguity regarding the urgency of
responses. At the same time, inherent to societal
paradox is high levels of uncertainty. Actors are
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
L. Branicki, S. Kalfa and S. Brammer
uncertain regarding whether, how and when to re-
spond, and the shifting nature of the societal para-
dox and associated policy and regulatory change
add to the uncertainty experienced across society.
In the context of Covid-19, we saw that actors were
both slow to appreciate the likely severity and im-
pact of the crisis, and quick to anticipate its end.
The final characteristic of societal paradox re-
lates to the profound changes in social referents
that they are associated with. Societal paradoxes
lead to fundamental shifts in social interactions
and social norms. Overnight, Covid-19 led to sig-
nificant changes in the ways in which people re-
late to each other, introducing boundaries between
people that hadn’t previously existed and which
were (for many) counter-cultural. In the context of
Australia, maintaining social distance, wearing a
face covering and remaining in isolation from each
other all contributed to a dramatic fragmentation
of society and shifts in perception of what is ‘ac-
ceptable’ and ‘normal’ in human relations.
Tensions surrounding HR managers’ experiences of
societal paradox
While societal paradoxes exist at the societal
level of analysis, we identified cascading effects
on organizations which were experienced by HR
managers. A primary tension between maintaining
profitability and/or service delivery and protecting
employees’ health and wellbeing emerged. Covid-19
put many organizations under significant financial
and operational stress as market opportunities
dwindled, supply chains failed and closure or sig-
nificant adaptation of non-essential commercial
activities was mandated. At the same time, many
organizations needed employees to stay at work
in order for primary organizational activities to
be undertaken. This placed some employees at
potential risk from the virus, generating friction
and strain.
A second tension experienced related to the
balance between responding to the short-term
needs of the crisis while maintaining a sense of
proportionality and regard for the long-term
strategic objectives of the organization. Some
organizations felt forced into major restructuring
of activities and operations; others tended to take
a longer-term view, being willing to accept some
level of financial and operational loss in the short
run, in light of the harm that might arise from
The Role of Human Resource Managers in Shaping Organizational Responses
Table 4. Qualitative data analysis
Dimensions, themes, concepts and data
Second-order themes and
first-order concepts
Aggregate dimension 1: Characteristics of societal paradox
1.1 Societal-level effects
A. Contradictory and yet
interrelated demands
between socially
significant objectives
B. Disruption across
multiple social spheres
(e.g. school, work, home)
C. Generates a regulatory
response (e.g. changes to
policy and guidance)
1.2 Temporal complexity
D. Ambiguity regarding
response urgency
E. High levels of
uncertainty
1.3 Change in social referents
F. Changes to social
interactions
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
423
Representative quotes for categories
A1. ‘I think it’s fair to say that we were in a bit of a challenging position because the government
response was very much about keeping the community safe but also recognising the economic
realities of jumping too soon… We wanted to keep our people safe, but we didn’t want to pull
the brakes too hard too quickly and cause unnecessary impacts’ (P43, Government)
A2. ‘It was maybe something on Facebook, but it was stating, and this was at the time before
there had been so many more deaths due to Covid, but it was 150 deaths to Covid and over
1000 suicides of people in lockdown and you think of those numbers and you go wow, well,
what is our real problem, is it the pandemic or is it the lockdown?’ (P39, NFP)
B1. ‘A lot of our staff were also trying to juggle home schooling for their children with working
from home, so it’s been quite a challenge for some people’ (P11, Healthcare)
B2. ‘Like there’s going to be people in our workforces who have families and loved ones who are
out of work and in dire straits, so it’s not even their own stresses but the stresses of family and
friends. Just the constant fear of, you know, I’m safe today, will I be safe tomorrow with the
economy being so unstable and challenged?’ (P27, Professional Services)
C1. ‘We’re really just monitoring what the state governments are doing, so predicting when
things are going to start changing so that we can be ahead of those decisions and making sure
that we’re ready for it’ (P4, NFP)
C2. ‘In the HR field there was a huge amount of legislation that was changing really rapidly, the
Fair Work Act was changing and all of this like serious legislation was getting changed in the
space of a day’ (P28, Professional Services)
D1. ‘I think it took quite a while for a lot of people to realise that this was actually going to be a
thing’ (P9, Healthcare)
D2. ‘In that early stage there was a lot of, is this big or not? And then I guess there’s been a
massive emotional shift. There’s been quite a bit of panic and then so even in the small team
that goes into the office there was one that was completely panicking and one that was
completely ignoring it as a threat at all. So, we had a lot of stuff around that to say okay, well
as a company what do we need to do?’ (P15, Education)
D3. ‘At the beginning we’re in an unknown environment in terms of what do I do here, what is
the right thing to do in terms of isolation, in terms of workforce tracing, have we done the
right clean, etc., etc. You feel a personal responsibility for your workforce’ (P5, Telco)
E1. ‘People get frustrated with [HR] because we have had to change the rules… So, really the
catch phrase for all of us on giving advice on everything was, no day is ever going to be the
same and so what I tell you today maybe different to tomorrow and so on and so on and so.
So, that’s just weird for people. They just can’t get their head around that at all. There is just
no consistency in a pandemic’ (P20, Education)
E2. ‘This is our decision right now, this is what we’ve decided to do, we don’t have all of the
information that we’d like to have and as things change, we will change too’ (P4, NFP)
E3. ‘The directions were changing every day or multiple times in a day, so we have to react to
those requirements but at the same time have to ensure that we have a controlled approach’
(P14, Education)
E4. ‘Early July, people were starting to think we were through this and I think people had sort of
measured out their resilience and were expecting around mid-July, early July, we’d be through
the worst of this, and I think now that we’ve got what’s happening in Victoria and we’ve got
cases popping up in New South Wales and in our areas, it’s had a big impact on people’s
resilience’ (P34, Aged Care)
E5. [Referring to the annual budget] ‘It’s like pulling something out of thin air’ (P4, NFP)
F1. ‘Removing the notion of greeting people by handshakes and things like that’ (P40,
Manufacturing)
F2. ‘I think the challenge is how do we replace that [sociability]? One of our key tenants of our
employer value proposition… is kind of, having a beer sounds a bit base, but having social
interaction with your colleagues’ (P24, FMCG)
424
Table 4. (Continued)
Dimensions, themes, concepts and data
Second-order themes and
first-order concepts
G. Shifts in social norms
Aggregate dimension 2: Tensions surrounding HR managers’ experiences of societal paradox
2.1 Organizational tensions arising from societal paradox
H. Focus on people vs.
profits/service delivery
I. Focus on short vs. long
term
2.2 Organizational salience of tensions
J. Degree of organizational
disruption
L. Branicki, S. Kalfa and S. Brammer
Representative quotes for categories
G1. ‘The reality was that we needed people to work in an isolated way’ (P18, Energy)
G2. ‘We’ve got a lot of thinking to do in terms of how… we ensure what the new norm is,
because social distancing is going to be there for quite some time’ (P5, Telco)
G3. ‘Last week we brought in compulsory rules for staff to wear masks if the staff or the client
have been anywhere near a hotspot or been exposed and the staff, the feedback we’ve had from
most of the staff is that’s great because I don’t have to make the decision now’ (P24, FMCG)
H1. ‘We want to be guided by some key principles, the first and foremost of which is protecting
the health and safety of our people and serving the community in this time of need’ (P43,
Government)
H2. ‘Work from wherever you feel safe. So, our first thought was safety and continuing to sort of
run our business and try not to miss a heartbeat for our customers, but at the same time
making sure our employees felt safe wherever they were. So, we essentially just said do what
you need to do, don’t feel you need to come into the office, it’s entirely up to you’ (P29,
Professional Services)
H3. ‘They had a whole campaign of “Saving Lives, Saving Jobs” and that became sort of the
slogan’ (P27, Professional Services)
H4. ‘Most broadly the biggest challenge has been this balance of maintaining an engaged
workforce and doing the right thing by your people while haemorrhaging money because you
are not making the same amount of money’ (P24, FMCG)
H5. ‘What we actually did, even though it wasn’t quite kosher because our enterprise agreement
doesn’t particularly allow for it, we sent staff an email and said this is what we need to do, this
is why we need to do it, will you agree to reduce a minimum of one hour per shift, plus if
necessary be sent home a bit earlier if there’s just no patients coming in, and most staff
responded to that email and said yeah I’ll do that… A couple of people just refused to reduce
their hours, so they were made redundant’ (P11, Healthcare)
I1. ‘Every manager that had people working from home said to me I can’t see what they’re
doing, I can’t track, I don’t know if they’re being productive or as productive as if they were
here, so that’s certainly a concern’ (P10, Manufacturing)
I2. ‘You’ve also got to maintain that focus on your longer-term strategic objectives as well and
keep things moving there and give people that sense of, they’re still moving towards a bigger
picture outcome, both for their engagement but also because at the end of the crisis if all
you’ve done is respond to the crisis people also feel like oh gee, now we’ve just been pushed
back by a year or whatever, or however long, and I think that’s really demotivating for people
and strategically risky for organisations’ (P43, Government)
J1. ‘We consulted about changing lunch breaks and all this kind of thing but by and large our
employees said we can work this out, we’re not stupid, we don’t want to get this bug, so we’ve
marked out crosses on where people need to queue in the canteen and we’ve crossed out tables
and chairs, but you know, look, I see people breaking the rules all the time. Does it concern
me? Not greatly. The reality also is that in terms of manual handling (of tools) people have to
be in close proximity, so our workers are pretty quick to say hey, he’s got the sniffles, or he
doesn’t look well, so and then the person is sent immediately home and there’s a cleaning
regime in any areas that they’ve been in’ (P10, Manufacturing)
J2. ‘I can’t have services hanging because you feel your first responsibility is to your children, I
get that, but as a business we have a responsibility to our customers, we are an essential
service’ (P13, Aged Care)
J3. ‘Yes, so we, because we’re a technology company, people, we have quite a few people that
work full-time remote anyway… we have always encouraged to work flexibly because of being
a global business and being very customer centric, so effectively we’ve always said to people
we trust you, you do what you need to do from where you need to do, when you need to do it’
(P29, Professional Services)
J4. ‘When I joined [company] in terms of the cultural view and how everyone perceived it to be,
was that it [remote working] was frowned upon and that you physically had to be there in
person to be able to demonstrate that you’re actually working’ (P21, Government)
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
The Role of Human Resource Managers in Shaping Organizational Responses
Table 4. (Continued)
Dimensions, themes, concepts and data
Second-order themes and
first-order concepts
K. Emotional intensity of
tensions
2.3 HR managers’ identity alignment
L. Alignment with
employer or employees
M. Threat vs. opportunity
of tensions
N. Capacity to address
contradictory demands
created by societal
paradox
Aggregate dimension 3: HR managers’ responses to societal paradox
3.1 Societal paradox is replicated in the organization
O. Emphasizes a both/and
response
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
425
Representative quotes for categories
K1. ‘Yeah, that first, when it really started to ramp up and we had, we really understood the
impact with our aged people, it was incredibly stressful. We had very emotional workforce
members that were saying you’re still sending us in to go and visit older people and we can’t
even go in and visit my mum in a facility or you know, we can’t cross the border to go and see
dad but you’re still telling us it’s okay to see someone else in their homes, so it was a real, they
felt it was more of a conflict of their values as well as a safety issue’ (P3, NFP)
K2. ‘I’ve done my best and succeeded so far of avoiding standing down staff by doing
redeployment, reallocation and whatever. But there still is that element of fear that I really
can’t do anything about’ (P14, Education)
K3. ‘So, it’s been kind of an underlying challenge with making sure people are safe and touch
wood we’ve had no issues at any of the sites, but obviously it’s not just about, this sometimes
comes across wrong, but it’s not just being safe it’s feeling safe’ (P24, FMCG)
K4. ‘We strongly encouraged workers to take leave for a week or two to share the pain in a sense’
(P10, Manufacturing)
L1. ‘The only exceptions are I guess people who are literally unable to because of childcare
arrangements but even then, they’re choosing not to extend their furlough, so if you don’t go
back to work on the first of June, you’re basically on leave without pay and could be
terminated in our UK business’ (P9, Healthcare)
L2. ‘I tend to, you know, this whole thing of people can stay home for a year, all that kind of
stuff, really? Who’s going to pay the people that, when the money runs out, so there needs to
be a bit of realization in it that there’s going to have to be some risk’ (P7, Logistics)
M1. ‘I have been trying to catch up with my manager on a regular basis just to keep her in the
loop so that she knows that I am flat out doing two jobs (BAU and Pandemic Response Team)
and I am not just twiddling my thumbs for most of the day’ (P1, Disability Services)
M2. ‘I’ve actually really enjoyed it. From a selfish perspective it’s changed how management
have seen what I do… So yeah, it’s lifted my profile and I had the ability then to change the
mindset and introduce something that I’ve been trying to do for years and haven’t being able
to get there but introduce this whole concept of wellbeing and wellness and it allowed me to
throw them into the deep end for it’s where I’ve been trying to get them to play in the pool for
about four or five years now with no success’ (P14, Education)
M3. ‘Send really strong signals and symbols of support and care during this time, and to show
more tolerance as well for extreme behaviours, and really just create a sense of, you know, that
fine balance between realism versus optimism’ (P27, Professional Services)
M4. ‘To be honest we are all feeling the same thing and how that’s impacted us and then how
can we just all be a bit more flexible and let’s just start with trust first and not have this thing
that you have to prove yourself, we are all in a stressful situation, we are all in this pressure
cooker so rather than having to prove ourselves, we have got no reason to think people aren’t
working so why start there?’ (P22, Technology)
N1. ‘So for me from a HR perspective it has taken its toll well and truly, working 70 hours a
week every week while trying to school from home and work in the office part-time, because I
was doing mornings at home to school my kids and then coming into the office at lunchtime
to try and maintain that visibility with staff, so that they knew that they could come and talk
to me, so I guess that’s been the biggest challenge for me personally is just lack of a network
of people to rely on I guess or to bounce things off’ (P9, Healthcare)
O1. ‘I’m very grateful that we’re able to work for this organisation that is an essential service, we
have been able to keep working, and we have been able to keep our people gainfully employed.
The biggest issues we’ve had is just that we had to work a bit differently’ (P18, Energy)
O2. ‘We didn’t furlough anybody, even though our business went off the cliff overnight. We
cut our costs by a couple million immediately. We cancelled all training, all travel, all other
stuff, you know, things we didn’t, projects we were going to do that we didn’t need to do, we
put a recruitment freeze in, we put a rem review freeze in. We basically said we’re not going to
do any pay increases in July, but no-one is getting a pay cut and nobody is losing their job’
(P29, Professional Services)
426 L. Branicki, S. Kalfa and S. Brammer

Table 4. (Continued)

Dimensions, themes, concepts and data

Second-order themes and Representative quotes for categories

first-order concepts
O3. ‘It was very much a juggling act, a logistical feat of epic proportions I would say, between
the technology, the people, and the health factors, but look it went remarkably well’ (P43,
Government)
O4. [What have you learnt out of all this?] ‘Well, that you can work through a pandemic. Like
really in the true sense of picking up your whole workforce and moving them off home and
being really flexible and adapting quickly to situations we have proven that absolutely’ (P20,
Education)
O5. ‘Then we have those Category A people who are exempt, their doctors have said no, no
they’re not coming back, so that they could remain working I did a Memorandum of
Understanding between them and then there’s an assigned casual teacher who they’re working
with’ (P14, Education)
O6. ‘We were going to split everybody into three groups and rotate those three groups bringing
them in for, so group one would come in for Monday to Thursday, we’d do a deep clean on the
Friday and then group two comes in on the Monday, leaves Thursday and that way there’s
more than a fortnight’s gap between when people come, last go to the office and then they
come back so that if they did become infectious they wouldn’t spread to anybody else, so that
was the thinking’ (P41, NFP)
P. Mirroring discourse of P1. ‘They had a whole campaign of “Saving Lives, Saving Jobs” and that became sort of the
societal paradox slogan… we obviously did sort of stop unnecessary casuals, we paused projects, third party
hire we stopped any third party hires like contractors for the time being which wasn’t great but
what they were trying to do is save jobs on payroll, and any vacancies that were legitimate
whilst recruitment was put on hold, what they did was they moved people around who weren’t
getting billable hours to do other things, we were encouraged to take our annual leave, they
had policy to go with the negative ten days annual leave, and we all had to sign up’ (P27,
Professional Services)
P2. ‘When you have got such an overarching narrative of Covid then everyone is consumed by it’
(P24, FMCG)
3.2 Latent organizational tensions are magnified
Q. Emphasizes an either/or Q1. ‘I tend to, you know, this whole thing of people can stay home for a year, all that kind of
response stuff, really? Who’s going to pay the people that, when the money runs out, so there needs to
be a bit of realization in it that there’s going to have to be some risk’ (P7, Logistics)
Q2. ‘Then there is this issue of good faith and trust and at the end of the day the organization is
responsible for spending public money so it’s accountable for that, that’s a significant resource.
To put it bluntly, we have to be wary [about WFH]’ (P21, Government Agency)
Q3. ‘So, throughout the whole thing we’ve had staff in the office. Firstly, we had no budget or
money to set people up with, I guess, hardware from home so we had to rely on people that
had the appropriate equipment already and the appropriate internet plans at home to enable
them to work. If they didn’t have a computer or internet or phone, then it simply wasn’t an
option for them to work from home’ (P9, Healthcare)
R. Evidence of latent R1. ‘But you know the interesting thing is, the people that are staying are not thankful that
employer–employee they’ve got a job, they’re angry, demanding pay rises, demanding that their work be adjusted,
antagonism/strain demanding this, demanding that, there’s so much anger, and it’s not what you’d expect, you’d
expect people to be grateful and thankful that they kept their job, that’s not the way it’s
working, yeah’ (P3, NFP)
R2. ‘Some managers were really great with the change and I think that’s because they had
already built that really positive working relationship with their staff based on trust, they
transitioned really well, but some of our Managers and General Managers that yes they
wanted to check up on their staff every day, like you know, the little Skype icon they were very
conscious that they wanted to see that green at 9:01 and 5 pm in the afternoon and they were
consistently asking HR how do I know this person’s working, how do I know they’re online,
how do I check on them, should I call them every day?’ (P38, Commodities)
R3. ‘We’ve picked staff to work from home that are our prime performers and responsible, so
anyone who was kind of under performance management or performance improvement they
were some of the ones that were selected to stay in the office for obvious reasons’ (P9,
Healthcare)

© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.

The Role of Human Resource Managers in Shaping Organizational Responses
losing employee goodwill to achieve short-run
gains during the crisis.
Consistent with our quantitative evidence, our
qualitative analysis suggests that there was consid-
erable variation across organizations in the salience
of tensions experienced. This was attributed by
respondents to two factors. First, organizations
varied in relation to the degree to which Covid-19
disrupted their markets, operations and activities.
While all organizations were affected to some
degree by Covid-19, variation in the degree of
organizational disruption reflected whether or not
an organization was active in an essential sector
or activity, as well as pre-pandemic patterns of
flexibility and homeworking. These factors ap-
peared to shape the level of impact experienced by
organizations, and how well equipped they were to
make the rapid changes called for during Covid-19.
The second theme relating to the organizational
salience of tensions related to the emotional in-
tensity of the tensions experienced. Covid-19’s im-
pacts on human life caused heightened emotional
intensity and anxiety, especially among groups that
were more vulnerable to the disease, and their
families. These stresses were compounded by con-
cerns with implementing rapid changes instigated
by Covid-19, and the additional work involved
with making adjustments. In many organizations,
HR managers experienced intense anger, frustra-
tion, sadness, anxiety and worry, and these experi-
ences raised the salience of the tensions being ex-
perienced.
Tensions surrounding HR managers’ experience
of societal paradox were also influenced by HR
managers’ identity alignment. In several organi-
zations, we identified the tendency for HR man-
agers to take strongly pro-organization positions
in relation to the impacts of Covid-19, whereas
in others there was greater concern for employ-
ees. A second aspect of HR managers’ identity
alignment relates to their construal of Covid-19
as a threat or opportunity. Covid-19 elevated the
strategic attention given to HR issues in many
organizations, and many HR managers saw con-
siderable opportunity to strengthen the visibility
and salience of the HR function organization-
ally. In contrast, other HR managers construed
the pandemic as a significant threat and tended to
present a more closed emotional orientation, being
concerned that their value-added was less visible
than under normal conditions. Our data therefore
support existing scholarship on paradox and hu-
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
427
man resource management (HRM) that highlights
the identity tensions for HR managers in their
role as strategic partners and employee champions
(Gerpott, 2015), as well as related tensions of per-
forming as they try to satisfy the needs of diver-
gent groups (Lang and Rego, 2015). A third ele-
ment of HR managers’ identity alignment relates
to the extent of confidence in their individual ca-
pacities to address the contradictory demands cre-
ated by the societal paradox. HR managers were
both personally affected by the pandemic and also
supporting many other organizational actors in re-
lation to its effects on them. Additionally, many
HR managers were themselves isolated from their
workplaces and their professional networks, thus
affecting their capacity to address the contradic-
tory demands encountered.
HR managers’ responses to societal paradox
Regarding HR managers’ responses to societal
paradox, we identified two major themes in our
data, each with a number of sub-themes. The first
major theme described circumstances in which the
societal paradox is replicated in the organization.
Many respondents directly experienced the soci-
etal paradox of protecting lives and the economy.
HR managers experienced the scale and scope of
the societal-level paradox as distinctive from more
everyday contradictory demands experienced in
their organizations. Circumstances where the soci-
etal paradox was replicated at the organizational
level of analysis were typified by two conditions.
First, replication occurred when HR managers
emphasized both/and responses to the crisis that
resisted pressures to default to one or other of
the societal paradox’s poles. Our data suggest that
many organizations experienced a direct replica-
tion of the societal paradox within their organiza-
tional setting – typically manifested in the form of
a concern to both ensure employee health, safety
and wellbeing, while also maintaining financial
viability through the pandemic. A second sub-
theme associated with replication of the societal
paradox in an organization’s setting involved the
mirroring of the discourse of the societal paradox
within the organization. Numerous public health
and government messages were not infrequently
mobilized in support of both/and replication of
the societal paradox within organizations. The
more HR managers responded positively to the
paradox, the more they rejected the separation
428
between protecting lives and the economy. Instead,
interviewees recognized that the pandemic allows
them a unique opportunity to critically evaluate
previous work practices and redesign a workplace
that is more sustainable yet satisfies business needs.
In contrast, the second major theme regard-
ing HR managers’ responses to societal para-
dox describes situations in which latent organi-
zational tensions are magnified. Circumstances in
which latent organizational tensions are magni-
fied tended to be typified by an emphasis on ei-
ther/or responses to the pandemic. Either/or re-
sponses to Covid-19 were especially common in
sectors deemed essential or recipients of govern-
ment funding where work could not stop or could
not be significantly changed or performed re-
motely (e.g. aged care, manufacturing, retail). In
these sectors, HR managers emphasized the finan-
cial viability of the business or the business’s ca-
pacity to service their customer base and felt un-
able to consider the benefits of long-term changes
to the existing ways of working. Instead, in privi-
leging an economic rationality they tended to em-
phasize old certainties, treating the changes forced
upon them by Covid-19 as temporary and unde-
sirable. HR managers responded defensively and
felt they were split between two worlds: on the one
hand, they were confronted by business impera-
tives while on the other hand, they were facing
an increasingly scared workforce concerned about
contracting Covid-19 and passing it on to their
families.
A further theme strongly linked to the magni-
fication of latent organizational tensions relates
to evidence of latent employer–employee antago-
nism or strain. In these circumstances, pre-Covid-
19 conditions cast an important shadow over how
organizations responded to the pandemic. Latent
suspicions, grievances, attitudes and expectations
became evident during, and were compounded or
exacerbated by, the pandemic. Many respondents
had experienced managerial scepticism about the
value of remote working arrangements due to the
suspicion that employees who were not physically
present at work were either not working, or not
working effectively.
Discussion and conclusions
We extend research on HR managers and paradox
by examining HR managers’ experiences and re-
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
L. Branicki, S. Kalfa and S. Brammer
sponses to organizational tensions and contradic-
tions generated by Covid-19. We have argued for
incorporation of a societal lens into paradox the-
orizing and have shown that societal/institutional
tensions have more nuanced and significant orga-
nizational implications than prior paradox theo-
rizing has suggested. We have synthesized existing
literature highlighting the relevance of HR man-
agers to the navigation of contradictions across
levels of analysis, paving the way for further re-
search. Empirically, we build on recent research
concerned with how ‘supporting actors’ are in-
valuable to organizational navigation of paradox-
ical tensions (Garavan et al., 2021; Pradies et al.,
2021a), to examine the experiences and roles of
HR managers in the navigation of Covid-19.
Our first key contribution is to build on recent
paradox research set in the Covid-19 context (e.g.
Carmine et al., 2021; Keller et al., 2021; Pradies
et al., 2021a; Sharma et al., 2021), to propose
the concept of societal paradox as a new macro-
environmental category of paradox. We character-
ize and describe dimensions of societal paradox,
responding to recent calls for paradox research
to be applied beyond the organizational level of
analysis. Our findings suggest that paradoxes can,
and do, arise at the societal level of analysis, and
that societal paradoxes play an important role in
shaping how paradoxes at other levels of analysis
are experienced and navigated. While Covid-19 has
manifested an especially salient and pervasive so-
cietal paradox and has illuminated how paradoxes
emerge and are managed during a period of cri-
sis (James, Wooten and Dushek, 2011), it is by no
means unique. Societal paradoxical tensions be-
tween climate and economy, wealth and equality,
transparency and privacy, and regulation and in-
novation might equally at other times and places
play an important role in informing paradoxes at
other levels of analysis.
Our second contribution to paradox research
is to extend Smith and Lewis’s (2011) analysis of
the role of environmental pressures in rendering
organizational paradoxes salient. We show that
societal paradox generates salient organizational
tensions by: (i) replicating the societal paradox
in an organizational setting (replicating para-
doxes) or (ii) rendering salient and intensifying
latent organizational paradoxes (magnifying para-
doxes). Critically reflecting on our findings led
us to propose an inductive model (Figure 2) that
describes the different organizational experiences
The Role of Human Resource Managers in Shaping Organizational Responses
Figure 2. An inductive conceptual model of human resource manager responses to societal paradox
of societal paradox, leading to distinct responses
that either replicate the societal paradox, magnify
existing latent organizational tensions, or resist or
reject the tensions experienced. Our quantitative
findings showed that the challenges provoked by
Covid-19 varied considerably across organiza-
tions, reflecting the extent to which particular
organizations’ activities, markets and operations
were disrupted by the societal crisis. Our quali-
tative evidence highlighted the diverse experience
of Covid-19 among HR managers and suggested
that responses to Covid-19 either ‘replicate’ the
initial societal-level paradox or ‘magnify’ existing
latent paradoxical tensions in the organization.
Consistent with Smith and Lewis (2011), one
widespread experience within our data was that
the societal paradox magnified and made salient
pre-existing organizational tensions. For example,
tensions between improving employee productiv-
ity and ensuring employee wellbeing, and between
trusting and monitoring employees working re-
motely, were magnified during Covid-19. In con-
trast, the experience of societal paradox among
other organizations in our sample was shaped to
a lesser extent by pre-existing latent tensions, sug-
gesting that they were a less prominent feature
of the pre-pandemic organizational context. In
those circumstances, the most prominent organi-
zational paradox experienced during Covid-19 en-
tailed a replication of the societal paradox at orga-
nizational level. Most often, this was manifested
in a concern to support employee health, safety
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
429
and wellbeing, while maintaining the capacity of
the organization to serve its clients, generate rev-
enue/income and remain in continuous operation.
Our evidence suggests that, consistent with prior
paradox theorizing (Poole and Van de Ven, 1989;
Smith and Lewis, 2011), individuals and organi-
zations respond to experienced tensions in diverse
ways. While our cross-sectional data don’t afford
us with the longitudinal evidence necessary to wit-
ness the dynamic effects of paradox navigation, we
nonetheless see in our findings the seeds of dif-
ferent paradox dynamics that have the potential
to contribute to distinct trajectories of organiza-
tional performance. Where HR responses magni-
fied latent organizational tensions, there is a risk
that this leads to a vicious circle in which the imper-
atives of the societal paradox are organizationally
inescapable, and in which organizations repeatedly
confront increasingly severely magnified latent or-
ganizational paradoxes. In contrast, where HR re-
sponses accepted the paradoxical tensions encoun-
tered, and sought creative integrative resolutions
to them, organizations tended to identify innova-
tive approaches that contributed to a virtuous cy-
cle in which contradictions provoked by Covid-19
were constructively addressed.
Our findings suggest several implications for
how HR managers, and their organizations, could
develop their responses to interdependent societal
and organizational paradoxes. We find, consistent
with both Garavan et al. (2021) and Pradies et al.
(2021a), that HR managers as supporting actors
430
have a significant role to play in navigating organi-
zational paradoxical tensions. As such, they have
the capacity to contribute significantly – both to
how tensions are understood and responded to or-
ganizationally, and to the dynamics of navigation
over time. This may be especially true for societal
paradoxes like those provoked by Covid-19, in
which the HR function and HR managers aren’t
primarily implicated in the generation of the ten-
sions experienced. We further find that how HR
managers experience the paradox influences how
HR managers shape organizational responses.
Our findings suggest that the HR managers who
experienced identity dissonance also tended to
fixate on employer prerogative and organizational
survival. In contrast, the HR managers who expe-
rienced contradictions as a challenging, but also
essential, part of their role tended to focus on
balancing the needs of employers and employees,
despite the difficulties of achieving this in practice
(Berti and Simpson, 2021). This suggests that or-
ganizations should invest in experiential training
which exposes HR managers to challenging con-
ditions and contradictory demands, so that they
can pro-actively develop a comfort with paradox.
A limitation of our research is its focus on the
experiences of Australian HR managers in the first
6 months of the pandemic. While the aim of our
study is not statistical generalization, it is still im-
portant to consider the theoretical transferability
of our findings (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). First,
our choice to focus on HR managers prevents
us from theorizing on the roles played by other
types of employee – senior managers, front-line
staff, etc. – in shaping organizational responses
to societal-level paradox. Future research could
therefore explore the effect of employee job role
in framing experiences of, and shaping responses
to, interdependencies between societal and orga-
nizational paradox. Second, because there were
significant cross-country variations in experiences
of, and responses to, Covid-19 (Graham-Harrison,
2020), future research should explore how societal
paradoxes are shaped by country-level factors.
To conclude, our theoretical contribution has
been to enrich appreciation of the significance of
societal paradox for the understanding of organi-
zational paradox. We highlight that paradoxical
tensions can themselves exist at societal level, and
build upon the theoretical work published to date
on Covid-19 and paradox (e.g. Keller et al., 2021;
Pradies et al., 2021a), to propose and describe
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
L. Branicki, S. Kalfa and S. Brammer
societal paradox as a new macro-environmental
category of paradox. Second, our findings show
that societal paradoxes do more than intensify
pre-existing, but latent, organizational paradox-
ical tensions. In so doing, we extend Smith and
Lewis’s (2011) theorization of the role of environ-
mental factors in rendering paradoxical tensions
salient. By highlighting the ways in which societal-
level paradox and organizational paradox become
interdependent in practice in the context of Covid-
19, we extend knowledge about interdependencies
between paradox at different levels of analysis
(Jarzabkowski, Le and Van de Ven, 2013). Further,
we have extended the existing HR and paradox
literature (e.g. Ehnert, 2009; Fu et al., 2020) to
highlight how HR managers’ experiences of soci-
etal paradox (i.e. replicating paradoxes or magni-
fying paradoxes) shape the role that HR managers
play in framing and shaping organizational re-
sponses. Importantly, our findings indicate the
challenges when societal-level paradoxes magnify
latent organizational tensions, and the risk posed
to meaningful sustainability (Berti and Simpson,
2021) when HR, and other managers, become
fixated on organizational survival at any cost.
References
Amason, A. C. (1996). ‘Distinguishing the effects of functional
and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: re-
solving a paradox for top management teams’, Academy of
Management Journal, 39, pp. 123–148.
Andriopoulos, C. and M. W. Lewis (2009). ‘Exploitation–
exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: man-
aging paradoxes of innovation’, Organization Science, 20, pp.
696–717.
Aust, I., J. Brandl and A. Keegan (2015). ‘State of the art and
future directions for HRM from a paradox perspective: intro-
duction to the special issue’, German Journal of Research in
Human Resource Management, 29, pp. 194–213.
Aust, I., J. Brandl, A. Keegan and M. Lensges (2017). ‘Para-
doxical tensions in the HRM context’. In W. K. Smith, M.
W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski and A. Langley (eds), The Oxford
Handbook of Organizational Paradox, pp. 413–433. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bardoel, E. A. (2016). ‘Work–life management tensions in multi-
national enterprises (MNEs)’, The International Journal of Hu-
man Resource Management, 27, pp. 1681–1709.
Bednarek, R., S. Paroutis and J. Sillince (2017). ‘Transcendence
through rhetorical practices: responding to paradox in the sci-
ence sector’, Organization Studies, 38, pp. 77–101.
Beletskiy, A. and C. F. Fey (2020). ‘HR ambidexterity and ab-
sorptive capacities: a paradox-based approach to HRM capa-
bilities and practice adoption in MNC subsidiaries’, Human
Resource Management, 60, pp. 863–883.
The Role of Human Resource Managers in Shaping Organizational Responses
Berti, M. and A. V. Simpson (2021). ‘On the practicality of resist-
ing pragmatic paradoxes’, Academy of Management Review,
46, pp. 409–412.
Besharov, M. L. (2014). ‘The relational ecology of identifica-
tion: how organizational identification emerges when individ-
uals hold divergent values’, Academy of Management Journal,
57, pp. 1485–1512.
Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in Qualitative Research. London:
Sage.
Boselie, P., C. Brewster and J. Paauwe (2009). ‘In search of
balance-managing the dualities of HRM: an overview of the
issues’, Personnel Review, 38, pp. 461–471.
Boxall, P. and J. Purcell (2016). Strategy and Human Resource
Management, 4th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brammer, S., L. Branicki and M. K. Linnenluecke (2020).
‘COVID-19, societalization, and the future of business in so-
ciety’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 34, pp. 493–507.
Budhwar, P. and D. Cumming (2020a). ‘New directions in
management research and communication: lessons from the
COVID-19 pandemic’, British Journal of Management, 31, pp.
441–443.
Budhwar, P. and D. Cumming (2020b). ‘Call for pa-
pers: impact of COVID-19 pandemic on management
and organization’, British Journal of Management.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/pb-assets/assets/14678551/
BJM%20Covid-19%20Special%20Submissions%20Call%
20%2815%20May%202020%29-1591777833520.pdf
Burgers, J., J. Jansen, F. Van Den Bosch and H. Volberda (2009),
‘Structural differentiation and corporate venturing: the mod-
erating role of formal and informal integration mechanisms’,
Journal of Business Venturing, 24, pp. 206–20.
Carmine, S., C. Andriopoulos, M. Gotsi, C. E. Härtel, A.
Krzeminska, N. Mafico et al. (2021). ‘A paradox approach to
organizational tensions during the pandemic crisis’, Journal of
Management Inquiry, 30, pp. 138–153.
Cloutier, C. and D. Ravasi (2021). ‘Using tables to enhance trust-
worthiness in qualitative research’, Strategic Organization, 19,
pp. 113–133.
Cunha, M. P., A. Rego and S. Clegg (2011). ‘Beyond addiction:
Hierarchy and other ways of getting strategy done’, European
Management Journal, 29, pp. 491–503.
Cunha, M. P. E. and L. L. Putnam (2019). ‘Paradox theory and
the paradox of success’, Strategic Organization, 17, pp. 95–
106.
Dameron, S. and C. Torset (2014). ‘The discursive construction
of strategists’ subjectivities: towards a paradox lens on strat-
egy’, Journal of Management Studies, 51, pp. 291–319.
Das, T. K. and B. S. Teng (2000). ‘Instabilities of strategic al-
liances: an internal tensions perspective’, Organization Science,
11, pp. 77–101.
Daubner-Siva, D., C. J. Vinkenburg and P. G. W. Jansen (2017).
‘Dovetailing talent management and diversity management:
the exclusion–inclusion paradox’, Journal of Organizational
Effectiveness: People and Performance, 4, pp. 315–331.
Daykin, A. R. and P. G. Moffatt (2002). ‘Analyzing ordered re-
sponses: a review of the ordered probit model’, Understanding
Statistics: Statistical Issues in Psychology, Education, and the
Social Sciences, 1, pp. 157–166.
Derksen, K., R. J. Blomme, L. De Caluwe, J. Rupert and R.
J. Simons (2019). ‘Breaking the paradox: understanding how
teams create developmental space’, Journal of Management In-
quiry, 28, pp. 366–380.
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
431
Dobbins, T. and T. Dundon (2017). ‘The chimera of sustainable
labour–management partnership’, British Journal of Manage-
ment, 28, pp. 519–533.
Ehnert, I. (2009). Sustainable Human Resource Management: A
Conceptual and Exploratory Analysis from a Paradox Perspec-
tive. Bremen: Physica-Verlag.
Ehnert, I. (2014). ‘Paradox as a lens for theorizing sustainable
HRM: mapping and coping with paradoxes and tensions’. In
I. Ehnert, H. Wes and K. J. Zink (eds), Sustainability and Hu-
man Resource Management: Developing Sustainable Business
Organizations, pp. 247–271. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Eisenhardt, K. M., M. E. Graebner and S. Sonenshein (2016).
‘Grand challenges and inductive methods: rigor without rigor
mortis’, Academy of Management Journal, 59, pp. 1113–1123.
Fang, T. (2012). ‘Yin Yang: a new perspective on culture’, Man-
agement and Organization Review, 8, pp. 25–50.
Fendt, J. and W. Sachs (2008). ‘Grounded theory method in man-
agement research’, Organizational Research Methods, 11, pp.
430–455.
Francis, H. and A. Keegan (2020). ‘The ethics of engagement in
an age of austerity: A paradox perspective’ Journal of Business
Ethics, 162, pp. 593–607.
Fu, N., P. C. Flood, D. M. Rousseau and T. Morris (2020).
‘Line managers as paradox navigators in HRM implementa-
tion: balancing consistency and individual’, Journal of Man-
agement Responsiveness, 46, pp. 203–233.
Garavan, T. N., M. J. Morley, C. Cross, R. Carbery and C. Darcy
(2021). ‘Tensions in talent: a micro practice perspective on
the implementation of high potential talent development pro-
grams in multinational corporations’, Human Resource Man-
agement, 60, pp. 273–293.
Gebert, D., S. Boerner and E. Kearney (2010). ‘Fostering team
innovation: why is it important to combine opposing action
strategies?’, Organization Science, 21, pp. 593–608.
Gehman, J., V. L. Glaser, K. M. Eisenhardt, D. Gioia, A. Lan-
gley and K. G. Corley (2018). ‘Finding theory–method fit: a
comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory build-
ing’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 27, pp. 284–300.
Gerpott, F. H. (2018). ‘The right strategy? Examining the busi-
ness partner model’s functionality for resolving Human Re-
source Management tensions and discussing alternative direc-
tions’, German Journal of Research in Human Resource Man-
agement, 29, pp. 214–234.
Gioia, D. A., K. G. Corley and A. L. Hamilton (2013). ‘Seek-
ing qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia
methodology’, Organizational Research Methods, 16, pp. 15–
31.
Graham-Harrison, E. (2020). ‘Experience of Sars a key fac-
tor in countries’ response to coronavirus’, The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/experience-
of-sars-key-factor-in-response-to-coronavirus.
Greene, W. H. and D. A. Hensher (2010). Modeling Ordered
Choices: A Primer and Recent Developments. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Grodal, S., M. Anteby and A. L. Holm (2021). ‘Achieving rigor
in qualitative analysis: the role of active categorization in the-
ory building’, Academy of Management Review, 46, pp. 591–
612.
Guerci, M. and L. Carollo (2016). ‘A paradox view on green hu-
man resource management: insights from the Italian context’,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27, pp.
212–238.
432
Hahn, T. and E. Knight (2021). ‘The ontology of organizational
paradox: a quantum approach’, Academy of Management Re-
view, 46, pp. 362–384.
Hahn, T., J. Pinkse, L. Preuss and F. Figge (2015). ‘Tensions in
corporate sustainability: towards an integrative framework’,
Journal of Business Ethics, 127, pp. 297–316.
James, E. H., L. P. Wooten and K. Dushek (2011). ‘Crisis
management: informing a new leadership research agenda’,
Academy of Management Annals, 5, pp. 455–493.
Jarzabkowski, P. and J. K. Lê (2017). ‘We have to do this and that?
You must be joking: constructing and responding to paradox
through humor’, Organization Studies, 38, pp. 433–462.
Jarzabkowski, P., J. Le and A. H. Van de Ven (2013). ‘Respond-
ing to competing strategic demands: how organizing, belong-
ing and performing paradoxes co-evolve’, Strategic Organiza-
tion, 11, pp. 245–280.
Jarzabkowski, P., R. Bednarek, K. Chalkias and E. Cacciatori
(2019). ‘Exploring inter-organizational paradoxes: method-
ological lessons from a study of a grand challenge’, Strategic
Organization, 17, pp. 120–132.
Keegan, A. and P. Boselie (2006). ‘The lack of impact of dis-
sensus inspired analysis on developments in the field of hu-
man resource management’, Journal of Management Studies,
43, pp. 1491–1511.
Keegan, A., I. Bitterling, H. Sylva and L. Hoeksema (2018). ‘Or-
ganizing the HRM function: Responses to paradoxes, variety,
and dynamism’ Human Resource Management, 57, pp. 1111–
1126.
Keegan, A., J. Brandl and I. Aust (2019a). ‘Handling tensions in
human resource management: insights from paradox theory’,
German Journal of Human Resource Management, 33, pp. 79–
85.
Keegan, A., J. Brandl and I. Aust (2019b). ‘Human resource man-
agement and paradox theory’. In K. Townsend, K. Cafferkey,
A. M. McDermott and T. Dundon (eds), Elgar Introduction to
Theories of Human Resources and Employment Relations, pp.
199–216. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Keller, J., J. Loewenstein and J. Yan (2017). ‘Culture, conditions
and paradoxical frames’, Organization Studies, 38, pp. 539–
560.
Keller, J., S. Carmine, P. Jarzabkowski, M. W. Lewis, C. Pradies,
G. Sharma et al. (2021). ‘Our collective tensions: paradox re-
search community’s response to COVID-19’, Journal of Man-
agement Inquiry, 30, pp. 168–176.
Knight, E. and S. Paroutis (2017a). ‘Becoming salient: the TMT
leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical
tensions’, Organization Studies, 38, pp. 403–432.
Knight, E. and S. Paroutis (2017b). ‘Expanding the paradox–
pedagogy links: paradox as a threshold concept in manage-
ment education’. In W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski
and A. Langley (eds), Handbook of Organizational Paradox:
Approaches to Plurality, Tensions and Contradictions, pp. 529–
546. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kozica, A. and J. Brandl (2015). ‘Handling paradoxical tensions
through conventions: the case of performance appraisal’, Ger-
man Journal of Human Resource Management, 29, pp. 49–68.
Lang, R. and K. Rego (2015). ‘German human resource manage-
ment professionals under tensions: a Bourdieusian approach’,
German Journal of Human Resource Management, 29, pp. 259–
279.
Legge, K. (1978). Power, Innovation and Problem-Solving in Per-
sonnel Management. London: McGraw-Hill.
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
L. Branicki, S. Kalfa and S. Brammer
Leung, A. K. Y., S. Liou, E. Miron-Spektor, B. Koh, D. Chan, R.
Eisenberg and I. Schneider (2018). ‘Middle ground approach
to paradox: within- and between-culture examination of the
creative benefits of paradoxical frames’, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 114, pp. 443–464.
Lewis, M. (2000). ‘Exploring paradox: toward a more compre-
hensive guide’, Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 760–
776.
Lewis, M. W. and W. K. Smith (2014). ‘Paradox as a metatheoret-
ical perspective: sharpening the focus and widening the scope’,
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50, pp. 127–149.
Lincoln, Y. S. and E. G. Guba (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. New-
bury Park, CA: Sage.
Lindström, S. and M. Janhonen (2021). ‘Interdependent HRM
practices as active responses to paradox in Finnish growth en-
terprises’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Develop-
ment, 28, pp. 619–639.
Liu, Y., S. Xu and B. Zhang (2020). ‘Thriving at work: How
a paradox mindset influences innovative work behavior’ The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56, pp. 347–366.
Locke, K., K. Golden-Biddle and M. S. Feldman (2008). ‘Per-
spective – making doubt generative: rethinking the role of
doubt in the research process’, Organization Science, 19, pp.
907–918.
Lüscher, L. S. and M. Lewis (2008). ‘Organizational change and
managerial sensemaking: working through paradox’, Academy
of Management Journal, 51, pp. 221–240.
Mabey, C. and S. Zhao (2017). ‘Managing five paradoxes of
knowledge exchange in networked organizations: new priori-
ties for HRM?’, Human Resource Management Journal, 27, pp.
39–57.
Marchington, M. (2015). ‘Human resource management
(HRM): too busy looking up to see where it is going longer
term?’, Human Resource Management Review, 25, pp. 176–187.
Mease, J. J. (2016). ‘Embracing discursive paradox: consultants
navigating the constitutive tensions of diversity work’, Man-
agement Communication Quarterly, 30, pp. 59–83.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A. M (1994). Qualitative Data Anal-
ysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publica-
tions.
Miron-Spektor, E. and M. Erez (2017). ‘Looking at creativ-
ity through a paradox lens: deeper understanding and new
insights’. In W. K. Smith, M. W. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski
and A. Langley (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Organi-
zational Paradox, pp. 434–451. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Miron-Spektor, E. and S. B. Paletz (2020). ‘Collective paradox-
ical frames: managing tensions in learning and innovation’.
In L. Argote and J. M. Levine (eds), The Oxford Handbook
of Group and Organizational Learning, p. 429. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Miron-Spektor, E., M. Erez and E. Naveh (2011). ‘The effect of
conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innova-
tion: reconciling the innovation paradox’, Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 54, pp. 740–760.
Miron-Spektor, E., A. Ingram, J. Keller, W. K. Smith and M. W.
Lewis (2018). ‘Microfoundations of organizational paradox:
the problem is how we think about the problem’, Academy of
Management Journal, 61, pp. 26–45.
Naldi, L., M. Nordqvist, K. Sjöberg and J. Wiklund (2007). ‘En-
trepreneurial orientation, risk taking, and performance in fam-
ily firms’, Family Business Review, 20, pp. 33–47.
The Role of Human Resource Managers in Shaping Organizational Responses
NSW Government (2021). ‘COVID safe’. Available at
https://www.nsw.gov.au/Covid-19/Covid-safe#mandatory-
registration. Accessed 1st August, 2021.
Pamphile, V. D. (2021). ‘Paradox peers: a relational approach to
navigating a business–society paradox’, The Academy of Man-
agement Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.0616.
Pant, A. and J. Ramachandran (2017). ‘Navigating identity du-
ality in multinational subsidiaries: a paradox lens on identity
claims at Hindustan Unilever 1959–2015’, Journal of Interna-
tional Business Studies, 48, pp. 664–692.
Peters, P. and W. Lam (2015). ‘Can employability do the trick?
Revealing paradoxical tensions and responses in the process
of adopting innovative employability enhancing policies and
practices in organizations’, German Journal of Human Re-
source Management, 29, pp. 235–258.
Podgorodnichenko, N., F. Edgar and I. McAndrew (2020). ‘The
role of HRM in developing sustainable organizations: contem-
porary challenges and contradictions’, Human Resource Man-
agement Review, 30, art. 100685.
Poole, M. S. and A. H. Van de Ven (1989). ‘Using paradox
to build management and organization theories’, Academy of
Management Review, 14, pp. 562–578.
Poon, T. S.-C. and K. K. Law (2020). ‘Sustainable HRM: an ex-
tension of the paradox perspective’, Human Resource Manage-
ment Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2020.100818.
Pradies, C., I. Aust, R. Bednarek, J. Brandl, S. Carmine, J. Cheal
et al. (2021a). ‘The lived experience of paradox: how individ-
uals navigate tensions during the pandemic crisis’, Journal of
Management Inquiry, 30, pp. 154–167.
Pradies, C., A. Tunarosa, M. W. Lewis and J. Courtois (2021b).
‘From vicious to virtuous paradox dynamics: the social-
symbolic work of supporting actors’, Organization Studies, 42,
pp. 1241–1263.
Pratt, M. G. (2008). ‘Fitting oval pegs into round holes: tensions
in evaluating and publishing qualitative research in top-tier
North American journals’, Organizational Research Methods,
11, pp. 481–509.
Raisch, S., T. J. Hargrave and A. H. Van De Ven (2018). ‘The
learning spiral: a process perspective on paradox’, Journal of
Management Studies, 55, pp. 1507–1526.
Saldaña, J. (2016). Goodall’s verbal exchange coding: An
overview and example. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(1), 36-39.
Safe Work Australia (2020). ‘National COVID-19 safe work-
place principles’. Available at https://www.safeworkaustralia.
gov.au/Covid-19-information-workplaces/other-resources/
national-Covid-19-safe-workplace-principles. Accessed 1st
November 2020.
Schad, J. and P. Bansal (2018). ‘Seeing the forest and the trees:
how a systems perspective informs paradox research’, Journal
of Management Studies, 55, pp. 1490–1506.
Schad, J., M. W. Lewis and W. K. Smith (2019). ‘Quo vadis,
paradox? Centripetal and centrifugal forces in theory devel-
opment’, Strategic Organization, 17, pp. 107–119.
Layla Branicki is a Senior Lecturer in the Department for People and Organizations at The Open
University Business School, UK. Her research focuses on crisis management and corporate social
responsibility. She is an Associate Editor for Group & Organization Management and has published in
Academy of Management Discoveries, Academy of Management Perspectives, The International Journal
of Human Resource Management and Work, Employment & Society.
© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.
433
Schad, J., M. W. Lewis, S. Raisch and W. K. Smith (2016). ‘Para-
dox research in management science: looking back to move
forward’, Academy of Management Annals, 10, pp. 5–64.
Sharma, G., J. Bartunek, P. M. Buzzanell, S. Carmine, C. Endres,
M. Etter et al. (2021). ‘A paradox approach to societal tensions
during the pandemic crisis’, Journal of Management Inquiry,
30, pp. 121–137.
Sheep, M. L., G. T. Fairhurst and S. Khazanchi (2017). ‘Knots in
the discourses of innovation: investigating multiple tensions in
a reacquired spin-off’, Organization Studies, 38, pp. 463–488.
Slawinski, N. and P. Bansal (2015). ‘Short on time: intertemporal
tensions in business sustainability’, Organization Science, 26,
pp. 531–549.
Smith, P. (2020). ‘Hard lockdown and a “health dictatorship”:
Australia’s lucky escape from COVID-19’, BMJ (Clinical re-
search ed.), 371, art. m4910.
Smith, W. K. (2014). ‘Dynamic decision making: a model of se-
nior leaders managing strategic paradoxes’, Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 57, pp. 1592–1623.
Smith, W. K. and M. W. Lewis (2011). ‘Towards a theory of para-
dox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing’, Academy of
Management Review, 36, pp. 381–401.
Smith, W. K. and M. L. Tushman (2005). ‘Managing strategic
contradictions: a top management model for managing inno-
vation streams’, Organization Science, 16, pp. 522–536.
Smith, W. K., M. Gonin and M. L. Besharov (2013). ‘Man-
aging social–business tensions: a review and research agenda
for social enterprise’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 23, pp. 407–
442.
Strauss, A. and J. Corbin (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research
Techniques. Thousand oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Sundaramurthy, C. and M. Lewis (2003). ‘Control and collab-
oration: paradoxes of governance’, Academy of Management
Review, 28, pp. 397–415.
Verma, S. and A. Gustafsson (2020). ‘Investigating the emerging
COVID-19 research trends in the field of business and man-
agement: a bibliometric analysis approach’, Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 118, pp. 253–261.
Vince, R. and M. Broussine (1996). ‘Paradox, defense and attach-
ment: Accessing the working with emotions and relations un-
derlying organizational change’ Organization Studies, 17, pp.
1–21.
Waldman, D. A., L. L. Putnam, E. Miron-Spektor and D. Siegel
(2019). ‘The role of paradox theory in decision making and
management research’, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 155, pp. 1–6.
Wareham, J., P. B. Fox and J. L. Cano Giner (2014). ‘Technology
ecosystem governance’, Organization Science, 25, pp. 1195–
1215.
Zhang, Y., D. A. Waldman, Y. L. Han and X. B. Li (2015). ‘Para-
doxical leader behaviors in people management: antecedents
and consequences’, Academy of Management Journal, 58, pp.
538–566.
434 L. Branicki, S. Kalfa and S. Brammer

Senia Kalfa is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Management at Macquarie Business School,
Australia. She holds a PhD from the University of New South Wales and an MSc in Human Resource
Management from Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK. Senia has researched and published
on return-to-work from serious and/or chronic illness and on employee voice. Her research is inter-
disciplinary and industry-driven, with a particular interest in making an impact outside academia.

Stephen Brammer is Dean of the School of Management at the University of Bath, UK. His research
focuses on corporate social responsibility, corporate reputation, stakeholder management and sus-
tainability. He has published in the Strategic Management Journal, Journal of Management Studies,
Organization Studies and Academy of Management Perspectives.

© 2021 British Academy of Management and Wiley Periodicals LLC.