internal communication content from the perspective of the organization and from an employee needs...

Internal communication content: a critical exploration of what organisations provide and what employees require

Kevin Ruck

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

[email protected]

1. Introduction

Internal communication is becoming increasingly recognised as a critical

communication function. According to Moreno et al (2010 p, 101), respondents in the

European Communication Monitor, 2009, “expect that internal communication and

change management will be the second important discipline next year, right behind

corporate communication”. Organisations have long recognised the importance of

internal communication, though this is often seen from the perspective of the

organisation rather than the employee. As Welch and Jackson (2007 p. 187) argue,

“research into employee preferences for channel and content of internal corporate

communication is required to ensure it meets employees’ needs”. This is echoed by

Uusi-Rauva and Nurkka (2010, p. 303), who assert that little research has focused on

finding out what employees consider important in the internal “expert communication

process”.

In the wider communication field, the locus of academic debate has tended to be

external, rather than internal. However, 26 years ago, Grunig and Hunt (1984 pp.

244-5) highlighted 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”. Morris and Goldsworthy (2008 p.

130) suggest that this is still the case and, furthermore, there is a dark side to internal

communication; it is “the branch of the modern PR industry that best realises the

propagandist’s dream”. This is based on the contention that organisations have a

monopoly on formal communication channels and the collapse of alternative

channels such as those provided by trade unions. In contrast, a two-way

communication approach entails making publications “more employee-centred than

management centred” although this in itself is not dialogical, so Grunig and Hunt

(1984, p. 246) also argue that symmetrical programs also use many non-traditional,

nonprint media and techniques that emphasise interpersonal communication and

dialogue with management.

1 | P a g e C o p y r i g h t K e v i n R u c k

This paper suggests that internal communication is often dominated by a journalistic

“tell” approach that does little to acknowledge the communication needs of

employees. It analyses the key reasons why organisations invest in internal

communication, what the benefits are to them and what communication employees

require and expect from their organisations. The focus of the paper is the content of

communication rather than the channels used. This is a separate, albeit closely

linked, topic that requires consequential analysis. The approach taken in the paper is

to consider internal communication from three contexts; organisational identification

and engagement, change or uncertainty, and organisational learning. Organisational

identification and engagement acknowledges the longer term relationship that an

employee has with an organisation. Change and uncertainty is a time when

communication expectations rise (Dawson, 2004 p. 61) and organisational learning

reflects the importance of knowledge for both the organisation and the employee

(Easterby-Smith et al., 2000).

2. Organisational identification and engagement

There is overwhelming evidence that effective internal communication is linked to

organisational success (Byrne and LeMay, 2006 p. 152) and the key to this is to have

first line managers who are effective communicators (Hargie and Tourish, 2004 p.

247). Goldhaber et al (1978 p. 82) found that employees primary needs include, first,

more information about personal, job-related matters, and then, information about

organizational decision making and a greater opportunity to voice complaints and

evaluate superiors. According to the consultancy, Towers Watson (2010, p. x), most

firms do well at communicating about the business; “however…less than half of firms

report they are effective at communicating to employees regarding how their actions

affect the customer or increase productivity”. Towers Watson (2010) go on to report

that internal communication messages are delivered either centrally or locally and

content differs as shown in table 1 below.


Messages delivered centrally Messages delivered locallyExplaining and promoting new

programs and policies

Helping employees understand the

business

Educating employees about

organizational culture and values

Telling employees how their actions

affect the customer

Providing information on organizational

performance and financial objectives

Integrating new employees into the

organization

Providing individuals with information

about the true value of their total

compensation package

Table 1 Towers Watson 2009/2010 Communication ROI Study Report.

However, there is no evidence in the report to suggest that these are the most

important topics that employees expect managers to discuss. The conclusion that

firms do well at communicating about the business is also challenged by Truss (2006

p. 13-14) who found that 25 per cent of employees say that their manager rarely or

never makes them feel their work counts. And only around half of all employees say

that their manager usually or always “consults me on matters of importance” or

“keeps me in touch with what is going on”. In general, 42 per cent of employees say

that they are not kept very well informed about what is going on in their organisation

(Truss, 2006, p. 17) and this applies to both the public and private sectors.

An effective communication climate is, according to Robertson (2005) based on the

following topics; job, personal, operational and strategic issues. Many of these are

reflected in an audit of communication in a healthcare organisation, where the

following top six topics were cited for “information needed” (Hargie and Tourish, 2009

p. 252):

How problems that I report in my job are dealt with (3.8)

How my job contributes to the organisation (3.6)

How decisions that affect my job are reached (3.6)

Things that go wrong in my organisation (3.5)

Staff development opportunities (3.5)

My performance in my job (3.5)

Scale: 1 = very little: 2 = little: 3 = some: 4 = great: 5 = very great


These results signify the importance of upward feedback and managers closing the

loop of concerns raised. They also highlight an interest in “things that go wrong”; this

does not sit comfortably with a journalistic approach that can often be seen as

organisational propaganda. However, the results may be specific to the organisation

and the situation it was in at the time of the research. The general focus of internal

communication audits tends not to be on content so much as process. For example,

Tourish and Hargie (2009, p. 31) state that audits typically focus on who is

communicating with whom, the issues that receive attention, the volume of

information sent and received, levels of trust and the quality of working relationships.

Valuable as these perspectives are, this highlights the general starting point for

internal communication audits and research; the organisational perspective on

process rather than individual employee expectations of content. In the research

conducted for this paper, no articles were found that specifically tackled what

employees would like their organisation to communicate. As Chen et al (2006 p. 242)

argue, “A review of the research on organizational processes concluded that member

satisfaction with organizational communication practices has been ignored”.

D’Aprix (2006 p. 238) does place an emphasis on the employee perspective in his

model of the employee questions that line managers must answer (see figure 1). This

is similar to Robertson’s proposal (above) with the overwhelming focus on the

individual’s role at work. D’Aprix bases this on work conducted in the practitioner

survey field on employee engagement, for example, Gallup, that suggests that it is an

individual’s role and work that are the most important engagement factors. However,

this is to sideline or underplay the role that connection to the wider organisation has

in engagement. It also runs counter to research by Truss (2006, p. 45) that found that

the three most important factors for engagement are:

1) having opportunities to feed your views upwards

2) feeling well informed about what is happening in the organisation, and

3) thinking that your manager is committed to your organization


Figure 1: D’Aprix’s (2006) model of the employee questions line managers must

answer

Miller (2009) suggests that the content of internal communication is dependent on the

approach to management in the organisation. For example, in a classical

organisation it is argued that communication about task is very narrowly focused

(Miller, 2009, p. 29). However, in human relations organisations the innovation

content of communication is critical (Miller, 2009, p. 50). Sluss et al (2008 p. 457)

point out that although a myriad of potential exchange relationships exist within and

between organizations, all employees have two seemingly preeminent relationships

at work; one with the immediate supervisor, and one with the organization.

Organizational identification, based on social identity theory, is the degree of

oneness with the organisation and has been found to be associated with job

satisfaction, job involvement, turnover intentions, and in role and extra-role

performance. Leiter and Bakker (2010, p. 2) suggest that “Employees’ responses to

organizational policies, practices and structures affect their potential to experience

engagement”. This is illustrated in a social identity theory approach to organisational

identification adopted by Millward and Postmes (2010, p. 335) in a study of business

managers in the UK. They reported that the fact that identification with the

superordinate grouping of “the organisation” was particularly relevant to performance

is important for theoretical, empirical and pragmatic reasons. This reinforces

research by Wieseke (2009) that found the higher the level of organisational identity

of sales managers the greater the sales quota achievement. Furthermore, a lack of


organisational identification has, according to Knight and Haslam (2010, p. 721) been

associated with increased stress and burnout, withdrawal, and sickness. These are

powerful drivers for an organisation’s investment in what Welch and Jackson term

“Internal Corporate Communication” (2007, p. 186) 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”. However, a critical

perspective on communication argues that identification is simply another form of

organisational control where “an individual identifies with the values of the

organization or work group and hence will act in accordance with those values even

in the absence of simple, technological or bureaucratic control” (Miller, 2009 p. 111).

A potential counter-balance is the development of greater employee voice, seen by

the CIPD (2010, pp. 11-12) as mutuality within organisations that is similar to

partnership working where employees are at the heart of strategy development and

delivery.

Although D’Aprix includes organizational vision, mission, and values in his model, the

detail of the content in these categories requires deeper consideration For example,

corporate image and identity is not prioritised in the literature on internal

communication as it is often seen more as the realm of external communication.

However, Cartwright and Holmes (2006 p. 200) suggest that it can matter a great

deal to an employee as it represents their assessment of what characteristics others

are likely to ascribe to them because they work for a particular organization.

Holtzhausen and Fourie (2009 p. 340) argue that the non-visual elements of the

corporate identity impact on employer-employee relationships and thus need special

attention when managing employer-employee relationships. Although employees are

interested in knowing about organisational strategy, it is how it is discussed that is

critical. Research conducted by Daymon (1993 p. 247) highlighted that the reasons

why employees give up on the communication process is the failure to connect

strategy to people:

I think people didn't go . . . because the first one that [the chief executive] held

was all financial. . . . It was all money, money, money, and it meant very little

to a lot of people. He wasn't talking about realities. He was talking about fiscal

policies. . . .


Some organisations may have genuinely held concerns about sharing information

with employees. However, Marques (2010 p. 52) found that employees expect

mangers to be responsible about this. As one of the participants maintained,

“Communicators need to be responsible with the messages they are sending, and

the receivers need to be responsible with the messages they are receiving”. Sluss et

al (2008, p. 458) suggest that, in terms of values, perceived organisational support is

a key factor. This is defined as the subordinate’s perception of the extent that ‘their

work organization values their contribution and cares about their well-being. It is

especially important as many more people today “are seeking a greater sense of

meaning and purpose in their extending working lives” (Cartwright and Holmes, 2006

p. 200). In summary, a revised model of employee questions to be addressed

through line manager and corporate internal communication is required and this is

outlined in figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Model of employee questions to be addressed through line manager and

corporate internal communication

The model aims to incorporate a balance between individual and internal corporate

communication. It also incorporates the importance of employee voice, based on

being well informed together with questions of organisational support and

identification. The model forms the basis for internal communication measurement

that can be associated with levels of engagement.


3. Internal communication in times of change or uncertainty

The record on change management is not good. Daly et al (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. Clampitt (2009 p.

130) found in research in for-profit organisations that employees frequently

complained about not being informed of changes, decisions and future plans. As

Byrne and LeMay (2006 p. 153) point out:

Organizations have a need to share with employees critical information, both

positive and negative, about major changes in business that affect the

organization and/or the employees directly. For example, acquisitions, layoffs,

substantial changes in the executive staff, changes in stock price or earnings,

loss of a large customer, a big sale to a new customer, rumors that are both

founded and unfounded, legal actions against the organization, and take-over

attempts are all critical information that must be shared in a timely, yet

sensitive manner.

Whether these are the topics that organisations discuss with employees is not

revealed. Clampitt (2009, p. 217) reports that topics of concern are typically:

economic loss, inconvenience, loss of wages, job stability, and workloads. More

research is required about the topics that employees require information about in

times of uncertainty as there may also be deeper issues that they may be reluctant to

discuss. Jimmieson et al (2010 p. 11) suggest that employees may perceive

organizational change as a major source of threat to their personal career paths and

financial well-being and also may experience the loss of many intangible features

associated with their work environment, such as power and prestige, and a sense of

community at work. Leaders instinctively know that communication in times of

change and uncertainty is important. Indeed, change is fundamentally about

communication, yet many organisations do not understand how to go about it. For

example, job security is, for an employee, a primary interest (Elving, 2005 p. 133),

yet, according to a Towers Watson (2010 p. 13) report, 24 percent of companies

provide no information on this topic. This may not be too surprising. Wray and

Fellenz (2007 p. 5) argue that “There has been very little empirical research exploring

precisely how to communicate change” (italics added). Furthermore, what research

has been conducted tends again to focus on the processes of communication rather

than the needs of the employee. This is compounded by management thinking that


presents change as a linear process (Kotter and Rathgeber, 2006 p. 130-1) and

related communication as a persuasive process (Garvin and Roberto, 2005 p. 28) or

three phases of research, cascade, and monitoring (Barrett, 2004). All approaches

are too simplistic and as Wheatley (2006 p. 144) observes “To become effective at

change we must leave behind the imaginary organisation we design and learn to

work with the real organization, which will always be a dense network of

interdependent relationships”. This also includes taking more of an employee

perspective, as Frahm and Brown (2007 p. 372) argue, understanding employees as

“targets of change” suggests planned change, and does not consider the proactive

and “driver”-like roles those employees pursue in continuous change efforts. Instead,

as Jimmieson et al (2010 p. 12) report, research has found that better reactions to

job redundancies were observed when information about why resources were

allocated in particular ways was provided to employees. Ultimately, according to

Langer and Thorup (2006 p. 376) successful change communication is not based on

standardisation and discipline, but on the creation of opportunities for each voice to

express itself and contribute in a new organisational framework. Summarising the

literature, Johansson and Heide (2008 p. 291) outline three different approaches to

communication during organizational change:

(1) communication as a tool;

(2) communication as a socially constructed process; and

(3) communication as social transformation

The field has, to date, been dominated by practitioner and academic approaches

focused on communication as a tool rather than as a socially constructed and socially

transformative process. For example, Salem (2008) explores the seven

communication reasons organizations do not change. This is based on a quantitative

research that found that communication during failed change efforts seldom involves

enough communication opportunities, lacks any sense of emerging identification,

engenders distrust, and lacks productive humor (Salem, 2008 p. 344). Although this

incorporates some aspects of what employees experience, the research is

undermined through a dismissal of a qualitative methodology applicable to social

aspects, “It is difficult to gather data about social change. Qualitative approaches

provide rich data, but the veracity of such data is suspect because it takes so long to

gather and analyze”.


Quirke (2008 p. 150-1) emphasises the importance for employees to understand the

“why” as well as the “what” and argues that unless you draw the bigger picture, and

prepare the way with the “why” it is difficult to get change properly understood, let

alone implemented. Taking an employee centred perspective, Kegan and Lahey

(2001 p. 51) suggest that:

Resistance to change does not reflect opposition, nor is it merely a result of

inertia. Instead, even as they hold a sincere commitment to change, many

people are unwittingly applying productive energy toward a hidden competing

commitment. The resulting dynamic equilibrium stalls the effort in what looks

like resistance but is in fact a kind of personal immunity to change.

Kegan and Lahey (2001 p. 55) advocate a different approach to planned

communication; “The first question we ask is, “what would you like to see changed at

work, so that you could be more effective or so that work would be more satisfying?””

. Although there is little research to indicate what employees want to discuss in times

of change, this approach takes a different perspective, focused more on what

Smythe (2007 p. 46-52) terms “co-creation”. For example, when employees are

involved at the outset and asked for their input, this can be beneficial to the

organisation and employees. Langer and Thorup analyse storytelling and change in

an airline company (2006 p. 373) where the approach was to develop a mission, a

vision and a set of values created primarily by the employees themselves and born

out of a process in which everyone was heard, seen and taken seriously…the

process was to involve dialogue – it was to be dynamic, giving the organisation the

sense of being a community. Langer and Thorup report that the results achieved

seem more promising than the results of previous internal under-communication or

value-communication determined by the formal top-down decision-making paths.

They conclude that “…it is now necessary to communicate with the employees about

organisational changes and developments, with the management listening to

employee stories and regarding them as a creative and important resource” (Langer

and Thorup, 2006 p. 376).


A connection can also be made with organisational identification, discussed in the

previous section, and organizational change. Hui and Lee (2000 p. 227) found that

Organisational Based Self-Esteem (OBSE), a feeling that an employee is playing a

meaningful role in the organisation, moderated the relationship between intrinsic

motivation and anticipated change, organisational commitment and anticipated

change and absenteeism and anticipated change. Change is no longer an

occasional, planned, activity - it is business as usual in many organisations. As such,

the ongoing relationship that an employee has with his/her line manager and the

wider organisation is a critical factor in successful change that is mutually beneficial

for the employee and the organisation. In summary, more research is clearly required

to determine what employees want to hear about in times of uncertainty. However,

this in itself is still addressing employees as if they are a group of people that

organisations need to find out more about, rather than people to work with in order to

determine how the organisation could develop and change. It is as much about “how”

as it is the “what” and the “why”.

4. Organisational learning

The rise of knowledge management is variously described as a fad or a revolution in

competitive advantage grounded in the know-how (practical knowledge) and know-

what (formal or cognitive knowledge) of the people who develop and use knowledge

in organisations (Zorn and Taylor, 2004 p. 96). According to Yeomans (2008 p. 275)

the learning organization concept was first popularised by management scientists

and consultants in the 1990s as a way for organisations to create the conditions for

managers to challenge established organizational routines. It was a process whereby

employees enhanced personal capabilities that were used by the organisation for

competitive advantage. Zorn and Taylor (2004, p. 98-9) suggest that there are four

uses of the term “knowledge management” (KM):

KM1 a strategy to enhance intellectual capital

KM2 specific software applications such as Lotus Notes

KM3 small scale initiatives that aim to manage information better

KM4 what knowledge workers do without necessarily labelling it.


Internal communication plays a role in all aspects, most obviously in the

management of corporate intranets (Lehmuskallio, 2008). However, there is an

emphasis within internal communication practice on process, technology, and

information management, rather than knowledge generation. Zorn and Taylor (2004,

p. 104) argue that knowledge management is essentially a process of organizational

communication with an emphasis on meaning making. Though knowledge is

dependent on data and information, it evolves through interaction (Heaton and

Taylor, 2002). In an empirical phenomenological research approach to

communication and learning, Yeomans found that, for employees, “communication”

meant personal letters and memos, line management interactions and interactions

with other colleagues. “Learning” meant the acquisition of knowledge through day-to-

day interactions, self-development and studying (Yeomans, 2008, p. 283):

You know there isn’t much warning and it is just a matter of they’d get a letter

on a Monday morning saying “from next Monday you are now based at

another clinic”. “Learning” meant the acquisition of knowledge through day-to-

day interactions, self-development and studying: I think people want to get

themselves educated and feel they want to get more knowledge in the PCT

In terms of the content of internal communication, official sources of news and

information were seen to be too “dry” and lacking in context – participants wanted to

be able to ask questions about some of the articles (Yeomans, 2008, p. 280). This

point reinforces earlier concerns about corporate internal propaganda and suggests

that many employees see communication and learning as separate; the association

in interaction is not always immediately obvious. However, Davies and Nutley (2000)

argue that internal communication is important for learning and even in times of

uncertainty and job losses, individual learning can be retained. This depends on the

assimilation of individual knowledge into new work structures, routines, and norms,

which is in itself dependent on information. Clampitt (2009 p. 122) found that 47 per

cent of employees say they do not receive the information they need to do their job

well - knowledge generation is inevitably impacted by this. Davies and Nutley stress

the importance of how people within the organisation think about the relationships

between the outside world, their organisation, their colleagues, and themselves. In

essence this is a “golden thread” of internal communication that incorporates Welch

and Jackson’s (2007, p. 185) four dimensions of internal communication; corporate,

line management, team peer, and project peer. This has to be set against the culture

of the organisation and an interest in what the employee communication needs are.


For example, Mintzberg et al (2005), set out core principles that underpin a learning

culture (shown in table 2).

Celebration of success.

Absence of complacency. Learning organisations reject the adage “if it ain't

broke don't fix it”;

Tolerance of mistakes. Learning from failure is a prerequisite for progressive

organisations.

Belief in human potential.

Recognition of tacit knowledge. Learning organisations recognise that those

individuals closest to processes have the best and most intimate knowledge of

their potential and flaws.

Openness. Because learning organisations try to foster a systems view, sharing

knowledge throughout the organisation is one key to developing learning

capacity.

Trust. For individuals to give of their best, take risks, and develop their

competencies, they must trust that such activities will be appreciated and valued

by colleagues and managers.

Outward looking. Learning organisations are engaged with the world outside

as a rich source of learning opportunities.

Table 2: Overview of Mintzberg’s cultural values for learning

Internal communication and knowledge generation can be constrained by the culture

of the organisation. As McAleese outlines (2010 p. 13-17) culture can be used to

create social order and internal communication may indeed serve to reinforce order.

This is not conducive for adaptability to changing conditions or knowledge

generation. On the other hand, new approaches to internal communication that

emphasise knowledge generation can support cultural change within an approach

described by Schein (1985) as incrementalism, or making small but important

changes over time. Henderson and McAdam (2003 p. 775) argue that an

organisation should strive to make learning central rather than an accidental activity.

This requires communication processes that create opportunities where explicit

and/or tacit knowledge can be originated. They suggest that a reliable and efficient

communication process is required to support the movement of knowledge from one

part of the organisation to another and to ensure that relevant knowledge finds its


way to organisational units that need it (2003, p. 777). This is less knowledge than

information, or corporate internal communication that is the basis for localised

knowledge making. The process sounds more straightforward than it is in practice. It

is also a focus again on process rather than employee communication needs. In

research at an electrical utility organisation, Henderson and McAdam (2003, p. 781)

found that all focus groups without exception stated that briefing communication was

always inadequate. This was caused by jargon, vagueness, the lack of localised

content, poor delivery and an inability to answer questions. There is a triple failure

here; poor internal corporate communication content, poorly delivered with

opportunities for discussion (and knowledge generation) denied. More importantly,

the cause of the problem is at least partly due to a lack of attention on meeting the

communication needs of employees generally. A different approach may be slowly

emerging through new patterns of working driven by new technologies. When the

founder of Geek Squad, a computer repair business, discovered that some

employees were playing an online game, Battlefield 2, at work he was at first

concerned. Upon further investigation he found that in the course of the game agents

were often talking shop and swapping tips. This led him to change his thinking

completely and instead of trying to set an agenda he decided to discover his

employees’ agenda and to serve it (Tapscott and Williams, 2006 p. 243). Nayar

(2010 p. 12) extends this thinking and advocates an employee first, customers

second approach. This entails turning the organisation on its head so that managers

are accountable to those who create value not the other way round. In a services

company, the focus on the supporting employee value and knowledge creation can

lead in turn to better customer service. As Neilson et al (2008 p. 6) suggest, one of

the key factors for successful implementation of strategy is employees who have the

information they need to understand the bottom-line impact of their day-to-day

choices.

5. Conclusion

Internal communication is important for organisations and employees. It enables

organisations to be more effective and is integral to employee engagement. Despite

the appreciation of the benefits of internal communication, many organisations have

reasonably modest levels of basic information sharing in place that are the

foundation for understanding how a employee relates his/her role to wider goals and

strategy. This is the realm of corporate internal communication which should serve to

set the framework for localised dialogue with team and project managers. The trap is


that corporate internal communication can be too one-sided and become viewed as

management speak or propaganda. For line managers, greater understanding of the

questions that employers expect to be answered is required and a new model is

proposed that balances job related content with wider organisational content. In times

of uncertainty and change the demand for timely and pertinent information increases

and explaining the “why” is critical. However, this is not enough and more focus on

the ”how” of communication is also required, for example, putting employees at the

forefront and involving them more in the process of change. Knowledge management

is dependent on information sharing, so builds on good corporate internal

communication through dialogue and interaction. This too highlights the importance

of serving employee needs for informed meaning making that generates

organisational value. In all respects, the focus of existing research tends to take an

organisational perspective with an emphasis on process rather than content. As a

result, it is currently difficult to ascertain what topics employees expect organisations

to prioritise within internal communication. This gap in the literature is significant as it

underpins channel development and selection and associated communication

resources. More importantly, greater understanding of employee content needs

mitigates against corporate internal communication become propaganda. Finally, it is

essential for meaningful two-way dialogue and upward feedback that enriches an

employee’s experience of work and generates knowledge and commercial value for

the organisation.


References

BARRETT, D. J. (ed.) 2004. “A best-practice approach to designing a change communication programme” London: Routledge.

BYRNE, Z. & LEMAY, E. 2006. Different media for organizational communication: Perceptions of quality and satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 149-173.

CARTWRIGHT, S. & HOLMES, N. 2006. The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review, 16, 199-208.

CHEN, J., SILVERTHORNE, C. & HUNG, J. 2006. Organization communication, job stress, organizational commitment, and job performance of accounting professionals in Taiwan and America. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27, 242-249.

CIPD 2010. Voice and engagement: how does collective consultation contribute? , 1-21.

CLAMPITT, P. 2009. Communicating for Managerial Effectiveness: Problems¦ Strategies¦ Solutions, Sage Publications, Inc.

D'APRIX, R. 2006. Throwing rocks at the corporate rhinocerous, the challenges of employee engagement, Gillis, T. L. (Ed) The IABC Handbook of Organizational Communication, San Francisco, John Wiley & Sons.

DALY, F., TEAGUE, P. & KITCHEN, P. 2003. Exploring the role of internal communication during organisational change. Corporate communications: An international journal, 8, 153-162.

DAVIES, H. & NUTLEY, S. 2000. Developing learning organisations in the new NHS. British Medical Journal, 320, 998.

DAWSON, P. (ed.) 2004. Managing change, communication and political process, London: Routledge.

DAYMON, C. 1993. On considering the meaning of managed communication: Or why employees resist ‘excellent’communication. Journal of Communication Management, 4, 240-252.

EASTERBY-SMITH, M., CROSSAN, M. & NICOLINI, D. 2000. Organizational learning: debates past, present and future. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 783-796.

ELVING, W. 2005. The role of communication in organisational change. Corporate communications: An international journal, 10, 129-138.

FRAHM, J. & BROWN, K. 2007. First steps: linking change communication to change receptivity. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20, 370-387.

GARVIN, D. & ROBERTO, M. 2005. Change through persuasion. If you read nothing else on change, read thesebest-selling articles., 26.

GOLDHABER, G., PORTER, D., YATES, M. & LESNIAK, R. 1978. Organizational communication: 1978. Human Communication Research, 5, 76-96.

GRUNIG, J. & HUNT, T. 1984. Managing public relations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston New York.

HARGIE, O. T., D. (ed.) 2004. How are we doing? Measuring and monitoring organizational communication, London: Routledge.


HARGIE, O. T., D. 2009. Charting communication performance in a healthcare organization, Hargie, O. and Tourish, D (Eds) Auditing Organizational Communication, London: Routledge.

HEATON, L. & TAYLOR, J. 2002. Knowledge management and professional work. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 210.

HENDERSON, J. & MCADAM, R. 2003. Adopting a learning-based approach to improve internal communications: A large utility experience. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20, 774-794.

HOLTZHAUSEN, L. & FOURIE, L. 2009. Employees' perceptions of company values and objectives and employer-employee relationships: A theoretical model. Corporate communications: An international journal, 14, 333-344.

HUI, C. & LEE, C. 2000. Moderating effects of organization-based self-esteem on organizational uncertainty: Employee response relationships. Journal of Management, 26, 215.

JIMMIESON, N., TERRY, D. & CALLAN, V. 2010. A longitudinal study of employee adaptation to organizational change: The role of change-related information and change-related self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 11-27.

JOHANSSON, C. & HEIDE, M. 2008. Speaking of change: three communication approaches in studies of organizational change. Corporate communications: An international journal, 13, 288-305.

KEGAN, R. & LAHEY, L. 2001. The real reason people won’t change. If you read nothing else on change, read thesebest-selling articles., 51.

KNIGHT, C. & HASLAM, S. 2010. Your Place or Mine? Organizational Identification and Comfort as Mediators of Relationships Between the Managerial Control of Workspace and Employees' Satisfaction and Well-being. British Journal of Management, 21, 717-735.

KOTTER, J. & RATHGEBER, H. 2006. Our iceberg is melting: Changing and succeeding under any conditions, St Martins Pr.

LANGER, R. & THORUP, S. 2006. Building trust in times of crisis: Storytelling and change communication in an airline company. Corporate communications: An international journal, 11, 371-390.

LEHMUSKALLIO, S. 2008. Intranet editors as corporate gatekeepers and agenda setters. Corporate communications: An international journal, 13, 95-111.

LEITER, M. A. B., A.B. (ed.) 2010. Work engagement: Introduction, Hove and New York: Psychology Press.

MARQUES, J. 2010. Enhancing the quality of organizational communication: A presentation of reflection-based criteria. Journal of Communication Management, 14, 47-58.

MCALEESE, D. (ed.) 2010. Organisational culture, Harlow: Pearson Education.MILLER, K. S. 2009. Organizational Communication Approaches and Processes,

Fith Edition, Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.MILLWARD, L. & POSTMES, T. 2010. Who we are affects how we do: the

financial benefits of organizational identification. British Journal of Management, 21, 327-339.

MINTZBERG, H., AHLSTRAND, B. & LAMPEL, J. 2005. Strategy safari: A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management, Free Pr.

MORENO, Á., VERHOEVEN, P., TENCH, R. & ZERFASS, A. 2010. European Communication Monitor 2009. An institutionalized view of how public


relations and communication management professionals face the economic and media crises in Europe. Public Relations Review, 36, 97-104.

MORRIS, T. & GOLDSWORTHY, S. 2008. PR-a persuasive industry?: spin, public relations, and the shaping of the modern media, Palgrave Macmillan.

NAYAR, V. 2010. Empoyees First Customers Second, Boston, Harvard Business Press.

NEILSON, G., MARTIN, K. & POWERS, E. 2008. The secrets to successful strategy execution. Harvard business review, 86, 60-70.

QUIRKE, B. 2008. Making the connections : using internal communication to turn strategy into action, Aldershot, Gower.

ROBERTSON, E. 2005. Placing leaders at the heart of organizational communication. Strategic Communication Management, 9, 34.

SALEM, P. 2008. The seven communication reasons organizations do not change. Corporate communications: An international journal, 13, 333-348.

SCHEIN, E. H. 1985. Organisational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

SLUSS, D., KLIMCHAK, M. & HOLMES, J. 2008. Perceived organizational support as a mediator between relational exchange and organizational identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 457-464.

SMYTHE, J. 2007. The CEO: The Chief Engagement Officer: Turning hierarchy upside down to drive performance, Gower Pub Co.

TAPSCOTT, D. & WILLIAMS, A. 2006. Wikinomics., London, Atlantic.TOWERSWATSON 2010. Capitalizing on Effective Communication, . 2009/2010

Communication ROI Study Report.TRUSS, C. 2006. Working life : employee attitudes and engagement 2006 : [research

report], London, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.UUSI-RAUVA, C. & NURKKA, J. Effective internal environment-related

communication: An employee perspective. Corporate communications: An international journal, 15, 299-314.

WELCH, M. & JACKSON, P. 2007. Rethinking internal communication: a stakeholder approach. International Journal, 12, 177-198.

WHEATLEY, M. 2006. Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world, Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

WIESEKE, J., AHEARNE, M., LAM, S. & DICK, R. 2009. The role of leaders in internal marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73, 123-145.

WRAY, T. & FELLENZ, M. 2007. Communicating Change-Changing Communication? Towards a Model of Communication in Planned Organizational Change

Annual Meeting of the Irish Academy of Management. Belfast.YEOMANS, L. 2008. “?…? it's a general meeting, it's not for us?…?”: Internal

communication and organizational learning–an interpretive approach. Corporate communications: An international journal, 13, 271-286.

ZORN, E. T., TAYLOR, J.R. (ed.) 2004. Knowledge management and/as organizational communication, London: Routledge.


internal communication content from the perspective of the organization and from an employee needs...

Documents