This article was downloaded by: [University of Newcastle (Australia)]On: 25 September 2014, At: 19:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Public Relations ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hprr20

The Effects of Authentic Leadership onStrategic Internal Communication andEmployee-Organization RelationshipsLinjuan Rita Men a & Don Stacks ba Communication Studies , Southern Methodist Universityb School of Communication , University of MiamiPublished online: 19 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Linjuan Rita Men & Don Stacks (2014) The Effects of Authentic Leadershipon Strategic Internal Communication and Employee-Organization Relationships, Journal of PublicRelations Research, 26:4, 301-324, DOI: 10.1080/1062726X.2014.908720

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.908720

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Effects of Authentic Leadership on StrategicInternal Communication and Employee-Organization

Relationships

Linjuan Rita Men

Communication Studies, Southern Methodist University

Don Stacks

School of Communication, University of Miami

This study examines how strategic leadership influences excellent internal public relations by

establishing the linkage between authentic leadership, symmetrical and transparent communication,

and employee–organization relationships. The results showed that authentic leadership as an

antecedent factor plays a critical role in nurturing an organization’s symmetrical and transparent

communication system, which in turn, cultivates quality employee–organization relationships. An

organization’s symmetrical communication worldview greatly fosters its day-to-day transparent

communication practice. Transparent communication, characterized by information substantiality,

accountability, and employee participation, largely contributes to employee trust, control mutuality,

commitment, and satisfaction. The impact of symmetrical communication on employees’ relational

outcomes is fully mediated via transparent communication. Significant theoretical and practical

implications of the findings are discussed.

Internal communication, as a central process in which employees share information, create

relationships, make meanings, and construct organizational culture and values (Berger, 2008),

has been recognized as the foundation for modern organizations. A growing body of evidence

has demonstrated that effective internal communication plays a vital role in developing positive

employee attitudes such as trust, organizational commitment (Jo & Shim, 2005), job satisfaction

(Gray & Laidlaw, 2004), organizational identification (Smidts, Pruyn, & van Riel, 2001), and

positive employee–organization relationships (Kim & Rhee, 2011). These attitudes, in turn, lead

to higher productivity, improved performance, organizational learning (Berger, 2008), favorable

employee communication behaviors, and better external relations (Kim & Rhee, 2011).

Recognizing the increasing importance of employees in achieving organizational success,

scholars have also begun exploring the sundry factors that drive internal communication

effectiveness. For instance, Dozier, L. A. Grunig, and J. E. Grunig (1995) and L. A. Grunig,

J. E. Grunig, and Dozier (2002) suggested that a participative organizational culture, an organic

Correspondence should be sent to Linjuan Rita Men, Southern Methodist University, Communication Studies, 6550

Shady Brook Lane, Dallas, TX 75206. E-mail: cicirita@gmail.com

Journal of Public Relations Research, 26: 301–324, 2014

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1062-726X print/1532-754X online

DOI: 10.1080/1062726X.2014.908720

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

structure, a symmetrical communication system, and diversity are important contextual factors

facilitate communication with employees. Recently, scholars have pointed out the connections

between leadership and internal communication. According to Whitworth (2011), communi-

cation between leaders of various levels and followers constitute a major component of the orga-

nization’s internal communication system. Leaders (i.e., managers) interact with followers on a

daily basis, and they are often regarded as preferred and credible sources of information by

employees (Larkin & Larkin, 1994). Further, leaders’ communication competence, communi-

cation styles, and behaviors can influence employee outcomes (e.g., Cameron & McCollumn,

1993; Dowling, 2004; Madlock, 2008; Men, 2011b). However, public relations research to date

has not adequately explored the role of organizational leadership in achieving communication

effectiveness with internal or external publics. Thus, to fill the research void and extend the

literature on how organizational leadership influence the effectiveness of internal communi-

cation, this study examines how an emerging leadership style—authentic leadership—influ-

ences the development of the organization’s strategic internal communication system,

characterized by symmetrical communication and transparent communication, and the quality

of employee-organization relationships.According to Walumbwa, Avolio, Gardner, Wernsing, and Peterson (2008), the construct of

authentic leadership was developed given a recent ‘‘upswing in highly publicized corporate

scandals, management malfeasance, and broader societal challenges facing public and private

organizations’’ (p. 34). These negative social trends call for research on a new type of genuine

and value-based authentic leadership, the ultimate goal of which is to ‘‘train and develop leaders

who will proactively foster positive environments and conduct business in an ethical, socially

responsible manner’’ (Cooper, Scandura, & Schriesheim, 2005, p. 477). Similarly, in the public

relations domain, researchers have recently embraced the construct of transparent communi-

cation as a response to the growing exposure of ‘‘deceptive practices that took place behind

the doors’’ (Rawlins, 2009, p. 71). Further, the rising of new technology tools, such as social

media, provide organizations numerous innovative means to share information and remain open

with the publics, which has, at the same time, escalated the publics’ expectation of organiza-

tional transparency. Facing the unprecedented public demand for visibility and openness in

today’s business world, it is important for enterprises to develop a strategic communication sys-

tem that fully embraces symmetry, transparency, and authenticity. However, unlike the construct

of symmetrical communication, which has generated decades of research, there is a dearth

of scholarship on concepts of transparent communication and authenticity in the public

relations field.

One purpose of the study, therefore, is to examine transparency and authenticity in the

context of organizational internal communication. In particular, this study proposes a normative

model that links authentic leadership to symmetrical and transparent communication as well as

employee relational outcomes. The study’s findings will provide significant implications for

public relations scholars and professionals. Theoretically, the study will contribute to the

growing body of knowledge on organizational transparency and internal communication;

also, it will provide new empirical evidence on how strategic leadership as an antecedent and

contextual factor influences internal communication effectiveness and relationship management.

Practically, the study provides recommendations for organizational leaders and communication

professionals on how to collaboratively achieve leadership effectiveness and communication

excellence.

302 MEN AND STACKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

LITERATURE REVIEW

Leadership and Public Relations

As pointed out by several public relations scholars (e.g., Aldoory & Toth, 2004; Jin, 2010;

Werder & Holtzhausen, 2009), although the importance of leadership is widely recognized and

the concept is well researched in the disciplines of management, business, and marketing, lead-

ership research in the public relations setting is still in the emerging stage. Following Aldoory and

Toth’s call for leadership research in public relations, a couple of initiatives have been conducted.

For example, Werder and Holtzhausen examined the influence of leadership style in the use of

public relations strategies. From the trait perspective, Jin examined the role of emotions in public

relations leadership. Shin, Heath, and Lee (2011) compared the preferred leadership characteris-

tics of public relations practitioners in the United States and South Korea. The limited existing

literature on leadership in public relations (e.g., Aldoory & Toth, 2004; Jin, 2010; Meng, Gower,

Berger, & Heyman, 2012; Shin et al., 2011; Werder & Holzhausen, 2009) mainly focused on

examining the leadership styles and traits preferred or demonstrated by public relations leaders.

Yet, public relations effectiveness is influenced not only by public relations leadership, but also

organizational leadership. For instance, leadership influences organizational infrastructures, such

as the development of organizational culture (Yukl, 2006), structure, and communication climate.

Such organizational contextual factors (e.g., participative culture, organic structure, diversity), in

turn, nurture excellent public relations practices because they provide a hospitable and supportive

environment to communicate with the external public and facilitate the organization’s internal

communication with employees (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002; Kim & Rhee, 2011).

Additionally, organizational hierarchical communication, represented by top-down or bottom-

up communication among the successive layers of executives, managers, supervisors, and

nonmanagement employees, is a major component of an organization’s internal communication

system. Leaders at different levels play an important role in pushing or cascading messages until

they reach every employee, and pass along employee voices to top management. Studies have

consistently suggested that immediate supervisors are employees’ preferred source of infor-

mation, and have more credibility with employees compared to senior executives (e.g., Larkin

& Larkin, 1994; Whitworth, 2011). In addition, researchers have noted that a leader’s communi-

cation styles and behaviors can influence the employees’ outcomes. For example, Holladay and

Coombs (1993) noted that leadership communication shapes follower perception. When leaders

clearly and persuasively communicate a vision, they gain the confidence of followers. In a similar

vein, this study argues that organizational strategic leadership, in particular, authentic leadership,

provides a critical organizational context for effective internal communication practice.

Authentic Leadership

Various types of leadership, such as transformational, transactional (e.g., Bass, 1990), inclusive

(e.g., Aldoory & Toth, 2004), authentic, and shared leadership, have been identified by scholars

in the past. This study paid special attention to authentic leadership, which is currently receiving

attention in terms of research, theory, and practice, because of its direct relevance to the focal

constructs of the study. Luthans and Avolio (2003) first defined authentic leadership as ‘‘a

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP, INTERNAL COMMUNICATION, AND RELATIONSHIPS 303

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

process that draws from both positive psychological capacities and a highly developed organiza-

tional context, which results in both greater self-awareness and self-regulated positive behaviors

on the part of leaders and associates, fostering positive self-development’’ (p. 243). This

definition reasons a key idea that authentic leaders are deeply aware of their values, beliefs,

emotions, self-identities, and abilities. They know clearly who they are and what they believe

in; thus, they can stay true to themselves. With that said, authentic leaders do not conform

to role expectations that are not consistent with their values and beliefs (i.e., what they believe

is right, proper, or necessary). In other words, the actions of authentic leaders are largely

determined by what they believe, rather than a desire to be liked or admired (Yukl, 2006).

Consistency in what they believe, say, and do is a key tenet for authentic leadership. In addition,

the reason why authentic leadership was created determines its ethical foundation. Luthan and

Avolio (2003), and May, Chan, Hodge, and Avolio (2003) also argued that authentic leadership

incorporates a positive moral perspective that guides decision making and behaviors, such

as honesty, altruism, kindness, fairness, accountability, and optimism (Yukl, 2006).

Walumbwa et al. (2008) operationally defined authentic leadership (e.g., Cooper et al., 2005;

Gardner et al., 2005; Illes, Moreson, & Nahrgang, 2005; Luthans & Avolio, 2003; May et al.,

2003) to include four dimensions based on previous literature: self-awareness, relational

transparency, balanced processing, and internalized moral perspective. Self-awareness refers

to the leaders’ understanding of how they make meaning of the world, their strengths, and

weaknesses, and the multifaceted nature of the self. This dimension also includes the leaders’

awareness of the reflected self-image (how others perceive the leader). Authentic leaders use both

self-knowledge and reflected self-image to enhance leadership effectiveness. Relational trans-parency refers to the presentation of one’s authentic self to others, which may include

behaviors of disclosure, openly sharing information, expressions of one’s true thoughts and feel-

ings, and so on. Balanced processing means the leaders’ objective analysis of all relevant data

before coming to a conclusion or decision. Finally, internalized moral perspective refers to an

internalized and integrated self-regulation ‘‘guided by internal moral standards and values versus

group, organizational, and societal pressures’’ and ‘‘results in expressed decision making

and behavior that is consistent with these internalized values’’ (Walumbwa et al., 2008, p. 96).

This study argues that authentic leadership reflects the notions of symmetry and transparency,

thus contributing to the organizations’ strategic communication system.

Strategic Internal Communication: Symmetrical and Transparent Communication

J. E. Grunig (1984) proposed the concept of two-way symmetrical communication, referring to

the willingness of an organization to listen and respond to the concerns and interests of publics.

The construct has gone through substantial theoretical and empirical development. In a later

reflection of Grunig’s four models of public relations, L. A. Grunig et al. (2002) aligned

Murphy’s (1991) description of a mixed-motive model, and suggested that the interests of both

sides are highlighted and respected in a symmetrical model. Similarly, J. E. Grunig (2006) noted

that the purpose of a symmetrical model focuses on how individuals, organizations, and publics

use communication to adjust their ideas and behaviors, rather than trying to control or manipulate

how the other party thinks or behaves. In the internal communication setting, symmetrical

communication is defined as a communication worldview that is characterized by its emphasis

304 MEN AND STACKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

on ‘‘trust, credibility, openness, relationships, reciprocity, network symmetry, horizontal com-

munication, feedback, adequacy of information, employee-centered style, tolerance for disagree-

ment, and negotiation’’ (J. E. Grunig, 1992, p. 558). Thus, it is two-way by nature and aims to

build dialogues and promote mutual understanding between the organization and its employees.

According to J. E. Grunig and L. A. Grunig (2011), symmetrical internal communication is based

upon principles of employee empowerment and participation in decision-making and often

associated with a participative organizational culture and an organic structure. Numerous studies

have demonstrated the positive associations of internal symmetrical communication and

employee outcomes, such as job satisfaction, identification, loyalty, employee-organization rela-

tionships, and employee communication behavior (e.g., L. A. Grunig et al., 2002; Jo & Shim,

2005; Kim & Rhee, 2011; Smidts et al., 2001).

Transparency, similarly, as a vital concept and necessity for Western democracies, has recently

attracted increasing academic attention from various fields, such as accounting, economics,

management studies, journalism, political science, and public relations (e.g., Allen, 2008;

Berggren & Bernshteyn, 2007; Drew, 2004; Rawlins, 2008, 2009; Stacks, 2011; Stacks, Dodd,

& Men, 2013; Wehmeier & Raaz, 2010). However, despite the growing interest in the value of

transparency among communication professionals, the concept of organizational transparency

has not been fully examined theoretically and empirically by public relations scholars. According

to Balkin (1999) and Rawlins (2009), by definition, transparency includes three analytically

distinct aspects—substantial information, participation, and accountability—that require

communication efforts. First, the informational aspect (i.e., disclosure) requires organizations to

‘‘make available publicly all legally releasable information—whether positive or negative in

nature in a manner which is accurate, timely, balanced, and unequivocal’’ (Heise, 1985, p. 209,

cited in Rawlins, 2009). In this communication process, organizations try to make their actions

and decisions understandable to all the parties or stakeholders interested. The purpose of this

communication process is not merely to increase information flow, but also improve understand-

ing. In addition, information disclosed should meet the requirements of truthfulness and substantial

completeness. According to Rawlins (2009), substantial completeness is concerned with the needs

of the receiver, rather than those of the sender. Therefore, ‘‘the key to obtaining substantial

completeness is knowing what your audiences need to know’’ (p. 74).

Second, the participation aspect of transparency refers to stakeholder involvement in identify-

ing the information needed for decision making. As argued by Rawlins (2009), transparency

needs to be measured from the stakeholder perspective. Organizations need to incorporate the sta-

keholders’ voices to determine what information they really need, how much information they

need, how well the organization is fulfilling their information need, and how transparent the

organization is. Organizations can find it difficult to be transparent without inviting the partici-

pation of stakeholders.

Third, transparency also concerns accountability. To be transparent, an organization needs to

be accountable for their words, actions, and decisions, which are normally readily seen and

judged by its publics. Disclosing substantial information may expose the organization’s problems

or weaknesses. Hiding or denying them will not make them go away (Rawlins, 2009). Instead,

being accountable and open to criticisms and admitting the problem pave the way for further

improvement, and enhance the ethical nature of the organization.

Rawlins (2008, 2009) conceptualized organizational transparency as both a reputation trait

(i.e., integrity, respect, and openness) and a communication process (i.e., participation, substantial

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP, INTERNAL COMMUNICATION, AND RELATIONSHIPS 305

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

information, accountability). Similarly, van Riel and Fombrun (2007) also discussed transparency

as a critical communication attribute in building favorable organizational reputation. In our study,

transparent communication is proposed as an excellent characteristic of internal communication.

Transparent communication is, therefore, defined as an organization’s communication to make

available all legally releasable information to employees whether positive or negative in

nature—in a manner that is accurate, timely, balanced, and unequivocal, for the purpose of

enhancing the reasoning ability of employees, and holding organizations accountable for their

actions, policies, and practices.

Relationship between symmetrical and transparent communication. Although there is

little empirical evidence, symmetrical and transparent communication have been suggested to be

associated with each other. For example, Jahansoozi (2006) related transparency to collaboration

and cooperation, the key forms of the mixed-motive symmetrical communication. Christensen

and Langer (2009) realized communication symmetry to be a critical condition for true trans-

parency, noting that ‘‘without symmetry, transparency breeds power imbalance that potentially

reduces collaboration and trust’’ (p. 131). Rawlins (2009) also suggested that the concept of

transparency is clearly connected to openness and balance of control (power), which is the tenet

of symmetrical communication. This study holds that symmetrical internal communication is

a worldview that emphasizes two-way information flow, understanding, responsiveness to

employees’ needs and concern, and tolerance to different voices. It promotes organizational

transparent communication behaviors of inviting participation, providing substantial information

and being accountable. Therefore,

H1: Symmetrical communication is positively associated with transparent communication.

Employee–Organization Relationships

Over the past decade, public relations practice and research has focused on building and maintain-

ing quality relationships with strategic publics (Kent & Taylor, 2002). As one of the major out-

comes of public relations, the concept of organization–public relationships has been extensively

examined in a variety of contexts, including corporate, nonprofit, government, global, and on-line

settings (e.g., Brunig, Castle, & Schrepfer, 2003; Hung, 2006; Men & Hung, 2012; Ni & Wang,

2011; Seltzer & Zhang, 2011). In their book, titled Public Relations as Relationship Management,Ledingham and Bruning (2000) claimed that organization–public relationship management has

emerged as a ‘‘paradigm for public relations scholarship and practice’’ (p. xiii).

From an internal perspective, our study focuses on employee–organization relationships as the

major outcome generated by internal public relations. Among the strategic publics that organiza-

tions are facing, employees are, no doubt, the ones with whom organizations have the closest

connection (Berger, 2008; Men & Stacks, 2013). On the one hand, employees are the production

force for the organization. Their attitudes, behaviors, and performance directly contribute to

productivity, organizational performance, and success. On the other hand, employees are the liv-

ing faces of the organization. As argued by Haywood (2005), whether or not asked, employees

transmit messages regarding company operations to all the audiences upon whom the company

depends. Employees with favorable attitudes toward companies are corporate ambassadors,

building a companywide public relations force (Haywood, 2005).

306 MEN AND STACKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

As noted by Jo and Shim (2005), ‘‘given the emerging paradigm of public relations by

relationship management, the terms of internal communication need to be redefined as part of

building favorable relationships between management and employees’’ (p. 278). Quality relation-

ships that organizations have with their employees not only contribute to organizational perfor-

mance and achievement of organizational goals, but also help build and protect organizational

reputation and image in a turbulent environment. According to Kim and Rhee (2011, p. 251),

if employees have experienced good long-term relationships with their organization, ‘‘they are

likely to consider organizational problems as their own, and are thus likely to forward and share

supportive information for their organization during the organizational turbulence.’’ This notion

reflects Rhee’s (2004) finding that employees who have positive relationships with their organi-

zations help develop positive relationships with the organization’s external publics.

In this study, similar to Men (2011b), an employee–organization relationship is operationally

defined as the degree to which an organization and its employees trust one another, agree on who

has the rightful power to influence, experience satisfaction with each other, and commit oneself

to the other. This definition includes the relational outcomes (i.e., trust, control mutuality,

satisfaction, and commitment) suggested by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999), which have been

extensively discussed in relationship management literature.

Linking Authentic Leadership, Symmetrical and Transparent Communication, andEmployee–Organization Relationships

The purpose of this study is to build the linkage between authentic leadership, strategic internal

communication, and employee–organization relationships. Based on this conceptualization, how

these three constructs may be interrelated is discussed as follows.

Authentic leadership, symmetrical and transparent communication. Authentic leaders

behave in accordance with their values and strive to achieve openness and truthfulness in their

relationships with their followers. Such authenticity is often accompanied by open communi-

cation, disclosure, and the expressions of one’s true and genuine thoughts and feelings

(Walumbwa et al., 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2010). With the goal of establishing enduring relation-

ships with followers, authentic leaders truly care about the employees’ well-being. They empha-

size the symmetrical notion of nonmanipulations of followers (Walumbwa et al., 2010). In

addition, authentic leaders are deeply aware of their desirable and undesirable aspects. They hold

themselves accountable by objectively processing this information and staying true to whom they

are, what they say, and how they act. Supporting an open and fair work environment for employ-

ees, authentic leaders are also described to demonstrate transparent decision making (Avolio &

Gardner, 2005; Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey, & Oke, 2011). Therefore, authentic leadership

communication is characterized by openness, consistency, transparency, truthfulness, and

accountability. Thus,

H2: Authentic leadership is positively associated with symmetrical internal communication (H2a)

and transparent communication (H2b).

Authentic leadership and employee-organization relationships. Gardner, Cogliser,

Davis, and Dickens (2011) identified 91 existing publications on authentic leadership, including

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP, INTERNAL COMMUNICATION, AND RELATIONSHIPS 307

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

24 empirical studies. The empirical literature has identified a variety of positive authentic lead-

ership outcomes, including identification with the leaders (Walumbwa et al., 2010), trust (e.g.,

Wong & Cummings, 2009), organizational commitment (e.g., Jensen & Luthans, 2006;

Walumbwa et al., 2008), employee engagement (e.g., Walumbwa et al., 2010), employee work

happiness (Jensen & Luthans, 2006), organization citizenship behavior (e.g., Walumbwa et al.,

2010), and employee job performance (Walumbwa et al., 2008; Wong & Cummings, 2009).

Authentic leaders act in a way that matches their words, which are in accordance with their

fundamental and deeply rooted shared values with the organization and high moral standards.

Consistency between the words and behaviors of leaders has everything to do credibility,

employee trust, and commitment (Berger, 2008). Men (2011a) demonstrated that the perceived

credibility of an organization’s senior leadership cultivates employees’ favorable perception of

the organization and employee engagement. When the organization’s senior leadership is viewed

as trustworthy and credible, employees tend to like the organization more. Similar notions may

also be applied to the employees’ immediate leaders. Additionally, authentic leaders solicit

views from followers, and utilize such inputs in making decisions. They openly share infor-

mation fairly and transparently with employees, and are oriented toward building a quality

relationship with them. Higher levels of disclosure, transparency, two-way communication,

and relationship orientation that characterize authentic leadership develop a positive environ-

ment where employees feel trusted and empowered. Thus, employee trust, control mutuality, sat-

isfaction, and commitment to the organization are boosted. Therefore,

H3: Authentic leadership is positively related to the quality of employee-organization relationships.

Symmetrical and transparent communication and employee–organizationrelationships. The effectiveness of symmetrical communication in nurturing quality

employee–organization relationships has been evidenced in previous studies (e.g., L. A. Grunig

et al., 2002; Jo & Shim, 2005; Kim & Rhee, 2011). Recently, public relations scholars and pro-

fessionals have realized the influence of transparent communication on employee outcomes.

According to Rawlins (2008, 2009), organizational transparency through every aspect of corpor-

ate communication is critical to building and restoring trust. Through a survey of employees in a

health care organization, Rawlins (2008) demonstrated strong empirical evidence that transparent

communication is positively associated with employee trust in the organization. Jahansoozi

(2006) also argued that organizational transparency is a relational condition that promotes

accountability, collaboration, cooperation, and commitment. As previously discussed, transparent

organizations disclose truthful, accurate, timely, balanced, and substantial information and invite

employee participation in identifying the information they need and how much information they

want, which escalate the employees’ role in the decision-making process. Thus, such informa-

tional and participatory transparency is predicted to lead to employee satisfaction and feelings

of shared control, which constitute a quality employee–organization relationship. Therefore,

H4: Symmetrical communication is positively associated with the quality of employee–organization

relationships.

H5: Transparent communication is positively associated with the quality of employee–organization

relationships.

308 MEN AND STACKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

H6: Transparent communication mediates the effect of symmetrical communication on the quality

of employee–organization relationships.

In view of the preceding discussion on authentic leadership, symmetrical and transparent

communication in association with employee-organization relationships, the conceptual model

tested in this study is presented in Figure 1.

METHODOLOGY

To test the proposed model, a quantitative survey method was used because it provided a

cost-effective and efficient way of collecting data from large populations (Stacks, 2010). The

population of the study comprised employees at different level of positions working in medium

and large corporations in the United States.1 The goal of the sample selection was to cover a

diverse range of business communities to cross-validate the proposed model. Rather than recruit

participant corporations, individual employees who work for a variety of medium and large cor-

porations were recruited through a sampling firm.2 The sampling firm solicited participation from

its current research panel members of 1.5 million in the United States through its patented on-line

sampling platform. Qualified potential participants were directed to the on-line questionnaire

hosted by the researcher. Stratified and quota random sampling strategies were used to obtain

a representative sample with comparable age groups, gender, and corporation size across various

FIGURE 1 Hypothesized model of authentic leadership, strategic internal communication, and employee-organization

relationships.

1Small business companies with less than 250 employees were excluded from the population in this study because

small companies have different organization dynamics from medium and large corporations. Leadership and public

relations practice are believed to be more salient in big and mature corporations.2The sampling firm is a global provider of sampling solutions for survey research with headquarters in the United

States and was the first commercial research sampling company.

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP, INTERNAL COMMUNICATION, AND RELATIONSHIPS 309

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

income and education levels. A final sample size of 402 was achieved with 45.5%men and 54.5%women, 59.2% nonmanagement and 40.8% management employees with an average age of 44

years. Around 55% of the respondents held at least a Bachelor’s degree. Responds were current

employees working in a variety of corporations with an average company tenure of 10 years.3

Before administering the questionnaire to the participants, one on-line pretest was conducted

with 167 randomly selected employees from a Fortune 500 energy company. Preliminary analy-

sis of the reliability and validity of the measures demonstrated satisfactory results. Therefore,

most of the measurement instrument of key variables remained the same in this study. However,

to avoid respondent fatigue and reduce the length of the questionnaire, several demographic

questions were excluded (i.e., questions asking the ethnicity and nationality of the respondents,

and industry tenure). The data were collected via an Internet survey in March 2012.

Measures

The measures of key concepts in this study were adapted from previous literature (J. E. Grunig,

1992; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999; Neider & Schriesheim, 2011; Rawlins, 2008; 2009, see

Appendix). The scale used for close-ended questions was the seven-point Likert scale ranging

from 1¼ strongly disagree to 7¼ strongly agree. The measure of authentic leadership in this

study was derived from the Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI) of Neider and Schriesheim.4

Fourteen items were used to evaluate the authentic aspects of self-awareness (e.g., ‘‘My manager

describes accurately the way others view his=her abilities;’’ a¼ .87), relational transparency (e.g.,

‘‘My manager clearly states what he=she means;’’ a¼ .89), internalized moral perspective (e.g.,

‘‘My manager is guided in his=her actions by internal moral standards;’’ a¼ .89), and balanced

processing of the leader (e.g., ‘‘My manager objectively analyzes relevant data before making

a decision;’’ a¼ .90).5 To operationalize symmetrical communication in the corporate internal

setting, six items developed by Dozier et al. (1995) were used (e.g., ‘‘Most communication

between management and other employees in this organization can be said to be two-way com-

munication;’’ ‘‘This company encourages difference of opinions;’’ a¼ .86).6 Further, our study

adapted Rawlins’ (2008, 2009) operationalization of organization transparency and examined

the three dimensions that characterize transparent communication, namely, participation (e.g.,

‘‘The company involves people like me to help identify the information I need;’’ a¼ .92),

substantial information (e.g., ‘‘The company provides information in a timely fashion to people

like me;’’ a¼ .88), and accountability (e.g., ‘‘The company is forthcoming with information that

might be damaging to the organization;’’ a¼ .89) Finally, to assess the quality of the relationship

3Companies that participants worked for covered a variety of industries including education, retail, healthcare,

finance, information technology, food, industrial and manufacturing, transportation and logistics, and so forth.4Walumbuwa et al. (2008) first operationalized authentic leadership in the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire

(ALQ). Although research has demonstrated encouraging evidence of the reliability and validity of ALQ (Gardner

et al., 2011; Walumbuwa et al., 2008), one major concern is that the full ALQ is commercially copyrighted. Hence, this

study adopted an equivalent measure, the ALI.5The alpha values reported are Cronbach’s (1957) reliability coefficients for each construct in this study.6Although there exist a few measures of symmetrical communication (e.g., J. E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig, et al.,

2002) in the public relations literature, the study adopted Dozier et al.’s (1995) measure because it was developed

particularly to measure the symmetrical qualities of internal communication from the employee’s perspective.

310 MEN AND STACKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

between the organization and its employees, the study used a widely adapted instrument

developed by Hon and J. E. Grunig. The instrument comprises four subconstructs: employee trust

(e.g., ‘‘This company can be relied on to keep its promises;’’ a¼ .89), control mutuality (e.g.,

‘‘This company and I are attentive to what each other say;’’ a¼ .93), commitment (e.g., ‘‘I feel

that this company is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to me;’’ a¼ .91), and satisfaction

(e.g., ‘‘I enjoy dealing with this company;’’ a¼ .96) with 20 items.

Data Reduction and Data Analysis

Before conducting major data analysis, the data were proofread and checked to assess the uni-

variate normality and identify obvious univariate and multivariate outliers. The proposed model

(Figure 1) and all hypotheses were tested with structural equation modeling (SEM) AMOS 19.0

software.7 In particular, a two-step latent variable modeling approach was used. Multiple criteria

were used to evaluate the goodness of model fit, including the comparative fit index (CFI), the

root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual

(SRMR) indices, which are described as a minimal set of fit indexes that should be reported and

interpreted when reporting the results of SEM analyses (Kline, 2005).8

RESULTS

Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations, and correlations for the observed variables. A ser-

ies of t-tests, ANOVAs, and MANOVAs were conducted to examine how demographic variables

such as the respondent’s age, gender, education level, income level, industry type, company ten-

ure, and position level may influence examined variables. Results showed that male respondents

reported significantly higher values than women on the aspects of control mutuality, t(400)¼2.56, p¼ .01. Management in general reported higher values on the companies’ symmetrical

communication, t(400)¼ 3.00, p¼ .003, and transparent communication, t(400)¼ 3.75,

p< .001, and perceived better organization–employee relationships, t(400)¼ 3.69, p< .001, than

nonmanagement employees. Higher-level leaders were also found more likely to demonstrate an

authentic leadership style, F(3, 398)¼ 5.77, p¼ .001, than lower-level leaders.9

7According to Kline (2005), structural equation modeling (SEM) is a technique that can be applied to both

non-experimental and experimental data to verify a priori models comprised of latent variables or a mix of latent and

observable variables. Thus, in the present study, structural SEM was used as the primary statistical method to test the

hypothesized model.8According to Kline (2005), a single-fit index reflects only a particular aspect of model fit and a favorable value of

that index does not, by itself, indicate good fit. There is no single magic index that provides a gold standard for all

models. The chi-square is the most commonly reported measure of model-data fit. However, it is strongly dependent

on the sample size. Thus, this study used a combination of fit indexes. According Hu and Bentler (1999), a cutoff value

close to .95 for CFI (i.e., comparative fit index), TLI (i.e., Tucker-Lewis index); a cutoff value close to .08 for SRMR

(i.e., standardized root mean square residual); and a cutoff value close to .06 for RMSEA (i.e., root mean square error of

approximation) indicates good fit between the hypothesized model and the observed data. Additionally, according to Hu

and Bentler’s joint cutoff criteria, a SEM model with CFI, TLI� .95 and SRMR< .10 or RMSEA� .06 and SRMR� .10

can suggest that the fit between the data and the proposed model is reasonable.9As the demographic variables demonstrated small effects on variables in the hypothesized model, for model brevity,

they were not included in the SEM model testing.

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP, INTERNAL COMMUNICATION, AND RELATIONSHIPS 311

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Analysis of SEM

The analysis and interpretation of the proposed model was a two-stage process: (a) an assessment

of the construct validity of the measurement model using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and

(b) an assessment of the structural model. The maximum likelihood method was employed

for model estimation. The test of the measurement model indicated good fit to the data:

v2(48)¼ 196.41, p< .001, v2=df¼ 4.09, RMSEA¼ .08 (90% confidence interval: .07–.10),

SRMR¼ .03, TLI¼ .96, and CFI¼ .97. The standardized factor loadings between latent vari-

ables and their indicators ranged from .86 to .92, suggesting that the hypothesized measurement

model demonstrated good construct validity (see Table 2).

The multivariate normality assumption of SEM was evaluated in AMOS before the hypothe-

sized model was estimated. Results indicated that the sample data showed a significant positive

multivariate kurtosis. Therefore, bootstrapping10 (N¼ 2,000 samples) using maximum likelihood

method was performed to address the multivariate nonnormality of the data. The bootstrap para-

meter estimations did not deviate from those based on normal theory, indicating that the signifi-

cant results in Figure 2 remained significant in the bootstrapping process and the nonsignificant

results remained nonsignificant.

The hypothesized structural model displayed in Figure 2 demonstrates satisfactory fit to the

data: v2(48)¼ 196.41, p< .001, v2=df¼ 4.09, RMSEA¼ .08 (.07–.10), SRMR¼ .03, TLI¼ .96,

.96, and CFI¼ .97. Five structural paths demonstrated significant results at p< .001 level. Then

for parsimony, the hypothesized model was simplified by eliminating nonsignificant paths.

According to Kline (2005), models can be trimmed according to empirical considerations such

as statistical significance. The simplified model (as shown in Figure 3) was recalculated and

compared to the hypothesized model via nested model comparison. Results showed that the

TABLE 1

Correlation Matrix of Measured Variables with Descriptive Statistics

Measured variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Self-awareness 4.76 1.41 1

2. Relational transparency 5.15 1.41 .77 1

3. Internalized moral perspective 4.92 1.33 .75 .78 1

4. Balanced processing 4.73 1.39 .80 .77 .75 1

5. Symmetrical communication 5.02 1.23 .64 .65 .62 .71 1

6. Substantial information 5.08 1.25 .51 .55 .54 .56 .69 1

7. Participation 4.56 1.45 .58 .57 .56 .65 .79 .83 1

8. Accountability 4.36 1.36 .56 .57 .58 .64 .72 .79 .81 1

9. Trust 4.39 1.36 .58 .60 .60 .63 .71 .75 .75 .80 1

10. Control mutuality 4.21 1.43 .55 .57 .55 .61 .67 .72 .79 .78 .83 1

11. Commitment 4.71 1.50 .55 .54 .58 .59 .67 .69 .72 .72 .81 .82 1

12. Satisfaction 5.10 1.50 .62 .63 .64 .66 .74 .71 .73 .73 .80 .77 .87 1

Note. Correlations for all variables are significant at p< .001.

10According to Kline (2005), bootstrapping is a procedure in which one takes repeated, smaller random samples of an

existing sample to develop empirical estimates of standard errors of any parameter. Bootstrapping is a common procedure

used to address multivariate non-normality issues.

312 MEN AND STACKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

hypothesized model did not have significantly better fit than the simplified model: Dv2(1,N¼ 402)¼ .51, p¼ .48. Therefore, the more parsimonious model was retained as the final model

to interpret path coefficients. The model fit indices of the CFA model, as well as the hypothesized

structural and simplified final structural models, are presented in Table 3.

FIGURE 2 Results of the hypothesized model. Coefficients are standardized regression weights. For the sake of brevity,

only the path model is demonstrated. The CFA model pattern coefficients, error terms of indicators, and disturbances of

endogenous variables were omitted from the figure. ���p< .001.

TABLE 2

Standardized Coefficient of Measurement Indicators in the Final Confirmatory Factor

Analysis (CFA) Model (n¼402)

Latent variable Indicator variable Std. loading a

Authentic leadership Self-awareness .88 .96

Relational transparency .88

Internalized moral perspective .86

Balanced processing .89

Transparent communication Substantial information .88 .97

Participation .92

Accountability .89

Relationship Trust .92 .97

Control mutuality .91

Commitment .88

Satisfaction .87

Note. N¼ 402, CFA model fit indices: v2(48)¼ 196.41, p< .001, v2=df¼ 4.09, root mean

square error of approximation¼ .08 (90% confidence interval: .07–.10), standardized root mean

square residual¼ .03, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)¼ .96, and comparative fit index¼ .97. All

standardized factor loadings are significant at p< .001.

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP, INTERNAL COMMUNICATION, AND RELATIONSHIPS 313

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Test of Hypotheses

The study proposed six hypotheses, wherein five were fully supported by the data and one was

rejected. Results of each hypothesis testing are presented as follows.

Direct effects. Hypothesis 1 predicted a positive relationship between symmetrical and

transparent communication. As depicted in Figure 3, this result was supported; symmetrical

communication demonstrated a large positive effect on transparent communication (b¼ .58,

p< .001). Symmetrical communication as a communication worldview can breed transparent

communication practice.

Hypothesis 2 and 3 proposed that authentic leadership as an organizational contextual factor

positively affects the organization’s symmetrical and transparent communication. Results pro-

vided support to both hypotheses. As expected, authentic leadership demonstrated large positive

effects on symmetrical communication (b¼ .75, p< .001) and transparent communication

(b¼ .30, p< .001), implying that strategic organizational leadership plays a significant role in

shaping organizations communication system and drives the success of internal communication.

FIGURE 3 Results of the retained (simplified) model with the deleted nonsignificant paths. Coefficients are standardized

regression weights. ���p< .001.

TABLE 3

Data-Model Fits for Two-Step Structural Equation Modeling (n¼ 402)

Model v2 df p v2=df CFI TLI SRMR RMSEAa Dv2

CFA model 196.41 48 .001 4.09 .97 .96 .03 .08 (.07, .10)

Hypothesized structural model 196.41 48 .001 4.09 .97 .96 .03 .08 (.07, .10)

Final structural model 196.92 49 .001 4.02 .97 .96 .03 .08 (.07, .10) .51

Note. a90% confidence interval (low, high). CFA¼ confirmatory factor analysis. CFI¼ comparative fit index.

SRMR¼ standardized root mean square residual. RMSEA¼ root mean square error of approximation. TLI¼Tucker-

Lewis index.

314 MEN AND STACKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Hypothesis 4 and 5 predicted the positive direct effects of symmetrical communication and

transparent communication on employee–organization relationships. Results provided support

for hypothesis 5 but failed to support hypothesis 4. In particular, transparent communication

demonstrated a large positive effect on the quality of organization employee relationships

(b¼ .80, p< .001). However, due to the strong mediation effect of transparent communication,

the direct effect of symmetrical communication on employee–organization relationships became

nonsignificant.

Indirect (mediation) effects. A formal test of indirect effects using a bootstrap procedure

(N¼ 2,000 samples) was conducted to test hypothesis 6. Results showed that the indirect effect

from symmetrical communication to employee–organization relationships through transparent

communication was significant, b¼ .48, p¼ .001 (95% CI: .38–.59). Transparent communication

practice mediated the effect of symmetrical communication worldview on the quality of

employee-organization relationships, supporting hypothesis 6. When an organization’s communi-

cation is two-way, symmetrical, reciprocal, and employee-centered, it is most likely characterized

by transparent, substantial, accountable information dissemination, and participatory communi-

cation. Additionally, significant indirect effects were found in paths from authentic leadership

to transparent communication through symmetrical communication, b¼ .43, p¼ .001 (95%CI: .34–.52). Thus, symmetrical communication mediates the effect of organizational authentic

leadership on transparent communication.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of authentic leadership on the organiza-

tion’s development of the internal communication system and employee relational outcomes.

Results provided important implications for public relations scholars and professionals.

Strategic Internal Communication

Research to date has identified two general internal communication strategies that lead to positive

outcomes–symmetrical and transparent communication. Symmetrical communication, as both a

communication worldview and strategy, has been consistently found to predict positive employee

outcomes such as job satisfaction, identification, loyalty, relationship, and supportive word-of-

mouth (Jo & Shim, 2005; Kim & Rhee, 2011; Smidts et al., 2001). Transparent communication,

which has recently gained the attention of public relations scholars and professionals, has also

been suggested to build employee trust, organizational credibility (Rawlins, 2008, 2009), and

employee engagement (Linhart, 2011). Several scholars have argued that the concepts of sym-

metrical and transparent communication are closely related to each other (e.g., Christensen &

Langer, 2009; Jahansoozi, 2006). However, empirical evidence showing this relation has been

minimal.

In addition to examining the effects of symmetrical and transparent communication on

employee–organization relationships, this study proposed a causal relationship between

symmetrical communication and transparent communication. Results supported the predication

that when organizations advocate a symmetrical communication system where employee voices

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP, INTERNAL COMMUNICATION, AND RELATIONSHIPS 315

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

are heard, interests are addressed (rather than manipulated and controlled), different opinions are

encouraged, and a balance of power is emphasized, communication in the organization is most

likely to be transparent. In other words, symmetrical communication oriented at nurturing mutual

understanding, collaboration, and reciprocity encourages transparent communication practice. As

a result, organizations provide substantial, complete, timely, accurate, balanced, and unequivocal

information needed by employees, which again leads to favorable employee attitudes toward the

organization.

Effects of Strategic Internal Communication on Employee–OrganizationRelationships

Unlike the rich empirical evidence showing the effectiveness of symmetrical communication,

minimal empirical studies exist in public relations that examine how transparent communication

affects public relations outcomes. It has been theoretically argued that transparent communi-

cation contributes to quality relationships and stakeholder engagement (Jahansoozi, 2006;

Linhart, 2011; Rawnlins, 2009). Rawlins (2008) first revealed the strong positive effect of

organizational transparency on employee trust. Results of our study indicated that transparent

communication plays a critical role in building a quality relationship with employees. In parti-

cular, organizations that share substantial information with employees, encourage employee

participation, convey balanced information that hold them accountable, and open to employee

scrutiny are more likely to gain employee trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality.

This finding was expected because truly open and transparent communication encourages

employees to voice out their opinions. The organization’s confidence, trust, and care about

employees give employees a sense of ownership toward the organization. Thus, a good relation-

ship can be developed over time.

Divergent from previous studies that show the direct effects of symmetrical communication on

positive attitudinal or behavioral outcomes, this study revealed the significant indirect effects of

symmetrical communication on organization–employee relationship via transparent communi-

cation. Specifically, when an organization advocates a two-way, employee-centered symmetrical

communication worldview, its communication practice is most likely to be transparent. Such a

strategic internal communication system, with a symmetrical worldview guiding substantial,

participatory, and accountable communication practice, finally contributes to positive employee

relationships. Thus, the findings of this study provided new explanations for how symmetrical

communication works and why it is effective, which have not been fully examined empirically

in previous works.

Effects of Leadership on Strategic Internal Communication

One of the major intentions of this study was to examine the impact of organizational leadership

on internal communication. Although it has not been extensively examined empirically, organiza-

tional leadership has been argued to influence internal communication in various ways. First, lead-

ership communication with followers represents a major component of internal communication in

an organization, in addition to the organization’s mass media communication and social networks

among employees (Berger, 2008). Second, leadership at all organizational levels is exerted

316 MEN AND STACKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

through communication (Holladay & Coombs, 1993). Such prevalent influence of leadership

communication gradually cultivates the organizational climate and culture, which are closely asso-

ciated with the internal communication system (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002). Third, leadership influ-

ences internal public relations through communication leadership. Public relations effectiveness in

a management function has everything to do with the effectiveness of public relations leadership.

Although public relations leadership has recently aroused an increasing amount of scholarly and

professional attention (e.g., Aldoory & Toth, 2004; Arthur W. Page Society, 2007, 2012; Jin,

2010; Shin et al., 2011;Werder & Holtzhausen, 2009), there is a void in research on how organiza-

tional leadership, as a contextual factor, influences internal communication practice and outcomes.

Results of the study filled the research void by showing that authentic leadership demon-

strates large positive effects on organizational symmetrical and transparent communication.

When employees are supervised by authentic leaders, they are more likely to perceive the orga-

nization’s communication as symmetrical and transparent. Initially developed as a value-based

leadership with the goal of fostering an ethical climate and a positive environment, authentic

leadership was born with an ethical foundation. Authentic leaders internalize moral values such

as integrity, fairness, kindness, accountability, and altruism (Yukl, 2006), which guide their daily

leadership behaviors and communication practice. Such ethical core values provide a common

ground for authentic leadership and symmetrical communication because symmetrical communi-

cation has also been argued as a form of ethical communication with public interests taken into

account (J. E. Grunig, 2006; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002). The positive effect of authentic leader-

ship on symmetrical communication can also be explained by the fact that authentic leaders

openly share information with employees and express their true selves without hiding or disguis-

ing. Such relational transparency can promote a fair and open environment where employees can

freely express themselves and contribute their opinions and ideas to management. Moreover,

authentic leaders are fair and balanced in information processing and decision-making. Such

balance concurs with the notion of balance of interests and power in symmetrical communi-

cation. Finally, as noted by Illies et al. (2005) and Walumbwa et al. (2010), authentic leadership

has a judicious relational orientation. Again, this is consistent with symmetrical communication,

where the goal is to establish long-term, mutually beneficial relationships.

Therefore, by exerting influence on every aspect of the organization, authentic leadership, as

an organizational contextual factor, not only provide a hospitable environment where excellent

public relations is nurtured, but also directly contribute to the development of the organization’s

symmetrical communication system. Such two-way, employee-centered symmetrical communi-

cation encourages the organization’s transparent communication practice. Evidently, strategic

leadership should be included in the list of excellent internal public relations characteristics

in addition to an organic organizational structure and a participative organizational culture,

as suggested by the Excellence team (J. E. Grunig, 1992; L. A. Grunig et al., 2002).

Effects of Authentic Leadership on Employee–Organization Relationship

Authentic leadership has been demonstrated to contribute to employee identification with the

leaders, trust, organizational commitment, employee work engagement, employee work happi-

ness, organization citizenship behavior, and employee job performance (Jensen & Luthans,

2006; Walumbwa et al., 2008; Walumbwa et al., 2010; Wong & Cummings, 2009).

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP, INTERNAL COMMUNICATION, AND RELATIONSHIPS 317

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

From an internal public relations perspective, this study showed that authentic leadership

affects organization–employee relationship, both directly and indirectly, by influencing the orga-

nization’s symmetrical and transparent communication. Employees tend to perceive a better

relationship with the organization when they perceive their managers as authentic, ethical,

balanced, fair, transparent, and consistent in what they say and do. This finding could be attri-

buted to the consistency (between values and deeds) and relational transparency demonstrated

by authentic leaders, which have everything to do with employee trust and commitment (Berger,

2008). Moreover, it can be explained by the fact that authentic leadership has an enduring

relationship orientation. Therefore, given the natural link between organizational management

and the organization (Men, 2011a), trust with leaders or a good leader–follower relationship

can contribute to a good organization–employee relationship.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The findings of this study provide important implications for public relations scholars and profes-

sionals. Theoretically, first, the study demonstrated the impact of authentic leadership on the

development of a strategic communications system characterized by symmetrical and transparent

communication, as well as quality employee–organization relationships. Results indicated that

organizational leadership, as a process of influence nested in the organization, plays a critical role

in nurturing the success of organizations’ internal communication. As such, the value-based,

authentic leadership, which emphasizes integrity, fairness, accountability, transparency, and con-

sistency, should be considered as a new characteristic for excellent internal public relations prac-

tice. Second, the study provided empirical evidence for the discriminant validity of symmetrical

communication and transparent communication. Symmetry is an organization’s communication

worldview that values employee feedback and participation, and truly concerns employees’ needs

and interests. Guided by a symmetry worldview, day-to-day communication practice in an organi-

zation is most likely to be transparent, which in turn, cultivates employee trust, satisfaction, com-

mitment, and feeling of empowerment. In conclusion, findings of the study add to the growing

body of knowledge on internal communication, organizational transparency, as well as strategic

leadership and public relations effectiveness.

Pragmatically, first, by focusing on the communication with internal publics, the findings of

the study provide implications for internal public relations professionals on how to nurture best

practices, breed internal excellence, and cultivate positive employee-organization relationships.

In particular, this study suggests that a two-way, employee-centered and responsive symmetrical

communication system should be developed to guide daily communication practice and to

achieve employee communication effectiveness. In terms of information dissemination, an

organization should listen to the concerns of their employees and invite their participation in

determining the information they want or need to know. Beyond that, the organization should

provide complete, detailed, substantial, fair, and accurate information in a timely manner. More

important, the organization should be consistent in its values, words, and actions, and be

accountable for what it says and does. Such radical transparency can cultivate a quality

organization–employee relationship, which potentially leads to a favorable internal reputation,

employee engagement as well as other supportive behaviors (Men, 2011b).

Second, by demonstrating the significant positive influence of organizational strategic leader-

ship style on internal communication practice and outcomes, this study suggests that public

318 MEN AND STACKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

relations can be affected by management effectiveness and leadership behavior. For best practices

of public relations, an inherently cross-enterprise communication system should be developed

encompassing all leaders, managers, and employees. The organization should provide the right

information aligned with organizational values and goals to managers at all levels, provide neces-

sary training sessions to equip them with effective authentic leadership that will facilitate strategic

internal communication, and develop their leadership communication competence and skills.

Expanding the line of communication to leaders at all levels and to every employee in the organi-

zation could maximize the impact of the organization’s communication efforts (Turner, 2011).

Last, for public relations managers and chief communication officers, organizational C-Suite,

and other leaders, the study indicates that effective leadership behaviors not only affect

employee motivation, productivity, and performance (Berger, 2008), but also cultivate quality

employee–organization relationships by influencing the organization’s communication system.

To foster positive employee attitudes, leaders should advocate ethical, accountable, balanced,

and relational-transparent authentic leadership style (cf., Bowen, 2010). More important,

managers need to be consistent in their values and deeds and be fair and balanced in their

communication with employees.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Several limitations were encountered in this study and should be addressed in future research.

First, the study only surveyed employees who work for medium and large corporations in the

United States. Organizations outside the scope of this study or those in other cultural settings

should be careful when making references from the findings. Second, the data of the study were

collected only from employees’ perspective. To provide a more comprehensive understanding of

how authentic leadership influences internal public relations practice and relational outcomes,

insights from public relations professionals and organizational leaders should be incorporated.

Third, although this study contributes to a general understanding of the relationship between

leadership, internal communication, and employee outcomes, incorporating multiple methods

such as documentary analysis, in-depth interview, focus group, or participant observation would

have provided more in-depth explanations about how the model actually works.

In future research, replication procedures can be conducted to cross-validate the results

obtained from this study using different samples from a variety of organizational or cultural set-

tings. Qualitative research methods should be applied to generate more detailed, descriptive,

in-depth, and contextual understanding of the proposed model. An open-ended qualitative

approach is also helpful in identifying new potential mediators or moderators for the effects

revealed in this study. In addition, incorporating public relations managers’ perspectives in exam-

ining the relationships between strategic leadership and internal public relations may provide a

more complete picture.

REFERENCES

Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. (2004). Leadership and gender in public relations: Perceived effectiveness of transformational

and transactional leadership styles. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16, 157–183.Allen, D. S. (2008). The trouble with transparency: The challenges of doing journalism ethics in a surveillance society.

Journalism Studies, 9, 323–340.

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP, INTERNAL COMMUNICATION, AND RELATIONSHIPS 319

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Arthur W. Page Society. (2007). The authentic enterprise. Retrieved from http://www.awpagesociety.com/insights/

authentic-enterprise-report/

Arthur W. Page Society. (2012). Building belief: A new model for activating corporate character and authentic

advocacy. Retrieved from http://www.awpagesociety.com/insights/building-belief/#sthash.Y80O6iQq.dpuf

Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of

leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338.

Balkin, J. M. (1999). How mass media stimulate political transparency. Cultural Values, 3, 393–413.

Berger, B. (2008). Employee=organizational communications. Institute for Public Relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute

for Public Relations. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/employee-organizational-communications/

Berggren, E., & Bernshteyn, R. (2007). Organizational transparency drives company performance. Journal of

Management Development, 26, 411–417.

Bowen, S. A. (2010). The nature of good in public relations: What should be its normative ethic? In R. L. Heath (Ed.),

Handbook of public relations (pp. 569–583). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brunig, S. D., Castle, J. D., & Schrepfer, E. (2003). Building relationships between organizations and publics:

Examining the linkage between organization-public relationships, evaluations of satisfaction, and behavioral intent.

Communication Studies, 55, 435–446.Cameron, G. T., & McCollum, T. (1993). Competing corporate cultures: A multi-method, cultural analysis of the role of

internal communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5, 217–250.

Christensen, L. T., & Langer, R. (2009). Public relations and the strategic use of transparency. Consistency, hypocrisy,

and corporate change. In R. Heath, E. Toth, & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public

relations II (pp. 127–153). New York, NY: Routledge.

Cooper, C. D., Scandura, T. A., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2005). Looking forward but learning from our past:

Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and authentic leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 16,475–493.

Cronbach, L. J. (1957). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica, 16, 15–41.

Dowling, G. R. (2004). Journalists’ evaluation of corporate reputations. Corporate Reputation Review, 7, 196–205.

Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations andcommunication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Drew, C. (2004). Transparency of environment decision making: A case of soil cleanup inside the Hanford 100 area.

Journal of Risk Research, 7, 33–71.Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2005). Can you see the real me?

A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 434–372.

Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature

and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly. doi:10.10.16=j.leaqua.2011.09.007.Gray, J., & Laidlaw, H. (2004). Improving the measurement of communication satisfaction. Management

Communication Quarterly, 17, 425–448.

Grunig, J. E. (1984). Original research. Public Relations Research Education, 1, 1–29.

Grunig, J. E. (1992). Symmetrical systems of internal communication. In J. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relationsand communication management (pp. 531–576). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E. (2006). Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a strategic management function.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 18, 151–176.

Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2011). Characteristics of excellent communications. In T. Gillis (Ed.), The IABChandbook of organizational communication (2nd ed., pp. 3–14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study

of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Haywood, R. (2005). Corporate reputation, the brand and the bottom line: Powerful proven communication strategies

for maximizing value. London, England: Kogan Page Limited.

Heise, J. A. (1985). Toward closing the confidence gap: An alternative approach to communication between

public and government. Public Affairs Quarterly, 9, 196–217.Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1993). Communication visions: An exploration of the role of delivery in the creation

of leader charisma. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 405–427.

Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute

for Public Relations, Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation.

320 MEN AND STACKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria

versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6–55.

Hung, C. J. F. (2006). Toward the theory of relationship management in public relations: How to cultivate quality

relationship? In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management

(pp. 443–476). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding

leader–follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 373–394.

Jahansoozi, J. (2006). Organization–stakeholder relationships: Exploring trust and transparency. Journal of ManagementDevelopment, 25, 942–955.

Jensen, S. M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Entrepreneurs as authentic leaders: Impact on employees’ attitudes. Leadership

and Organization Development Journal, 27, 646–666.

Jin, Y. (2010). Emotional leadership as a key dimension of public relations leadership: National survey of public relations

leaders. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22, 159–181.

Jo, S., & Shim, S. (2005). Paradigm shift of employee communication: The effect of management communication on

trusting relationships. Public Relations Review, 31, 277–280.

Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public elations. Public Relations Review, 28, 21–37.Kim, J., & Rhee, Y. (2011). Strategic thinking about employee communication behavior (ECB) in public relations:

Testing the models of megaphoning and scouting effects in Korea. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23,

243–268.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

Larkin, T. J., & Larkin, S. (1994). Communicating change: Winning employee support for new business goals.

New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). Introduction: Background and current trends in the study of relationship

management. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational

approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. xi–xvii). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Linhart, S. (2011, July 18). Job one: Keeping employees happy and engaged. PRWeek. Retrieved from http://www.

prweekus.com/job-one-keeping-employees-happy-and-engaged/article/207660/

Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive development approach. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton,

& R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 241–261). San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Madlock, P. E. (2008). The link between leadership style, communication competence, and employee satisfaction.

Journal of Business Communication, 45, 61–78.

May, D. R., Chan, A., Hodges, T., & Avolio, B. (2003). Developing the moral component of authentic leadership.

Organizational Dynamics, 32, 247–260.Men, L. R. (2011a). CEO credibility, organizational reputation, and employee engagement. Public Relations Review,

38, 171–173.

Men, L. R. (2011b). Exploring the impact of employee empowerment on organization-employee relationship.

Public Relations Review, 37, 435–437.Men, L. R., & Hung, C. J. F. (2012). Exploring the roles of organization-public relationships in strategic management:

Towards an integrated model. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6(2), 151–173.

Men, L. R., & Stacks, D. W. (2013). Measuring the impact of leadership style and employee empowerment on perceived

organizational reputation. Journal of Communication Management, 19, 171–192.Meng, J., Berger, B. K., Gower, K. K., & Heyman, W. C. (2012). A test of excellent leadership in public relations: Key

qualities, valuable sources, and distinctive leadership perceptions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24, 18–36.

Murphy, P. (1991). The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to symmetric and asymmetric public relations. In

L. Grunig & J. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual, Vol. 3 (pp. 115–131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Neider, L. L., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2011). The Authentic Leadership Inventory (ALI): Development and empirical tests.

Leadership Quarterly. doi:10.1016=j.leaqua.2011.09.008Ni, L., & Wang, Q. (2011). Anxiety and uncertainty management in an intercultural setting: The impact on organization-

public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23, 269–301.

Rawlins, B. (2008). Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency and employee trust. Public

Relations Journal, 2, 1–21.

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP, INTERNAL COMMUNICATION, AND RELATIONSHIPS 321

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

Rawlins, B. (2009). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational

transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21, 71–99.

Rhee, Y. (2004). The employee–public–organization chain in relationship management: A case study of a government

organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

Seltzer, T., & Zhang, W. (2011). Toward a model of political organization-public relationships: Antecedent and cultivation

strategy influence on citizens’ relationships with political parties. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23, 24–45.

Shin, J., Heath, R. L., & Lee, J. (2011). A contingency explanation of public relations practitioner leadership styles:

Situation and culture. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23, 167–190.Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2001). The impact of employee communication and perceived external

prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 1051–1062.

Stacks, D. W. (2010). Primer of public relations research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guildford.

Stacks, D. W. (2011). You are what you brand: Managing your image and reputation. In J. S. Wrench (Ed.) Workplacecommunication for the 21st century: Tools and strategies that impact the bottom line (pp. 178–191). New York,

NY: Praeger.

Stacks, D. W., Dodd, M. D., & Men, L. R. (2013). Corporate reputation measurement and evaluation. In C. Carroll (Ed.),

Handbook of communication and corporate reputation (pp. 561–573). London, England: Blackwell.

Turner, P. (2011, August 31). The inside story is of utmost importance. PRWeek, retrieved from http://www.prweekus.

com/the-inside-story-is-of-utmost-importance/article/210875/

van Riel, C. B. M., & Fombrun, C. J. (2007). Essentials of corporate communication. London, England: Routledge.Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008, February). Authentic

leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34, 89–126.

Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A. (2011). Authentically leading groups: The mediating role of

collective psychological capital and trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 4–24.Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J., & Avolio, B. J. (2010). Psychological processes linking

authentic leadership to follower behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 901–914.

Wehmeier, S., & Raaz, O. (2010, May). Transparency matters: The concept of organizational transparency in the

academic discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association,

Singapore.

Werder, K. P., & Holtzhausen, D. (2009). An analysis of the influence of public relations department leadership style

on public relations strategy use and effectiveness. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21, 404–427.Whitworth, B. (2011). Internal communication. In T. Gillis (Ed.), The IABC handbook of organizational communication

(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. G. (2009). The influence of authentic leadership behaviors on trust and work outcomes of

health care staff. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3, 6–23.Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

APPENDIX: MEASURES OF KEY CONSTRUCTS

Authentic Leadership

1. My manager describes accurately the way others view his=her abilities. (Self-awareness)2. My manager shows that he=she understands his=her strengths and weaknesses.

(Self-awareness)

3. My manager is clearly aware of the impact he=she has on others. (Self-awareness)

4. My manager clearly states what he=she means. (Relational transparency)

5. My manager openly shares information with others. (Relational transparency)

6. My manager expresses his=her ideas and thoughts clearly to others. (Relational

transparency)

7. My manager shows consistency between his=her beliefs and actions. (Internalized moral

perspective)

322 MEN AND STACKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

8. My manager uses his=her core beliefs to make decisions. (Internalized moral perspective)

9. My manager resists pressures on him=her to do things contrary to his=her beliefs.

(Internalized moral perspective)

10. My manager is guided in his=her actions by internal moral standards. (Internalized moral

perspective)

11. My manager asks for ideas that challenge his=her core beliefs. (Balanced processing)

12. My manager carefully listens to alternative perspectives before reaching a conclusion.

(Balanced processing)

13. My manager objectively analyzes relevant data before making a decision. (Balanced

processing)

14. My manager encourages others to voice opposing points of view. (Balanced processing)

Symmetrical Communication

1. I am comfortable talking to my manager about my performance.

2. Most communication between management and other employees in this organization can be

said to be two-way communication.

3. This company encourages difference of opinions.

4. The purpose of communication in this organization is to help management be responsive to

problems of other employees.

5. I am usually informed about major changes in policy that affect my job before they take

place.

6. I am comfortable talking to my manager when things are going wrong.

Transparent Communication

1. The company asks for feedback from people like me about the quality of its information.

(Participative)

2. The company involves people like me to help identify the information I need.

(Participative)

3. The company provides detailed information to people like me. (Participative)

4. The company makes it easy to find the information people like me need. (Participative)

5. The company asks the opinions of people like me before making decisions. (Participative)

6. The company takes the time with people like me to understand who we are and what we

need. (Participative)

7. The company provides information in a timely fashion to people like me. (Substantial)

8. The company provides information that is relevant to people like me. (Substantial)

9. The company provides information that can be compared to previous performance.

(Substantial)

10. The company provides information that is complete. (Substantial)

11. The company provides information that is easy for people like me to understand.

(Substantial)

12. The company provides accurate information to people like me. (Substantial)

13. The company provides information that is reliable. (Substantial)

14. The company presents more than one side of controversial issues. (Accountable)

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP, INTERNAL COMMUNICATION, AND RELATIONSHIPS 323

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014

15. The company is forthcoming with information that might be damaging to the organization.

(Accountable)

16. The company is open to criticism by people like me. (Accountable)

17. The company freely admits when it has made mistakes. (Accountable)

18. The company provides information that can be compared to industry standards.

(Accountable)

Employee-Organization Relationship

1. Whenever this company makes an important decision, I know it will be concerned about

me. (Trust)

2. This company can be relied on to keep its promises. (Trust)

3. I believe that this company takes my opinions into account when making decisions. (Trust)

4. I feel very confident about this company’s skills. (Trust)

5. This company does not have the ability to accomplish what it says it will do (R). (Trust)

6. This company and I are attentive to what each other say. (Control mutuality)

7. This company believes my opinions are legitimate. (Control mutuality)

8. In dealing with me, this company has a tendency to throw its weight around (R). (Control

mutuality)

9. This company really listens to what I have to say. (Control mutuality)

10. The management of this company gives me enough say in the decision-making process.

(Control mutuality)

11. I feel that this company is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to me. (Commitment)

12. I can see that this company wants to maintain a relationship with me. (Commitment)

13. There is no long-lasting bond between this company and me (R). (Commitment)

14. Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship with this company more.

(Commitment)

15. I would rather work together with this company than not. (Commitment)

16. I am happy with this company. (Satisfaction)

17. Both the organization and I benefit from the relationship. (Satisfaction)

18. I am not happy in my interactions with this company (R). (Satisfaction)

19. Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship this company has established with

me. (Satisfaction)

20. I enjoy dealing with this company. (Satisfaction)

324 MEN AND STACKS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewca

stle

(A

ustr

alia

)] a

t 19:

22 2

5 Se

ptem

ber

2014