Managing Criticism and Organizational Tensions

The purpose of this study is to examine how Maersk justifies tensions between its communicated values and organizational practices in ethically complex and geopolitically uncertain contexts and how these justifications may affect employees' expectations and interpretations. The study is based on legitimacy theory and psychological contract theory. Legitimacy theory is used to understand how Maersk presents its actions as responsible or necessary. Psychological contract theory is used to interpret how communicated values may create expectations among employees. The study uses a qualitative document analysis with a primarily deductive approach. Publicly available organizational documents, trade union sources, and media-related documents were analysed through thematic analysis inspired by Braun and Clarke’s six-phase approach. The findings show that Maersk uses several justification strategies when addressing tensions between values and practices. These include responsibility and moral framing, references to external constraints, reframing negative indicators as positive signals, and rejecting or indirectly responding to criticism. The findings show that these justifications may help Maersk appear legitimate, but they can also create uncertainty for employees when the company’s values and practices do not seem to match.