Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Navigating Relationship Tensions: Role of Paradoxical Mindsets and Response Repertoires in Managing Employee–Organization Relationships During the Covid-19 Pandemic
Situated within an interpretive approach, this study examined senior corporate executives’ discursive construction of tensions encountered while managing employee-organization-relationships (EORs) over remote work during the Covid-19 pandemic and the strategies employed to manage these tensions. In-depth interviews with 17 communication and employee relations executives from the Fortune, Forbes, and LinkedIn best employer lists for 2021 and 2022 revealed four key tensions: organizational identity (people and planet versus profit), dialogic (one voice versus many voices), diversity (exclusion versus inclusion), and boundary (work versus home). Our interviews also revealed corporate internal crisis communication (ICC) strategies to navigate these tensions, such as empathetic leadership communication and purpose communication. Participants foregrounded transcendent (more-than) strategies alongside selection (either-or) and balance (both-and) strategies. Implications for theory and practice across employee relationship management, ICC, and tensions in a post pandemic world where change, uncertainty, and remote work persists are discussed.
AlbertS.WhettenD. (1985). Organizational identity. In CummingsL. L.StawB. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 263–295). JAI Press.
2.
Archambault-JanvierC.CoorenF.VásquezC. (2024). Speaking in unison: The voice dilemma in open strategy. Management Communication Quarterly, 39(1), 88–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189241247140
3.
BesharovM. L.SharmaG. (2017). Paradoxes of organizational identity. In SmithW. K.LewisM. W.JarzabkowskiP.LangleyA. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox (pp. 178–196). Oxford University Press.
4.
BrymanA. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
5.
BuzzanellP.LiuM. (2007). It’s ‘give and take’: Maternity leave as a conflict management process. Human Relations, 60(3), 463–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707076688
6.
CharmazK. (2025). Constructing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage.
7.
DhaneshG. S.DuthlerG. (2021). Remote internal crisis communication (RICC): Role of internal communication in predicting employee engagement during remote work in a crisis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 33(5), 292–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2021.2011286
8.
EcklebeLöfflerN. (2021). A question of quality: Perceptions of internal communication during the Covid-19 pandemic in Germany. Journal of Communication Management, 25(3), 214–232. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-09-2020-0101
9.
EinwillerS.RuppelC.StranzlJ. (2021). Achieving employee support during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of relational and informational crisis communication in Austrian organizations. Journal of Communication Management, 25(3), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-10-2020-0107
GerardsR.de GripA.BaudewijnsC. (2018). Do new ways of working increase work engagement?Personnel Review, 47(2), 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2017-0050
HonL.GrunigJ. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Institute for Public Relations Research, University of Florida.
14.
KangM.LeeE.KimY.YangS. U. (2023). A test of a dual model of positive and negative EORs: Dialogic employee communication perceptions related to employee-organization relationships and employee megaphoning intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 35(3), 182–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2023.2194025
15.
KangM.SungM. (2017). How symmetrical employee communication leads to employee engagement and positive employee communication behaviors: The mediation of employee-organization relationships. Journal of Communication Management, 21(1), 82–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-04-2016-0026
KellerJ.CarmineS.JarzabkowskiP.LewisM. W.PradiesC.SharmaG.SmithW. K.VinceR. (2021). Our collective tensions: Paradox research community’s response to COVID-19. Journal of Management Inquiry, 30(2), 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492620986859
18.
KelliherC.AndersonD. (2010). Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Human Relations, 63(1), 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709349199
19.
KimY.KangM.LeeE.YangS. (2019). Exploring crisis communication in the internal context of an organization: Examining moderated and mediated effects of employee-organization relationships on crisis outcomes. Public Relations Review, 45(3), 138–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.04.010
20.
KimY.LeeE.KangM.YangS.-U. (2023). Understanding the influence of authentic leadership and employee-organization relationships on employee voice behaviors in response to dissatisfying events at work. Management Communication Quarterly, 37(1), 64–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189221085562
21.
LacerenzaC. N.JohnsonS. K.LambertB.Van WagonerH. P. (2024). The benefits of inclusive organizational behavior: Why diversity climate improves mental health and retention among women during a crisis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(9), 1344–1363. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2768
22.
LedinghamJ. A. (2021). Relationship management: Status and theory. In ValentiniC. (Ed.), Public relations (pp. 415–432). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110554250
23.
LeeY. (2020). A situational perspective on employee communicative behaviors in a crisis: The role of relationship and symmetrical communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 14(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2020.1720691
24.
LeeY. (2022). How dialogic internal communication fosters employees’ safety behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Relations Review, 48(1), 102156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2022.102156
25.
LeeY.KimJ. (2023). How family-supportive leadership communication enhances the creativity of work-from-home employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. Management Communication Quarterly, 37(3), 599–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189221144997
26.
LevineK. J.AleyM.AladéF. (2023). Working and parenting during a pandemic: Children’s and parents’ perceptions of work-life balance while working from home. Management Communication Quarterly, 38(2), 207–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189231184430
27.
LewisM. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776. https://doi.org/10.2307/259204
28.
LewisM. W.SmithW. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 127–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314522322
29.
LiJ.SunR.TaoW.LeeY. (2021). Employee coping with organizational change in the face of a pandemic: The role of transparent internal communication. Public Relations Review, 47(1), Article 101984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101984
30.
LincolnY.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
31.
Martinez-LucioM.NoonM.JenkinsS. (2000). The flexible–rigid paradox of employment relations at royal mail (UK). British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38(2), 277–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8543.00163
32.
MasonJ. (1996). Qualitative researching. Sage.
33.
MazzeiA.ButeraA. (2021). Internal crisis communication. In MenL. R.Tkalac VercicA. (Eds.), Current trends and issues in internal communication: Theory and practice (pp. 165–181). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78213-9_10
34.
MenL. R.JiangH. (2016). Cultivating quality employee-organization relationships: The interplay among organizational leadership, culture, and communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(5), 462–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2016.1226172Men
35.
MenL. R.StacksD. (2014). The effects of authentic leadership on strategic internal communication and employee-organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(4), 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.908720
36.
NeillM. S.BowenS. A. (2021). Ethical listening to employees during a pandemic: New approaches, barriers and lessons. Journal of Communication Management, 25(3), 276–297. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-09-2020-0103
37.
PooleM. S.Van de VenA. H. (1989). Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 562–578. https://doi.org/10.2307/258559
38.
PutnamL. L.FairhurstG.BanghartS. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162421
39.
PutnamL. L.MyersK. K.GailliardB. M. (2014). Examining the tensions in workplace flexibility and exploring options for new directions. Human Relations, 67(4), 413–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713495704
40.
Ruge-JonesL.BarleyW. C.WilsonS. R.MacSwainC.JohnsonL.EverettJ.PooleM. S. (2023). Activated differences: A qualitative study of how and when differences make a difference on diverse teams. Management Communication Quarterly, 37(4), 846–877. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189231153847
41.
RuppelC.StranzlJ.EinwillerS. (2022). Employee-centric perspective on organizational crisis: How organizational transparency and support help to mitigate employees’ uncertainty, negative emotions, and job disengagement. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 27(5), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2022-0045
42.
SchadJ.LewisM. W.RaischS.SmithW. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162422
43.
SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958
44.
StraussA. L.CorbinJ. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Sage.
45.
SuorttiC.SivunenA. (2023). Communicative tensions in remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Management Communication Quarterly, 38(2), 386–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189231199052
46.
TaskinL.DevosV. (2005). Paradoxes from the individualization of human resource management: The case of telework. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-005-8710-0
47.
ter HoevenC. L.van ZoonenW. (2020). Helping others and feeling engaged in the context of workplace flexibility: The importance of communication control. International Journal of Business Communication, 60(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488419898799
48.
ter HoevenC. L.van ZoonenW.FonnerK. L. (2016). The practical paradox of technology: The influence of communication technology use on employee burnout and engagement. Communication Monographs, 83(2), 239–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2015.1133920
49.
TracyS. (2004). Dialectic contradiction or double bind? Analyzing and theorizing employee reactions to organizational tension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32(2), 119–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/0090988042000210025
50.
van ZoonenW.RiceR. E.ter HoevenC. L. (2022). Sensemaking by employees in essential versus non-essential professions during the COVID-19 crisis: A comparison of effects of change communication and disruption cues on mental health, through interpretations of identity threats and work meaningfulness. Management Communication Quarterly, 36(2), 318–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189221087633
51.
VomackaT.BuzzanellP. M. (2024). Affective sensemaking of relational precarities: Resilience as becoming in pandemic shifting to remote work. Management Communication Quarterly, 39(2), 293–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189241280889
52.
WooD.EndacottC. G.MyersK. K. (2022). Navigating water cooler talks without the water cooler: Uncertainty and information seeking during remote socialization. Management Communication Quarterly, 37(2), 251–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189221105916
53.
YeomansL.BowmanS. (2021). Internal crisis communication and the social construction of emotion: University leaders’ sensegiving discourse during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Communication Management, 25(3), 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-11-2020-0130
54.
YueC. A.ThelenP. D.WaldenJ. (2023). How empathetic leadership communication mitigates employees’ turnover intention during COVID-19-related organizational change. Management Decision, 61(5), 1413–1433. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2022-0011
