Download - Internal Communication and Employee Engagement

Internal communication and

organisational employee

engagement: an integrated

approach

Kevin RuckLancashire Business School,University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK

[email protected]

1 Copyright Kevin Ruck

Introduction

Communication inside organisations is recognised as a critical factor in organisational

performance. Salem (2008) outlines seven communication reasons why organisations fail to

change that include insufficient communication, distrust, poor interpersonal communication

skills, and conflict avoidance. Daly, Teague and Kitchen (2003, p. 153) claim that “research

indicates that up to 70 per cent of change programmes fail and poor internal communication

is seen as the principal reason for such failure”. However, despite the importance of internal

communication, it is said to be an under-researched field. Academics such as Grunig (1992,

p. 557) and Argenti (1996, cited in Welch and Jackson, 2007) point to the lack of theoretical

understanding and research on internal communication. Similarly, Smidts et al (2001, cited

in Welch and Jackson, 2007) highlight that internal communication is a rather “neglected”

discipline. Waymer and Ni (2009, p. 11) state that “Employee relations is an important area

of public relations. Yet it often goes understudied and undervalued because public relations

does not have primary responsibility for internal communication”. At the same time,

employee engagement is also recognised as a critical factor in organisational performance.

MacLeod and Clarke, (2009, p. 34) claim that employee engagement generates better

financial performance in the private sector and better outcomes in the public sector.

According to Gallup (2006), in addition to profitability, other benefits of employee

engagement include higher customer advocacy and higher productivity. The gap between

potential and actual benefit is however, significant. A study for CIPD (Truss et al, 2006, p. xi)

found that only 35 per cent of UK employees were actively engaged with their work.

This paper examines internal communication from two different traditions of theory; human

communication theory and public relations theory. It then examines employee engagement

from psychological (work) theory and practitioner based research. Distinctions are drawn

between consultancy and practitioner research (which has tended to dominate the fields) and

academic research. It argues that internal communication is the golden thread that holds the

potential for significant increases in levels of employee engagement. The key to unlocking

this potential is to take a stakeholder approach to internal communication, one that embraces

a concept of informed employee voice. This emphasises a focus on employees and their

communication needs rather than a top-down management perspective that typifies much

practice. Finally, it synthesises theory into a new integrated approach to internal

communication and employee engagement that has practical implications for measurement

and management.


Broad theories of internal communication

Before looking specifically at internal communication theory, it is informative to explore it first

from a broad perspective. In doing so, it is acknowledged that “Scholars have made many

attempts to define communication, but establishing a single definition has proved impossible

and may not be very fruitful” (Littlejohn and Foss, 2008, p. 3). This paper adopts Littlejohn

and Foss’ (2008, pp. 24-25) requirements of theory that incorporate four aspects;

philosophical assumptions, concepts, explanations and principles. Subsequent internal

communication and employee engagement theories are reviewed with these aspects in mind

with an emphasis on the fourth aspect, principles (a principle “is a guideline that enables you

to interpret an event, make judgments about what is happening, and then decide how to act

in the situation”, (Littlejohn and Foss, 2008, p. 19)). As Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson

(2008, pp. 5-8) observe, management research is distinctive from other social scientific

research and “there is often an expectation that research will lead directly to action”.

In a seminal text on communication, Littlejohn and Foss (2008) outline seven traditions of

human communication; semiotic, phenomenological, cybernetic, sociopsychological,

sociocultural, critical and rhetorical. This is not a complete list and is based on Craig’s (1999)

metamodel of communication theory. Each tradition has relevance for internal

communication. Littlejohn and Foss (2008, p. 55) highlight the sociopsychological,

cybernetic, sociocultural and critical as being the contributory traditions for organisations.

These four traditions are similar to Bryant and Heath’s (2000, pp. 305-8) identification of four

paradigms; (a) structural functionalism, (b) psychological, (c) interpretivism, and (d) systems

interaction which are reviewed briefly below.

Structural functionalism prioritises information flow and the accuracy and clarity of messages

– themes that are highlighted again later on in this paper. It also raises issues of

communication underload and overload that impact commitment (Heath and Bryant, 2000, p.

312). However, the approach is focused on identifiable flows, when a lot of information flows

across organisations in informal ways. It is based on rationality when people are often

irrational and ambiguity in communication is to be expected. Furthermore, it does not

address issues of tacit knowledge or silo team management that often mitigate against

information flow. Structural functionalism can be linked to systems interaction which is based

on the theory of organisations as systems and sub-systems that are hierarchically arranged.

In essence, this is an input-output paradigm that informs stakeholder theory which is also

reviewed in more detail later. One drawback of systems thinking is that it overemphasises

formal processes within organisations, when, as Wheatley (2006, p. 144) suggests that, “Life

uses networks; we still rely on boxes. But even as we draw our boxes, people are ignoring


them and organising as life does, through networks of relationships”.

The psychological paradigm prioritises the individual in the organisation in terms of role and

performance. The organisation itself has a personality that is a reflection of what employees

think about themselves within the organisation. In this approach the organisation is a

communicative system based around norms and values. It is similar to interpretivism which

stresses the importance of social reality and shared meaning created through stories and

rituals and symbolism that enable people to coordinate work. This is what Boje (2008, pp.

100-103) refers to as strategy narrative. However, as Boje (2008, p. 102) observes, “Many

stakeholders are not included in the strategy of writing of the examples reviewed of Nike,

McDonald’s and IBM”. The psychological and interpretivist paradigms are largely silent on

the question of power in the way that the organisation’s personality is developed and the

associated moulding of employees to required norms and values. All four paradigms are

based on academic, rather than practitioner based research. Though strong on

conceptualisations of internal communication, they are light on a discussion of the practical

implications.

Dainton and Zelley (2005) also explore more general aspects of communication theory that

apply to organisations, such as intrapersonal communication, interpersonal communication,

group communication, culture, persuasion, leadership, organizational communication and

mediated communication. According to Dainton and Zelley (2005, pp. 174-5) organizational

communication has three functions: relationship (socialisation), organizing (guidance and

control), and change. Four theories are selected at the organizational level of analysis:

organizational identification and control, Schein’s organizational culture model, structuration

theory, and Weick’s organizing theory. These are all useful approaches to understanding

internal communication, yet again they fall short of meeting Littlejohn and Foss’s (2008, p.

25) final “principles” criteria for theory in that guidelines for action are not provided.

Theories of communication within organisations are linked to theories of organisation and

management. Heath and Bryant (2000, pp. 302-8) outline the focus on social scientific

approaches to management in the 20th century that are linked to the sociopsychological

tradition and a classical management philosophy. This emphasises the individual from

behavioural, cognitive and biological dimensions and is associated with a “scientific” bent

that includes concepts of persuasion and understanding and the processing of information. It

reflects a “command and control” approach to management and is translated into a top down

only approach to communication, which, if left to dominate an organisation leads to

disengagement. A cybernetic tradition extends this thinking by introducing a social


dimension to the formation of structures and networks, with an emphasis on how

communication creates organisational structure. It is centred in Weick’s (1995) theory of

sense-making, Taylor’s (2004) discourse as action, and systems theory (described above

systems interaction by Heath and Bryant (2000, p. 308)).

In contrast, the sociocultural tradition incorporates structuration theory (based on Giddens),

organizational control theory, and organisational culture theory. These all point to the

importance of the character of the organisation at a more macro level rather than individual

or group/network, consisting of the shared values and practices (explicit and implicit) that

affect what employees do. The critical tradition also takes a sociocultural view, however, it is

focused more sharply on the power relations and ideologies that communication is used to

serve the interests of managers over other employees. Critical thinking adds an important

consideration to internal communication and is an aspect that is often ignored. A stakeholder

approach, as suggested by Welch and Jackson (2007), with a focus on employee needs,

begins to address communication power imbalances within organisations. Although Heath

and Bryant (2000, pp. 304-5) highlight the way that productivity improves when employees

are “involved socioemotionally in their jobs”, this is the nearest that the discussion of broad

theories of internal communication gets to a link with employee engagement, perhaps

because employee engagement is primarily seen as work related, not communication

related. This is an omission that recurs in some other areas of both academic and

practitioner based research.

A greater appreciation of the sociality of organisations has led to a body of academic

organisational communication work that examines the way that communication constitutes

organisation (Putnam, Nicotera and McPhee, 2009, pp. 1-9); “Communication and

organisation are not equivalent concepts per se, but they are mutually constitutive”. The

theory that communication is constitutive of organising (CCO) is founded on four core

processes that are called “flows”, described by McPhee and Zaug (2009, p. 33) as “a kind of

interactive communication episode, usually amounting to a multi-way conversation or text

passage...” (see table 1).

Membership Who are we? Socialisation, Typified in job-seeking and recruitment,


negotiation identification, self-

positioning.

a process of ongoing reputation and

courtship, power-claiming and

spokesmanship.

Organizational

self structuring

What rules do we operate

by here? Managerial

activities.

Official documents, decision making and

planning forums, announcements,

organisation charts, manuals, employee

surveys and feedback.

Activity co-

ordination

What work are we doing

together? Interactions that

serve to align or adjust local

work activities.

This flow recognises that organizational

self structuring directives can never be

completely understood. It emphasises

the way that people co-ordinate to solve

problems.

Institutional

positioning

What external forces

provide legitimacy and

what kinds of

communication are

necessary to please

them? External

communication.

This flow is set at a more macro level,

where communicators are “boundary

spanners” building an image of the

organisation as a viable relational

partner.

Table 1 Four flows, McPhee and Zaug (2009, p. 33)

This perspective on internal communication provides an alternative view of the different

typologies of internal communication. It is based not on forms, structures, networks, norms,

values or power, but on the conversations that lie behind them. As the approach brings

together aspects from all four of Bryant and Heath’s paradigms reviewed above, it is open to

philosophical challenge based on the extent that the different philosophies underpinning the

paradigms can be combined. However, the strength of the theory is that it reinforces

Cherry’s (1978, p. 23) observation that internal communication may not follow formal

structures and the organisation as a “social organism” may determine alternative

mechanisms and groupings, what Cherry calls “the true communication network.” As Tourish

and Hargie (2009, pp. 5-6) point out, the “linguistic turn” is now focusing attention on the

importance of language in a move away from communication theory that has been focused

on simply “making and sending messages”.

Public relations theory and internal communication


Excellence theory

In 1984, Grunig and Hunt argued that a new era of internal communication had emerged,

described as “open” reflecting their two-way symmetric model, developed as part of an

“Excellence Theory” of public relations. This is an extension of Cherry’s (1978, p. 17)

definition of “true communication” that is “concerted, co-operative and directed toward some

goal.” According to Botan and Hazleton (2006, p. 4), public relations is “best understood as

an applied social science” and “Most scholars would agree that Symmetrical/Excellence

Theory is, at least, potentially a paradigmatic theory”. Not all scholars agree and excellence

theory is a contested approach with the most controversial element being two-way

symmetric communication based on mutual dialogue as a model of excellence. The locus of

academic debate has tended to be external communication, rather than internal, though

more than 26 years ago, Grunig and Hunt (1984, pp. 244-5) highlighted a “preoccupation

with technique” that leads to a conclusion that “A great deal of money is spent on achieving

a degree of journalistic slick which does little in communicating to employees but does much

to satisfy the egos of communications technicians”. In contrast, a two-way approach entails

making publications “more employee-centred than management centred” although this in

itself is not dialogical, so Grunig and Hunt (1984, p. 246) go further and argue that

“symmetrical programs also use many non-traditional, nonprint media and techniques” that

“emphasise interpersonal communication and dialogue with management.” More recently,

Kim (2007, p. 169) suggests that symmetrical communication “takes place through dialogue,

negotiation, listening, and conflict management…” Little, if any, follow-up academic research

has been conducted that explores the extent that internal communication is practised as

one-way or two-way communication, however, it can be hypothesised that a one-way

approach dominates practice. The concept of informed employee voice, examined later,

explores the way that both one-way and two-way internal corporate communication work in

tandem for effective employee engagement.

Grunig and Hunt’s models of communication are linked to situational theory (1984, pp. 143-

154) with the concept of “publics” introduced to identify groups of people who “face a similar

problem recognize that the problem exists and organize to do something about it”. For


example, in research conducted at three organisations in US Grunig (1975) identifies three

different employee publics; a management public, an older-employee public, and younger

employees (dissatisfied in one organisation and more-educated in another organisation).

These categorisations are not overtly problem based and are more a demographic

segmentation. This begs the question as to whether employees form into groups around

issues in the same way as external groups. Grunig and Hunt (1984, p. 255) acknowledge

potential differences in claiming that unlike external publics an organisation has the “power

to create different kinds of employee publics”. This is because management has the ability to

change tasks, constraints and involvement. The practical implication of this are left under-

explored as the ensuing development of the excellence model is drawn primarily into the

external communication arena.

Grunig (1992) builds on models of communication as a theory of excellent communication,

described as “predominantly a theory based on the approach of interpretive social science,

although it shares common elements with rhetorical and critical theories”. In a similar vein as

CCO theory, this merging of theories is open to challenge as to how far they are, in fact,

mutually exclusive or not. In calling for a pluralistic approach to studies of public relations,

Toth (2009, p. 49) summarises developments in excellence theory that started out as four

historical models (press agentry, public information, two-way asymmetric and two-way

symmetric) to a combination of symmetrical and asymmetrical and then a new set of

dimensions: one-way vs. two-way; asymmetrical vs. symmetrical; mediated vs. personal;

and ethical vs. unethical. Although Excellence Theory has dominated public relations studies

for the past two decades, three further theories have emerged in their own right: rhetorical,

critical, and relationship management.

Rhetorical and critical theory

Waymer and Ni (2009, p. 220) explore a rhetorical and critical approach within a public

relations framework and argue that “……employee relations is an important area of public

relations but it has been limited to top down communication from management to

employees. As a result, employees may find themselves battling against the dominant

discourse of the organisation”. This emphasis on the dominance of one-way downward

communication from the top echoes Grunig and Hunt’s earlier (1984) critique of practice.

In the public relations literature, critical theory is focused on persuasion, propaganda and

imbalanced power and control of media (L’Etang, 2006). As Heath, Toth and Waymer point

out (2009, p. 15), “Critical scholars attempt to unveil the hidden powers that alienate and

marginalise portions of society”. Waymer and Ni (2009, p. 219) argue that “Employees at the


overseas subsidiaries of multinational companies are an important group of such

“disempowered” publics”. Indeed, it may not only be employees in this particular setting who

are disempowered if the predominance of communication in the organisation is one-way

from the top down. As Toth (2009, p. 50) explains, “The study of rhetoric concerns itself

principally with how individuals, groups, and organisations make meaning through argument

and counter-argument, to create issues, resolve uncertainty, compete to achieve a

preferable position, or to build coalitions – to solve problems”. Current attention is moving

towards how publics are more active in the construction of the meaning of their relationship

with the organisation. Again, the focus is primarily on external communication in the public

sphere, although Waymer and Ni (2009, p. 223) do highlight the “rhetorical wrangle in the

workplace” and the “problematic of voice”.

In their analysis of the discourse of Chinese employees employed by multinational

corporations in China, Waymer and Ni (2009, pp. 229) conclude that “the more the

organisation needs the employees, the more power these employees have”. This is, though,

acknowledged as a limited “contractual” perspective and whatever the reason for power

imbalances internal communication can be the bridge “to facilitate the development of

mutually beneficial employee-organization relationships”. The application of rhetorical theory

to internal communication has received little attention in the literature to date. In evaluating

critical and rhetorical theory, Toth (2009, p. 49) prefers a different criteria for than that set out

by Littlejohn and Foss, where primacy is given to Shoemaker’s (1997) emphasis on

simplicity of the theory, falsifiability, internal consistency and heuristic provocativeness.

Principles are omitted from this account and critical theory is noticeably weak in providing

guidance on how to act on the situation. Though rhetorical and critical theories are credible,

alternative, perspectives (albeit that they are underexplored for internal communication),

Botan and Hazleton (2006, p. 9) dismiss them as not providing “what the field needed in

order to adopt their approach as a viable alternative…” In the next section, relationship

management is reviewed as a different perspective on public relations theory.

Relationship management theory

The development of relationship management as a general theory of public relations has,

according to Ledingham (2006, p. 466), been applied to a range of public relations functions,


including issues management, crisis management, community relations, media relations,

and public affairs. Relationship management stresses relationships over communication,

and outcomes based on strategic planning. This represents a paradigm shift for public

relations theory as it should be based not on research relating to communication but on

relationship theory. Ledingham argues (2006, pp. 476-479) that relationship management

theory meets a number of criteria for theory and it specifically incorporates symmetrical

relationships and specifies measurable outcomes. Evaluated against Littlejohn and Foss’s

(2008) criteria for theory it includes all four aspects; philosophical assumptions, concepts,

explanations and principles. Ledingham (2006, p. 478) also suggests that relationship theory

is a general theory; it is overarching and “provides both scholars and practitioners with a

framework that is easily understood and that responds to the functional imperatives of

organisations, publics and the greater society”. Despite Herington, Scott and Johnson’s

(2005, p. 257) assertion that “it is this firm-employee relationship that practicing managers

also refer to as being critical to success”, the application of relationship management theory

to internal communication is missing from Ledingham’s list. Relationship management has

tended to infer that “publics” are external. For example, in Ledingham’s (2006, p. 470-1)

identification of dimensions of the quality of relationship management (trust, openness,

involvement, investment and commitment) the examples given are all external.

Welch (2006) highlights the importance of trust and distrust in relationship management and

calls for greater understanding of distrust as an indicator of relationships. Distrust emerges

as an important factor (Welch, 2006, p. 149-151), however, the question remains as to

whether or not the nature of an internal relationship is different to typical external

relationships that may be more transactional and less collaborative. In their exploration of

firm-employee relationships Herington, Scott and Johnson (2005, p. 269) found that

employees gave considerable attention to communication, attachment, and empowerment

as key elements of internal relationships. Kim’s (2007) study of the antecedents of

employee-organization relationships indicates that asymmetrical internal communication is

associated with less commitment, trust and satisfaction and symmetrical internal

communication is associated with communal relationships. This supports Grunig and Hunt’s

(1984) application of symmetrical communication to internal communication. However,

symmetric communication on its own is not enough for good employee relationship

outcomes, as Kim argues (2007, p. 196) “It must be combined with fair behaviour by

management and fair organizational policies and systems…” otherwise it is just “pseudo

symmetrical” communication.

Social capital


Though not a public relations theory per se, the theory of social capital is becoming an

increasingly popular topic (Lee, 2009) and it has linkages to relationship management and

internal communication, “Social capital is generally defined as network engagement, norms

and trustworthiness, leading to economic and/or political benefit”. Nahapiet and Ghoshal

(cited in Lee, 2009, p. 253) outline three dimensions of social capital (see table 2). Social

capital is a relatively young concept and it has been defined in various ways. Kennan and

Hazleton (2006, p. 322) define it as, “the ability organisations have of creating, maintaining,

and using relationships to achieve desirable organisational goals”.

Dimension Definition Key concepts

Structural The system of network

connections

Access –ability to connect

Timing – ability to communicate quickly

Referrals – openness of network

Relational Trust and

trustworthiness

Trust – this is fragile or resilient

Identification – the extent that people feel

that they are connected to others

Communication The symbolic

mechanism through

which social capital is

acquired

Achievement of relational goals (and thus

instrumental goals)

Taxonomy of strategies: facilitative,

informative, persuasive, promise and

reward, threat and punishment,

bargaining, and co-operative problem

solving

Table 2 Social capital Hazelton and Kennan (2000, cited in Kennan and Hazelton, 2006, pp

324-8)

Structural and communication dimensions of social capital are extensions of Bryant and

Heath’s (2000, pp. 305-8) identification of four paradigms and the addition of a relational

component incorporates Ledingham’s theory. Together, it is argued that a capital value can

be placed on the benefits of the sociality of an organisation and it is this that distinguishes

social capital theory form other theories. Communication is a fundamental component of the

theory of social capital. However, as Kennan and Hazelton (2006, p. 320) observe, in the


management dialogue about the nature of the relationship between managers and

employees, there is a “tendency to see internal public relations as one concern among a

constellation of concerns that may be connected to outcomes” This is to under-appreciate

the role of effective internal communication in all organisations. Building on this theme,

Malmelin (2007, p. 298) presents a new concept of “Communication Capital” where the

emphasis on the value of communication is stressed, “it is important that communication is

viewed more broadly and seen as a function that cuts through and involves the whole

organisation, as comprising both internal and communications within the organisation and

communications with stakeholders and other groups outside the organisation”. In the

development of the understanding of the value of intangible organisational assets, the value

of communication is now a strongly emerging factor.

Internal communication theory

In an application of excellence theory within public relations, Welch and Jackson (2007)

outline a new stakeholder approach to internal communication. This builds on Freeman’s

(1984, 1999) emphasis on the identification of internal stakeholders and suggests that team

peer, project peer and line manager relationships are standard stakeholder categories (see

table 3). This is a useful development for internal communication as it departs from Grunig

and Hunt’s (1984) situational theory that argues that publics (i.e. active stakeholder groups)

form around specific issues. The dimensions suggest a more static stakeholder group

membership defined by role and work rather than by issue or interest. This highlights the

importance of thinking about internal communication from the receiver’s point of view. Welch

and Jackson (2007, p. 186) also add a further concept, that of internal corporate

communication, as a dimension worthy of further development. It is defined as:

Communication between an organisation’s strategic managers and its internal

stakeholders, designed to promote commitment to the organisation, a sense of

belonging to it, awareness of its changing environment and understanding of its

evolving aims.


Internal communication matrixDimension Level Direction Participants Content

1. Internal line management communication

Line managers / Supervisors

Predominantly two-way

Line managers-employees

Employees' rolesPersonal impact e.g. appraisal discussions, team briefings

2. Internal team peer communication

Team colleagues

Two-way Employee-employee

Team information e.g. team task discussions

3. Internal project peer communication

Project group colleagues

Two-way Employee-employee

Project informatione.g. project issues

4. Internal corporate communication

Strategic managers / top management

Predominantly one-way

Strategic managers-all employees

Organisational / corporate issues e.g. goals, objectives, new developments, activities and achievements

Table 3 Welch and Jackson (2007), Internal Communication Matrix, Rethinking Internal Communication, Corporate Communications: An International Journal Vol. 12 No. 2, 2007 pp. 177-198

As Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 185) observe, team peer, project peer and line manager

communication have been extensively researched. However there may be further, more

informal, categorisations of employee stakeholder groups. Iverson and McPhee (2008, p.

176) suggest that “Communities of practice (CoPs) offer a productive solution for improving

knowledge and knowledge management, but the communicative processes that enact CoPs

have not been explored, leaving CoPs as an organizational black box”. Whitworth (2006, p.

205) also highlights the importance of less obvious stakeholder groups and argues that the

nonformal network is often dismissed. He describes an example as “the group of smokers

from several departments who gather round the communal outdoor ashtray and compare

notes about the latest executive promotion”.

According to Chen et al (2006, p. 242) the linkages between internal corporate

communication and team/peer/project team communication and employee engagement

remain under-explored. It is the three-way association between team/project/peer internal

communication, internal corporate communication and employee engagement that offers the

potential of greater levels of employee engagement in all organisations. Though Welch and

Jackson (2007, p. 188) state that internal corporate communication, among other goals, can

promote a sense of belonging and contribute to organisational commitment, there is also a


concern, as Welch and Jackson acknowledge, that a predominantly one-way approach to

internal corporate communication leads to information overload and thus disengagement.

Indeed, it could be argued that internal corporate communication can be one-way and two-

way; more symmetrical, as Grunig and Hunt (1984) suggest and more relational as

Ledingham (2006) suggests. The logistics of senior managers discussing strategy with all

employees, especially in large organisations are considerable, though not insurmountable.

The danger is that if upward feedback from line managers is left to middle mangers to pass

on to senior managers it may get diluted in the process.

Building on the emphasis of looking at internal communication from the perspective of the

receiver, Marques (2010, p. 49) points to concerns raised by Chen et al (2006) that

research has tended to ignore member satisfaction with organizational communication

practices and seeks to address this through the identification of criteria for successful

communication. Zaremba (2006, p. 114) suggests that “foundational” criteria are; timely,

clear, accurate, pertinent and credible. In academic research, Marques (2010, p. 52) found

that responsibility (content and context), conciseness, professionalism (business-like) and

sincerity (genuineness) are also important and these dimensions are either supplementary

or at the same time result from Zaremba’s criteria. These findings are based on a qualitative,

phenomenological research design with 20 participants and therefore, as a small study,

caution should be given to wider applicability.

In further academic research, Kalla (2005, p. 302) highlights the lack of application of theory

to practice highlighted earlier in this paper, “…a paradox exists because, although increasing

awareness concerning the importance of communication to organisations exists, that

knowledge appears to have rarely translated to practice”. In terms of managing internal

communication, Kalla (2005) argues that an integrated approach is important. Four domains

are suggested: 1) Business (the practicalities), 2) Management (knowledge sharing), 3)

Corporate (that done by professional internal communication teams) and, 4) Organisational

(with a focus on meaning). This contrasts with Welch and Jackson’s (2007) stakeholder

matrix of internal communication. Kalla is using a communication typology with a focus on

content. However, Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 183) argue that, “If internal communication

is the strategic management of interactions and relationships between stakeholders at all

levels within organisations, these stakeholders need to be identified”. In comparing Kalla and

Welch and Jackson, Kalla’s corporate and organisational domains appear to be conflated

into Welch and Jackson’s internal corporate communication. Business (the practicalities)

would be part of team peer and project peer stakeholder groups, and management

(knowledge sharing) would be included in all four dimensions. To summarise, although


Cheney (2007, p. 80) suggests that “Organization (or management) communication is by

now a well-established sub-discipline within the larger field of communication studies…” the

establishment of internal corporate communication is not yet a fully established theory. It is

approached form a variety of perspectives, though these rarely include the rhetorical, critical,

and relationship management theories that are emerging in public relations theory.

Interpersonal internal communication

Welch and Jackson (2007, p185) argue that interpersonal communication has been

extensively researched, however, Bambacas and Patrickson (2008, p. 53) suggest that “It

would appear that the literature on communication has investigated general aspects of

interpersonal communication rather than communication skills” and that “Few articles have

considered specific interpersonal communication variables”. It is therefore appropriate to

briefly explore effective internal interpersonal communication before turning to employee

engagement in the next section. Larkin and Larkin (1994, p. 82) state that supervisors are

the key group of people for communicating with frontline employees, however, they argue

that, “Thinking that supervisors are the problem leads to thinking training is the answer” and

that this is flawed and “we should stop treating supervisors as communication imbeciles”.

According to Larkin and Larkin (1994, p. xi) there are three ways to communicate with

employees: 1) Communicate directly to supervisors, 2) Use face-to-face communication, and

3) Communicate relative performance of the local work area. It is clear that communicating is

what managers spend a lot of the day doing, as Tourish and Hargie (2009, p. 9) report, “…

supervisors spend between one-third and two-thirds of their time interacting with what are

still sometimes termed “subordinates”. In contrast with Larkin and Larkin, academics Tourish

and Hargie (2009, p. 15) state that agreement in the literature suggests that number one in

best communication practices by leading companies is “Communications training…

especially for senior leaders”. However, what should training be about, if it is to lead to

commitment and engagement? According to academic research conducted through in-depth

interviews with 32 senior HR managers, “the skill of maintaining clarity and consistency of

messages was rated as having the utmost importance” Bambacas and Patrickson (2008, pp.

65-6). The research also indicates that there are often “problems in trying to link

organisational expectations, the organisational vision to those of the individual…this

coincided with the two-way communication problem that was continuously voiced by

respondents”. This highlights the significant challenges in integrating internal corporate

communication with communication at the team/project peer and line manager level in a

consistent way. Failing to do this, according to Bambacas and Patrickson (2008, p. 64)

means that commitment will not be secured. Clearly, as Tourish and Hargie suggest,


operational managers do require ongoing training to fine tune communication skills, such as

being able to juggle one-way and two-way communication. Internal communicators also

have to raise the bar on practice so that the context for line manager conversations is crystal

clear and upward feedback is commonplace, heard, considered, and feedback also

provided.

Employee engagement theory

What is employee engagement?

In a report on engagement that takes a clinical psychological perspective through academic

ethnographic research, Kahn (1990, p.693), defines it as, “…the harnessing of organization

members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves

physically, cognitively and emotionally during role performances”. This is a view that

emphasises the individual in a work role, focused on psychological presence (Kahn, 1992, p.

322). Though aspects of psychological presence, such as attentiveness, connection,

integration and focus outlined by Kahn (1992, pp. 324-8) provide evidence of the nature of

engagement for the employee in their work role and in interaction with others, the wider

organisational dimension is not considered in as much depth. Although norms are included

as a mechanism for engagement, with an emphasis on leaders and culture (Kahn, 1992, pp.

335-6) the role of internal communication is not considered. Communication is also omitted

from Kahn’s (1992, p. 340) recursive model of psychological presence. Building on Kahn’s

psychological perspective of engagement, Luthans and Peterson (2001, p. 379) argue that

manager self-efficacy is a significant component of engagement, “…we propose that

manager’s self-efficacy may be related to employee engagement because as the manager’s

employees become more engaged (cognitively and/or emotionally) in their work, the

manager acquires confidence and belief in her/his abilities to create and build and engaged

team or group successfully”. This emphasises the importance of creating an environment

that enables employees to become engaged. It is focused primarily at the individual or group

level and the full role of wider organisational communication is again not considered.

Saks (2006, p. 621) argues that there is only limited research on employee engagement and

therefore little has been achieved in theory development. Social exchange theory (a

communication theory) is proposed as a theoretical base (Saks, 2006, p. 622) with its

foundation in reciprocal relationships. So, for example, employees are engaged because of

the reciprocal exchanges, both at supervisor and organisational levels. Saks found (2006, p.

612) that, “…there is a meaningful distinction between job and organization engagement”

and furthermore, that “organization engagement was a much stronger predictor of all the


outcomes than job engagement”. The implications for practice include the suggestion that

organisations that address employees concerns and demonstrate caring attitudes towards

employees create a culture whereby this is reciprocated through higher levels of

engagement.

Bakker and Demerouti (2008, p. 209) claim that engagement is characterised by “vigor,

dedication, and absorption” and suggest that these relate to the physical, emotional and

cognitive components (outlined by Kahn, 1990). A job demands-resources model of

engagement (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008, p. 223) emphasises work pressures and

individual job resources such as autonomy and personal traits such as optimism. Internal

communication is not considered as a contributory factor. Macey and Schneider (2008)

suggest that engagement is a set of constructs that integrates state engagement (passion,

energy, enthusiasm, and activation), behavioural engagement (adaptive behaviour) and trait

engagement (personality attributes). Their conceptualisation extends to the inclusion of

organizational conditions that serve to facilitate and encourage state and behavioural

engagement. Macey and Schenider (2008, p. 29) note that “…organizations must promote a

sense of trust that employees will benefit from the psychological and behavioural

relationships with which they enter with the organisation”. This is therefore a broader

approach than more work focused definitions, though practical guidelines that refer to the

way that organisations go about promoting a “sense of trust “ are not provided, so this

approach too falls short of meeting the principle requirement for theory.

In a comprehensive, practitioner oriented, review of employee engagement in the UK,

MacLeod and Clarke (2009, p. 8) came across 50 definitions. They conclude (2009, p. 9)

that:

We believe it is most helpful to see employee engagement as a workplace approach

designed to ensure that employees are committed to their organisation’s goals and

values, motivated to contribute to organisational success, and are able at the same

time to enhance their own sense of well-being (italics added).

This definition of employee engagement is very similar definitions of internal communication;

commitment, for example, is central to Welch and Jackson’s (2007, p. 186) definition of

internal corporate communication. Securing a commitment to organisational goals that leads

to motivation to organisational success is the overarching aim for strategic internal

communication according to leaders in the consulting world such as Quirke (2008, p. 114).

This suggests that positive attitudes towards and organisation do not come about in solitary


isolation or through the business strategy or internal processes per se, they arise through

the way that people are involved in these and the communication around them.

Drivers for employee engagement

Most of the research on the drivers of employee engagement has been conducted by

consulting firms (Saks, 2006, p. 600; Attridge, 2009). For example, in a Towers Perrin Global

Workforce Study conducted in 2007-08 that involved an online poll of 90,000 employees

worldwide the top ten global drivers of employee engagement are identified (see table 4).

1. Senior management’s sincere interest in employee well-being

2. The opportunity an employee has to improve skills capabilities

3. The organizations reputation for social responsibility

4. The opportunity an employee has to provide input into decision making in his department

5. The organization’s ability to quickly resolve customer concerns

6. An individual employee’s own readiness to set high personal standards

7. Excellent career advancement opportunities

8. An individual employees interest in challenging work assignments

9. An individual’s relationship with her supervisor

10. The organization’s encouragement of innovative thinking

Table 4 Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study Top Ten Drivers of Employee Engagement, Gebauer

and Lowman (2008, p13)

Gebauer and Lowman (2008, p15) note that there are regional variances in these drivers,

however, senior management’s sincere interest in employee well-being was the top driver in

seven of the eighteen countries in the study. In the UK, the top ten drivers are somewhat

different (see table 5).

1. Senior management’s interest in employee well-being

2. Improved my skills and capabilities over the last year

3. Reputation of organisation as a good employer

4. Input into decision making in my department

5. In combination with government programmes, benefit programmes generally meet my needs

6. Organisation focuses on customer satisfaction

7. My manager inspires enthusiasm for work


8. Salary criteria are fair and consistent

9. Opportunity to learn and develop new skills

10. Employees understand how to satisfy customers

Table 5 Top Ten UK Drivers for Employee Engagement, MacLeod and Brady (2008, p31)

In comparing the UK with the global study, an organisation’s reputation for social

responsibility is replaced by the reputation it has as a good employer. There is more of an

emphasis on salary and benefits in the UK. There are also subtle differences in areas such

as customer service, opportunities for employees and the relationship with a

supervisor/manager. This is an alert to the possibility that there may be cultural factors for

employee engagement in different countries. However, the results of consultancy led

surveys should be treated with some caution as the output is dependent on the questions

asked.

Smythe (2007, pp. 80-1), also taking a practitioner/consultancy perspective, clusters

traditional drivers into three separate categories: 1) Instrumental – pay and benefits, 2)

Cultural – values, ethics, reputation, community contribution, brand,

vision/purpose/mission/strategy, and leadership example from symbolic leaders and 3)

Workplace – right level of challenge, opportunities to apply creativity, bosses who engage

employee in decision making/change, bosses who are fair, bosses who inspire, bosses who

give opportunity and resources to develop capabilities, bosses who stretch, trust and make

people accountable, colleagues who an employee respects, likes and learns from. This

contrasts with academic research conducted for the CIPD by Truss et al (2006, p. 45) that

identified the three main factors that influence employee engagement as; 1) having

opportunities to feed your views upwards, 2) feeling well informed about what is happening

in the organization, and 3) thinking that your manager is committed to your organization.

Synthesising various perspectives, MacLeod and Clarke (2009) reflect that of the people

consulted for their report to the UK government, most highlighted four broad drivers/enablers

(see table 6).

1. LEADERSHIP - provides a strong strategic narrative which has widespread ownership and

commitment from managers and employees at all levels. The narrative is a clearly expressed

story about what the purpose of an organisation is, why it has the broad vision it has, and how


an individual contributes to that purpose.

2. ENGAGING MANAGERS are at the heart of this organisational culture– they facilitate and

empower rather than control or restrict their staff; they treat their staff with appreciation and

respect and show commitment to developing, increasing and rewarding the capabilities of

those they manage.

3. VOICE An effective and empowered employee voice – employees’ views are sought out; they

are listened to and see that their opinions count and make a difference. They speak out and

challenge when appropriate.

4. INTEGRITY Behaviour throughout the organisation is consistent with stated values, leading to

trust and a sense of integrity.

Table 6 Four Drivers/Enablers for Employee Engagement MacLeod and Clarke (2009)

These four drivers/enablers reflect a broader approach than the individual level of analysis in

the academic literature that is often more focused on work itself, personality and the

associated job and tasks (Robinson et al, 2004; Erickson, 2005). As Macey and Schenider

suggest (2008, p. 19), “There is strong evidence to indicate that the organisation itself,

especially its goals and values, can also be a source of attachment and commitment that

lead people to identify with the organization as a whole…” and the notion of “fit” of personal

values to organizational values “has not characterised the research on engagement”.

Employee engagement and performance

Bakker and Demerouti (2008, p. 216) suggest that academic studies in the Netherlands,

Spain and Greece indicate a positive link between engagement and job performance. Key

factors are; positive emotions, better health, ability to mobilise resources and transfer of

engagement to others. A broad conclusion is made by MacLeod and Clarke, (2009, p. 34)


that employee engagement generates better financial performance in the private sector and

better outcomes in the public sector. This is backed up with extensive practitioner based

data and an array of case study material. However, given the lack of consensus on what is

meant by employee engagement and the broad definitions that exist (Gebauer and Lowman,

2008, p. 2, Cook, 2008, p. 3, MacLeod and Brady, 2008, p. 11, and Axelrod, 2002) direct

correlations to performance outcomes are very difficult to ascertain. Indeed, Macey and

Schneider (2008, p. 21) assert that “Most of the engagement measures we have seen failed

to get the conceptualization correct…”. Furthermore, Gebauer and Lowman (2008, p. 9)

argue that no studies answer the question about which comes first, performance or

engagement. They suggest that this is missing the point anyway and “what matters most is

that engagement and performance feed each other in a continuous virtual circle.” In

countering this point, Buckingham (cited in MacLeod and Clarke, 2009, p. 13) is adamant

that “it is engagement that leads to performance, and this is a four times stronger

relationship than performance leading to engagement”. MacLeod and Clarke (2009, p. 11)

argue strongly that “there is evidence that improving engagement correlates with improving

performance”.

Most of the research conducted on engagement and performance is carried out by large

consultancies, such as the often quoted global study carried out by Towers Perrin-ISR in

2006. It found that in companies with high levels of employee engagement, operating

income improved by 19.2 per cent over 12 months. This finding is based on data from

surveys of 664,000 employees from 50 companies, of all sizes, around the world,

representing a range of different industries. Separate research conducted by Towers Perrin

in 2004 suggests that “a 15 per cent increase in engagement correlates with a 2.2 per cent

increase in operating margin” (cited in Macleod and Brady, 2009, p. 46). According to Gallup

(2006), in addition to profitability, other benefits of employee engagement include higher

customer advocacy and higher productivity. Cook (2008, p. 21) highlights research that

suggests that “highly engaged employees are 33 per cent less likely to leave their

organization within the next year”. Another benefit of employee engagement is employee

well-being. According to Gallup (2006) eighty-six per cent of engaged employees say they

very often feel happy at work, as against 11 per cent of the disengaged. Forty-five per cent

of the engaged say they get a great deal of their life happiness from work, against eight per

cent of the disengaged. Levels of engagement are, according to Truss et al (2006, p. xi),

alarmingly low - only three in ten of UK employees were actively engaged with their work.

And, according to Towers Perrin, only 12 per cent of UK public sector staff are highly

engaged. However, much of the data should be treated with caution. As Macey and

Schneider (2008, p. 21) argue that “…any measure that asks how satisfied an employee is


with conditions at or of work or asks about the presence of particular conditions of or at work

is not a measure of any of the three facets of the engagement construct we have

elucidated”. So, despite an overwhelming array of positive indicators, as a result of the

difficulties in establishing a firm construct for employee engagement, it is not currently

possible to show direct correlations of cause and effect with performance outcomes.

Integrating internal communication and employee engagement

Up to this point, communication, internal communication and employee engagement have

been treated as separate constructs. It has been argued that human communication and

internal communication theory has generally neglected potential associations with employee

engagement and employee engagement theory has not always fully considered potential

associations with communication theory. In this final section of the paper, exceptions to this

contention are examined, culminating in a proposed new integrated approach to internal

communication and employee engagement.

Internal corporate communication and employee engagement

According to Saks (2006) and Kress (2005, cited in Welch and Jackson , 2007 p. 186),

internal corporate communication reinforces the importance of “clear, consistent and

continuous communication in building employee management”. Marques (2010, p. 55),

suggests that responsibility (content and context), conciseness, professionalism (business-

like) and sincerity in internal communication results in “improved interaction, greater trust,

greater understanding, enhanced efficiency, better performance, and enhanced

gratification”. In O’Donovan’s (2009) survey of business leaders about employee benefits,

clear communication emerged as a strong differentiator in employee motivation in a

recession; 79 per cent of business leaders who answered negatively to all questions relating

to utilising employee opinion, rewarding staff for their efforts and clearly communicating with

their employees have perceived a drop in motivation. Only 12 per cent of business leaders

who feel they clearly communicate to employees perceived a drop in motivation. Attridge

(2009, p. 389) reports that research conducted by consultants Watson Wyatt (2007)

indicates that “…firms that communicated effectively with their employees were four times

more likely to also have high levels of engagement…” Mercer’s People at Work Survey

(2002) also found that “…better communication from company executives is associated with

better engagement from employees”. Tourish and Hargie, (2009, p. 10) report that in the

UK’s 100 best companies to work for (as identified by the Sunday Times), 63 per cent of


those listed had employees who are strongly engaged and “unsurprisingly, communication

emerges as a recurrent theme”. Tourish and Hargie (2009, p. 17) go on to suggest there is

also a link between internal communication (based on accurate information, trust and

interaction) and actual job satisfaction. This is a departure from an emphasis on work activity

itself (Leiter and Bakker, 2010, p. 2). Furthermore, the CIPD (2010, p. 17) also argue that

two-way dialogue is critical to employee engagement and that “…strengthening the

individual links between employees and top management – in the form of the CEO or

directors – is increasingly high on the agenda in many organizations”.

In summary, the literature on employee engagement has tended to focus primarily on

consultancy based research that has highlighted work engagement and the psychology of

pride and immersion in the task. Despite the emerging evidence of the importance of an

organisational dimension and the associated relevance of internal communication, the

acknowledgment of organisational engagement is less prominent and communication is

rarely mentioned. To redress this, a definition of organisational employee engagement is

required, making the centrality of internal communication clearer:

Organisational employee engagement is a communicative approach whereby

employees are informed, have a voice that is heard and acknowledged, and where

managers show commitment consistent with organisational values.

This effectively differentiates organizational employee engagement from work employee

engagement, though both operate in tandem for an employee to be fully engaged at work.

Interpersonal communication and employee engagement

The conduct of direct communication in team peer, project peer and line manager settings is

a key component of the overall employee engagement jigsaw and without this, effective

corporate internal communication will have far less impact. As Luthans and Peterson (2001,

p. 379) have highlighted, the level of engagement of a manager is a major factor in the ability


of her/him to engage their team or group. Bambacas and Patrickson (2008, pp. 65-6)

prioritise the ability to provide clear and consistent messages, however, Truss et al (2006, p.

42) conclude that “the ability to consult and involve are critical managerial skills that require

more development for a substantial proportion of managers…” They also report that 46 per

cent of people do not feel either interested or involved in their job (Truss et al, 2006, p. 25).

This may be because as Waymer and Ni (2009, p. 220) observe, employees can sometimes

find themselves “battling against the dominant discourse of the organisation”. In the context

of change communication, Salem (2008) identifies poor interpersonal communication skills

and conflict avoidance as key obstacles. The drivers for engagement shown in tables 4 and

5 both reinforce direct communication in the opportunity an employee has to provide input

into decision making in his department and the way that a manager inspires enthusiasm for

work. In terms of the way feedback is provided to employees, Attridge (2009, p. 391)

suggests that positive feedback is critical and when supervisors focus on strengths or

positive characteristics this has a dramatic effect on feelings of engagement. As MaCleod

and Clarke suggest (2009, p. 75), engaging managers are at the heart of organisational

culture, “they facilitate and empower rather than control or restrict their staff; they treat their

staff with appreciation and respect and show commitment to developing, increasing and

rewarding the capabilities of those they manage”. This is effectively taking a relationship

management rather than a communication management approach, where trust and

trustworthiness are primary factors and is reflected in “communal relationships” that result

from symmetrical communication (Kim, 2007, p. 168).

Employee voice

Employee voice is term that overlaps with other terms such as involvement, empowerment

and democracy and is linked to participation in organizations (Budd, Gollan, and Wilkinson,

2010). Marchington and Wilkinson (2005) suggest that there are three dimensions; direct

communication, upward problem-solving and representative participation. Budd, Gollan and


Wilkinson (2009, p. 305) argue that a renaissance in interest in participation is based on

economic (generation of higher levels of performance in the post mass production era),

moral/ethic, and pragmatic grounds. Smythe (2007, p. 35) emphasises the importance of

participation and states that “there are two ways to frame employee engagement”; 1) the

alignment model – give employees the same view/data/experience as decision makers.

Much internal communication is based on this approach; explaining the strategy or decision

made by a few to the many, and 2) the real engagement model – opening up decision

making to those who will add value and sustainability. This approach means that planning of

employee engagement needs to be done as an integral part of decision making rather than

as part of post-decision-making implementation.

In a recent study on voice and engagement, the CIPD (2010, p. 2) highlight the need for

employers to focus on “the quality of voice across their organisation, not just the process of

consultation”. According to CIPD (2010, p3) employee voice is used to mean “…a process of

two-way communications, the exchange of information between managers and employees,

and enabling employees to “have a say” about what goes on in their organisation”. The CIPD

report concludes (2010, p. 17) that “Direct communication between employee and line

manager, within a positive workplace culture set by top management, is generally seen as

the main engagement driver”. However, employee voice also has to be informed employee

voice, based on effective internal corporate communication. According to Truss et al (2006,

p. 17), 42 per cent of respondents stated that they were not kept very well informed and only

13 per cent of respondents stated that they always believed in the information received.

An integrated approach to internal communication and employee

engagement

Internal communication and employee engagement are multi-dimensional terms with

differing theoretical bases. Internal communication theory is informed by human

communication theory and strategic public relations theory. Employee engagement is

informed by organisational psychological theories. Central to both is commitment, motivation


and employee well-being. Various approaches to categorising internal communication have

been explored. These can be synthesised into internal corporate communication, as defined

by Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 186). However, the one-way communication categorisation

of internal corporate communication is limiting and it is extend here as comprising two

separate dimensions; relational and organisational. This recognises that internal corporate

communication can be two-way as well as one-way. Relational internal corporate

communication incorporates a relationship management approach grounded in symmetrical

communication. It includes an emphasis on employee voice and the ability to have your say

and opportunities to feed views upwards. This also needs to be supported with fairness in

operational management, otherwise as Kim (2007, p. 29) observes it will simply be “pseudo

symmetrical” communication. Organisational internal corporate communication includes the

requirement to keep employees informed. This, typically, one-way flow of communication

has been criticised as dominating practice, however, as Truss et al (2006, p. 45) observed,

there is a fundamental need to feel well informed about what is happening in the

organization.

The parallel combination and synchronisation of relational and organisational internal

corporate communication are connected to the simultaneous requirement to provide

“employee voice” and a strong narrative of organisational vision and purpose. The two

operate in tandem and relational internal corporate communication acts to counter-balance

the potential over-reliance on one-way communication. This then provides a constructive

framework for more team communication which is synthesised here into Welch and

Jackson’s (2007) stakeholder categorisation; project and team peer, and line manager.

Communication is more interpersonal and aspects that emerge as important are clarity,

consistency and involvement. It can be conjectured that project and peer communication is

linked to integrity, where behaviour is consistent with organisational values. It can also be

conjectured that line manager communication is linked to being an “engaging manager”

where facilitation, consultation and involvement are key facets of management. This can be

visualised in a new integrated approach to internal communication and organisational

employee engagement (see diagram 1).


Diagram 1 Integrated Approach to Internal Communication and Organisational Employee

Engagement

The arrows in this integrated internal communication and organisational employee

engagement approach are intended to signify where the strongest associations are most

likely to be found. This does not imply that line manager communication is not linked to

integrity or that project/team peer communication is not about being an engaging manager. It

suggests that task oriented communication is likely to be more associated with behaviour

consistent with values that engage people into action. The approach does not explicitly show

leadership (or senior manager) communication; this is implicit in all aspects of internal

corporate communication and direct communication, though it is likely to operate mostly

within both relational and organisational levels of internal corporate communication. The

approach shows internal corporate communication as a framework setting level that is

complemented and supported at the team communication level, and this (if managed

effectively and expertly with high quality processes) leads to organisational employee


engagement as an outcome. The approach does not explicitly indicate how change

management communication is addressed. As Dainton and Zelley (2005, pp. 174-5) point

out, this is an important third function of internal communication (in addition to socialisation,

and guidance and control). Internal communication underpins successful change

management (Salem, 2008) and the principles of the approach apply equally in times of

change as much as in stable conditions.

Finally, the approach is not intended to imply that the dimensions of engagement shown are

the only dimensions. The separate construct of work employee engagement, based more on

immersion in work itself, is omitted. Clearly, work engagement, is also a very important

factor and the omission from this integrated approach is not intended to diminish that

importance. The practical implications of the approach have most impact on two

organisational functions: human resource management and internal communication

management. This paper suggests that communication is the golden thread that underlies

organisational employee engagement, in ways the benefits the employee and the

organisation. As Waymer and Ni (2009, p. 229) argue, there is an urgency for “…public

relations and HR to form a meaningful partnership; there is no more time for battles over

territory”. The benefits of both managing effective internal communication at all levels and

building communication competencies at all levels are too great to be lost in turf wars. It also

goes beyond the integration of HR and internal communication and forms the basis of

organisational wide belief in the value of communication for organisational employee

engagement.

The new integrated approach to internal communication and organisational employee

engagement has significant implications for further research in the field. Initially, the

relationship between internal corporate communication and direct employee communication

should be explored in more detail. The specific employee engagement outcomes that result

from this can then be investigated more precisely. There is room for further analysis of the

linkages between internal communication and employee engagement from both rhetorical

and relationship management theoretical perspectives as these have rarely been employed

to date and offer the potential of new insights. The approach also has implications for

internal communication and employee engagement measurement, in that the constructs

used for surveys may need to be revised and combined to take greater account of the

importance of communication at the differing levels suggested above. Finally, the approach

aims to more fully establish the practice of internal communication as a strategic

management function; one that is indispensible to the effective management of


organisations, and one that is the golden thread to improving levels of engagement that

benefit organisations and employees.

Bibliography


Attridge, M (2009) Measuring and Managing Employee Work Engagement: A Review of the Research and Business Literature, Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, Vol. 24., Issue 4., pages 383-398

Axelrod, R.H. (2002) Terms of Engagement, Changing the Way We Change Organizations, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E

(2008) Towards a model of work engagement, Career Development International, Vol.13., No. 3., pages 209-223

Bambacas, M., Patrickson, M

(2008) Interpersonal communication skills that enhance organisational commitment, Journal of Communication, Vol. 12., No. 1., pages 51-72

Boje, D. M. (2008) Storytelling Organisations, London: SageBudd,J. W., Golan, P. J., and Wilkinson, A

(2010) New approaches to employee voice and participation in organizations, Human Relations, 63(3) 303-310.

Chen, J., Silverthorne, C., and Hung, J

(2006) Organisation communication, job stress, organizational commitment, and job performance of accounting professionals in Taiwan and America, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol 27., No. 4, pages 242-9.

Cherry, C. (1978) On Human Communication, A Review, A Survey, And A Criticism, London: The MIT Press

Cheney, G. (2007) Organizational communication comes out, Management Communication Quarterly: Vol 21. No.1 pages 80-91.

Cook, S. (2008) The Essential Guide to Employee Engagement, Better Business Performance Through Staff Satisfaction, London: Kogan Page.

Craig, R. T. (1999) Communication Theory as a Field, Communication Theory, pages 119-61.Dainton, M., Zelley,E.D. (2005) Applying Communication Theory for Professional Life, A Practical

Introduction, London: SageDaly, F., Teague, P. and Kitchen, P

(2003) Exploring the role of internal communication during organisational change, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol 8. No. 3, pages 153-162.

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., and Jackson.P.R.

Management Research, Third Edition, London: Sage

Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston: PitmanFreeman, R.E. (1999), Response: divergent stakeholder theory, The Academy of Management

Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 233-6.Gallup Organisation (2006) ‘Engagement predicts earnings per share’.

Gebauer, J., Lowman, D. (2008) Closing the Engagement Gap, How Great Companies Unlock Employee Potential For Superior Results, New York: Portfolio, Penguin Group.

Grunig, J.E. (1975) Some Consistent Types of Employee Publics, Public Relations Review 1 (Winter 1975): 17-36.

Grunig, J.E. (1992) Symmetrical Systems of Internal Communication in Grunig, J.E. (ed) Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Grunig, J.E., Hunt, T (1984) Managing Public Relations, Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning

Heath, R. L., Bryant, J (2000) Human Communication Theory and Research, Second Edition:Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Heath, R., Toth, E.L., and Waymer, D

(2009) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations II, Abingdon: Routledge

Hazleton, V., Kennan, W. (2000) Relationships as social capital: reconceptualising the bottom line, Corporate Communication: An International Journal, 5, pages 81-6

Herington,C., Scott, D and Johnson, L.W.

(2005) Focus group exploration of firm-employee relationship strength, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 8, No.3, pages 256-276

Iverson, J.O., McPhee, R.D.

(2008) Communicating knowing through communities of practice: Exploring internal communicative processes and differences among CoPs. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(2), 176-199.

Kahn, W.A. (1990) Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33. No.4, pages 692-724

Kahn, W.A. (1992), To B e Fully There: Psychological Presence at Work, Human Relations, Vol 45. No. 4, pages 321-349

Kalla, H. K. (2005) Integrated internal communications: a multidisciplinary perspective,


Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4 pages 302-14

Kennan, W.R., Hazelton, V, (2006) Internal Public Relations, Social Capital, and the Role of Effective Organizational Communication. In: Botan, C.H. and Hazelton, V. eds. Public Relations Theory II, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

L’Etang, J.(2006) Public Relations Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice, London: Routledge

Larki, T.J., Larkin, S. (1994) Communicating Change, Winning Support for New Business Goals, New York: McGraw-Hill

Lee, R. (2009) Social capital and business and management: Setting a research agenda, International Journal of Management Reviews, Volume 11, Issue 3, Pages 247 – 273, Blackwell Publishing and the British Academy of Management

Leiter, M.P., and Bakker, A.B

(2010) Work engagement: Introduction. In Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. eds. Work Engagement, A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Hove: Psychology Press

Luthans, F., Peterson, S.J. (2002) Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy, implications for managerial effectiveness and development, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 21. No. 5, pages 376-387.

MacLeod, D. , Brady, C. (2008) The Extra Mile, How To Engage Your People To Win, Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.

MacLeod, D., Clarke, N. (2009) Engaging for Success: enhancing performance through employee engagement, A Report to Government, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, www.bis.gov.uk

Macey, W.H., Scheider, B. (2008) The Meaning of Employee Engagement, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30.

Malmelin, N. (2007) Communication capital, Modelling Corporate Communications as an Organizational Asset, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, 2007 pp. 298-310, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Marchington, M., Wilkinson, A.

(2005) Participation and Involvement, in S Bach (ed), Personnel Management in Britain, (4th Edition), Oxford: Blackwell.

Marques, J.F. (2010) Enhancing the quality of organizational communication, a presentation of reflection-based criteria, Journal of Communication, Vol 14. No 1, pages 47-58.

McPhee, R.D, Zaug, P. (2009) The Communicative Constitution of Organizations: A Framework for Explanation. In: Putnam, L. L. and Nicotera, A. M. (eds.) Building Theories of Organization, The Constitutive Role of Communication, New York: Routledge.

Mercer Human Resource Consulting

(2002) People at Work Survey.

Putnam, L.L., Nicotera, A.M., McPheeR.D.

(2009) Introduction: Communication Constitutes Organization. In: Putnam, L. L. and Nicotera, A. M. eds.Building Theories of Organization, The Constitutive Role of Communication, New York: Routledge: 1-9.

O'Donovan, D. (2009) Staff who understand reward are more motivated, Employee Benefits. Available from: http://www.employeebenefits.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=9400&d=pg_dtl_art_news&h=0&f=0 [accessed 22 September 2009].

Quirke, B. (2008) Making the Connections, Using Internal Communication to Turn Strategy into Action, Second Edition, Aldershot: Gower Publishing Ltd.

Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S.

(2004) The Drivers of Employee Engagement. Brighton, Institute for Employment Studies.

Salem, P. (2008) The seven communication reasons organizations do not change, Corporate Communications: An International Journal Vol. 13 No. 3, 2008pp. 333-348

Saks, A.M. (2006) Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal Of Managerial Psychology, Vol.21. No. 7, pages 600-619.

Schaufeli, W. B. and Bakker, A. B.

(2010) Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept. In Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. eds. Work Engagement, A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Hove: Psychology Press

Smythe, J. (2007) The CEO: Chief Engagement Officer, Turning Hierarchy Upside Down to


http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122538521/issue

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122538521/issue

Drive Performance, Aldershot: Gower Publishing Ltd.Taylor, J.R.

(2004) Finding the Organization in the Communication: Discourse as Action and Sensemaking, Organization, Vol. 11, No. 3, 395-413

Toth, E.L. (2009) The Case for Pluralistic Studies of Public Relations, Rhetorical, Critical, and Excellence perspectives, in Toth, Heath and Waymer, (eds) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations II, Abingdon: Routledge

Tourish,D., Hargie,O. (2009) Communication and organisational success, in Hargie, O and Tourish, D (eds) Auditing Organizational Communication, Hove: Routledge.

Towers Perrin-ISR (2006) The ISR Employee Engagement Report.

Truss,C., Soane, E., Edwards, C., Wisdom, K., Croll, A., and Burnett,J.

(2006) Working Life: Employee Attitudes and Engagement 2006, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Watson Wyatt Worldwide (2007) Secrets of top performers: How companies with highly effective employee communication differentiate themselves: 2007/2008 communication ROI Study.

Waymer,D., Ni, L (2009) Connecting Organisations and their Employee Publics: The Rhetorical Analysis of Employee-Organization Relationships (EOR), in Heath, R.L., Toth, E.L., and Waymer, D (eds) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations II, Abingdon: Routledge

Welch, M. (2006) Rethinking relationship management, Exploring the dimension of trust, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, 2006, pages 138-155.

Weick, K. E. (2005) Sensemaking in Organisations, London: Sage.Welch, M., Jackson, P. R. (2007) Rethinking internal communication: a stakeholder approach, Corporate

Communications: An International Journal Vol. 12 No. 2, pages 177-198.Whitworth, B (2006) Internal Communication in Gillis, T (ed) The IABC Handbook of

Organizational Communication, San Francisco: Jossey-BassZaremba, A. (2006) Organizational Communication: Foundations for Business & Collaboration,

Mason: Thomson South-Western


Download - Internal Communication and Employee Engagement

Top Related