Purpose Informal communication has been ascribed well-being functions. Yet in increasingly hybrid work settings, where employees work remotely, informal exchanges frequently occur via digital channels and may hinder relational bonds and drain rather than restore employees' energy. Drawing on Communicate Bond Belong Theory, this study examines whether informal communication enhances or undermines employees' well-being in hybrid settings by considering its perceived quality, relational benefits, and energy-related costs. Design/methodology/approach A one-week experience sampling study (26 participants; 549 surveys) captured employees' everyday communication episodes with co-workers and their subsequent experiences. Mixed-effects models estimated within-person relationships while accounting for between-person differences. Findings Episodes that were more informal than usual were associated with higher striving potential (e.g. more pleasantness or meaningfulness). In turn, higher striving potential was associated with more relatedness need satisfaction and a more favorable relatedness-to-energy ratio, though not with energy expenditure. Communication modality did not moderate these associations. However, text-based (vs audio-visual) exchanges were significantly associated with lower relatedness and energy expenditure and a higher relatedness-to-energy ratio. Originality/value Adopting a situational perspective, this study moves beyond frequency-based and between-person approaches to everyday informal communication. It disentangles message- and channel-related effects and their distinct contributions in the relationship between informal talk and employee well-being. From this novel perspective, the findings provide evidence that informal communication is a resource for employees' well-being, but can impose demands when it occurs digitally, an aspect that practitioners should recognize when designing informal communication initiatives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ernst et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: