See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/388678933

Megatrends affecting the world of work: Implications for human resources

management

Article in Personnel Review · February 2025

CITATIONS READS

0 433

9 authors, including:

Eddy S. Ng Pauline Stanton

Queen's University RMIT University
152 PUBLICATIONS 6,596 CITATIONS 40 PUBLICATIONS 774 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Linda Schweitzer Mustafa F Ozbilgin

Carleton University Brunel University London
30 PUBLICATIONS 2,848 CITATIONS 455 PUBLICATIONS 9,888 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eddy S. Ng on 22 March 2025.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0048-3486.htm

Personnel Review
Megatrends affecting the world
of work: Implications for human
resource management
Eddy S. Ng
Smith School of Business, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada and
Singapore Campus, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia Received 2 February 2025
Revised 4 February 2025
Pauline Stanton Accepted 4 February 2025

Department of Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Chidozie Umeh
School for Business and Society, University of York, York, UK
Greg J. Bamber
Monash Business School, Monash AI Institute, Monash University,
Melbourne, Australia and
Digital Futures at Work Research Centre, led by Sussex University,
Brighton/Leeds University, Leeds, UK
Dianna Stone
Anderson School of Management, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
Kimberly Lukaszewski
School of Supply Chain Management, Marketing, and Management,
Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, USA
Sherry Aw
James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Sean Lyons
Gordon S. Lang School of Business and Economics, University of Guelph,
Guelph, Canada
Linda Schweitzer
Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Shuang Ren
Queen’s Business School, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK
€
Mustafa F. Ozbilgin
Brunel Business School, Brunel University of London, London, UK, and
Arup Varma
Quinlan School of Business, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Greg J Bamber acknowledges that his research in this field is supported by the Prescott Family
Foundation. He is also grateful for helpful comments on a draft version of this article from: Ian Glendon,
Personnel Review
Tom Kochan, Russell Lansbury, Julian Teicher, and Jackie O’Reilly, as well as the Journal’s Editors: Eddy © Emerald Publishing Limited
Ng, Pauline Stanton, Chidozie Umeh; the article’s co-authors and reviewers. e-ISSN: 1758-6933
p-ISSN: 0048-3486
All authors contributed equally to this anthology. DOI 10.1108/PR-02-2025-0100
PR Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of the anthology is to explore how major societal shifts or “megatrends” are impacting
the world of work and to provide guidance for human resource management (HRM) professionals.
Design/methodology/approach – The anthology adopts a varied approach encompassing literature reviews,
empirical research and conceptual frameworks to offer informed perspectives on identifying and interpreting
megatrends’ impact on HRM.
Findings – The synthesis highlights several key impacts on the future of work: the transformative power of
technological advancements, particularly AI and other new technologies; the challenges posed by globalization
and shifting demographics; the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on work practices; the significant
risks of climate change; the negative influence of populism and political polarization on diversity, equity and
inclusion (DEI) initiatives; and the need for nuanced HRM approaches to address generational differences.
Research limitations/implications – There is inherent subjectivity in identifying and interpreting megatrends.
Individual authors’ perspectives and biases might influence their analyses of megatrends and their
recommendations for HRM. The analyses predominantly focus on Western contexts, limiting the
generalizability of findings to other geographical regions and cultures.
Practical implications – The anthology encourages a more proactive, adaptable and inclusive approach to
HRM, emphasizing the need for strategic foresight, investment in employee development and a focus on
building organizational resilience in the face of significant societal changes.
Social implications – The anthology underscores the social responsibility of organizations and policymakers to
mitigate negative social consequences arising from megatrends, promoting social justice, equity and the well-
being of all members of society, particularly those most vulnerable to disruption. The findings highlight a need
for societal adaptation and proactive measures to address potential inequities.
Originality/value – The anthology offers a comprehensive and insightful exploration of the significant
transformations in the world of work, offering actionable guidance and laying the groundwork for future
research into how HRM can successfully adapt to the evolving landscape.
Keywords Megatrends, Technological change, Artificial intelligence, Demographic shift, Globalization,
Climate change, Populism, Future of work
Paper type Research paper

What do we have to do today to be ready for an uncertain tomorrow? – Peter Drucker

Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, 1974

Megatrends are “large, social, economic, political, and technological changes [that are] slow to
form, and once in place, they influence us for some time . . .” (Naisbitt and Aburdene, p. 12). They
are powerful forces that create significant transformations, affect broad geographical areas and
large segments of society, and impact multiple sectors of the economy (Naughtin et al., 2024).
Megatrends are created by a variety of factors including rapid technological advancement,
continued globalization and greater human mobility, and shifting demographics creating social
and societal changes (Burke and Ng, 2006). Macro shifts such as the climate crisis, digital
transformation and Generative-AI (Gen-AI), and rising right wing populism and political
polarization are disrupting how businesses and organizations operate, as they unfold over
extended periods and shape long-term futures (Budhwar et al., 2023; Cumming et al., 2020;
Kniffin et al., 2021). These shifts are further complicated by unpredictable events such as the
COVID-19 pandemic that reshape the future of work and required skills. From a human resource
management perspective, these megatrends fundamentally transform workplaces, change the
ways we work and reshape the future of work (Minbaeva, 2021). The changing nature of work and
the skills needed to thrive present a complex challenge, requiring organizations and employers to
take proactive steps to prepare for unforeseen events. An understanding of megatrends is therefore
crucial for long-term strategic planning and decision-making in organizations.
This anthology aims to explore how megatrends may shape the world of work. We first
identify six emergent megatrends to provide context on how they impact society, businesses
and individuals. They include technological advancement and digital transformation,
globalization, changing demographics, aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, climate
change and rising populism. We then invite several scholars to offer their viewpoints on how
these megatrends disrupt, transform and impact how organizations and individuals live, work
and connect. It is important to note that the identification and interpretation of megatrends can
be subjective, and the relative importance of different megatrends may vary depending on the Personnel Review
perspective and context.
Rapid technological advancement gave rise to artificial intelligence (AI) and the
introduction of Gen-AI (e.g. ChatGPT), accelerating the industrial revolution of knowledge
work (Budhwar et al., 2023). Gen-AI enables individuals to gather information, solve
problems and create content at speed and scale (Davenport and Mittal, 2022). It will transform
how we work, requiring employers to help employees adapt and leverage AI tools effectively
to perform their roles. While AI is expected to generate new job opportunities, a substantial
number of existing roles are vulnerable to being replaced by AI. This transition will necessitate
significant reskilling and retooling efforts for many workers to remain competitive in the
changing job market (Tamayo et al., 2023). At the same time, Gen-AI will require managers to
focus on “problem finding” rather than problem solving. This will also necessitate that
organizations promote a culture of continuous learning and developing managers to manage
both human and digital managers (Lung, 2024).
Continuing globalization over the past century also intensified competition among
businesses. The drive for productivity and efficiency has led to outsourcing and offshoring of
workers as work continues to flow to low-wage countries (Burke and Ng, 2006). At the same
time, globalization has led to labour market integration and opened new sources of workers
through immigration and greater worker mobility, affecting employment relationships
(Chartrand and Vosko, 2021). An acute lack of workers particularly in several critical
industries such as healthcare, communication and information technology, construction,
agriculture and many other industries saw aggressive immigration policies aimed at plugging the
shortage of skills (Ruhs and Andserson, 2012). Although this has enabled workers to move to
better paying jobs in stronger economies, it also could result in worker exploitation, due to a lack
of legal recognition and protection under citizenship and labour laws (Marsden et al., 2021).
Additionally, the migration of workers across continents and oceans contribute to increasing
ethnocultural diversity of host countries (Ozer and Kamran, 2023). From an organizational
perspective, managers and individuals will need to develop the competencies to lead, manage,
communicate and work alongside individuals and teams from across different cultures.
A growing proportion of aging workers, particularly in developed economies, is also
affecting the workplace in unprecedented ways. A rapidly aging population accompanied by a
shrinking workforce will see more seniors drawing retirement benefits and fewer workers
paying into retirement funds, straining social security systems (Visco, 2000). Moreover, for the
first time in history, organizations and employers are confronted with managing four
generations in the workforce, from Baby Boomers (those born between 1946 and 1965), Gen
Xers (born between 1966 and 1980), Gen Y or “Millennials” (born between 1981 and 1995)
and Gen Z (born between 1996 and 2010) (Weikle, 2019). Generational differences in values
and stereotypes create workplace challenges, including communication barriers, different
career and work-life expectations and difficulties in knowledge transfer (Ayoobzadeh et al.,
2024; Lyons et al., 2015). In this respect, employers need to understand and manage
the possibly differing needs and expectations of each generation. This includes crafting a
work experience and compensation (pay) package that fosters employee engagement
(Ng and Parry, 2016).
A once in a lifetime event such as the COVID-19 pandemic also dramatically altered work
patterns, prompting widespread remote work, intensifying labour shortages and increasing the
desire among some for improved work–life balance (Duncan, 2023). Prolonged periods of
remote work have fundamentally changed how people view and experience work, with a
significant portion of the workforce discovering the benefits of remote work. This shift has led
among many to a decreased desire to return to traditional office settings. Some employees who
work from home feel less connected to their organizations’ missions, lacking opportunities for
growth and development and feeling unsupported by their managers (Carillo et al., 2021).
Despite the many benefits, employers are concerned with employee engagement, prompting
some CEOs (e.g. Elon Musk, Andy Jassy) to require employees to return to the office full-time.
PR Organizations and managers will need to better manage productivity, culture and collaboration
and accommodate the needs of “splitters” (those preferring strict separation between work and
personal life) and “blenders” (preferring a more integrated approach) (Duncan, 2023).
In addition to a global pandemic, another megatrend that has a significant impact on
individuals and organizations is climate change. The escalating threat of climate change is
evident in the increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events. These catastrophes
– including droughts, floods, heatwaves, wildfires and hurricanes – jeopardize resource
security (e.g. water, energy, raw minerals), disrupt supply chains, cause food shortages, which
result in billions of dollars in economic losses, and lead to business failures (National Centres
for Environmental Information, n.d.). Climate change is reshaping work, transportation, food
systems and economic relationships. To mitigate the impacts of climate change, employers and
managers must proactively develop strategies that address employee health (including
resilience to climate anxiety), monitor and improve working conditions in extreme weather
and poor air quality, and ensure business continuity (Kim et al., 2022).
In addition, growing economic disparities, fuelled by disinformation, have given rise to far
right-wing ideology and populist movements in the west (Jay et al., 2019). Unequal access to
resources, power and education perpetuates income and wealth disparities, fuelling social
polarization by creating divisions between blue-collar and knowledge workers, native-born
and immigrant populations, and dominant and minority racial/ethnic groups (Iceland et al.,
2023). The rise of populism significantly impacts organizations and workers. Nationalistic
rhetoric fosters fear and division, prioritizing local over migrant workers and leading to labour
shortages. Anti-immigrant sentiment further reduces workforce diversity, hindering creativity
and innovation necessary for economic prosperity (Cumming et al., 2020; Santi Amantini,
2022). A return to traditional values can restrict reproductive and LGBTQþ rights, creating
less inclusive workplaces. These trends, exemplified by policies from the Trump
administration in the United States, have fostered a more hostile, discriminatory, less
diverse and polarized work environment (Cumming, 2020). Populist movements and a
backlash against diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are causing many
organizations to curtail or reconsider their DEI programs (Sherman, 2025).
This anthology begins with Greg Bamber’s discussion of the implications of AI and new
technologies on employment relations and the futures of work, highlighting important issues
and questions. Following this, Dianna Stone and Kim Lukaszeski examine the effects of AI on
HRM processes, outlining its potential benefits for increasing efficiency and effectiveness in
various HRM functions. Unsurprisingly, AI’s actual impact is mixed as it presents several
challenges including perpetuating biases, invasion of privacy and de-personalizing
interactions. Next, Sherry Aw explores the opportunities and challenges with remote work
describing this as a “new normal” following the COVID-19 pandemic.
Next Sean Lyons and Linda Schweitzer critically review the concept of “generations,”
arguing that there is some evidence to support generational differences meaningfully to inform
HRM practices. They do suggest a more nuanced approach to studying generations,
recognizing its limitations since it is unlikely for a generation, which spans almost 20 years, to
be uniformly homogeneous with respect to their work values and attitudes (see Ng et al., 2024).
Turning to climate crisis, Ren Shuang discusses the challenges and opportunities facing green
HRM. Despite some progress in promoting environmentally responsible practices, the long-term
effectiveness of these programs has yet to be realized. Next, Mustafa Ozbilgin € examines the
phenomenon of populism and its influence on DEI initiatives. He highlights that populism appeals
to the public’s fears and prejudices and can lead to a roll back of DEI. Finally, Arup Varma explores
the impact of globalization on HRM practices in multinational corporations. He underscores the
need for careful planning and cultural sensitivity in managing people across different locations.
We reiterate that the future of work is influenced by megatrends in a rapidly changing world.
This anthology presents six key megatrends shaping this future, outlining organizational
responses and concluding with suggestions for future HRM research. The insights offered will
help human resources professionals effectively prepare for and manage this transformative Personnel Review
change, strengthen their strategic planning and build organizational resilience.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) AND OTHER NEW TECHNOLOGIES:

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AND THE FUTURES OF WORK CONSIDERATIONS
Greg J Bamber
There are important questions about AI [1] and similar new technology innovations for
employment relations (ER) and the futures of work. Is AI a friend or a foe? Is it being used to
boost productivity and to improve working lives? Or is the use of such new technologies
raising risks of increasing inequality and discrimination, unsafe working conditions or
“unhealthy blurring of the boundaries between home and work.” (TUC, 2021).
What are the implications of AI for employment relations (ER)? It is too early, and space is
too tight to attempt a full answer. But it is worth discussing provisional observations. Although
AI is not new, it is being developed very quickly and is the subject of much hype, for example,
regarding Gen-AI (e.g. ChatGPT; Budhwar et al., 2023). This discussion considers how
managers may use AI to change ER. It adopts broad views of AI and ER. ER is construed
widely to include employment, employee voice, job regulation, work organization,
employers’ management of people and culture, the futures of work, as well as the interests
of workers [2], managers, employers and their organizations. The discussion includes
inferences, and reflections that are comparative internationally, historically and between
different contexts [3]. To facilitate analysis, it draws on theories, analytical frameworks and
approaches from ER and cognate fields.
A socio-technical approach conceptualizes a work system in view of its constituent people
and technological subsystems (Mumford, 2006; Leeds University, 2024). Developed in the
post-1945 period, an inference from this approach is that to facilitate successful
implementation of technological change, it is vital to pay careful attention to social aspects
of the work environment (including ER, people and culture) as well as technological aspects.
Despite this basic inference, it is too often ignored by those who try to implement technological
change. Many attempts to introduce new technologies do not yield the promised potential
because advocates of new technologies tend to focus primarily on technological aspects,
turning to people aspects almost as an afterthought.
There were concerns in the 1980s associated with the advent of microchips and personal
computers (Bamber and Lansbury, 2015). Such concerns were mainly about operative-level
jobs being displaced. By contrast, some of the proliferating iterations of AI have profound
implications for most types of jobs including professionals and semi-professionals, for
example, lawyers and paralegals. Current implications of AI are more wide-ranging than for
earlier new technologies because AI is more pervasive and is being developed quickly.
OpenAI launched its generative AI chatbot ChatGPT in late 2022. Within a year it had become
the fastest-growing software application ever. Another difference is that it was generally
necessary for people to operate earlier technologies, but increasingly AI has capacities that
make it appear to be autonomous, as if it has its own quasi “intelligence”.

How are employers using AI?

As employers increasingly deploy AI, they may enhance their relative power compared with
workers. Employers’ power is boosted, particularly where workers are displaced or
marginalized, or their work is controlled by algorithms and platforms (Gent, 2024). Such
developments tend to weaken unions’ negotiating positions. So, some unions are trying to
exert power to try to prevent or at least to regulate such changes.
US unions initiated dramatic industrial disputes involving Hollywood actors and
screenwriters, for instance, because such occupational groups were concerned about AI
being used to displace them (Jarvey and Press, 2023). Many other occupational groups have
PR similar concerns including accountants, architects, dockers, educators, healthcare
professionals, journalists, lawyers, musicians and writers.
Nevertheless, more and more employers are using AI including in performance
management and HR analytics (Xiao et al., 2023; Stuart et al., 2023). This can facilitate
new forms of management control that automate decision-making, impacting workers’
privacy and autonomy. Employers are also using AI to monitor productivity in real-time,
leading to workers’ and unions’ concerns about ethical issues including covert surveillance of
workers. Managers may use the resulting data to make decisions about pay, bonuses,
discipline, layoffs and promotions.
The ways in which AI is used can deepen inequalities between sectors, which are early
adopters and embrace innovation (e.g. the “big tech” and finance sectors) and laggards (e.g.
agriculture). The “digital divide” (in terms of access to technology and skills) is prompting
calls for resistance by workers and unions and appropriate regulatory protections (Jerrard
et al., 2024).
While employers may use AI to try to increase productivity, one consequence is that AI may
be used in ways that will exacerbate income inequality, for instance, if the benefits are
concentrated among investors and certain skilled occupations, while other groups forfeit their
jobs or experience other forms of disadvantage. Hence unions are seeking regulation or
collective agreements that aim to ensure a fair distribution of the gains and losses associated
with AI and involving the voice of workers (ACTU, 2024a).
US researchers identify key decisions and processes needed to bring workers’ voice into the
development and use of AI in four phases, as illustrated in Figure 1: “(1) Defining the problems
and opportunities to be addressed; (2) Designing the technical and work process features that
need to be integrated; (3) Educating and training the workforce in the skills needed; and (4)
Ensuring a fair transition and compensation (pay) for those whose jobs are affected.” (Kochan
et al., 2024). Figure 1 is a helpful model for considering the role of workers that Kochan et al.
proposed (Also see Acemoglu and Johnson (2024), these authors were awarded the 2024
Nobel Prize in Economics.).
Do the technologists always determine unique ways in which new technologies are
implemented, or can the actors adopt different policies even within the same sector and
country? Employers can adopt different policies. For example, in the Australian finance sector
the superannuation fund (Cbus) made a new agreement with Australia’s Finance Sector Union

Figure 1. An integrated strategy for technology design and implementation

(FSU) to consult on “any changes happening as a result of AI” and how they might affect the Personnel Review
workforce. The FSU sees the AI protections as “the gold standard for the finance sector” which
sets the bar for other employers (Workplace Express, 2024). By contrast, and simultaneously,
Australia’s Commonwealth Bank announced an intention to cut jobs as it moves to a new AI
system to replace call centre jobs. The union says it was not consulted about these changes.
It learned about these plans only when they were reported by mass media (Byrne, 2024).

What are implications for employment and for unions?

A twentieth-century model of long-term, relatively stable employment has been partially
replaced by temporary, outsourced or freelance work in many sectors and occupations,
including in higher education and journalism (Burke and Ng, 2006). This is not a new trend,
but AI is being used to facilitate the trend. Workers in such “freelance” or casual roles may lack
union representation, job security and “typical” employee-style benefits and rights. This raises
challenges in the ER domain.
AI-enhanced tools that facilitate remote working and digital collaboration are enabling
changes in how managers implement working hours, benefits and responsibilities. Hybrid
work environments may require new ER practices and legal regulation to promote life–work
balance and to regulate the division between personal and work time. For example, rights to
“disconnect” are available in some collective agreements and certain countries (FWC, 2024;
Russell and Bevan, 2022).
Unions are adapting their strategies to address the challenges raised by employers’ use of
AI. This involves advocating for appropriate training, job security or job-sharing schemes to
mitigate the impact of job displacement (Kresge, 2020). Unions increasingly focus on
negotiating with employers and lobbying law makers about how AI is implemented—ensuring
that workers have a voice in decision making and that their interests are protected. They are
also pushing for protections against surveillance, as well as for the fair use of AI in hiring,
performance evaluation and data privacy rights. Unions are advocating for “guardrails” and
legal regulations that recognize gig workers as having “employment” rights with appropriate
protections, for instance, regarding job security, health and safety ACTU (2024b). By contrast,
“platform” enterprises are asserting by legal action and lobbying that their workers are “self-
employed” and not employees (Rolf, 2022).
When groups of employees work in larger workplaces, unions can potentially hold in-
person recruitment and campaigning meetings. However, organizing workers in enterprises
that use gig work (e.g. Uber, Deliveroo) is challenging because of their fragmented and
decentralized work locations. Hence unions are also innovating by using digital tools including
using social media to engage with such workers and are adopting AI in attempts to reach
workers and to promote their interests, especially in sectors where in-person interaction is
limited. Unions are using AI, then, to communicate with members and potential members to
try to enhance unions’ roles in fast-changing work contexts (Jeffers, 2024).
Workers’ interests advocate for economic and social “safety nets” to provide safeguards for
workers (ACTU, 2024b). As AI becomes more pervasive, unions are promoting ethical AI
practices—ensuring transparency, co-design and fairness in how AI systems are designed and
deployed. They are also pushing for policies and regulations that promote the voice of workers,
social dialogue, decent work and to prevent employers from using AI to engage in illegal
discrimination (e.g. in terms of age, gender or race) or other unfair ER practices.

Conclusions
Against the background of such developments, researchers should identify areas for further
research about what is happening in workplaces. This is important to distinguish between the
rhetoric and the realities (Legge, 1995). Researchers should be investigating the issues
mentioned above from the perspectives and outcomes of the various stakeholders including:
the public interest, governments, workers, managers, employers, end users and their
PR representatives. The issues and implications are too important to be left to “big tech.” (Most of
the big ones are based either in the USA or China.) They focus on innovation, disrupting and
return on investment, but generally not on implications for wider communities and end-users,
including the ER parties: civil society, governments, workers, managers, employers and their
representatives and agencies. Such research is more likely to be fruitful if it is couched in terms
of appropriate analytical frameworks, for instance, the socio-technical approach.
Appropriate research questions should ask which jobs and skills are employers using AI to
displace, and which new jobs and skills are they creating or demanding? It is crucial to consider
to what extent employers are engaging with workers as well as ER practitioners in the initial
decision-making about (co-) designing and deploying AI? Which channels of workers’ voices
are employers using? Also, which are the most appropriate procedures between employers,
managers, workers, and unions to consult on technological change and how it affects workers
and ER practitioners? Which AI “guardrails” are appropriate in an era of AI, for example, to
foster ethical and transparent governance, fair work and shared benefits?
AI and socio-technical approaches were initially developed in the mid-twentieth century.
Nevertheless, there is still much to learn from applying socio-technical approaches when
implementing contemporary AI. Practitioners and analysts should recognize, first, that in
many workplaces there may be covert or overt conflict as well as cooperation (Hyman, 2026).
Second, that to facilitate successful implementation, it is vital to pay careful attention to the
people aspects as well as the technological aspects. Co-design of technological change may be
more successful than if the innovators consider the people aspects only as an afterthought.
Employers, tech. firms and entrepreneurs, along with their vendors and consultants are
using AI to make major changes that affect ER, which have profound implications for
managers, workers, their unions and workplaces. While AI innovations can potentially be used
to promote productivity, they may also encompass significant risks in terms of displacing
managers and workers, and their autonomy, as well as boosting inequality, with diminished
worker and union power.
ER practitioners, workers and their organizations may want to have a voice in shaping AI
innovations to ensure that they are implemented in humane ways while the risks and benefits
are shared fairly. There will generally be easier implementation if there is more engagement of
ER practitioners and workers, especially if they can see that there will be more positive than
negative consequences for themselves. To navigate the futures of work successfully in an AI-
powered world, it is important that governments, employers, workers and unions maintain
constructive social dialogue and aim to adopt mutually beneficial new social contracts at work
(Kochan and Dyer, 2020).
The implications and patterns of such changes are not pre-determined. Although AI is
being developed and adopted very rapidly and many see it as a “black box,” there is scope for
stakeholders to make strategic choices and to influence outcomes. AI is not necessarily either a
“friend” or “foe”. Who benefits all depends on how, and in whose interests, AI is used! The
scope for actors to make choices is illustrated by contrasting international varieties of digital
ecosystems between different countries (O’Reilly and Verdin, 2023). The scope for actors to
make choices is further illustrated by comparisons between different workplaces even in the
same sector, the same union, the same year and in the same country as illustrated by the above-
mentioned Australian finance sector examples.

EFFECTS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON HUMAN RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT PROCESSES
Dianna L. Stone, Kimberly M. Lukaszewski
In recent years, human resource management (HRM) practitioners have adopted AI to help
them achieve their key goals of attracting, motivating and retaining employees (Johnson et al.,
2024). AI often refers to a broad array of technologies that allow a computer to perform
tasks that typically require human cognition (e.g. problem solving, decision making) Personnel Review
(Capelli et al., 2019). There are several important reasons that AI is being adopted in
organizations. For example, AI has the potential to increase the efficiency of HRM processes,
automate many burdensome tasks (e.g. screening applicants), reduce biases in decision
making and improve the organization’s ability to attract and hire talented applicants (e.g. Stone
et al., 2024). Although AI may have a number of benefits for HRM, research shows that it also
poses a variety of challenges in organizations (Lukaszewski and Stone, 2024; Vishwakarma
and Singh, 2023). For instance, researchers have argued that AI perpetuates biases and unfair
discrimination, depersonalizes human-organization interactions, decreases transparency in
decision making and invades personal privacy (Lukaszewski and Stone, 2024; Vishwakarma
and Singh, 2023). Despite the increased use of AI in HRM, and the many challenges associated
with its use, there has been relatively little research on the effectiveness or the problems
associated with it (e.g. Johnson et al., 2024; Lukaszewski and Stone, 2024). Therefore, the
primary purposes of this contribution are to (1) consider how AI has changed or advanced
HRM processes (e.g. recruitment, selection, training, etc.), (2) review the research on the
efficiency and effectiveness of AI in HRM, (3) identify challenges created by AI in HRM (e.g.
perpetuates biases, violates personal privacy), and the solutions to them and (4) offer directions
for future research on the use of AI in HRM.

Does AI enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of HRM processes?

Research has shown that AI-HRM processes are more efficient than traditional ones (i.e.
manual, repetitive and administrative processes for facilitating HRM) (Albasson, 2023; Black
and Van Esch, 2020) but other studies have indicated that AI applications may not always be
better than existing processes (e.g. Stone et al., 2024). Further, current applications of AI may
be more effective for performing operational tasks (e.g. screening resumes) than more
ambiguous ones (e.g. selection decision making.) Apart from these issues, results of research
on the effectiveness of new AI-HRM processes and outcomes have been mixed, and little
research has examined strategies for overcoming the problems associated with using AI in
HRM (e.g. Lukaszewski and Stone, 2024).

Recruitment
AI has modified the recruitment paradigm, and HRM professionals can now proactively scan
databases, social media and job boards to uncover qualified applicants (Stone et al., 2024).
Studies have shown that this new paradigm has several advantages including that it may (1)
broaden the applicant pool (Johnson et al., 2024), (2) identify more qualified applicants than
existing methods (Van Esch et al., 2019) and (3) allow more frequent communication between
applicants and the organization (Johnson et al., 2024). Other research has shown that the use of
AI for resume screening, video interviewing and candidate matching increases recruitment
efficiency, and reduces time and costs (Albasson, 2023; Black and Van Esch, 2020). In
addition, the use of chatbots to facilitate communication between applicants and the
organization enhances applicants’ experiences in the recruitment process (Black and Van
Esch, 2020; Natase et al., 2024.) Still, other studies have shown that AI can be used to target
more qualified applicants, increase the number of applicants and identify more passive
applicants than traditional recruiting methods (Black and Van Esch, 2020). In spite of these
positive effects, research has also shown that the use of sourcing algorithms in recruitment
reduces the diversity of the applicant pool and may result in less interest in job offers than
traditional methods (Gao et al., 2024). It merits noting that due to space limitations our brief
review only considered a subset of the studies on the outcomes associated with AI-based
recruitment.
Although there has been some research on the outcomes of using AI in recruitment,
research is needed to determine if it helps the organization identify and hire more qualified
PR applicants, influences applicants’ intentions to apply for or accept job offers, or increases the
number of successful placements made. Further, studies are needed on strategies that can be
used to address the problems associated with using AI in recruitment (e.g. invasion of privacy).

Selection
AI has also transformed the selection processes in a variety of ways (Landers et al., 2021). For
instance, keywords are used to scan applications to determine if applicants meet basic job
requirements (Albasson, 2023). Although keyword screening has been used for some time, AI can
provide better screening because it uses semantic analyses to understand words in applications at a
much deeper level than previous systems (Johnson et al., 2024). AI-selection can also use GAI to
develop simulations that can be used to assess applicants’ knowledge, skills and decision-making
styles (Stone et al., 2024). Further, AI can use natural programming language to make inferences
about applicants’ personality by analysing facial expressions, tone of voice and written narratives
(Campion and Campion, 2023; Stone et al., 2024). The same research has shown that
organizations can make accurate inferences about applicants’ personality from narratives (e.g.
Campion and Campion, 2023) and voice analyses, but they cannot always make valid inferences
about personality or cognitive ability from facial expressions (Stone et al., 2024). Another
application of AI-selection is that chatbots (e.g. software programs that interact and respond to
individuals using natural language) (Johnson et al., 2024) and can be used to conduct automatic
video interviews (AVI). Research has shown that AVIs exhibit stronger evidence of predictive
validity than traditional interview methods (Hickman et al., 2022).
Further, AI is being used in some organizations to make final selection decisions (Stone
et al., 2024). One reason for this is that some researchers argue that AI makes less biased
decisions than humans (Guenole and Feinzig, 2018). However, studies have shown
consistently that AI decisions are just as biased as human ones because AI is trained on
data from previous selection decisions that typically contain biases (Kochling and Werner,
2020). Thus, AI does not always eliminate unfair discrimination or enhance the quality of new
hires. Given these findings, research is needed to establish the predictive validity of all of the
new AI selection methods (e.g. resume screening, simulations developed by generative AI)
and studies should examine strategies for overcoming problems in the AI-selection process
(e.g. biases, unfair discrimination).

Training
AI has also modified the training paradigm in organizations, and HRM professionals can
personalize the training process instead of using the traditional standardized approaches.
When training is personalized, the content is presented to trainees based on personal factors
such as organization role, language and learning style, and recommendations about training
can be made on these factors (Hartley and West, 2015). Research in education revealed that
learners who follow AI recommendations learned more than those trainees who did not have
these recommendations (Chen et al., 2016). Further, studies have shown that personalized
training results in better learning outcomes than traditional methods (Barnard, 2019).
Another way that AI has changed the training process in organizations is that it can use
virtual tutors to provide advice, feedback and guidance during the learning process (Hwang,
2003). One of the major limitations of online learning is that trainees often become disengaged
because they are isolated from others, and virtual tutors can help solve this problem by
emulating the presence of a person (e.g. Salas et al., 2005). Virtual tutors can also deliver text
or vocal feedback and provide recommendations for improving learning (Hwang, 2003).
Research has found that individuals who use AI-virtual tutors outperform those who do not use
them (Hwang, 2003). Even though there is some research on AI-training, additional research is
needed to determine the effectiveness of AI personalized training and virtual tutors in
organizations.
Performance management Personnel Review
AI-performance management (AI-PM) is now being used by organizations to help supervisors
monitor employee performance, conduct appraisals and convey feedback to employees
(Varma et al., 2024). One of the major limitations of traditional performance management is
that appraisals are often conducted only once a year, and the ratings and feedback are presented
so late in a year that employees cannot correct their performance (Cleveland and Murphy,
2016). Further, yearly ratings are influenced by recency effects, and do not always reflect
employees’ overall performance (Cleveland and Murphy, 2016). AI-PM can address these
problems because it can monitor employee performance continuously and allow employees to
request feedback at any time (Stone et al., 2024). Thus, supervisors can analyse patterns in
employees’ performance, write appraisals using GAI and chatbots can be used to provide
feedback to employees in a timely way (Stone et al., 2024) AI-PM can also collect appraisals
from multiple sources which should provide managers with a more comprehensive view of
employee performance (Payne et al., 2018).
The use of chatbot feedback can increase the frequency of feedback, enable employees to
enhance their performance and provide guidance for improving employee performance on a
timely basis (Johnson et al., 2024). Interestingly, recent research revealed that employees
prefer feedback from chatbots over that from humans because chatbots are less evaluative than
people (Pei et al., 2024). Further, studies have shown that negative feedback from chatbots
often results in increased employees’ subsequent performance levels (Tong et al., 2021).
However, research is needed on the degree to which AI-PM enhances the accuracy of ratings,
ensures that all employees are performing at a satisfactory level, and increases the
effectiveness of performance management. Thus, we agree with others who have argued that
AI-PM should not be implemented without the benefit of research (Varma et al., 2024).

Compensation
One final application of AI is that it can be used to improve compensation systems (Marler,
2024). When AI is used, HRM professionals can analyse trends and data to predict future
compensation needs, and use employee information (e.g. performance, medical needs) to
create personalized compensation and benefits packages (Marler, 2024). Further, HR
professionals can use AI-compensation to identify pay inequities and recommend corrective
actions. It can also automate many routine tasks like salary adjustments, calculations for
bonuses and help supervisors overcome biases in pay raise decisions (Marler, 2024). To date,
little research has examined the effectiveness of AI-compensation applications (Parasa, 2024),
and most of the research on this topic has focused on workers compensation (Zanke, 2022),
and executive compensation (Sharma, 2024.) Thus, much more research is needed to examine
the effectiveness of AI-compensation.

Conclusion
Our brief review suggested that the use of AI-HRM can help HR professionals enhance the
efficiency and streamline many tedious processes, but little research has been conducted to
show that AI actually increases the effectiveness of HRM processes (Stone et al., 2024). In our
review, we considered the degree to which AI has advanced and transformed several key HRM
processes (e.g. recruitment, selection, training). For instance, we highlighted how AI has
modified the recruitment paradigm so that HR professionals can now proactively scan
databases and job boards to identify qualified applicants, and noted that AI can personalize the
training process and enhance employees’ learning. Although we argued that AI may be
beneficial to HRM, we maintained that it also poses a number of challenges in organizations.
For example, research has shown that AI may actually perpetuate biases and unfair
discrimination, depersonalize human–organization interactions and invade personal privacy
(Lukaszewski and Stone, 2024; Vishwakarme and Singh, 2023). In view of these challenges,
PR previous research has identified several strategies that might be used to deal with them (e.g.
auditing algorithmic decisions, using high-quality data to develop AI models) (Chowdhury
et al., 2023). Further, we offered directions for future research on how AI can advance and
improve the effectiveness of HRM processes.
Finally, many people in our society tout the benefits of AI and believe that it is a panacea or
an “all knowing and powerful wizard that will transform HRM.” They also argue that AI is
magical because it can write poetry or music, create self-driving vehicles, diagnose diseases or
predict the future. However, those who understand AI machinations know that it is not all
powerful, does not always enhance HRM processes, and may actually create new challenges
for organizations. Thus, future research should focus on establishing the effectiveness of all
AI-HRM processes, and identifying and overcoming the challenges associated with its use
(e.g. biases in decision making, invasions of privacy).

NAVIGATING THE NEW NORMAL: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR

HRM IN THE AGE OF REMOTE WORK
Sherry Aw
The world of work in the wake of COVID-19 is termed “the new normal,” referring to the
increased adoption of remote working since the pandemic (Vyas, 2022). While some
organizations have sought a full return to the office, employees across the world
overwhelmingly prefer remote working (Haan, 2023). Numerous organizations thus utilize
hybrid working arrangements, where employees work remotely part of the week and the rest
on-site (Aksoy et al., 2023). Remote working has heralded new challenges for organizations
and human resource professionals, who must contend with new ways of managing workers.
Prior to the pandemic, remote work research has burgeoned, providing preliminary
frameworks for understanding its associated characteristics (Gajendran and Harrison, 2007;
Wang et al., 2021). Generally, studies support remote work’s association with greater
autonomy and work–life satisfaction but also highlight potential social costs for remote
workers (Gajendran et al., 2015; J€amsen et al., 2022). Additionally, frequent remote workers
experience less commitment and organizational identification (Saks and Gruman, 2021;
Wesson and Gogus, 2005). Remote work thus has important implications for employees’
overall work experience, and for HRM. Specifically, this paper focuses on remote work’s
influence on newcomer socialization, performance and well-being and concludes with some
recommendations for future research.
The early days of an employee’s organizational tenure are crucial for adjustment and job
performance (Davis and Myers, 2019). Socialization involves not only job-relevant
knowledge and skills, but also implicit knowledge about the norms and culture of the
organization (Bauer et al., 2021). During the pandemic, newcomers had a very different
socialization experience from their predecessors – while traditional onboarding typically
happens on-site (Bauer et al., 2021; Myers et al., 2024), onboarding during the pandemic was
virtual, comprising zoom calls with HR personnel, supervisors and coworkers, as well as
virtual training through videos and online resource banks (Myers et al., 2024).
With virtual onboarding, employees have greater autonomy and access to online
repositories and documentation regarding their job tasks, facilitating information
acquisition and enhancing job performance (Bauer et al., 2021). On the flip side, remote
newcomers experience reduced opportunities for face-to-face interactions with coworkers and
supervisors (Saks and Gruman, 2021). This has several implications – first, newcomers are less
able to observe their coworkers, impairing their ability to learn about cultural norms or tacit
job-related information (Armstrong and Mahmud, 2008). Second, remote workers, being
geographically and socially distant from their coworkers, face uncertainties about who and
how to ask for help (Hinds and Cramton, 2014), and thus face difficulties obtaining social
support. Indeed, workers who were socialized remotely reported weaker social networks,
lower organizational identification and were more likely to quit (Myers et al., 2024; Woo et al., Personnel Review
2023). Post-pandemic, some organizations have resumed physical onboarding, while others
continue utilizing remote onboarding tools (Klinghoffer et al., 2024). However, socialization
does not take place only during the first few days, but continues over months (Chong et al.,
2021). Remote workers may thus experience reduced social and observational learning
opportunities throughout their tenure. Managers and HR practitioners should be cognizant of
these potential issues and adopt proactive strategies in onboarding remote employees (Saks
and Gruman, 2021).
Given the heightened autonomy in terms of how remote workers structure their workday,
and increased social isolation (Gajendran et al., 2024), how remote working influences
performance is a second area of concern for HRM. Intriguingly, research has generally found
positive associations between remote working and performance (Allen et al., 2015), or no
differences between traditional on-site and remote worker performance (Bloom et al., 2024a,
b). For instance, the transition from working in the office to remote working was associated
with a 4.4% increase in worker productivity (Choudhury et al., 2021), and remote workers
were perceived by their supervisors as better performers (Gajendran et al., 2015). A recent
meta-analysis found positive relationships between remote working intensity and supervisor-
rated performance (Gajendran et al., 2024), supporting the benefits of remote working for
employee performance. That said, organizations should be mindful of potential pitfalls of
remote work, such as increased social isolation (e.g. Golden et al., 2008), interruptions that
may undermine performance (Leroy et al., 2021) and access to social and technological
resources for effective remote working (Straus et al., 2023).
Finally, remote working has implications for employees’ work (e.g. job satisfaction,
burnout) and non-work (e.g. work-life balance) well-being. While meta-analyses report
positive relationships between remote working and job satisfaction (Bloom et al., 2024a;
Gajendran and Harrison, 2007; Gajendran et al., 2024), other studies found mixed effects on
well-being (e.g. Anderson et al., 2015; Mazmanian et al., 2013). The very autonomy touted as
a key resource is a double-edged sword – when employees can work anytime and anyplace,
they experience greater difficulty detaching from work (Mazmanian et al., 2013; Park et al.,
2011). Further, while remote working is a tool for work–life management (Allen et al., 2015),
its effectiveness in reducing work–family (or family–work) conflict is mixed – blurred
boundaries can increase work–family (and family–work) interference and emotional
exhaustion (Leroy et al., 2021). Finally, studies report a curvilinear relationship between
remote working intensity and job satisfaction, such that the positive relationship is evident
only at low levels of remote working (Golden and Veiga, 2005). As remote working becomes
more widespread, it is necessary to re-examine how patterns of remote working within
organizations can increase (or decrease) well-being.

Moving forward
Past research has provided us with a preliminary understanding of the characteristics of remote
working and identified various challenges for HRM as outlined above, the influence of remote
work on other HRM functions, including career development and training, talent acquisition
and retention, and diversity and inclusion, is relatively unknown and are thus areas ripe for
future research. Below, I briefly suggest several points of inquiry for these areas.
First, productive remote working requires a whole host of skills that employees need to
learn; these skills can deviate from traditional job-related technical skills, as they involve
softer, intra- and interpersonal skills such as time and boundary management, communication
and coordination, and leadership skills of leading virtual teams and virtual performance
management (Leonardi et al., 2024), and also span across different job roles and professions.
However, exactly what skills are necessary, what these skills entail and how these skills can be
measured and developed is unclear and needs further research (Benligiray et al., 2024; Mark
et al., 2022). For instance, Demerouti (2023) identified self-regulation as a key remote
PR working skill and developed an online self-training intervention that increased employees’
ability to recognize and regulate their existing demands and resources. Results showed that the
intervention group engaged in more job crafting and recovery activities and evidenced greater
remote work performance and well-being. Other scholars (e.g. Benligiray et al., 2024;
Leonardi et al., 2024) identified and proposed other skills, such as cybersecurity, time
management and communication, as essential for effective remote working. Empirical
examinations identifying and developing core remote working skills would thus be invaluable.
Relatedly, the role of organizations in employees’ career development, and how
organizations develop and monitor skills training for remote workers, is another area for
future research. Asynchronous working hours, spaces and greater flexibility of work has
accelerated the adoption of digital training tools (e.g. e-learning modules, online workshops)
that allow for bite-sized, self-paced learning to suit employees’ needs and schedules (Ho et al.,
2022; Sull et al., 2020). Yet the effectiveness of these digital training programs, the
transferability of these skills to the workplace and the long-term impact of digital training for
employees’ distal career outcomes (e.g. career growth and performance) has been
understudied. Furthermore, the rise in online learning providers, such as Coursera, Udemy,
LinkedIN Learning, as well as numerous other courses provided by institutes of higher
learning, have meant that employees are increasingly looking outside of their organization to
provide training and development (Choy and Tay, 2016; Hamori, 2018). This has clear
implications for organizations – remote workers, who often already feel siloed, may doubly
feel that their organizations are not investing in their learning and have poorer commitment.
Longitudinal and intervention studies to assess the effectiveness of digital training (compared
to traditional forms of face-to-face, or even hybrid training), how digital tools can help HRM
monitor employees’ learning and skills development, as well as studies examining strategies to
enhance digital training would be valuable for organizations.
Beyond formal skills development, the increase in remote working has a likely influence on
another aspect of career development: mentoring. Mentors are especially important for early
career advancement (Eby et al., 2013), providing psychosocial support, developing implicit
skills, coaching and networking (Allen et al., 2017). While virtual mentoring is not new
(Ensher et al., 2003), remote or virtual mentoring has become more acceptable with the
advancement of information communication technologies (Yarberry and Sims, 2021).
However, how mentoring and mentoring relationships may shift as a result of remote working
is yet another fascinating and promising area of future research: It is possible that, while
information communication technologies allow employees greater access to mentors from
global offices or external organizations, and thus greater access to learning diverse skills,
perspectives and increasing the size of one’s professional networks across geographical
boundaries, reduced physical proximity to others could impair identification of promising
mentees (due to reduced visibility of work performance), as well as stifle employees’ abilities
to connect and cultivate relationships with potential mentors. Indeed, trust is crucial in
mentoring relationships (Wang et al., 2010) but can be difficult to develop remotely due to
increased psychological distance and the impersonal nature of technology-mediated
communications (Leonardi et al., 2024). Future research could adopt a dyadic, longitudinal
perspective, track the development of mentoring relationships from the perspectives of both
mentee and mentor, and assess the factors that facilitate (or impede) the development of
successful mentorships. Even more broadly, researchers could also examine how remote
working and mentoring may alter the very nature and role of mentorships – for instance, the
types of support mentors are able to provide, outcomes of having multiple mentors inside and
external to the organization, the quality and frequency of communication with mentors, and
even the importance of mentoring in the remote employee’s career development.
Finally, how remote working affects the attraction, retention and management of diverse
talent is an important avenue for further research. The ability to work remotely has been hailed
as a tool to enhance diversity within the workforce (Gonzalez, 2024) – such as across distance,
age, gender and (dis)abilities. Understanding how organizations can capitalize on diversity
and talent management, particularly in conjunction with the areas identified above (e.g. with Personnel Review
mentoring and performance evaluation), and how organizations can build an inclusive remote
work culture, would be critical moving forward.
In conclusion, the rise of remote working has significantly altered the landscape of work
and presents both opportunities and challenges for HRM. As organizations continue to
navigate this “new normal,” it is essential to deepen our understanding of how remote work
impacts key HR functions, such as career development, training, talent acquisition, and
retention, as well as inclusion and diversity. The research discussed in this paper underscores
the need for proactive strategies in areas like virtual onboarding, remote performance
management and digital training programs, while also highlighting critical gaps in knowledge
related to mentoring and long-term career progression in remote settings. Future research
should explore how organizations can leverage digital tools to foster employee development,
create inclusive remote work cultures and sustain talent in an increasingly flexible and globally
distributed workforce. On a practical front, HR professionals and managers would have to be
mindful of several potential barriers to employees’ abilities to perform and thrive in remote
environments, such as by ensuring that all employees have equivalent access to resources and
support networks despite geographical and time differences, as well as having clear
communication policies and technological infrastructure that enable effective communication.

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FOR A MULTIGENERATIONAL

WORKFORCE
Sean Lyons, Linda Schweitzer
Leaders across America are currently facing a unique challenge: the largest generation gap in history.
The workplace is now more age-diverse than ever before, with five generations–Traditionalists, Baby
Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, and Generation Z–working side-by-side (Sonnenberg, 2023, np).
The quote above is typical of the plethora of news stories, videos, workshops, consulting reports
and popular books offering tips on how to adapt recruitment, engagement and retention
strategies, minimize inter-generational conflict and enable effective inter-generational transfer
of knowledge (Ng and Parry, 2016). The underlying assumption is that fundamental differences
exist in the workplace attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of different generational groups. Despite
the popularity of this topic, research evidence remains ambiguous, and a growing number of
criticisms have emerged (Ravid et al., 2024; Rudolph et al., 2021). HR managers may feel
compelled to address generational issues in practices and policies but remain unsure of how to
navigate contradictory advice that often lacks empirical support. This brief overview examines
the evidence concerning generations in the workplace and offers guidance for HR managers.
A “generation” is a cohort of people born within the same historical and socio-cultural
context who experience common formative experiences and develop unifying commonalities
(Mannheim, 1952). Although there is great variation in the labels and birth years ascribed to
various generations, the most prevalent generational groups include: “Traditionalists” born
before the end of the Second World War; “Baby Boomers” born between the end of the Second
World War and the mid-1960s; “Generation X” born between the 1960s and the late 1970s;
“Generation Y” or “Millennials” born between the early 1980s and the mid-1990s;
“Generation Z”, born between the mid-1990s and the early 2010s, and “Generation Alpha”
born since the mid-2010s (Costanza et al., 2012; Twenge, 2023).
Numerous academic studies compare two or more of these generational groups on work-
related variables such as personality, career patterns, job attitudes, teamwork, work values,
motivation and work behaviours (see reviews by Lyons and Kuron, 2014; Ng and Parry, 2016;
Parry and Urwin, 2021). Ravid and colleagues (2024) conducted a meta-analysis of 143
studies that compared generations on job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, work values (i.e. intrinsic, extrinsic, prestige and social), engagement, stress/
burnout and work–life balance. They found that extrinsic work values (i.e. related to pay,
PR benefits and working conditions) were valued more by younger than older generations, Gen X
reported lower levels of work–life balance and higher levels of stress/burnout than Boomers,
and each successively younger generation reported slightly lower job satisfaction,
organizational commitment and work engagement and higher turnover intent than
preceding generations. Despite these significant findings, the authors argued that the effect
sizes of observed differences were small, calling into question their practical importance.
Indeed, there is a growing consensus that the empirical evidence for generational
differences in individual characteristics is inconclusive, demonstrating contradictory findings
across studies, national contexts and time. A 2020 National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering and Medicine Consensus Report (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering
and Medicine, 2020) examined a wide variety of empirical and conceptual literature and
concluded “it is exceptionally difficult to draw firm conclusions about generational differences
in work-related variables” (p. 53). This inconclusiveness results from conceptual and
methodological challenges including inconsistent and atheoretical categorizations of
generational groups (Costanza et al., 2012; Rudolph et al., 2021), generalization of
generational categories across countries with differing socio-historical contexts, and the “age-
period-cohort confound,” which describes the conflation of age effects (i.e. lifespan), cohort
effects (i.e. formative context) and period effects (historical events) (Lyons and Kuron, 2014;
Parry and Urwin, 2021).
It is important to consider why generations remain so commonly discussed in the
workplace, despite these limitations. This question is addressed by research concerning
generational identity, a form of social identity that involves knowledge of generational groups;
emotional investment in membership within a group; and perceived value in belonging to the
group (Finkelstein et al., 2001). Finkelstein et al. (2001) found that identification with a
generational group is a stable characteristic over time. Lyons and Schweitzer (2017) found that
people make use of generational categories to create meaning in the workplace by identifying
with others who share common memories and experiences and there are individual differences
in the acceptance and identification with these labels. Furthermore, Urick and colleagues
(2017) found that identification with a generational group (e.g. Baby Boomers) results in
generation-specific work-related expectations that can form the basis for inter-generational
conflicts related to values differences (e.g. traditionalism versus progress), behaviours (e.g.
technology use, communication styles, “dues paying”), and identity (e.g. “me” vs “we”
attitudes).

Implications for HRM research and practice

Critics of generational research advise HR managers to ignore generational labels altogether
and instead focus on age, personality and experiences as salient workplace variables (Costanza
et al., 2012; Ravi et al., 2024). Doing so, they claim, puts the focus on better established bases
for individual differences and deters reliance on stereotypes and broad generalizations (NAS,
2020; Parry and Urwin, 2021; Rudolph et al., 2021). Given the current state of research
evidence, HRM researchers are advised to abandon efforts to compare and contrast
generational groups on HR-related factors. Such comparisons are fraught with methodological
challenges that make meaningful comparison a futile task (Rudolph et al., 2021).
For example, researchers have examined a variety of HRM concerns for Generation Z,
including their career aspirations (Barhate and Dirani, 2022), job search expectations (Ma and
fang, 2023), response to HR policies (e.g. compensation, flexible work, recognition, feedback;
Aggarwal et al., 2022), onboarding (Chillakuri, 2020) and job engagement (Pandita and
Kumar, 2022). For the most part, these studies proceed from the assumption that Generation Z
is a unique cohort that is worthy of dedicated research attention. This approach belies the
economic, technological, social and cultural factors that might give rise to the perception that
Generation Z is unique.
 Rather than focusing on comparative differences among generational groups, researchers Personnel Review
should focus on understanding the needs of individual workers and the changing context of
work and job requirements without reliance on generational stereotypes as explanations for
complex and dynamic social phenomena. It would be useful for researchers to explore
heterogeneity within supposed generational groups to understand their relative impacts on
workers’ responses to HRM interventions, rather than treating today’s young workers as a
monolithic group (Joshi et al., 2010). Doing so would provide important answers about why
generational groups might differ, given their current life stages, rather than merely
documenting differences. Future research could also explore the impact of generational
identity on HR managers perceptions of workers’ attitudes and behaviours. It is important to
know more about how beliefs about generations are manifested in HR policy and practice.
HR managers should view claims about generational differences sceptically, understanding
that many of the purported differences may relate to age, rather than broader generational
forces. Rather than taking a simplistic view of generations as fundamentally different from
each other, it is important to consider the simultaneous impacts of age, period and cohort. This
means, for example, striving to understand the implications of being young in the current
economic, technological and political era, within the context of a cohort of peers with a unique
set of opportunities and challenges, relative to prior cohorts (Lyons et al., 2019). Future
research should examine HRM issues from a lifespan perspective (Rudolph et al., 2021), with
the understanding that the lifespan itself may be changing over time (Lyons et al., 2015). For
example, research could investigate changes in the importance of compensation to employee
satisfaction and performance across the lifespan and determine whether such changes differ by
birth cohort. This type of “difference in differences” approach would help to disentangle the
dual effects of age, period and cohort.
Despite warnings about the perils of overgeneralization, popular notions of generational
differences are unlikely to vanish, because generations provide a handy lens through which
people make sense of their place in history and the change happening around them (Lyons and
Schweitzer, 2017). Managers should, therefore, be mindful of “generation talk” in the
workplace and seek to uncover the meaning people attach to generations as a basis for
grouping and discussing people. Generational stereotyping can lead to inter-generational
conflict related to perceived differences in values, behaviours and identities (Urick et al.,
2017). Future research should investigate the prevalence of generational stereotypes in the
workplace and their impacts on human resource management practices such as employee
selection, performance management, career development, knowledge transfer and employee
conflict (Lyons et al., 2015; Parry and Urwin, 2021).

CLIMATE CHANGE, ROLE OF GREEN HRM AND SUSTAINABLE HRM

PRACTICES
Shuang Ren
Green human resource management (HRM) has emerged over the past two decades as a
strategic approach for organizations to address corporate environmental responsibility
(Renwick et al., 2013; Jabbour and Santos, 2008; Jackson and Seo, 2010; Ren et al., 2023).
Anchored in the premise that “people matter” in designing and implementing pro-
environmental practices, it shifts the focus of organizations’ environmental management
from a technical emphasis to human resources. For instance, Timberland provides full-time
employees paid volunteer hours per year to participate in Earth Day event to protect the
environment. Veolia encourages grassroots initiatives from employees across its subsidiaries
to drive pro-environmental initiatives.
Green HRM refers to the synergetic bundling of HRM philosophies, systems and practices
that nurture, encourage and leverage the potential of employees in driving systemic change
towards environmental management (Ren et al., 2018). Despite being a relatively new
PR phenomenon, it has fast attracted growing research attention, resulting in several recent
reviews (Mukherji and Bhatnagar, 2022; Richards, 2022) and meta-analysis (Paulet et al.,
2021). The increasing consensus, based on empirical evidence, is that green HRM can
positively contribute to a firm’s environmental performance (Guerci et al., 2016; Ren et al.,
2021), financial performance (Ren et al., 2022) or sustainable performance (Zhao et al., 2024).
Despite encouraging evidence and commendable progress in the field of green HRM, the
pursuit of long-term, effective change towards sustainability has not been fully realized, as one
would expect. There is ongoing debate about the most effective strategies for integrating green
HRM into existing organizational frameworks and the efficacy of specific green HRM
practices in promoting sustainability. These ambiguities are further exacerbated by emerging
mega-trends affecting green HRM and strategies to navigate them. Hence, as organizations
continue to explore and refine green HRM approaches in a dynamic business environment, it is
essential to clarify these challenges and guide future research inquiry.

Digitalization and the challenge to green HRM

Green HRM emerges from society’s growing awareness of climate change and the increasing
pressure on businesses to address environmental issues. This means its emergence and
development are contextualized in the broader context, beyond the contingencies of an
organization. A key feature of the mega-trend affecting the business and its HRM is digital
transformation (Brown et al., 2024). Innovations such as generative artificial intelligence,
blockchain, the internet of Things have disrupted conventional business models and people
management, thereby requiring changes in approaching sustainable development strategies.
When considering the use of digital technologies to facilitate environmental management,
the sustainability of digital solutions themselves comes into question. For instance, generative
AI tools can be used to provide personalized training on sustainability practices for employees.
However, these generative AI tools rely on vast amounts of data and predetermined goals,
consuming significant energy for training and operation. A single ChatGPT conversation, for
instance, uses about 50 centiliters of water, equivalent to one plastic bottle, and ChatGPT’s
daily power usage is almost equal to that of 180,000 US households, each consuming about
29 kilowatts (Gordon, 2024). Until the AI industry develops more energy-efficient
infrastructures, the high electricity and water consumption of current tools pose a risk.
Incorporating these emerging technologies into green HRM could potentially lead to
greenwashing and, paradoxically, harm the environment in the long run. Therefore, when
evaluating the effectiveness of green HRM (green training in this example), the energy
consumption of digital tools used must also be accounted for in the overall environmental
impact assessment. Another practical solution will be for organizations to push for energy-
efficient AI technologies.
From an international perspective, the wave of digitization also comes at the cost of varied
access to digital tools, resources and associated digital skills for businesses and employees,
especially those in remote, under-developed areas. Ren and Dey term this disadvantaged group
as “AI-precariats” who experience marginalization from the labour market and economic
instability due to limited, insufficient digital access or skill sets (Budhwar et al., 2023, p. 636).
Hence, this challenge underscores the importance of green HRM adopting an institutional
entrepreneurship role (Ren and Jackson, 2020), where it extends beyond organizational
boundaries by partnering with other organizations, supply chain parties, non-profits and
governments to help address broader issues related to the digital divide. This change will
expand the scope of green HRM through participation in broader, wider improvements in
digital access and infrastructure. A primary example is in a recent paper published by
Chowdhury et al. (2025), which demonstrates how AI-based decision support systems provide
data-driven insights to enhance supply chain alertness. This, in turn, facilitates circular
economy practices and green servitization. Their study highlights that resource orchestration
and re-institutionalization help explain the connection between supply chain alertness and Personnel Review
circular economy practices.

Market shifts and the challenge to green HRM

Another key mega-trend is dynamic market shifts in which globalization, geo-political
conflicts and pandemic disruptions intensify economic uncertainty and market volatility. This
results in diverse business approaches to develop adaptive and resilient models, strategies and
aims, leading to heterogeneity of organizations’ readiness and motivation towards
environmental sustainability. So far green HRM literature has typically taken a “best
practices” approach in identifying and evaluating specific green practices, mostly in relation to
green training, green recruitment, green employee engagement. The context considered in
existing work mainly involves leaders’ style/mindset, corporate green culture or workforce
capabilities (Mukherji and Bhatnagar, 2022; Richards, 2022).
However, a crucial question remains as to how organizations design a green HRM system
that is tailored to their specific circumstances. In other words, a one-size-fits-all approach is an
insufficient approach to advocate for designing and implementing green HRM due to the
diverse nature of organizational contexts. For instance, organizations with greater resources
can invest in more advanced digital technologies and comprehensive green training programs,
while those with limited resources might need to prioritize low-cost initiatives. In recognizing
the heterogeneity, Ren et al. (2018) take a configurational approach, contextualizing green
HRM practice within a business’ overall scheme of sustainability. Specifically, they
decompose the sustainability scheme into a business extrinsic motivation to address external
pressure vs intrinsic motivation to protect the environment. Based on this, a wide array of
green HRM practices is categorized into hard vs soft HRM approaches. Accordingly, they
identify four types of green HRM configurations tailored to “greenie” (the intrinsic motivation
prevails), “opportunistic” (no dominant motivation), “marketer” (the extrinsic motivation
prevails) and “ambidexter” (both motivations co-exist) businesses. Their work demonstrates
different configurations can be equally efficient for leveraging the benefits of green HRM,
paving ways for further contextualization of green HRM research.

Demographic changes and the challenge to green HRM

To make a long-term effective change, an emerging line of green HRM research directs attention to
encouraging bottom-up employee green behaviours, the so-called greening of the workforce
through HRM systems. This can include both in-role green behaviour where employees undertake
tasks in a pro-environmental way as prescribed by their job requirements and extra-role green
behaviour where employees go extra miles (Tang et al., 2023). Arguably this is where person-
organization misfit occurs, especially if the organization takes an unitarist view of green HRM. Not
only employees and organizations may differ in their stance towards environmental sustainability,
but also employees are diverse in their backgrounds, motivations and capabilities to act green.
This heterogeneity in employees is now exacerbated by demographic changes where, as the
workforce ages, there is a greater mix of different generations, each bringing unique experiences
and styles. Also, with the awareness of gender issues, including the rights for LGBTþ and
#MeToo movement, people with different gender orientations are entering the workforce and
have to face stereotypes associated with environmental management. For instance, there is a
noted bias associating green actions with feminism (Brough et al., 2016). Also the recent geo-
political conflicts have contributed to a surge in refugees and immigrants who, when participating
in the host country, could result in a more culturally and ethnically diverse workforce.
To bridge potential misfits between heterogeneous employee groups and organizations,
designing green HRM practices that are inclusive and accessible to all employees is crucial.
However, the field of green HRM is yet to capture this diversity. Aboramadan et al. (2022)
provide an initial attempt to investigate the role of green inclusive leadership (leadership
PR practices characterized by openness, accessibility and availability towards achieving
environmental objectives) on enhancing green performance and behaviours. However,
leadership alone is insufficient if not coupled with corresponding motivation systems and
incentive structures instilled by green HRM. To truly green the workforce, green HRM needs
to offer alternative formats for training and communication, ensuring that everyone can
participate regardless of their access, motivation and willingness.

Concluding remarks
Green HRM is an organization’s strategic response to address its responsibility towards
protecting our planet. By integrating environmental objectives into HR policies and practices
and fostering a culture of environmental responsibility, it helps organizations achieve green
performance targets while also enhancing employee satisfaction and organizational
commitment. However, the range of mega-trends in the broader business and society pose
unique challenges for green HRM to align the workforce with the organization’s sustainability
goals. This article has illustrated some of the challenges brought by digitalization, market shifts
and demographic changes. As green HRM is contextualized in the broader context, it suggests
the field takes an open view to further adapting and evolving with these and future trends.

POPULISM IN HRM: TRANSCENDING A TOXIC TREND WITH ENGAGED

SCHOLARSHIP
€
Mustafa F. Ozbilgin
Social movements such as #blacklivesmatter, #metoo, #geziparkmovement, #womenlifefreedom,
€
#arabspring and pride marches have long called for greater equality and justice (Ozbilgin and
Erbil, 2021). Yet, the road to such progress is paved with backlash, setbacks, reactionary
movements and political instability that manifests as attacks on social, cultural, and legal
frameworks, institutions and professionals of equality, diversity and inclusion (Saba et al., 2021).
The resurgence of alt-right, racist, sexist, anti-LGBTþ and fascist movements is evident not
€
only in the global north but also in the global south (Ozbilgin, 2024). There is polarization of
social opinion for and against progress towards human rights and (Equity, Diversity and Inclusion)
EDI practices at work.

Setting the scene: the backlash against EDI

On the one hand, gender, ethnicity and disability are enshrined in UN conventions on human
rights and over 150 countries have signed up to prevent discrimination on these three grounds
internationally and many other categories of diversity and inclusion at the national levels
(Fitzsimmons et al., 2023). On the other hand, there is widespread contestation of gender
equality issues such as women’s reproductive rights, and the emergence of inter and intra-
racial, ethnic, religious and confessional conflicts that undermine inclusion. Many countries
and regions have repealed progressive human rights legislation, setting their progress onto
slow or regressive paths (Mills et al., 2023). The backlash against EDI takes multi-level forms.
At the macro-level, there are attacks on international and supranational conventions on human
rights. For example, more than 60 countries continue to criminalize LGBTþ inclusion at work
(R€oell et al., 2024) and some of the progressive countries experience political and cultural
€
backlash against recently earned LGBTþ rights at work and life. For example, Ozbilgin and
Erbil (2021) show that LGBTþ inclusion efforts are treated at a superficial level, increasingly
instrumentalized, withdrawn or defunded in some progressive countries such as the UK, the
Netherlands and the USA. At the meso-level, there are attacks on regulatory frameworks, legal
€
arrangements, regulatory bodies and institutional arrangements (Ozbilgin, 2024). At the
micro-level, there are attacks on EDI professionals, questioning and undermining their work
and employee resistance to EDI (McGowan and Ng, 2016).
Backlash against EDI and the role of HRM Personnel Review
The contrasting and patchy picture of progress and backlash against EDI has far-reaching
implications for the HR profession. HR professionals may serve as agents of progress
supporting EDI structures and policies by accepting organizational responsibility or
become handmaidens of tradition and dogma, supporting the populist backlash against EDI
by individualising responsibility (Vincent et al., 2024). In this brief paper, I explore
populism in HRM, as it emerges as a pathway for HR professionals that undermine
evidence-based, informed and learned tradition in HR. Populism is the political approach
which appeals to the widely held thoughts and beliefs of the general public. Populism by
definition is a pooling of public ignorance. For example, unfounded beliefs and ignorance
about how gender equality harms traditional family values leads to populist demands for
abandoning equality interventions. HRM is at a critical juncture between supporting
demands for EDI and upholding the populist stance of the status quo (Erbil et al., 2024).
Populist views of EDI reflect fears of loss of privilege and resources by the general public,
giving an opportunity to those who feel that EDI has disadvantaged them and taken something
from them. Populism feeds unfounded beliefs and fears about migrants taking jobs away
(Vassilopoulou et al., 2024). For example, the failure of the Voice referendum that sought to
give political power to indigenous population led to increased racism against Indigenous
peoples fuelled by populist fears and beliefs (Graham, 2023).

Hysteresis: the tension between progress and backlash

Bourdieu (1997/2000) frames historical moments when embodied demands of disadvantaged
groups for social justice meet resistance due to traditionalism and dogma, driven by vested
interests of the dominant group in retaining and sustaining the status quo as hysteresis.
Overcoming the hysteresis has much to do with the strength of the transformative potential of
otherwise isolated social movements, and HR professionals within organizations. The success
of HR professionals in breaking the impasse of hysteresis towards EDI rests on their ability to
secure intersectional solidarity to achieve buy-in and critical mass to foster EDI-led
transformation (Tinay et al., 2024). Yet, EDI and HR-related functions often lack the power
and resources to play such transformative roles, which makes them vulnerable to backlash.
In this moment of EDI hysteresis, we know more about how evidence-based HR promotes
EDI (Kossek and Buzzanell, 2018) and little about how populism-based HR undermines EDI
(Vassilopoulou et al., 2024). Populism as an ideational approach makes an appeal based on the
general opinion of the majority, assuming that the public is homogenous and virtuous, and their
views are valid without scrutiny. Therefore, populism manifests in social settings, where
racist, sexist, phobic and dogmatic views against EDI are commonly held, as a backlash
against evidence-based, scientific and inclusive approaches that uphold EDI (Pease, 2020). In
this paper, I make a distinction between HR driven by interdisciplinary evidence vs HR driven
by alt-right, racist, classist, sexist and anti-LGBTþ populism. To explore how populism
manifests in HRM, I turn to the literature on the sociology of ignorance and how even in
disciplines of science ignorance manifests as siloed approaches that ignore interdisciplinary
€
insights (McGoey, 2019; Ozbilgin, 2024). For example, Erbil et al. (2024) illustrate that
ignorant design helps retain neuronormative structures and populist HR policies that are based
on neurotypical norms at work, leading to exclusion and discrimination of neurodivergent
individuals. As populist HR contradicts evidence-based HR, we may explore ignorance as a
populist act to explicate how populist backlash informs, shapes and manifests in HRM.
McGoey (2019) identifies two forms of ignorance, i.e. not knowing and strategically ignoring.
The general public may ignore the human rights demands of minoritized and disadvantaged
groups. As a result, strategic ignorance becomes a powerful tool for populist backlash and
manifests as populism in science that pushes away critical insights of the outsiders within. In
fact, an OECD survey (2020) showed that indifference (acts of ignoring and ignorance) is the
main barrier to EDI interventions.
PR HR with and without EDI
EDI interventions, despite its recorded limitations, are the evidence-based HRM practices.
HRM without EDI is often an outcome of populist backlash as explained earlier. Why does HR
have dual and polarized pathways to shaping its EDI approaches? The interdisciplinary
evidence-based pathway supports and promotes EDI (Fitzsimmons et al., 2023), while the
populist pathway resists, undermines and denigrates EDI structures and interventions.
Fitzsimmons et al. (2023) suggest that understanding EDI in the context of international
business requires an understanding of uneven relations of power in the status quo and vested
interests to retain the tradition against demands of the changing moral landscape of social
justice. HRM has a role in translating the demands of shareholders, stakeholders and legal and
social demands on employment policies and practices at work. HRM draws on two forms of
€
inspiration and evidence. One is based on populism and self-interest (Erbil and Ozbilgin,
2023), i.e. based on demands of shareholders for increased productivity, performance, and
profitability. Populism manifests as a particular HR approach that uses and manipulates
general public fears, hopes and anxieties to shape HR policies and decisions. For example,
many organizations are withdrawing their EDI interventions due to populist backlash and ill-
informed calls by populist leaders. One remarkable example is Elon Musk’s sensation seeking,
misguided and unqualified tweet stating that DEI is DEAD, which implicitly called for
corporate leaders to withdraw support from EDI interventions. HR- and EDI-related decisions
and statements based on not knowing or strategic ignorance are often populist manipulations
that pool pluralistic ignorance (Prentice and Miller, 1996) to serve a narrow set of corporate
interests.

Populism, ignorance and science in HRM

Social unknowns and fears could be manipulated as populism in HRM. Yet a more sinister
form of populism is through ignoring the embodied appeals for EDI. McGoey (2019) notes
that ignorance is a major unearned privilege where only the dominant groups have the power to
ignore appeals for justice and equality. For example, individuals who benefit from gender,
ethnic and class discrimination may ignore appeals for greater equality. Ignorance does not
only manifest in ignorant settings. Even scientists could use narrow evidence to perpetuate
ignorance in science (Firestein, 2012). The evidence-based approach could take narrow or
interdisciplinary forms. The narrow definitions of scientific evidence could still perpetuate
ignorance in science. For example, Thomason et al. (2023) explain that anti-woke science used
narrow evidence and populist sentiments to resist social justice arguments.
The scientific path to HRM design is through an interdisciplinary evidence base that
underlines the importance of inclusion, equality and diversity at work for worker welfare and
safety. HR policies and practices are at the cusp of the duality of populism and interdisciplinary
science. One remarkable example of this was the withdrawal of protective equipment in
hospitals during the Covid-19 epidemic, based on narrow and warped evidence that falsely
claimed the main mode of transmission to be droplet based. Individuals are asked to take on
responsibility for their own protection by washing hands and keeping distance as a result.
Accepting interdisciplinary science that showed evidence of airborne transmission made
institutions and HR policy accountable to take on responsibility for protective equipment
(Greenhalgh et al., 2021, 2022). Of course the impact of warped and populist policies were felt
more adversely by already vulnerable and disenfranchised communities across social fault
lines such as gender, ethnicity, class, age and sexual orientation. Similar forms of populist
backlash in organizational behaviour happened after Brexit vote, and Voice referendum with
the hike of racist, anti-indigenous and xenophobic discourses and practices going unchecked in
the UK and Australia, respectively (Kamasak et al., 2019; Groutsis et al., 2020) In order to
promote HR based on interdisciplinary evidence, HR practitioners should combat populist
beliefs and achieve buy-in and intersectional solidarity from across categories of social
diversity and their organizational structure.
 HRM practices can advance or constrain populism in tangible ways through specific Personnel Review
actions, such as recruitment strategies, performance management and communication
policies. For example, inclusive hiring practices that prioritize diversity can counter populist
ideologies by normalising pluralism, whereas biased algorithms in recruitment can reinforce
exclusionary narratives. Similarly, transparent decision-making and grievance mechanisms
empower marginalized employees and demonstrate organizational commitment to equity,
mitigating the divisive effects of populism. On the other hand, practices like limited employee
voice or neglecting diversity training may inadvertently perpetuate populist rhetoric, leading
to decreased morale and heightened workplace tensions.

Evidence based HRM for promoting EDI

HR policies and practices need to promote the value and benefits of EDI for all, i.e.
transparency of decision making, and inclusion of diverse voices. HR also has a significant
role in calling out and tacking rising waves of discrimination, bullying and harassment based
on populist backlash. In practical terms this requires HR to build employee resource groups,
allyship for promoting inclusion and developing and educating leaders and workers against
rising populist hate and exclusionary sentiments.
Future research could explore counter-narratives and interdisciplinary evidence that
transcends the pluralistic ignorance induced by populism. Populism presents a grave challenge
to evidence based HR and EDI policies. Future research can explore how populism and science
informs HR policy and how populism can be mitigated.
Future research may also explore how HR can counteract the effects of populism by
fostering intersectional solidarity and creating counter-narratives that challenge exclusionary
ideologies. Additionally, studies could examine the role of technology and leadership
communication in mitigating the amplification of populist rhetoric within organizations.
Comparative research across cultural and political contexts can reveal strategies to strengthen
resilience against populist-driven rollbacks of EDI initiatives.

GLOBALIZATION AND COUNTRY EFFECTS ON HRM

Arup Varma
As globalization continues to shape and re-define how corporations around the world do
business with each other, the human resource (HR) function keeps evolving (see, e.g. Cooke
et al., 2020; Harney and Collings, 2021). Indeed, an effective HR department is crucial to the
success of any organization, but more so in the case of global corporations who must deal with
sourcing, selecting, developing and evaluating individuals from various backgrounds. One
way that global corporations work towards achieving their strategy is through the expatriates
assigned to the various locations and the repatriates who often bring back knowledge from the
host country. Such back and forth results in convergence of HR policies and practices where the
cultures are similar, and divergence where the practices are too “foreign” to be easily adopted.
This creates a critical problem for multinational corporations as not all home country
practices may be suitable for adoption at the host country location(s), due to differences in
culture and context. At the same time, the need to create standardized policies and practices is
often very strong in the pursuit of creating “one” organization across the globe. Several
scholars (e.g. Chung et al., 2014) argue that MNEs often allow local practices to thrive if these
do not conflict with corporate strategy. Indeed, while the benefits of globalization are well-
acknowledged, the potential pitfalls are sometimes overlooked. In addition to differences in
culture, HR practices are very contextual and subject to impact by the local legal and
regulatory environments.
As such, what we see is the emergence of a slow cross-vergence (Ralston et al., 1997) whereby
countries take aspects of other countries’ practices and develop a hybrid model. In such cases,
country effects impact the HR policies and practices of global corporations slowly, but surely.
PR This piece discusses how HRM is evolving through country effects and further examines
how country effects are likely to continue to impact HRM (see, Almond (2011), and the
specific areas where these effects are likely to be seen, such as HR policies and practices (see
e.g. Budhwar et al., 2016).
In their thesis comparing HR practices in the headquarters and subsidiaries of multinational
corporations, Thang et al. (2007) argued that with the increase of globalization, and the
resultant market-oriented economies, many countries have faced situations where their local
offices may lack required and relevant management expertise (see also, Farndale et al., 2010;
Collings et al., 2019).
Indeed, scholars of international HR would do well to examine issues such as the (1) types
of organizations that are able to easily absorb repatriated knowledge, the specific types of HR
policies and practices that lend themselves to adaptation and implementation and (2) the short-
term and long-term impacts of knowledge transfers.

Convergence and divergence of HR practices: the critical role of expatriates and

repatriates in knowledge transfer
Expatriates and repatriates play a critical role in the transfer of knowledge about HR practices
and policies, gained through their own experiences and are a key factor in the evolution of
convergence, divergence or cross-vergence of HR practices. In one recent study, Barba-
Arag� on et al. (2024) found that in global corporations, the home unit’s ability to absorb reverse
knowledge transfer is significantly influenced by critical human resource practices, such as
staffing, training and performance appraisal, which are suitably in tune with the needs of the
corporation.
In situations where different countries start developing similar HR practices, it has been
argued that there is a convergence of practices while divergence refers to the situation where
HR practices in different countries start to become more and more different (see Budhwar
et al., 2016). In their paper looking at the convergence/divergence of HR practices in the Asia
Pacific, Budhwar et al. (2016) identified several factors that were responsible for convergence
of HR practices across nations in Asia, such as standardization of products and services,
internationalization of businesses and technological developments. As an example, Toyota
builds cars with different engine sizes and emission controls depending on the country where
they are selling their models. Similarly, McDonald’s does not sell its mainstay product – the
hamburger – in India. Instead, it has developed and sells vegetable burgers to cater to local
customs and taste preferences (see, e.g. Denisi et al., 2008).
Budhwar et al. (2016) further identified factors responsible for the divergence of HR
practices, such as the diversity of cultures, distinct national business systems, and the within-
country heterogeneity in the case of large countries, such as China and India. In this
connection, Stoermer et al. (2020) examined the impact of expatriate, cultural intelligence on
knowledge sharing, and argued that global corporations should test for potential expatriates’
cultural intelligence, as well as try to help develop such cultural intelligence in their
employees, through international exposure and experience. Clearly, if organizations are to
draw the best from other countries’ practices, the knowledge transfer cannot be left to chance.
However, as Burmeister and Deller (2016) noted, in their review of Indian and European
MNEs operating in Africa, organizations will need to ensure that their internal culture and
support systems are geared to draw the best of reverse knowledge transfer and able to
incorporate the learnings into home country practices.

Future directions
As Varma et al. (2024) have noted, an increasing number of corporations from emerging
economies are expanding their global footprints and establishing operations in the so-called
developed world as well as in other emerging economies. This provides an opportunity and
makes it imperative for corporations to learn from the HR policies and practices of businesses Personnel Review
in the nations where they do business, either through their own operations or through the
expatriates assigned to the countries. However, as noted above, such knowledge transfer
should not be left to chance – instead, organizations should consciously develop robust
systems through which such knowledge can be gleaned, adapted, and implemented, while
addressing the contextual differences (see, e.g. Mayrhofer et al., 2024). In addition, it would
also be important to train expatriates prior to departure on how to collect, store, and transmit
information to headquarters, as well as how to share information about HR policies and
practices while at the host country location or at subsidiary operations.
In addition to HR practitioners, scholars also have a critical role to play. Future research
should address such issues as (1) which expatriates are best suited to gather knowledge about
host country HR policies and practices, (2) how they should collect information about HR
policies and practices in an objective fashion, (3) when the information should be shared with
headquarters, and, finally, (4) what types of information about HR policies and practices
should be collected. Such a two-way conscious and deliberate transfer of knowledge about HR
policies and practices should lead to optimal utilization of the information resulting in a better
experience for the employees.

Notes
1. The shorthand term AI is used to encapsulate various types of technological innovations.
2. Employees are usually employed to do certain jobs, either on a continuing basis or for a period. But
other workers may have more casual, less-structured relations with employers; they may be “self-
employed” or be employed by a contractor.
3. Little peer-reviewed research has been published on these matters. So, this discussion draws on a
range of sources including the author’s research and “grey literature” (e.g. blogs, reports, media,
podcasts, policy documents, working papers, web sites).

References
Aboramadan, M., Crawford, J., Turkmenoglu, M.A. and Farao, C. (2022), “Green inclusive leadership
and employee green behaviors in the hotel industry: does perceived green organizational support
matter?”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 107, 103330, doi: 10.1016/
j.ijhm.2022.103330.
Acemoglu, D. and Johnson, S. (2024), Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle over
Technology and Prosperity, Public Affairs, New York.
ACTU (2024a), “ACTU policies: artificial intelligence”, available at: https://www.actu.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2023/12/ACTU-Congress-2024-Artificial-Intelligence.pdf (accessed
19 February 2025).
ACTU (2024b), Making AI Work for Us: Submission by the Australian Council of Trade Unions to the
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training Inquiry
into the Digital Transformation of Workplaces, Australian Council of Trade Unions, Melbourne.
Aggarwal, A., Sadhna, P., Gupta, S., Mittal, A. and Rastogi, S. (2022), “Gen Z entering the workforce:
restructuring HR policies and practices for fostering the task performance and organizational
commitment”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 22 No. 3, e2535, doi: 10.1002/pa.2535.
Aksoy, C.G., Barrero, J.M., Bloom, N., Davis, S.J., Dolls, M. and Zarate, P. (2023), Working from
Home Around the Globe: 2023 Report, EconPol policy brief No. 53.
Albasson and Albassam, W.A., (2023), “The power of artificial intelligence in recruitment: an
analytical review of current AI-based recruitment strategies”, International Journal of
Professional Business Review, Vol. 8 No. 6, e02089, doi: 10.26668/businessreview/
2023.v8i6.2089.
PR Allen, T.D., Golden, T.D. and Shockley, K.M. (2015), “How effective is telecommuting? Assessing the
status of our scientific findings”, Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 40-68, doi: 10.1177/1529100615593273.
Allen, T.D., Ebay, L., Chao, G.T. and Bauer, T.N. (2017), “Taking stock of two relational aspects of
organizational life: tracing the history and shaping the future of socialization and mentoring
research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 102 No. 3, pp. 324-337, doi: 10.1037/
apl0000086.
Almond, P. (2011), “Re-visiting ‘country of origin’ effects on HRM in multinational corporations”,
Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 258-271, doi: 10.1111/j.1748-
8583.2010.00153.x.
Anderson, A.J., Kaplan, S.A. and Vega, R.P. (2015), “The impact of telework on emotional experience:
when, and for whom, does telework improve daily affective well-being?”, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 882-897, doi: 10.1080/
1359432x.2014.966086.
Armstrong, S.J. and Mahmud, A. (2008), “Experiential learning and the acquisition of managerial tacit
knowledge”, The Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 189-208,
doi: 10.5465/amle.2008.32712617.
Ayoobzadeh, M., Schweitzer, L., Lyons, S. and Ng, E. (2024), “A tale of two generations: a timelag
study of career expectations”, Personnel Review, Vol. 53 No. 7, pp. 1649-1665, doi: 10.1108/pr-
02-2022-0101.
Bamber, G.J. and Lansbury, R.D. (eds) (2015), New Technology: International Perspectives on Human
Resources and Industrial Relations, London, Routledge.
Barba-Arag�on, M.I., Sanz-Valle, R. and Sanchez-Vidal, M.E. (2024), “Human resource management,
absorptive capacity and reverse knowledge transfer”, Personnel Review, Vol. 53 No. 6,
pp. 1542-1560, doi: 10.1108/pr-11-2022-0787.
Barhate, B. and Dirani, K.M. (2022), “Career aspirations of generation Z: a systematic literature
review”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 46 Nos 1/2, pp. 139-157, doi:
10.1108/ejtd-07-2020-0124.
Barnard, D. (2019), “Examples of how AI is transforming learning and development. VirtualSpeech”,
available at: https://virtualspeech.com/blog/ai-ml-learning-development (accessed 12
December 2024).
Bauer, T.N., Erdogan, B., Caughlin, D.E., Ellis, A.M. and Kurkoski, J. (2021), “Jump-starting the
socialization experience: the longitudinal role of day 1 newcomer resources on adjustment”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 2226-2261, doi: 10.1177/0149206320962835.
Benligiray, S., G€
ung€ _ (2024), “Measuring remote working skills: scale
or, A.Y. and Akbaş, I.
development and validation study”, PLoS One, Vol. 19 No. 4, e0299074, doi: 10.1371/
journal.pone.0299074.
Black, J.S. and van Esch, P. (2020), “AI-enabled recruiting: what is it and how should a manager use
it?”, Business Horizons, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 215-226, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2019.12.001.
Bloom, N., Han, R. and Liang, J. (2024a), “Hybrid working from home improves retention without
damaging performance”, Nature, Vol. 630 No. 8018, pp. 920-925, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-
07500-2.
Bloom, N., Han, R. and Liang, J. (2024b), “Hybrid working from home improves retention without
damaging performance”, Nature, Vol. 630 No. 8018, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07500-2.
Bourdieu, P. (1997/2000), Pascalian Meditations, Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Brough, A.R., Wilkie, J.E., Ma, J., Isaac, M.S. and Gal, D. (2016), “Is eco-friendly unmanly? The
green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 567-582, doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucw044.
Brown, O., Davison, R.M., Decker, S., Ellis, D.A., Faulconbridge, J., Gore, J., Greenwood, M., Islam,
G., Lubinski, C., MacKenzie, N.G., Meyer, R., Muzio, D., Quattrone, P., Ravishankar, M.N.,
Zilber, T., Ren, S., Sarala, R.M. and Hibbert, P. (2024), “Theory-driven perspectives on
 generative artificial intelligence in business and management”, British Journal of Management, Personnel Review
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 3-23, doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12788.
Budhwar, P., Varma, A. and Patel, C. (2016), “Convergence-divergence of HRM in the Asia-Pacific:
context-specific analysis and future research agenda”, Human Resource Management Review,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 311-326, doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.04.004.
Budhwar, P., Chowdhury, S., Wood, G., Aguinis, H., Bamber, G.J., Beltran, J.R., Boselie, P., Lee
Cooke, F., Decker, S., DeNisi, A., Dey, P.K., Guest, D., Knoblich, A.J., Malik, A., Paauwe, J.,
Papagiannidis, S., Patel, C., Pereira, V., Ren, S., Rogelberg, S., Saunders, M.N.K., Tung, R.L.
and Varma, A. (2023), “Human resource management in the age of generative artificial
intelligence: perspectives and research directions on ChatGPT”, Human Resource Management
Journal, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 606-659, doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12524.
Burke, R.J. and Ng, E. (2006), “The changing nature of work and organizations: implications for
human resource management”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 86-94,
doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.006.
Burmeister, A. and Deller, J. (2016), “A practical perspective on repatriate knowledge transfer: the
influence of organizational support practices”, Journal of Global Mobility, Vol. 4 No. 1,
pp. 68-87, doi: 10.1108/jgm-09-2015-0041.
Byrne, L. (2024), Discussant Comments, ‘Varieties of Digital Ecosystems at Work, Joe Isaac
Symposium with J O’Reilly, L Byrne, Gershenfeld, J., Bamber, G.J. & Brown, M.’, Monash
University, available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v5VvhUpRpM3Nw&t52s, 33:
50 minutes (accessed 19 February 2025).
Campion, M.D. and Campion, E. (2023), “Machine learning applications to personnel selection:
current illustrations, lessons learned, and future research”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 4,
pp. 993-1009, doi: 10.1111/peps.12621.
Cappelli, P., Tambe, P. and Yakubovich, V. (2019), Artificial Intelligence in Human Resources
Management: Challenges and a Path Forward, Wharton School of Business.
Carillo, K., Cachat-Rosset, G., Marsan, J., Saba, T. and Klarsfeld, A. (2021), “Adjusting to epidemic-
induced telework: empirical insights from teleworkers in France”, European Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 69-88, doi: 10.1080/0960085x.2020.1829512.
Chartrand, T. and Vosko, L.F. (2021), “Canada’s temporary foreign worker and international mobility
programs: charting change and continuity among source countries”, International Migration,
Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 89-109, doi: 10.1111/imig.12762.
Chen, J., Luo, N., Liu, Y., Liu, L., Zhang, K. and Kolodziej, J. (2016), “A hybrid intelligence-aided
approach to affect-sensitive e-learning”, Computing, Vol. 98 Nos 1-2, pp. 215-233, doi: 10.1007/
s00607-014-0430-9.
Chillakuri, B. (2020), “Understanding Generation Z expectations for effective onboarding”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1277-1296, doi: 10.1108/JOCM-02-
2020-0058.
Chong, J.X., Beenen, G., Gagne, M. and Dunlop, P.D. (2021), “Satisfying newcomers’ needs: the role
of socialization tactics and supervisor autonomy support”, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 315-331, doi: 10.1007/s10869-019-09678-z.
Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C. and Larson, B. (2021), “Work-from-anywhere: the productivity effects of
geographic flexibility”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 655-683, doi:
10.1002/smj.3251.
Chowdhury, S., Dey, P., Joel-Edgar, S., Bhattacharya, S., Rodriguez-Espindola, O., Abadie, A. and
Truong, L. (2023), “Unlocking the value of artificial intelligence in human resource management
through AI capability framework”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 1,
100899, doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100899.
Chowdhury, S., Ren, S. and Richey, R.G. (2025), “Leveraging artificial intelligence to facilitate green
servitization: resource orchestration and re-institutionalization perspectives”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 281, 109519, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2025.109519.
PR Choy, M. and Tay, B. (2016), “Meeting the upskilling demands of the Singapore workforce through
MOOCs: a white paper by Udemy and Dioworks learning”.
Chung, C., Sparrow, P. and Bozkurt, O.€ (2014), “South Korean MNEs’ international HRM approach:
hybridization of global standards and local practices”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 49 No. 4,
pp. 549-559, doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2013.12.008.
Cleveland, J. and Murphy, K. (2016), “Organizations want to abandon performance appraisal: can
they? Should they?”, in Stone, D.L. and Dulebohn, J.H. (Eds), Human Resource Management
Theory and Research on New Employment Relationships, Information Age Publishing,
Charlotte, NC, pp. 15-46.
Collings, D.G., Mellahi, K. and Cascio, W.F. (2019), “Global talent management and performance in
multinational enterprises: a multilevel perspective”, Journal of Management, Vol. 45 No. 2,
pp. 540-566, doi: 10.1177/0149206318757018.
Cooke, F.L., Schuler, R. and Varma, A. (2020), “Human resource management research and practice in
Asia: past, present, and future”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, 100778,
doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2020.100778.
Costanza, D.P., Badger, J.M., Fraser, R.L., Severt, J.B. and Gade, P.A. (2012), “Generational
differences in work-related attitudes: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 375-394, doi: 10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4.
Cumming, D.J., Wood, G. and Zahra, S.A. (2020), “Human resource management practices in the
context of rising right-wing populism”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 525-536, doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12269.
Davenport, T.H. and Mittal, N. (2022), “How generative AI is changing creative work”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 14.
Davis, C.W. and Myers, K.K. (2019), “Past work experience and organizational assimilation in
nonprofit organizations”, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 569-588,
doi: 10.1002/nml.21348.
Demerouti, E. (2023), “Effective employee strategies for remote working: an online self-training
intervention”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 142, 103857, doi: 10.1016/
j.jvb.2023.103857.
DeNisi, A.S., Varma, A. and Budhwar, P. (2008), “Performance management around the globe: what
have we learned?”, in Varma, A., Budhwar, P.S. and DeNisis, A.S. (Eds), Performance
Management Systems: A Global Perspective. Global HRM Series, Routledge, London.
Duncan, R.D. (2023), “How Covid changed the workplace: it’s a whole new world out there”, Forbes,
available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodgerdeanduncan/2023/07/28/howcovid-changed-
the-workplace-its-a-whole-new-world-out-there/
Eby, L.T.D.T., Allen, T.D., Hoffman, B.J., Baranik, L.E., Sauer, J.B., Baldwin, S., Morrison, M.A.,
Kinkade, K.M., Maher, C.P., Curtis, S. and Evans, S.C. (2013), “An interdisciplinary meta-
analysis of the potential antecedents, correlates, and consequences of prot�eg�e perceptions of
mentoring”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 139 No. 2, pp. 441-476, doi: 10.1037/a0029279.
Ensher, E.A., Heun, C. and Blanchard, A. (2003), “Online mentoring and computer-mediated
communication: new directions in research”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63 No. 2,
pp. 264-288, doi: 10.1016/s0001-8791(03)00044-7.
€
Erbil, C. and Ozbilgin, M. (2023), “Worker silence in a turbulent neoliberal context: the case of mass
privatisation of sugar factories in Turkey”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 34
No. 3, pp. 647-667, doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12506.
€
Erbil, C., Ozbilgin, M.F. and G€ undog �du, N. (2024), “Neuronormativity as ignorant design in human
resource management: the case of an unsupportive national context”, Human Resource
Management Journal. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12573.
Farndale, E., Scullion, H. and Sparrow, P. (2010), “The role of the corporate HR function in global
talent management”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 161-168, doi: 10.1016/
j.jwb.2009.09.012.
Finkelstein, L.M., Gonnerman, M.E., Jr and Foxgrover, S.K. (2001), “The stability of generation Personnel Review
identification over time and across contexts”, Experimental Aging Research, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 377-397, doi: 10.1080/03610730109342355.
Firestein, S. (2012), Ignorance: How it Drives Science, OUP, USA.
€
Fitzsimmons, S., Ozbilgin, M.F., Thomas, D.C. and Nkomo, S. (2023), “Equality, diversity, and
inclusion in international business: a review and research agenda”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 54 No. 8, pp. 1402-1422, doi: 10.1057/s41267-023-00642-x.
FWC (2024), What is the Right to Disconnect, Fair Work Commission, Melbourne, available at: https://
www.fwc.gov.au/issues-we-help/right-disconnect-disputes/what-right-disconnect (accessed 13
October 2024).
Gajendran, R.S. and Harrison, D.A. (2007), “The good, the bad, and the unknown about
telecommuting: meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 6, pp. 1524-1541, doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.92.6.1524.
Gajendran, R.S., Harrison, D.A. and Delaney-Klinger, K. (2015), “Are telecommuters remotely good
citizens? Unpacking telecommuting’s effects on performance via i-deals and job resources”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 353-393, doi: 10.1111/peps.12082.
Gajendran, R.S., Ponnapalli, A.R., Wang, C. and Javalagi, A.A. (2024), “A dual pathway model of
remote work intensity: a meta-analysis of its simultaneous positive and negative effects”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 1351-1386, doi: 10.1111/peps.12641.
Gao, G.Y., Lyu, J. and Cheung, C. (2024), “AI recruiting and workplace diversity, equity, and
inclusion: a literature analysis”, paper presented at Pacific-Asia Conference, Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam, available at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2024/track08_digtech_fow/track08_digtech_
fow/4/
Gent, C. (2024), Cyberboss: the Rise of Algorithmic Management and the New Struggle for Control at
Work, Verso, London.
Golden, T.D. and Veiga, J.F. (2005), “The impact of telecommuting on job satisfaction: resolving
inconsistent findings”, Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 301-318, doi: 10.1177/
0149206304271768.
Golden, T.D., Veiga, J.F. and Dino, R.N. (2008), “The impact of professional isolation on teleworker
job performance and turnover intentions: does time spent teleworking, interacting face-to-face,
or having access to communication-enhancing technology matter?”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 6, pp. 1412-1421, doi: 10.1037/a0012722.
Gonzalez, A. (2024), “How remote work supports disability inclusion”, Forbes, available at: https://
www.forbes.com/sites/aliciagonzalez/2024/07/18/how-remote-work-supports-disability-
inclusion/
Gordon, C. (2024), “ChatGPT and generative AI innovations are creating sustainability havoc”,
Forbes, available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/cindygordon/2024/03/12/chatgpt-and-
generative-ai-innovations-are-creating-sustainability-havoc/
Graham, T. (2023), “Understanding misinformation and media manipulation on Twitter during the
voice to Parliament referendum”.
Greenhalgh, T., Ozbilgin, M. and Contandriopoulos, D. (2021), “Orthodoxy, illusio, and playing the
scientific game: a Bourdieusian analysis of infection control science in the COVID-19
pandemic”, Wellcome Open Research, Vol. 6, p. 126, doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16855.2.
Greenhalgh, T., Ozbilgin, M. and Tomlinson, D. (2022), “How COVID-19 spreads: narratives, counter
narratives, and social dramas”, Bmj, Vol. 378, e069940, doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-069940.
€
Groutsis, D., Vassilopoulou, J., Kyriakidou, O. and Ozbilgin, M.F. (2020), “The ‘new’ migration for
work phenomenon: the pursuit of emancipation and recognition in the context of work”, Work,
Employment and Society, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 864-882, doi: 10.1177/0950017019872651.
Guenole, N. and Feinzig, S. (2018), “The business case for AI in HR. With insights and tips on getting
started”, IBM Smarter Workforce Institute, IBM Corporation, Armonk.
PR Guerci, M., Longoni, A. and Luzzini, D. (2016), “Translating stakeholder pressures into environmental
performance–the mediating role of green HRM practices”, International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 262-289, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1065431.
Haan, K. (2023), Remote Work Statistics and Trends in 2023, Forbes Advisor, available at: https://
www.forbes.com/advisor/business/remote-work-statistics/#sources_section
Hamori, M. (2018), “Can MOOCs solve your training problem?”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 70-77.
Harney, B. and Collings, D.G. (2021), “Navigating the shifting landscapes of HRM”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, 100824, doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100824.
Hartley, D. and West, K. (2015), “Taking it personally: tailoring training for more relevance”, Training
and Development, Vol. 61 No. 11, pp. 21-23.
Hickman, L., Bosch, N., Ng, V., Saef, R., Tay, L. and Woo, S.E. (2022), “Automated video interview
personality assessments: reliability, validity, and generalizability investigations”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 107 No. 8, pp. 1323-1351, doi: 10.1037/apl0000695.
Hinds, P.J. and Cramton, C.D. (2014), “Situated coworker familiarity: how site visits transform
relationships among distributed workers”, Organization Science, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 794-814, doi:
10.1287/orsc.2013.0869.
Ho, Y.Y., Yeo, E.Y. and Wijaya, D.S.B.H. (2022), “Turning coffee time into teaching moments through
bite-sized learning for adult learners”, The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, Vol. 71
No. 2, pp. 183-198, doi: 10.1080/07377363.2021.2024000.
Hwang, G.W. (2003), “A conceptual map model for developing intelligent tutoring systems”,
Computers and Education, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 217-235, doi: 10.1016/s0360-1315(02)00121-5.
Hyman, R. (2026), Concise Introduction to Employment Relations, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Iceland, J., Silver, E. and Redstone, I. (2023), Why We Disagree about Inequality: Social Justice vs.
Social Order, John Wiley & Sons.
Jabbour, C. and Santos, F. (2008), “The central role of human resource management in the search for
sustainable organizations”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19
No. 12, pp. 2133-2154, doi: 10.1080/09585190802479389.
Jackson, S.E. and Seo, J. (2010), “The greening of strategic HRM scholarship”, Organization
Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 278-290, doi: 10.1057/omj.2010.37.
J€amsen, R., Sivunen, A. and Blomqvist, K. (2022), “Employees’ perceptions of relational
communication in full-time remote work in the public sector”, Computers in Human Behavior,
Vol. 132, 107240, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107240.
Jarvey, N. and Press, J. (2023), “Back to work – labor pains and gains: the winners and losers of the
hollywood strikes”, Vanity Fair, Vol. 16, November, available at: https://www.vanityfair.com/
hollywood/2023/10/writers-strike-winners-and-losers (accessed 13 October 2024).
Jay, S., Batruch, A., Jetten, J., McGarty, C. and Muldoon, O.T. (2019), “Economic inequality and the
rise of far-right populism: a social psychological analysis”, Journal of Community and Applied
Social Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 418-428, doi: 10.1002/casp.2409.
Jeffers, S. (2024), “What could AI do for unions? And where should we start?”, TUC Digital Lab,
Trades Union Congress, London, available at: https://digital.tuc.org.uk/what-could-ai-do-for-
unions-and-where-should-we-start (accessed 13 October 2024).
Jerrard, M., Bamber, G.J. and McKeown, T. (2024), “Impact of regulatory and other changes on
Australian unions’ strategies and campaigns, 2023-2024”, Journal of Industrial Relations,
Vol. 66 No. 5, pp. 721-741, doi: 10.1177/00221856241294106.
Johnson, R.D., Lukaszewski, K.M. and Stone, D.L. (2024), “The advantages and disadvantages of
using artificial intelligence in human resource management”, in Murray, B., Dulebohn, J.H.,
Stone, D.L. and Lukaszewski, K.M. (Eds), The Future of Human Resource Management,
Information Age Publishing, Charlotte.
Joshi, A., Dencker, J.C., Franz, G. and Martocchio, J.J. (2010), “Unpacking generational identities in
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 392-414, doi: 10.5465/
amr.35.3.zok392.
 €
Kamasak, R., Ozbilgin, M.F., Yavuz, M. and Akalin, C. (2019), “Race discrimination at work in the Personnel Review
United Kingdom”, in Race Discrimination and Management of Ethnic Diversity and Migration
at Work: European Countries’ Perspectives, Emerald Publishing, pp. 107-127.
Kim, S., Vaiman, V. and Sanders, K. (2022), “Strategic human resource management in the era of
environmental disruptions”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 283-293, doi:
10.1002/hrm.22107.
Klinghoffer, D., Kocher, K. and Luna, N. (2024), “Onboarding new employees in a hybrid workplace”,
Harvard Business Review, available at: https://hbr.org/2024/06/onboarding-new-employees-in-a-
hybrid-workplace
Kniffin, K.M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S.P., Bakker, A.B., Bamberger, P.,
Bapuji, H., Bhave, D.P., Choi, V.K., Creary, S.J., Demerouti, E., Flynn, F.J., Gelfand, M.J., Greer,
L.L., Johns, G., Kesebir, S., Klein, P.G., Lee, S.Y., Ozcelik, H., Petriglieri, J.L., Rothbard, N.P.,
Rudolph, C.W., Shaw, J.D., Sirola, N., Wanberg, C.R., Whillans, A., Wilmot, M.P. and Vugt, M.V.
(2021), “COVID-19 and the workplace: implications, issues, and insights for future research and
action”, American Psychologist, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 63-77, doi: 10.1037/amp0000716.
Kochan, T.A. and Dyer, L. (2020), Shaping the Future of Work: A Handbook for Action and a New
Social Contract, Routledge, London.
Kochan, T.A., Armstrong, B., Shah, J., Castilla, E.J., Likis, B. and Mangelsdorf, M.E. (2024), An
Integrated Strategy for Technology Design and Implementation, MIT Sloan School of
Management, Cambridge.
Kossek, E.E. and Buzzanell, P.M. (2018), “Women’s career equality and leadership in organizations:
creating an evidence-based positive change”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 57 No. 4,
pp. 813-822, doi: 10.1002/hrm.21936.
Kresge, L. (2020), Union Collective Bargaining Agreement Strategies in Response to Technology, UC
Berkeley Labor Center, Berkeley, available at: https://escholarship.org/content/qt1x43h4jr/
qt1x43h4jr.pdf (accessed 19 February 2025).
Landers, R.N. and Marin, S. (2021), “Theory and technology in organizational psychology: a review of
technology integration paradigms and their effects on the validity of theory”, Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 235-258, doi:
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-060843.
Leeds University (2024), Socio-Technical Systems Theory, Leeds University Business School, Leeds,
available at: https://business.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/182/socio-technical-centre (accessed 19
February 2025).
Legge, K. (1995), Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities, Palgrave Macmillan,
London.
Leonardi, P.M., Parker, S.H. and Shen, R. (2024), “How remote work changes the world of work”,
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 193-219, doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-091922-015852.
Leroy, S., Schmidt, A.M. and Madjar, N. (2021), “Working from home during COVID-19: a study of
the interruption landscape”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 106 No. 10, pp. 1448-1465, doi:
10.1037/apl0000972.
Lukaszewski, K.M. and Stone, D.L. (2024), “Will the use of AI in human resources create a digital
Frankenstein?”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 53 No. 1, 101033, doi: 10.1016/
j.orgdyn.2024.101033.
Lung, L. (2024), “AI coworkers: the revolution of the working world in the digital age”, Qualimero,
available at: https://www.qualimero.com/en/blog/aiemployeesrevolutionizing-workplace
Lyons, S.T. and Kuron, L. (2014), “Generational differences in the workplace: a review of the evidence
and directions for future research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35 No. S1,
pp. 139-157, doi: 10.1002/job.1913.
Lyons, S.T. and Schweitzer, L. (2017), “A qualitative exploration of generational identity: making
sense of young and old in the context of today’s workplace”, Work, Aging and Retirement, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 209-224.
PR Lyons, S., Urick, M., Kuron, L. and Schweitzer, L. (2015), “Generational differences in the workplace:
there is complexity beyond the stereotypes”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 346-356, doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.48.
Lyons, S.T., Schweitzer, L., Urick, M.J. and Kuron, L. (2019), “A dynamic social-ecological model of
generational identity in the workplace”, Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 1-24, doi: 10.1080/15350770.2018.1500332.
Ma, K. and Fang, B. (2023), “Exploring generation Z’s expectations at future work: the impact of
digital technology on job searching”, European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 48
No. 9, pp. 933-953, doi: 10.1108/ejtd-05-2023-0076, available at: https://www.emerald.com/
insight/2046-9012.htm
Mannheim, K. (1952), “The problem of generations”, in Kecskemeti, P. (Ed.), Essays on the Sociology
of Knowledge, Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 276-322.
Mark, G., Kun, A.L., Rintel, S. and Sellen, A. (2022), “Introduction to this special issue: the future of
remote work: responses to the pandemic”, Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 37 No. 5,
pp. 397-403, doi: 10.1080/07370024.2022.2038170.
Marler, J.H. (2024), “Artificial intelligence, algorithms, and compensation strategy: challenges and
opportunities”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 53 No. 1, 101039., doi: 10.1016/
j.orgdyn.2024.101039.
Marsden, S., Tucker, E. and Vosko, L.F. (2021), “Flawed by design? A case study of federal
enforcement of migrant workers’ labour rights in Canada. Canadian Labour & Emp”, Law
Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 71-102.
Mayrhofer, W., Biemann, T., Koch-Bayram, I. and Rapp, M.L. (2024), “Context is key: a 34-country
analysis investigating how similar HRM systems emerge from similar contexts”, Human
Resource Management, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 355-371, doi: 10.1002/hrm.22205.
Mazmanian, M., Orlikowski, W.J. and Yates, J. (2013), “The autonomy paradox: the implications of
mobile email devices for knowledge professionals”, Organization Science, Vol. 24 No. 5,
pp. 1291-1600, doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0806.
McGoey, L. (2019), The Unknowers: How Strategic Ignorance Rules the World, Bloomsbury
Publishing.
McGowan, R.A. and Ng, E.S. (2016), “Employment equity in Canada: making sense of employee
discourses of misunderstanding, resistance, and support”, Canadian Public Administration,
Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 310-329, doi: 10.1111/capa.12171.
Mills, C.E., Schmuhl, M., Capellan, J.A. and Silva, J.R. (2023), “Hate as backlash: a county-level
analysis of white supremacist mobilization in response to racial and gender ‘threats’”, Social
Problems. doi: 10.1093/socpro/spad020.
Minbaeva, D. (2021), “Disrupted HR?”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, 100820,
doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2020.100820.
Mukherji, A. and Bhatnagar, J. (2022), “Conceptualizing and theorizing green human resource
management: a narrative review”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 43 No. 3,
pp. 862-888, doi: 10.1108/ijm-06-2021-0376.
Mumford, E. (2006), “The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes, failures and
potential”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 317-342, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2575.2006.00221.x.
Myers, K.K., Endacott, C.G. and Snyder, J. (2024), “Your connection is unstable: remote socialization
and effects on organizational assimilation”, Management Communication Quarterly. doi:
10.1177/08933189241259163.
N�astase, M., Croitoru, G., Florea, N.V., Cristache, N. and Lile, R. (2024), “The perceptions of
employees from Romanian companies on adoption of artificial intelligence in recruitment and
selection processes”, Amfiteatru Economic, Vol. 26 No. 66, pp. 421-439, doi: 10.24818/ea/2024/
66/421.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2020), Are Generational Categories
Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?, National Academies Press.
Naughtin, C.K., Schleiger, E., Bratanova, A., Terhorst, A. and Hajkowicz, S. (2024), “Forty years in the Personnel Review
making: a systematic review of the megatrends literature”, Futures, Vol. 157, 103329, doi:
10.1016/j.futures.2024.103329.
Ng, E.S. and Parry, E. (2016), “Multigenerational research in human resource management”, Research
in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 34, pp. 1-41, doi: 10.1108/s0742-
730120160000034008.
Ng, E.S., Posch, A., K.llen, T., Kraiczy, N. and Thom, N. (2024), “Do ‘one-size’ employment policies
fit all young workers? Heterogeneity in work attribute preferences among the Millennial
generation”, BRQ Business Research Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 483-504, doi: 10.1177/
23409444221085587.
OECD (2020), “All hands in: making diversity work for all”, available at: https://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/sites/efb14583-en/index.html?itemId5/content/publication/efb14583-en (accessed
February 2022).
€
Ozbilgin, M.F. (2024), Diversity: A Key Idea for Business and Society, Taylor & Francis.
€
Ozbilgin, M.F. and Erbil, C. (2021), “Social movements and wellbeing in organizations from multilevel
and intersectional perspectives: the case of the# blacklivesmatter movement”, in The SAGE
Handbook of Organizational Wellbeing, pp. 119-138.
Ozer, S. and Kamran, M.A. (2023), “Majority acculturation through globalization: the importance of
life skills in navigating the cultural pluralism of globalization”, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, Vol. 96, 101832, doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2023.101832.
O’Reilly, J. and Verdin, R. (2023), “Better outcomes for everyone? The UK’s fragmented digital
ecosystem of work and welfare”, Digit Policy Brief, Digital Futures at Work Research Centre
(Digit), led by Sussex University/Leeds University, available at: https://digit-research.org/
publication/better-outcomes-for-everyone-the-uks-fragmented-digital-ecosystem-of-work-and-
welfare (accessed 19 February 2025).
Pandita, D. and Kumar, A. (2022), “Transforming people practices by re-structuring job engagement
practices for generation Z: an empirical study”, International Journal of Organizational
Analysis, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 115-129, doi: 10.1108/ijoa-07-2020-2294, available at: https://
www.emerald.com/insight/1934-8835.htm
Parasa and Parasa, S.K. (2024), “Impact of AI on employee experience and engagement”, 2024,
European Journal of Advances in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 12-14.
Park, Y., Fritz, C. and Jex, S.M. (2011), “Relationships between work-home segmentation and
psychological detachment from work: the role of communication technology use at home”,
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 457-467, doi: 10.1037/a0023594.
Parry, E. and Urwin, P. (2021), “Generational categories: a broken basis for human resource
management research and practice”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 857-869, doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12353.
Paulet, R., Holland, P. and Morgan, D. (2021), “A meta-review of 10 years of green human resource
management: is green HRM headed towards a roadblock or a revitalisation?”, Asia Pacific
Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 159-183, doi: 10.1111/1744-7941.12285.
Payne, S.C., Mendoza, A.M. and Horner, M.T. (2018), “Electronic performance management”, in
Dulebohn, J.H. and Stone, D.L. (Eds), The Brave New World of eHRM 2.0, Information Age
Publishing, Charlotte, pp. 189-215.
Pease, B. (2020), “The rise of angry white men: resisting populist masculinity and the backlash against
gender equality”, in The Challenge of Right-Wing Nationalist Populism for Social Work,
Routledge, pp. 55-68.
Pei, J., Wang, H., Peng, Q. and Liu, S. (2024), “Saving face: leveraging artificial intelligence-based
negative feedback to enhance employee job performance”, Human Resource Management,
Vol. 63 No. 5, pp. 775-790, doi: 10.1002/hrm.22226.
Prentice, D.A. and Miller, D.T. (1996), “Pluralistic ignorance and the perpetuation of social norms by
unwitting actors”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 161-209, doi:
10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60238-5.
PR Ralston, D.A., Holt, D.H., Terpstra, R.H. and Kai-Cheng, Y. (1997), “The impact of national culture
and economic ideology on managerial work values: a study of the United States, Russia, Japan,
and China”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 177-207, doi: 10.1057/
palgrave.jibs.8490097.
Ravid, D.M., Costanza, D.P. and Romero, M.R. (2024), “Generational differences at work? A meta-
analysis and qualitative investigation”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 46, pp. 1-23,
doi: 10.1002/job.2827.
Ren, S. and Jackson, S.E. (2020), “HRM institutional entrepreneurship for sustainable business
organizations”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 3, 100691, doi: 10.1016/
j.hrmr.2019.100691.
Ren, S., Tang, G. and Jackson, S.E. (2018), “Green human resource management research in
emergence: a review and future directions”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 769-803, doi: 10.1007/s10490-017-9532-1.
Ren, S., Jiang, K. and Tang, G. (2022), “Leveraging green HRM for firm performance: the joint effects
of CEO environmental belief and external pollution severity and the mediating role of employee
environmental commitment”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 75-90, doi:
10.1002/hrm.22079.
Ren, S., Cooke, F.L., Stahl, G.K., Fan, D. and Timming, A.R. (2023), “Advancing the sustainability
agenda through strategic human resource management: insights and suggestions for future
research”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 251-265, doi: 10.1002/hrm.22169.
Ren, S., Tang, G. and Jackson, S.E. (2021), “Effects of Green HRM and CEO ethical leadership on
organizations’ environmental performance”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 42 No. 6,
pp. 961-983.
Renwick, D.W.S., Redman, T. and Maguire, S. (2013), “Green human resource management: a review
and research agenda”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-14,
doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00328.x.
Richards, J. (2022), “Putting employees at the centre of sustainable HRM: a review, map, and research
agenda”, Employee Relations: The International Journal, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 533-554, doi:
10.1108/er-01-2019-0037.
€
R€oell, C., Ozbilgin, M. and Arndt, F. (2024), “Covert allyship: implementing LGBT policies in an
adversarial context”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 711-729, doi: 10.1002/
hrm.22223.
Rolf, S. (2022), “Levelling up or levelling down gig work? Three reasons why platforms are offering
privatised social and employment protections”, available at: https://digit-research.org/blog_
article/three-reasons-why-platforms-are-offering-privatised-social-and-employment-protections
Rudolph, C.W., Rauvola, R.S., Costanza, D.P. and Zacher, H. (2021), “Generations and generational
differences: debunking myths in organizational science and practice and paving new paths
forward”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 945-967, doi: 10.1007/s10869-
020-09715-2.
Ruhs, M. and Anderson, B. (Eds) (2012), Who Needs Migrant Workers?: Labour Shortages,
Immigration, and Public Policy, Oxford University Press.
Russell, E. and Bevan, S. (2022), “Is the ‘right to disconnect’ a red herring?”, available at: https://digit-
research.org/blog_article/is-the-right-to-disconnect-a-red-herring
Saba, T., Ozbilgin, M., Ng, E. and Cachat-Rosset, G. (2021), “Guest editorial: ineffectiveness of
diversity management: lack of knowledge, lack of interest or resistance?”, Equality, Diversity and
Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 765-769, doi: 10.1108/edi-09-2021-374.
Saks, A.M. and Gruman, J.A. (2021), “How do you socialize newcomers during a pandemic?”,
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14 Nos 1-2, pp. 217-220, doi: 10.1017/
iop.2021.44.
Salas, E., DeRouin, R.E. and Littrell, L.N. (2005), “Research-based guidelines for designing distance
learning: what we know so far”, in Gueutal, H.G. and Stone, D.L. (Eds), The Brave New World
of Her, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 104-137.
Santi Amantini, L. (2022), “Populist anti-immigrant sentiments taken seriously: a realistic approach”, Personnel Review
Res Publica, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 103-123, doi: 10.1007/s11158-021-09516-1.
Sharma, R. (2024), “AI executive compensation: insights from Europe and the United States”, in
Sharma, R. (Ed.), AI and the Boardroom: Insights into Governance, Strategy, and the
Responsible Adoption of AI, Apress, Berkeley, CA, pp. 329-340.
Sherman, N. (2025), Meta and Amazon Scale Back Diversity Initiatives, BBC, available at: https://
www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgmy7xpw3pyo
Sonnenberg, N. (2023), “5 Generations are now working together: here’s how smart leaders are making
the most of it”, Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), available at: https://
www.shrm.org/executive-network/insights/5-generations-now-working-together-heres-how-
smart-leaders-making
Stoermer, S., Davies, S. and Froese, F.J. (2021), “The influence of expatriate cultural intelligence on
organizational embeddedness and knowledge sharing: the moderating effects of host country
context”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 432-453, doi: 10.1057/
s41267-020-00349-3.
Stone, D.L., Lukaszewski, K.M. and Johnson, R.D. (2024), “Will artificial intelligence radically
change human resource management processes?”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 53 No. 1,
101034, doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2024.101034.
Straus, E., Uhlig, L., Kuhnel, J. and Korunka, C. (2023), “Remote workers’ well-being, perceived
productivity, and engagement: which resources should HRM improve during COVID-19? A
longitudinal diary study”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 34
No. 15, pp. 2960-2990, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2022.2075235.
Stuart, M., Valizade, D., Schulz, F., Burchell, B., Dickens, R. and O’Reilly, J. (2023), “Employers’
digital practices at work survey: first findings”, available at: https://digit-research.org/
publication/employers-digital-practices-at-work-survey-first-findings
Sull, D., Sull, C. and Bersin, J. (2020), “Five ways leaders can support remote work”, MIT Sloan
Management Review.
Tamayo, J., Doumi, L., Goel, S., Kov.cs-Ondrejkovic, O. and Sadun, R. (2023), “Reskilling in the age
of AI: five paradigms for leaders–and employees”, Harvard Business Review, available at:
https://hbr.org/2023/09/reskilling-in-the-age-of-ai
Tang, G.Y., Ren, S., Wang, M., Li, Y. and Zhang, S. (2023), “Employee green behavior: a review and
recommendations for future research”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 297-317, doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12328.
Thang, L.C., Rowley, C., Quang, T. and Warner, M. (2007), “To what extent can management practices
be transferred between countries? The case of human resource management in Vietnam”,
Journal of World Business, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 113-127, doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2006.11.005.”.
Thomason, B., Opie, T., Livingston, B. and Sitzmann, T. (2023), “‘Woke’ diversity strategies: science
or sensationalism?”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 193-201, doi:
10.5465/amp.2022-0181.
€ and Ozbilgin,
Tinay, D.T., Ayaz, O. € M. (2024), “Transforming leadership emergence through equality,
diversity and inclusion”, in Research Handbook on Inequalities and Work, Edward Elgar
Publishing, pp. 228-241.
Tong, S., Jia, N., Luo, X. and Fang, Z. (2021), “The Janus face of artificial intelligence feedback:
deployment versus disclosure effects on employee performance”, 2021, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 42 No. 9, pp. 1600-1631, doi: 10.1002/smj.3322.
TUC (2021), Dignity at Work and the AI Revolution: A TUC Manifesto, Trades Union Congress,
London, available at: https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-03/The_AI_Revolution_
20121_Manifesto_AW.pdf (accessed 29 September 2024).
Twenge, J.M. (2023), Generations: the Real Differences between Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, Boomers,
and Silents—And what They Mean for America’s Future, Simon & Schuster.
PR Urick, M.J., Hollensbe, E.C., Masterson, S.S. and Lyons, S.T. (2017), “Understanding and managing
intergenerational conflict: an examination of influences and strategies”, Work, Aging and
Retirement, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 166-185.
Van Esch, P., Black, J.S. and Ferolie, J. (2019), “Marketing AI recruitment: the next phase in job
application and selection”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 90, pp. 215-222, doi: 10.1016/
j.chb.2018.09.009.
Varma, A., Pereira, V. and Patel, P. (2024), “Artificial intelligence and performance management”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 53 No. 1, 101037, doi: 10.1016/j.orgdyn.2024.101037.
Vassilopoulou, J., Kyriakidou, O., Ozbilgin, M.F. and Groutsis, D. (2024), “Scientism as illusio in HR
algorithms: towards a framework for algorithmic hygiene for bias proofing”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 311-325, doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12430.
€
Vincent, S., Lopes, A., Meliou, E. and Ozbilgin, M. (2024), “Relational responsibilisation and diversity
management in the 21st century: the case for reframing equality regulation”, Work, Employment
and Society.
Visco, I. (2000), “Welfare systems, ageing and work: an OECD perspective”, BNL Quarterly Review,
Vol. 53 No. 212, pp. 3-29.
Vishwakarma, L.P. and Singh, R.K. (2023), “An analysis of the challenges to human resource in
implementing artificial intelligence”, in Tyagi, P., Chilamkurti, N., Grima, S., Sood, K. and
Balusamy, B. (Eds), The Adoption and Effect of Artificial Intelligence on Human Resources
Management, Part B (Emerald Studies in Finance, Insurance, and Risk Management), Emerald
Publishing, Leeds, pp. 81-109.
Vishwakarma, L.P. and Singh, R.K. (2023), “An analysis of the challenges to human resource in
implementing artificial intelligence”, in The Adoption and Effect of Artificial Intelligence on
Human Resources Management, Emerald Publishing, Part B, United Kingdom, pp. 81-109, doi:
10.1108/978-1-80455-662-720230006.
Vyas, L. (2022), “‘New normal’ at work in a post-COVID world: work–life balance and labor
markets”, Policy and Society, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 155-167, doi: 10.1093/polsoc/puab011.
Wang, S., Tomlinson, E.C. and Noe, R.A. (2010), “The role of mentor trust and prot�eg�e internal locus
of control in formal mentoring relationships”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 2,
pp. 358-367, doi: 10.1037/a0017663.
Wang, B., Liu, Y., Qian, J. and Parker, S.K. (2021), “Achieving effective remote working during the
COVID-19 pandemic: a work design perspective”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 16-59,
doi: 10.1111/apps.12290.
Weikle, B. (2019), “With 4 generations in the workplace, employers expected to juggle vastly different
expectations”, CBC News, available at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/multi-generation-
work-place-1.4980659
Wesson, M.J. and Gogus, C.I. (2005), “Shaking hands with a computer: an examination of two methods
of organizational newcomer orientation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5,
pp. 1018-1026, doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.1018.
Woo, D., Endacott, C.G. and Myers, K.K. (2023), “Navigating water cooler talks without the water
cooler: uncertainty and information seeking during remote socialization”, Management
Communication Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 251-280, doi: 10.1177/08933189221105916.
Workplace Express (2024), “‘Gold standard’ artificial intelligence protections in new deal: FSU,
Workplace Express, 3 October 2024, Sydney”, available at: https://
www.workplaceexpress.com.au/news/gold-standard-artificial-intelligence-protections-in-new-
deal-fsu-63890?keyw5gold%20standard%20for%20the%20finance%20sector&match5all
(accessed 19 February 2025).
Xiao, Q., Yan, J. and Bamber, G.J. (2023), “How does AI-enabled HR analytics influence employee
resilience: job crafting as a mediator and HRM system strength as a moderator”, Personnel
Review, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/PR-03-2023-0198.
Yarberry, S. and Sims, C. (2021), “The impact of COVID-19-prompted virtual/remote work
environments on employees’ career development: social learning theory, belongingness, and
 self-empowerment”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 237-252, Personnel Review
doi: 10.1177/15234223211017850.
Zanke, P. (2022), “Exploring the role of AI and ML in workers’ compensation risk management”,
Human-Computer Interaction Perspectives, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 24-44.
Zhao, F., Wang, L., Chen, Y., Hu, W. and Zhu, H. (2024), “Green human resource management and
sustainable development performance: organizational ambidexterity and the role of responsible
leadership”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 62 No. 1, e12391, doi: 10.1111/
1744-7941.12391.

Corresponding author
Eddy S. Ng can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
View publication stats