Siinviidatud vabalevis olev tekst leidis oma koha peamiselt praktilistel kaalutlustel: paradoksid on kasulik vahend ühiskondlike küsimuste mõistmisel. Tõsi, paradokside äratundmiseks oleks kasulik immanentse kriitika tehnikate tundmine, kuid neid siinviidatu ei käsitle. Igal juhul on meeldiv lugeda, et kusagil vabas looduses on personalijuhid, kes muuhulgas tõesti mõtlevad ja suudavad organisatsiooni mõtestada ühiskondlike paradokside kaudu. Minuni jõudvad personalijuhtimise praktikad lubavad asuda seisukohale, et … küllap läheb veel aega …
Paradox, characterized as ‘contradictory yet interrelated elements embedded in organizing processes’ (Smith and Lewis, 2011, p. 389), is of growing importance within both management (Berti and Simpson, 2021; Hahn and Knight, 2021; Jarzabkowski et al., 2019; Pradies et al., 2021b) and human resource (HR) scholarship (Beletskiy and Fey, 2020). An HR focus is common in paradox 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’ (Jarzabkowski et al., 2019, p. 127).
Mis on paradoksid ühiskonnas?
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 competing demands – protecting lives and the economy can be understood as a societal paradox. We characterize ‘societal paradox’ as (a) arising at the societal level of analysis (see Brammer et al., 2020) and (b) involving interdependent and yet contradictory demands between socially significant objectives.
‘How do HR managers experience and respond to the organizational tensions generated by societal paradox? How and why do these experiences and responses vary?’
Personalijuhtimine on üks huvitav valdkond:
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 resource 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 organizational practices, processes, routines and functions (Cunha and Putnam, 2019).
Organisatsioonis peitub paljutki:
HR scholars (Aust, Brandl and Keegan, 2015; Aust et al., 2017; Gerpott, 2015) have encountered and studied many forms of organizational paradox – learning paradoxes (Das and Teng, 2000; Slawinski and Bansal, 2015), belonging 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).
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. […] We show that societal paradox generates salient organizational tensions by: (i) replicating the societal paradox in an organizational setting (replicating paradoxes) or (ii) rendering salient and intensifying latent organizational paradoxes (magnifying paradoxes). […] Our evidence suggests that, consistent with prior paradox theorizing (Poole and Van de Ven, 1989; Smith and Lewis, 2011), individuals and organizations respond to experienced tensions in diverse ways.
Branicki, L., Kalfa, S., & Brammer, S. (2021). Surviving Covid‐19: The Role of Human Resource Managers in Shaping Organizational Responses to Societal Paradox. British Journal of Management.