The support paradox: Explaining (mis)matches in refugee workplace support

Recent refugee movements have spurred corporate initiatives, with workplace support proving critical for integration. However, while research on workplace support for refugees remains limited, the broader support literature highlights paradoxical effects – support either benefits or harms recipients depending on how well it matches their needs. This study investigates how and why (mis)matches occur between support practices and refugees’ needs. Adopting a multiperspective qualitative approach, we conducted 53 in-depth interviews with refugee employees and their support providers (e.g., supervisors and human resource managers), spanning 25 support relationships and 19 companies. Our analysis reveals three distinct support constellations: work-centric, caring vs. intrusive, and self-help. Each constellation represents a recurring configuration of how support is understood, delivered, and experienced. The convergent and divergent perspectives of recipients and providers on agency, perceived challenges, and appropriate forms of support shape these constellations. We theorize three underlying mechanisms – framing and perception, communication, and reflexivity – that explain why differing perspectives exist and how they influence support (mis)matches. Challenging recipient-centred perspectives on support in previous research, we emphasize the role of perception and communication between support providers and recipients. These insights provide practical guidance for organizations aiming to empower refugees while minimizing the risk of marginalization.