VALUING INTERNAL COMMUNICATION; MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE PERSPECTIVES 1 Valuing internal communication; management and employee perspectives Kevin Ruck and Dr. Mary Welch, University of Central Lancashire, UK Author note Kevin Ruck, Lancashire Business School, University of Central Lancashire; Dr. Mary Welch, Lancashire Business School, University of Central Lancashire. Correspondence about this article should be addressed to Kevin Ruck, The PR Academy, Maidstone Studios, Vinters Park, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 5NZ. Email: [email protected]
40
Embed
Valuing Internal Communication; Management and Employee Perspectives
In a review of 12 leading recent academic and consultancy studies it was found that there is no consistent approach to measuring internal communication. Underlying internal communication theory is not always applied and emerging theory is missing from many approaches to measurement. The emphasis is on process not content, reflecting a managerial not an employee perspective. There is a reliance on a quantitative research methodology and outdated survey instruments. A new conceptual model is explored as a framework for a new approach to measurement that reflects the linkages between internal communication and employee engagement. This is supplemented by consideration of how the use of internal social media impacts internal communication theory and measurement.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
VALUING INTERNAL COMMUNICATION; MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE
PERSPECTIVES 1
Valuing internal communication; management and employee perspectives
Kevin Ruck and Dr. Mary Welch, University of Central Lancashire, UK
Author note
Kevin Ruck, Lancashire Business School, University of Central Lancashire;
Dr. Mary Welch, Lancashire Business School, University of Central Lancashire.
Correspondence about this article should be addressed to Kevin Ruck, The PR
Academy, Maidstone Studios, Vinters Park, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 5NZ.
and sincere, but communication should be delivered in a responsible format
VALUING INTERNAL COMMUNICATION; MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE
PERSPECTIVES 16
given its content (Marques), main shortfalls are: self development opportunities;
major management decisions; development and changes in policing; things that
go wrong in the organisation (Quinn and Hargie).
Channels, new and social
media
Lean media; 3.43 out of 5, rich media; 3.76 (out of 5, Quinn and Hargie), email
83%, intranet 75%, social media 12% (IABC), email/online news 68.8%, online
video most popular social media tool (Melcrum), general increase in use of
electronic channels, though less than 50% using social media tools
(TowersWatson).
Linking assessment to theory
Hargie and Tourish (2009, pp. 235-6) highlight recurring themes in the communication literature as:
The need for adequate information flow concerning key change issues
The central importance of supervisory communication as a preferred communication source
The importance of inter-departmental communication in promoting enhanced innovation
The role of participation as a means of enhancing corporate cohesion
The notion of communication as a foundation of teamwork and positive employee attitudes, and thus
an agency for enhancing performance
The need to maintain face-to-face communication as a primary method of information transmission
The benefits obtained from conceptualising dissent as a source of useful feedback, rather than simply
as resistance to overcome.
They conclude (2009, p. 236) that there is a “…disabling gap between theory and practice”. This is reinforced
by the results in the analysis in table 2. Change issues are not specified in any of the assessments reviewed, the
overwhelming use of e-mail and newsletters dominates information transmission and the omission of facets
linked to participation and useful feedback is very apparent. However, the themes themselves may not
necessarily form a complete validated underlying theory of internal communication. For example, they do not
fully incorporate research findings that link internal communication to employee engagement (Truss et al.2006).
So, there are gaps at both the theoretical and practice levels. If an audit or assessment is conducted to obtain an
accurate, objective, picture of the state of internal communication, then it is clearly important to understand
what an ideal state is. Downs and Adrian argue (2004, p. 245) that communication theories are still incomplete,
VALUING INTERNAL COMMUNICATION; MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE
PERSPECTIVES 17
and as there are many of them, “theory needs to be used judiciously”. Furthermore, Downs and Adrian suggest
that:
The state of our art is such that no umbrella theory of communication exists. Therefore, each problem
in the organisation may require auditors to use different kinds of theories, always watching for their
contradictions and inconsistencies.
If auditors need to call upon a range of theory, then emerging public relations theories such as critical theory, the
excellence theory of public relations and rhetorical theory (Toth, 2009) could be incorporated much more into
internal communication theory. As yet, these approaches are under-explored and could be a rich vein of
research. Many of these theories point to a new direction in assessment based more on bridging than buffering,
where bridging is about relationships with stakeholders, rather than a set of messaging activities designed to
buffer the organisation from them (Grunig, 2009, p. 9). As the assessments reviewed in table 2 indicate, the
focus remains on the circulation of information; type of information, timing, and load, flow; downward, upward
and horizontal and use of channels. These are all indicative of a focus on buffering.
An updated conceptual model for internal communication
This paper has explored approaches to assessing internal communication and the associated links to internal
communication theory. As theory is incomplete, it is not possible to establish a definitive conceptual model of
internal communication that can be used to guide assessment. However, it is possible to outline a new
conceptual model of internal communication (figure 2) that takes more account of the individual and the social
communication needs of employees, the cognitive and social psychological aspects of communication and
identification, bridging and buffering, and the drivers for employee engagement that are missing or marginalised
in many of the assessment instruments.
VALUING INTERNAL COMMUNICATION; MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE
PERSPECTIVES 18
Figure 2. Conceptual model of employee questions to be addressed through line manager and corporate internal
communication
This conceptual model aims to incorporate a balance between line manager and internal corporate
communication. It incorporates the importance of employee voice, based on being well informed together with
questions of organisational support and identification. It is grounded in the argument that employee engagement
is the outcome of strategic internal communication practice. The model shows linkages between key dimensions
where these are likely to be strongest although research is required to test connection strengths. It is
conceptually possible that some aspects, such as role, are more like hygiene factors and others, such as
identification are more powerful drivers of engagement. However, this hypothesis needs to be tested as a
potential weighting has not been explored to date. Furthermore, this conceptual model is a higher level model
only that requires a more detailed and layered approach to new assessment instruments. This extends to
assessing the use of the right medium for the message and incorporation of the full range of employee
communication needs as identified in some the research highlighted in this paper. In the next section social
media and internal communication is briefly reviewed, as this will have a profound impact on theory and the
development of new approaches to assessment.
VALUING INTERNAL COMMUNICATION; MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE
PERSPECTIVES 19
Medium theory and internal social media
Information richness and new media ages
Much of the research and assessment of internal communication includes the use and preferences of channels.
According to Daft and Lengel (1986 p. 560) this is linked to the concept of information richness and in order of
decreasing richness, media classifications are (1) face-to-face, (2) telephone, (3) personal documents such as
letters or memos, (4) impersonal written documents, and (5) numeric documents. Rich media are personal and
involve face-to-face contact between managers, while media of lower richness are impersonal and rely on rules,
forms, procedures, or data bases. Downs and Adrian (2004, p. 57) argue that communicators need to match
communication that is high in ambiguity with rich media and communication that is low in ambiguity with lean
media. As highlighted earlier, this basic principle in terms of matching content to media is not often assessed. It
is worth noting that, according to some theorists, the channel itself conveys its own message. Medium theory,
developed first by Marshall McLuhan and then extended by Donald Ellis (Littlejohn & Foss, 2008, p. 290), is
based on the idea that the media, irrelevant of the content, impacts individuals and society. As media change, for
example from print to television and more recently to internet, this affects the way people think and relate to
each other. Littlejohn and Foss (2008, p. 292) conceptualise a first, broadcast, media age as a social interaction
approach, based on transmission of information and the second media age as a social integration approach
which is more interactive and personalized. This analysis can be likened to Grunig’s (2009) differentiation
between buffering and bridging. In the second age there is less emphasis on the media and information per se
and more on the way that it creates communities. However, Poster (1995 p. 22) argues that the first age may not
have been an age at all, “Until now the broadcast model has not been a first age but has been naturalized as the
only possible way of having media – few producers, many consumers”. Relating this to internal communication
today, it could be argued that its first real age has yet to arrive, with practice focused as it is on a model of
transmission of messages from senior management (the few) using email and newsletters (broadcast channels)
to employees (the many).
A new age of social integration in internal communication
The dawning of a new age of social integration in internal communication raises significant questions about
theory and assessment. According to Poster (1995, p. 28) it amounts to “users having decentralized, distributed,
VALUING INTERNAL COMMUNICATION; MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE
PERSPECTIVES 20
direct control over when, what, why, and with whom they exchange information”. This leads to critical thinking,
activism, democracy, and quality. Poster’s approach is related to external communication. Could it equally
apply to the world of internal communication where there is usually more control over channels? If so,
assessment approaches need to add these dimensions as they are missing from most current instruments.
Bennett et al., (2010) claim that social networking sites provide opportunities for both formal and informal
interaction and collaboration with fellow employees and clients/customers which aids knowledge transfer and
communication. This, in turn, leads to a shift in culture from “information gathering” to “information
participation”. Lange et al., (2008 pp.4-5) argue that the benefits of social networking can be classified into
three broad categories: (1) Community. Interaciont with people who share your interests and passions; (2)
Collaboration. Connection to people, expertise and resources in search of solutions that cannot be created with
any one of those ingredients alone; (3) Contribution. Capabilities to make it easier for customers or citizens to
contribute their ideas, expertise, concerns and preferences. Fraser and Dutta (2010) highlight examples of
corporations which have started to adopt social networking sites as a business tool such as General Motors
which uses an internal blog and FastLane, which uses a corporate “focus group” that attracts around 5,000 daily
visits.
Assessing internal social media
The approach to assessment of internal social media has to date focused on basic techniques, using website data
and analysis or intranet traffic figures. A recent Melcrum survey (2010) involving more than 2,600 internal
communication professionals found that internal communication teams enjoy sticking to the basics with 61.6 per
cent suggesting they measure the success of social media initiatives by using website data and analysis or
intranet traffic figures. The survey also reinforced assessment from other research regarding the use of
newsletters and emails; 68.8 per cent of leaders were found to be using online newsletters and companywide
emails to get messages out to their staff. The use of social media technologies becomes increasingly important
as organisations offer different working styles, such as teleworking, hot-desking, and virtual offices.
Interestingly, despite concerns that virtual working provides a challenge for internal communicators, research
conducted by Akkirman and Harris (2005) found no evidence to support the idea that a virtual workplace would
have a categorically negative impact on organizational communication. In fact, they found the opposite, virtual
office workers experienced higher levels of communication satisfaction than office workers on all measured
VALUING INTERNAL COMMUNICATION; MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE
PERSPECTIVES 21
factors. Currently, internal communication theory and assessment has not caught up with the impact of social
networks and media within organizations. This is an example of what Poster (1995, p. 74) refers to as
contingency in communication theory, “Communication theory begins with a recognition of necessary self-
reflexivity, of the dependence of knowledge on its context”. He goes on to argue that “The first principle of
communication theory in the age of electronic technology, then, is that there is no first principle, only a
recognition of an outside of theory, an other to theory, a world that motivates theory”. Poster warns against the
temptation, at an epistemological level, to try to secure a firm knowledge of communication theory. This is a
steer towards research and assessment of internal communication that is more grounded in a relativist or
interpretivist worldview, based on understanding more than explaining or seeking to find absolute principles.
Conclusion
An analysis of the studies reviewed in this paper suggests that levels of satisfaction with internal communication
are around the 50 to mid 60 percentage range. Understanding of organizational strategy is around 60 per cent.
Both these findings represent significant room for improvement and are seriously undermined by a lack of
senior manager clarity, commitment to values and integrity in upholding values. Indications are that satisfaction
with opportunities for employee voice can also be improved. Taken together this data suggests that there is a
great opportunity to improve internal communication in key areas that lead to higher levels of employee
engagement. The data also indicates that internal communication is often dominated by a journalistic “tell”
approach, or buffering, that does not necessarily meet the communication needs of employees. However, it is
not just the results themselves that are the focus of this paper. It is clear that, in a changing communication
environment, traditional approaches to assessment are themselves becoming outdated. They emphasise volume
and channels rather than content and dialogue. They also marginalize the importance of organisational
identification and are too reliant on a positivist research philosophy and questionnaires. Additionally,
assessment of internal communication should be revised to take more account of the impact of social media,
within a wider context of medium theory.
A new conceptual model of employee communication is posited as a high level framework for revised
approaches to internal communication assessment. It includes a stronger balance between communication
related to an individual’s role and wider internal corporate communication. It incorporates the importance of
employee voice, based on being well informed together with questions of organisational support and
VALUING INTERNAL COMMUNICATION; MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE
PERSPECTIVES 22
identification. At a more detailed level of assessment the framework should be supported with instruments that
include a far greater emphasis on content that meets employee needs as this has now been ignored for far too
long now.
References
Akkirman, A., & Harris, D. (2005). Organizational communication satisfaction in the virtual workplace. Journal of Management Development, 24(5), 397-409.
Al-Ghamdi, S., Roy, M., & Ahmed, Z. (2007). How employees learn about corporate strategy: An empirical analysis of a Saudi manufacturing company. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 14(4), 273-285.
Bennett, J., Owers, M., Pitt, M., & Tucker, M. (2010). Workplace impact of social networking. Property Management, 28(3), 138-148.
Byrne, Z., & LeMay, E. (2006). Different media for organizational communication: Perceptions of quality and satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(2), 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(2), 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(4), 242-249.
CIPD. (2009). Employee attitudes and the recession. London: CIPD.Clampitt, P., & Downs, C. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship between
communication and productivity: A field study. Journal of Business Communication, 30(1), 5.
Clampitt, P. G. (2009). The questionnaire approach. In O. Hargie & D. Tourish (Eds.), Auditing Organizational Communication. London: Routledge.
Clampitt, P. G., & Downs, C. (2004). Downs-Hazen Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire. In C. Downs & A. Adrian (Eds.), Assessing Organizational Communication. London: The Guilford Press.
D'Aprix, R. (2006). Throwing rocks at the corporate rhinocerous, the challenges of employee engagement. In T. L. E. Gillis (Ed.), The IABC Handbook of Organizational Communication. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Science, 554-571.
Daymon, C. (1993). On considering the meaning of managed communication: Or why employees resist ‘excellent’communication. Journal of Communication Management, 4(3), 240-252.
Downs, C., & Hazen, M. (1977). A factor analytic study of communication satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 14(3), 63.
Fraser, M., & Dutta, S. (2010). Throwing sheep in the boardroom: how online social networking will transform your life, work and world: Wiley.
Goldhaber, G., Porter, D., Yates, M., & Lesniak, R. (1978). Organizational communication: 1978. Human Communication Research, 5(1), 76-96.
VALUING INTERNAL COMMUNICATION; MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE
PERSPECTIVES 23
Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation. PRism, 62(2).
Hargie, O., & Tourish, D. (2009). Charting communication performance in a healthcare organization. In O. Hargie & D. Tourish (Eds.), Auditing Organizational Communication. London: Routledge.
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(3), 333-344.
IABC. (2010). IABC Research Foundation and Buck Consultants Employee Engagement Survey, June 2010 Survey Results.
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.
Lange, A., Mitchell, S., Stewart-Weekes, M., & Vila, J. (2008). The Connected Republic and the Power of Social Networks: Cisco Internet Business Solutions Group (IBSG).
Lee, R. (2009). Social capital and business and management: Setting a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(3), 247-273.
Leiter, M. P., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Work engagement: Introduction. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work Engagement, A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research. Hove and New York: Psychology Press.
Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2008). Theories of Human Communication (Ninth ed.). Belmont: Thomson Higher Education.
Malmelin, N. (2007). Communication capital: Modelling corporate communications as an organizational asset. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(3), 298-310.
Marques, J. (2010). Enhancing the quality of organizational communication: A presentation of reflection-based criteria. Journal of Communication Management, 14(1), 47-58.
Melcrum. (2010). Melcrum Social Media Survey 2010 London.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.Pincus, J. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance. Human
Communication Research, 12(3), 395-419.Poster, M. (1995). The Second Media Age: Polity Press Cambridge, UK.Quinn, D., & Hargie, O. (2004). Internal communication audits: a case study. Corporate
communications: An International Journal, 9(2), 146-158.Ritter, M. (2003). The use of balanced scorecards in the strategic management of corporate
communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 8(1), 44-59.Robertson, E. (2005). Placing leaders at the heart of organizational communication. Strategic
Communication Management, 9(5), 34.Sluss, D., Klimchak, M., & Holmes, J. (2008). Perceived organizational support as a mediator
between relational exchange and organizational identification. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 457-464.
VALUING INTERNAL COMMUNICATION; MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE
PERSPECTIVES 24
Toth, E. L. (2009). The Case for Pluralistic Studies of Public Relations. In R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations II. New York: Routledge.
Tourish, D., & Hargie, O. (2009). Communication and organizational success In O. Hargie & D. Tourish (Eds.), Auditing Organisational Success. London: Routledge.
TowersWatson. (2010). Capitalizing on Effective Communication, . 2009/2010 Communication ROI Study Report.
Truss, C., Soane, E., Edwards, C., Wisdom, K., Croll, A., & Burnett, J. (2006). Working Life: Employee Attitudes and Engagement 2006 (No. 9781843981794 (pbk.)
1843981793 (pbk.) : No price). London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.Uusi-Rauva, C., & Nurkka, J. (2010). Effective internal environment-related communication:
An employee perspective. Corporate communications: An International Journal, 15(3), 299-314.
Welch, M., & Jackson, P. R. (2007). Rethinking internal communication: a stakeholder approach. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(2), 177-198.
White, C., Vanc, A., & Stafford, G. (2010). Internal Communication, Information Satisfaction, and Sense of Community: The Effect of Personal Influence. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(1), 65-84.
Wieseke, J., Ahearne, M., Lam, S., & Dick, R. (2009). The role of leaders in internal marketing. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 123-145.