This study examines how workplace communication tensions can influence employee performance through promotive voice, with paradoxical mindset as a critical moderator. We employ a mix-methods approach, combining exploratory interviews and two quantitative studies. The qualitative study identifies context-specific variables affecting the relationship between communication tensions and employee performance, and premised on the qualitative findings we build the conceptual framework and hypotheses. In quantitative Study 1, the findings reveal that experiencing tensions in communication with colleagues indirectly enhanced employee performance through promotive voice behaviors, with this relationship strengthened when employees possessed higher levels of paradoxical mindset. The fsQCA results identified specific configurational paths leading to enhanced performance. In quantitative Study 2, we replicated and confirmed the findings in Study 1. A subsequent qualitative phase revealed that paradoxical mindset leads to more reflective processing of tensions and enhances voice quality rather than frequency. These findings contribute to understanding how workplace tensions can be transformed into positive outcomes through appropriate cognitive framing and constructive voice behaviors, providing valuable insights for organizational theory and management practice.
AlvessonM.KärremanD. (2007). Constructing mystery: Empirical matters in theory development. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1265–1281.
2.
AmatiR.HannawaA. F. (2014). Relational dialectics theory: Disentangling physician-perceived tensions of end-of-life communication. Health Communication, 29(10), 962–973.
3.
Arun KumarP.LavanyaV. (2024). Igniting work innovation: Performance pressure, extraversion, feedback seeking and innovative behavior. Management Decision, 62(5), 1598–1617.
4.
BatoolU.RaziqM. M.SarwarN. (2023). The paradox of paradoxical leadership: A multi-level conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review, 33(4), Article 100983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2023.100983
5.
BertiM.SimpsonA. V. (2021). The dark side of organizational paradoxes: The dynamics of disempowerment. Academy of Management Review, 46(2), 252–274.
6.
BraithwaiteD. O.BaxterL. A. (2006). “You’re my parent but you’re not”: Dialectical tensions in stepchildren’s perceptions about communicating with the nonresidential parent. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(1), 30–48.
7.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
8.
BurrisE. R.RockmannK. W.KimmonsY. S. (2017). The value of voice to managers: Employee identification and the content of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 60(6), 2099–2125.
9.
ButeJ. J.BrannM. (2020). Tensions and contradictions in interns’ communication about unexpected pregnancy loss. Health Communication, 35(5), 529–537.
10.
CarmineS.De MarchiV. (2023). Reviewing paradox theory in corporate sustainability toward a systems perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 184(1), 139–158.
11.
CharmazK. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage.
12.
ChiN.-W.AchyldurdyyevaM.LinC.-Y.KaoN.-Y. (2024). An emotional journey to speaking up: Understanding when and how employee daily emotions relate to promotive and prohibitive voice. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 33(4), 517–534.
13.
CreswellJ. W.ClarkV. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
14.
CreswellJ. W.PothC. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
15.
CunliffeA. L. (2011). Crafting qualitative research: Morgan and Smircich 30 years on. Organizational Research Methods, 14(4), 647–673.
16.
De ClercqD.BelausteguigoitiaI. (2017). Overcoming the dark side of task conflict: Buffering roles of transformational leadership, tenacity, and passion for work. European Management Journal, 35(1), 78–90.
17.
DeanM.OetzelJ. G. (2014). Physicians’ perspectives of managing tensions around dimensions of effective communication in the emergency department. Health Communication, 29(3), 257–266.
18.
EdmondsonA. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.
19.
EdmondsonA. C.McmanusS. E. (2007). Methodological fit in management field research. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246–1264.
20.
EisenhardtK. M.GraebnerM. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
21.
FairhurstG. T.SmithW. K.BanghartS. G.LewisM. W.PutnamL. L.RaischS.SchadJ. (2016). Diverging and converging: Integrative insights on a paradox meta-perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 173–182.
22.
FastN. J.BurrisE. R.BartelC. A. (2014). Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 1013–1034.
23.
FisherG.AguinisH. (2017). Using theory elaboration to make theoretical advancements. Organizational Research Methods, 20(3), 438–464.
24.
FissP. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.
25.
FissP. C.SharapovD.CronqvistL. (2013). Opposites attract? Opportunities and challenges for integrating large-N QCA and econometric analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 191–198.
26.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388.
27.
GernsheimerO.KanbachD. K.GastJ.Le RoyF. (2024). Managing paradoxical tensions to initiate coopetition between MNEs: The rise of coopetition formation teams. Industrial Marketing Management, 118, 148–174.
28.
GerpottF. H.Van QuaquebekeN.SchlampS.VoelpelS. C. (2019). An identity perspective on ethical leadership to explain organizational citizenship behavior: The interplay of follower moral identity and leader group prototypicality. Journal of Business Ethics, 156, 1063–1078.
29.
GibsonC. B. (2017). Elaboration, generalization, triangulation, and interpretation: On enhancing the value of mixed method research. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 193–223.
30.
GilstrapC. M.WhiteZ. M. (2015). Interactional communication challenges in end-of-life care: Dialectical tensions and management strategies experienced by home hospice nurses. Health Communication, 30(6), 525–535.
31.
GioiaD. A.CorleyK. G.HamiltonA. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
32.
GreckhamerT.FurnariS.FissP. C.AguileraR. V. (2018). Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization, 16(4), 482–495.
33.
GriffinM.KingD.ReedyP. (2022). Learning to live the paradox in a democratic organization: A deliberative approach to paradox mindsets. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21(4), 624–647.
34.
GuestG.BunceA.JohnsonL. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
35.
HalbeslebenJ. R. B.NeveuJ.-P.Paustian-UnderdahlS. C.WestmanM. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1334–1364.
36.
HillN. S.AxtellC.RaghuramS.NurmiN. (2024). Unpacking virtual work’s dual effects on employee well-being: An integrative review and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 50(2), 752–792.
37.
HobfollS. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
38.
HobfollS. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology, 50(3), 337–421.
39.
HobfollS. E.HalbeslebenJ.NeveuJ.-P.WestmanM. (2018). Conservation of resources in the organizational context: The reality of resources and their consequences. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 5(1), 103–128.
40.
HollandP.CooperB.SheehanC. (2017). Employee voice, supervisor support, and engagement: The mediating role of trust. Human Resource Management, 56(6), 915–929.
41.
HurW. M.ShinY.MoonT. W. (2022). Linking motivation, emotional labor, and service performance from a self-determination perspective. Journal of Service Research, 25(2), 227–241.
42.
JansenW. S.VosM. W.OttenS.PodsiadlowskiA.van der ZeeK. I. (2016). Colorblind or colorful? How diversity approaches affect cultural majority and minority employees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(2), 81–93.
43.
JarzabkowskiP. A.LêJ. K. (2017). We have to do this and that? You must be joking: Constructing and responding to paradox through humor. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 433–462.
44.
KleinS. P.SpiethP.SöllnerM. (2024). Employee acceptance of digital transformation strategies: A paradox perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 41(5), 999–1021.
45.
KnightA. P.EisenkraftN. (2015). Positive is usually good, negative is not always bad: The effects of group affect on social integration and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(4), 1214–1227.
46.
KnightE.ParoutisS. (2017). Becoming salient: The TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 403–432.
47.
KoopmanJ.LanajK.ScottB. A. (2016). Integrating the bright and dark sides of OCB: A daily investigation of the benefits and costs of helping others. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 414–435.
48.
KvaleS.BrinkmannS. (2015). Interviews. Sage.
49.
LamC. F.LeeC.SuiY. (2019). Say it as it is: Consequences of voice directness, voice politeness, and voicer credibility on voice endorsement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(5), 642–658.
50.
Lerøy SataøenH.ErikssonM. (2023). “Striking the right balance”: Tensions in municipal risk communication management for preparedness. Journal of Communication Management, 27(4), 601–616.
51.
LewisM. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.
52.
LiangJ.FarhC. I. C.FarhJ.-L. (2012). Psychological antecedents of promotive and prohibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 71–92.
53.
LiangJ.QianJ.ZhangY.-J.CenW.-C.YanW.-J. (2025). The cognitive dynamics of honesty: How discrepancy levels of conflict influence ethical decision-making. Personality and Individual Differences, 240, Article 113141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113141
54.
LiangJ.ShuR.FarhC. I. C. (2019). Differential implications of team member promotive and prohibitive voice on innovation performance in research and development project teams: A dialectic perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(1), 91–104.
55.
LiaoH.ChuangA. (2004). A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee service performance and customer outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 47(1), 41–58.
56.
LinW.KoopmannJ.WangM. (2020). How does workplace helping behavior step up or slack off? Integrating enrichment-based and depletion-based perspectives. Journal of Management, 46(3), 385–413.
57.
LiuW.ZhuR.YangY. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee identifications, and transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 189–202.
58.
LüscherL. S.LewisM. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221–240.
59.
MaN.YaoX.WangK. (2024). A complex network-based approach for resilient and flexible design resource allocation in industry 5.0. Computers in Industry, 159–160, Article 104108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2024.104108
60.
MaynesT. D.PodsakoffP. M.PodsakoffN. P.YooA. N. (2024). Harnessing the power of employee voice for individual and organizational effectiveness. Business Horizons, 67(3), 283–298.
61.
McCarthyJ. M.TrougakosJ. P.ChengB. H. (2016). Are anxious workers less productive workers? It depends on the quality of social exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(2), 279–291.
62.
McGrathJ. E. (1981). Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and dilemmas. American Behavioral Scientist, 25(2), 179–210.
63.
McCleanE. J.MartinS. R.EmichK. J.WoodruffC. T. (2018). The social consequences of voice: An examination of voice type and gender on status and subsequent leader emergence. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1869–1891.
64.
Miron-SpektorE.IngramA.KellerJ.SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2018). Microfoundations of organizational paradox: The problem is how we think about the problem. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 26–45.
65.
MisangyiV. F.AcharyaA. G. (2014). Substitutes or complements? A configurational examination of corporate governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1681–1705.
66.
MisangyiV. F.GreckhamerT.FurnariS.FissP. C.CrillyD.AguileraR. (2017). Embracing causal complexity: The emergence of a neo-configurational perspective. Journal of Management, 43(1), 255–282.
67.
MorelandJ. J.ApkerJ. (2016). Conflict and stress in hospital nursing: Improving communicative responses to enduring professional challenges. Health Communication, 31(7), 815–823.
68.
MoriM.CavaliereV.Della TorreE. (2024). Constructive and destructive voice behaviors in cooperatives: The role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivational drives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640241290960
69.
MorrisonE. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 173–197.
70.
MorseJ. M. (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212–1222.
71.
NgT. W. H.FeldmanD. C. (2012). Employee voice behavior: A meta-analytic test of the conservation of resources framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 216–234.
72.
NgoL. V.LaD. A.SurachartkumtonkunJ.NguyenT. H.VoD. T.PhanM.-T. T. (2024). Employee performance under tension: The influence of employee creativity, paradox mindset, and psychological empowerment. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 34(6), 765–786.
73.
NieberleK. W.FladererM. P. (2025). Voice echoes: A critical review and future research agenda on the consequences of employee voice for voicers, their co-workers, and managers. Organizational Psychology Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866251317929
74.
NyfoudiM.KwonB.WilkinsonA. (2024). Employee voice in times of crisis: A conceptual framework exploring the role of human resource practices and human resource system strength. Human Resource Management, 63(4), 537–553.
75.
PappasI. O.WoodsideA. G. (2021). Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in information systems and marketing. International Journal of Information Management, 58, Article 102310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102310
76.
PattonM. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
77.
PhamN. T.TučkováZ.Chiappetta JabbourC. J. (2019). Greening the hospitality industry: How do green human resource management practices influence organizational citizenship behavior in hotels? A mixed-methods study. Tourism Management, 72, 386–399.
78.
PidduckR. J.ClarkD. R.ZhangY. J. (2024). Cultivating entrepreneurial human capital in multinational corporations: An intercultural paradox mindset lens. Journal of World Business, 59(5), Article 101554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2024.101554
79.
PillemerJ. (2024). Strategic authenticity: Signaling authenticity without undermining professional image in workplace interactions. Organization Science, 35(5), 1641–1659.
80.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
81.
PrattM. G. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.
82.
PutnamL. L.FairhurstG. T.BanghartS. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171.
83.
RaffaelliR.GlynnM. A.TushmanM. (2019). Frame flexibility: The role of cognitive and emotional framing in innovation adoption by incumbent firms. Strategic Management Journal, 40(7), 1013–1039.
84.
RaginC. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press.
85.
RaischS.HargraveT. J.Van De VenA. H. (2018). The learning spiral: A process perspective on paradox. Journal of Management Studies, 55(8), 1507–1526.
86.
RiceW. S. (2022). Exploring common dialectical tensions constraining collaborative communication required for post-2020 conservation. Journal of Environmental Management, 316, Article 115187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115187
87.
RousseauD. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi-level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1–37.
88.
SchadJ.LewisM. W.RaischS.SmithW. K. (2016). Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 5–64.
89.
SchaubroeckJ.CottonJ. L.JenningsK. R. (1989). Antecedents and consequences of role stress: A covariance structure analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 35–58.
90.
ShaoY.NijstadB. A.TäuberS. (2019). Creativity under workload pressure and integrative complexity: The double-edged sword of paradoxical leadership. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 7–19.
91.
SherfE. N.ParkeM. R.IsaakyanS. (2021). Distinguishing voice and silence at work: Unique relationships with perceived impact, psychological safety, and burnout. Academy of Management Journal, 64(1), 114–148.
92.
SinkovicsR. R.PenzE.GhauriP. N. (2008). Enhancing the trustworthiness of qualitative research in international business. Management International Review, 48, 689–714.
93.
SmithW. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623.
94.
SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
95.
SongH.-C. (2025). A buddhist mindfulness view of paradox: Silence and skepticism of language to dismantle paradoxes. Organization Science, 36(1), 361–386.
96.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Sage Publications, Inc.
97.
SuorttiC.SivunenA. (2024). Communicative tensions in remote work during the Covid-19 pandemic. Management Communication Quarterly, 38(2), 386–412.
98.
Ten BrummelhuisL. L.BakkerA. B. (2012). A resource perspective on the work–home interface: The work–home resources model. American Psychologist, 67(7), 545–556.
99.
TimmermansS.TavoryI. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186.
100.
TurnerS. F.CardinalL. B.BurtonR. M. (2017). Research design for mixed methods: A triangulation-based framework and roadmap. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 243–267.
101.
Van FenemaP. C.LoebbeckeC. (2014). Towards a framework for managing strategic tensions in dyadic interorganizational relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(4), 516–524.
102.
VermaS.SinghV.TudoranA. A.BhattacharyyaS. S. (2024). Elevating employees’ psychological responses and task performance through responsible artificial intelligence. Information Technology & People, 37(7), 2551–2567.
103.
WaldmanD. A.PutnamL. L.Miron-SpektorE.SiegelD. (2019). The role of paradox theory in decision making and management research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 155, 1–6.
104.
WalumbwaF. O.AvolioB. J.ZhuW. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on individual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology, 61(4), 793–825.
105.
WunderlichP.VeitD. J.SarkerS. (2019). Adoption of sustainable technologies. MIS Quarterly, 43(2), 673–692.
106.
ZhangI. D.LamL. W.ZhuJ. N. Y.LeeJ. (2025). Why do employees perform better under paradoxical leaders? The mediating role of group harmony. Journal of Business and Psychology, 40(1), 113–127.
