Sie sind auf Seite 1von 32

Internal communication and

organisational employee
engagement: an integrated
approach

Kevin Ruck
Lancashire Business School,
University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
kevin.ruck@pracademy.co.uk

1 Copyright Kevin Ruck


Introduction
Communication inside organisations is recognised as a critical factor in organisational
performance. Salem (2008) outlines seven communication reasons why organisations fail to
change that include insufficient communication, distrust, poor interpersonal communication
skills, and conflict avoidance. Daly, Teague and Kitchen (2003, p. 153) claim that “research
indicates that up to 70 per cent of change programmes fail and poor internal communication
is seen as the principal reason for such failure”. However, despite the importance of internal
communication, it is said to be an under-researched field. Academics such as Grunig (1992,
p. 557) and Argenti (1996, cited in Welch and Jackson, 2007) point to the lack of theoretical
understanding and research on internal communication. Similarly, Smidts et al (2001, cited
in Welch and Jackson, 2007) highlight that internal communication is a rather “neglected”
discipline. Waymer and Ni (2009, p. 11) state that “Employee relations is an important area
of public relations. Yet it often goes understudied and undervalued because public relations
does not have primary responsibility for internal communication”. At the same time,
employee engagement is also recognised as a critical factor in organisational performance.
MacLeod and Clarke, (2009, p. 34) claim that employee engagement generates better
financial performance in the private sector and better outcomes in the public sector.
According to Gallup (2006), in addition to profitability, other benefits of employee
engagement include higher customer advocacy and higher productivity. The gap between
potential and actual benefit is however, significant. A study for CIPD (Truss et al, 2006, p. xi)
found that only 35 per cent of UK employees were actively engaged with their work.

This paper examines internal communication from two different traditions of theory; human
communication theory and public relations theory. It then examines employee engagement
from psychological (work) theory and practitioner based research. Distinctions are drawn
between consultancy and practitioner research (which has tended to dominate the fields) and
academic research. It argues that internal communication is the golden thread that holds the
potential for significant increases in levels of employee engagement. The key to unlocking
this potential is to take a stakeholder approach to internal communication, one that embraces
a concept of informed employee voice. This emphasises a focus on employees and their
communication needs rather than a top-down management perspective that typifies much
practice. Finally, it synthesises theory into a new integrated approach to internal
communication and employee engagement that has practical implications for measurement
and management.

2 Copyright Kevin Ruck


Broad theories of internal communication
Before looking specifically at internal communication theory, it is informative to explore it first
from a broad perspective. In doing so, it is acknowledged that “Scholars have made many
attempts to define communication, but establishing a single definition has proved impossible
and may not be very fruitful” (Littlejohn and Foss, 2008, p. 3). This paper adopts Littlejohn
and Foss’ (2008, pp. 24-25) requirements of theory that incorporate four aspects;
philosophical assumptions, concepts, explanations and principles. Subsequent internal
communication and employee engagement theories are reviewed with these aspects in mind
with an emphasis on the fourth aspect, principles (a principle “is a guideline that enables you
to interpret an event, make judgments about what is happening, and then decide how to act
in the situation”, (Littlejohn and Foss, 2008, p. 19)). As Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Jackson
(2008, pp. 5-8) observe, management research is distinctive from other social scientific
research and “there is often an expectation that research will lead directly to action”.

In a seminal text on communication, Littlejohn and Foss (2008) outline seven traditions of
human communication; semiotic, phenomenological, cybernetic, sociopsychological,
sociocultural, critical and rhetorical. This is not a complete list and is based on Craig’s (1999)
metamodel of communication theory. Each tradition has relevance for internal
communication. Littlejohn and Foss (2008, p. 55) highlight the sociopsychological,
cybernetic, sociocultural and critical as being the contributory traditions for organisations.
These four traditions are similar to Bryant and Heath’s (2000, pp. 305-8) identification of four
paradigms; (a) structural functionalism, (b) psychological, (c) interpretivism, and (d) systems
interaction which are reviewed briefly below.

Structural functionalism prioritises information flow and the accuracy and clarity of messages
– themes that are highlighted again later on in this paper. It also raises issues of
communication underload and overload that impact commitment (Heath and Bryant, 2000, p.
312). However, the approach is focused on identifiable flows, when a lot of information flows
across organisations in informal ways. It is based on rationality when people are often
irrational and ambiguity in communication is to be expected. Furthermore, it does not
address issues of tacit knowledge or silo team management that often mitigate against
information flow. Structural functionalism can be linked to systems interaction which is based
on the theory of organisations as systems and sub-systems that are hierarchically arranged.
In essence, this is an input-output paradigm that informs stakeholder theory which is also
reviewed in more detail later. One drawback of systems thinking is that it overemphasises
formal processes within organisations, when, as Wheatley (2006, p. 144) suggests that, “Life
uses networks; we still rely on boxes. But even as we draw our boxes, people are ignoring

3 Copyright Kevin Ruck


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

The psychological paradigm prioritises the individual in the organisation in terms of role and
performance. The organisation itself has a personality that is a reflection of what employees
think about themselves within the organisation. In this approach the organisation is a
communicative system based around norms and values. It is similar to interpretivism which
stresses the importance of social reality and shared meaning created through stories and
rituals and symbolism that enable people to coordinate work. This is what Boje (2008, pp.
100-103) refers to as strategy narrative. However, as Boje (2008, p. 102) observes, “Many
stakeholders are not included in the strategy of writing of the examples reviewed of Nike,
McDonald’s and IBM”. The psychological and interpretivist paradigms are largely silent on
the question of power in the way that the organisation’s personality is developed and the
associated moulding of employees to required norms and values. All four paradigms are
based on academic, rather than practitioner based research. Though strong on
conceptualisations of internal communication, they are light on a discussion of the practical
implications.

Dainton and Zelley (2005) also explore more general aspects of communication theory that
apply to organisations, such as intrapersonal communication, interpersonal communication,
group communication, culture, persuasion, leadership, organizational communication and
mediated communication. According to Dainton and Zelley (2005, pp. 174-5) organizational
communication has three functions: relationship (socialisation), organizing (guidance and
control), and change. Four theories are selected at the organizational level of analysis:
organizational identification and control, Schein’s organizational culture model, structuration
theory, and Weick’s organizing theory. These are all useful approaches to understanding
internal communication, yet again they fall short of meeting Littlejohn and Foss’s (2008, p.
25) final “principles” criteria for theory in that guidelines for action are not provided.

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


management. Heath and Bryant (2000, pp. 302-8) outline the focus on social scientific
approaches to management in the 20th century that are linked to the sociopsychological
tradition and a classical management philosophy. This emphasises the individual from
behavioural, cognitive and biological dimensions and is associated with a “scientific” bent
that includes concepts of persuasion and understanding and the processing of information. It
reflects a “command and control” approach to management and is translated into a top down
only approach to communication, which, if left to dominate an organisation leads to
disengagement. A cybernetic tradition extends this thinking by introducing a social

4 Copyright Kevin Ruck


dimension to the formation of structures and networks, with an emphasis on how
communication creates organisational structure. It is centred in Weick’s (1995) theory of
sense-making, Taylor’s (2004) discourse as action, and systems theory (described above
systems interaction by Heath and Bryant (2000, p. 308)).

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


organizational control theory, and organisational culture theory. These all point to the
importance of the character of the organisation at a more macro level rather than individual
or group/network, consisting of the shared values and practices (explicit and implicit) that
affect what employees do. The critical tradition also takes a sociocultural view, however, it is
focused more sharply on the power relations and ideologies that communication is used to
serve the interests of managers over other employees. Critical thinking adds an important
consideration to internal communication and is an aspect that is often ignored. A stakeholder
approach, as suggested by Welch and Jackson (2007), with a focus on employee needs,
begins to address communication power imbalances within organisations. Although Heath
and Bryant (2000, pp. 304-5) highlight the way that productivity improves when employees
are “involved socioemotionally in their jobs”, this is the nearest that the discussion of broad
theories of internal communication gets to a link with employee engagement, perhaps
because employee engagement is primarily seen as work related, not communication
related. This is an omission that recurs in some other areas of both academic and
practitioner based research.

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


organisational communication work that examines the way that communication constitutes
organisation (Putnam, Nicotera and McPhee, 2009, pp. 1-9); “Communication and
organisation are not equivalent concepts per se, but they are mutually constitutive”. The
theory that communication is constitutive of organising (CCO) is founded on four core
processes that are called “flows”, described by McPhee and Zaug (2009, p. 33) as “a kind of
interactive communication episode, usually amounting to a multi-way conversation or text
passage...” (see table 1).

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

5 Copyright Kevin Ruck


negotiation identification, self- a process of ongoing reputation and
positioning. courtship, power-claiming and
spokesmanship.
Organizational What rules do we operate Official documents, decision making and
self structuring by here? Managerial planning forums, announcements,
activities. organisation charts, manuals, employee
surveys and feedback.
Activity co- What work are we doing This flow recognises that organizational
ordination together? Interactions that self structuring directives can never be
serve to align or adjust local completely understood. It emphasises
work activities. the way that people co-ordinate to solve
problems.
Institutional What external forces This flow is set at a more macro level,
positioning provide legitimacy and where communicators are “boundary
what kinds of spanners” building an image of the
communication are organisation as a viable relational
necessary to please partner.
them? External
communication.

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

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


typologies of internal communication. It is based not on forms, structures, networks, norms,
values or power, but on the conversations that lie behind them. As the approach brings
together aspects from all four of Bryant and Heath’s paradigms reviewed above, it is open to
philosophical challenge based on the extent that the different philosophies underpinning the
paradigms can be combined. However, the strength of the theory is that it reinforces
Cherry’s (1978, p. 23) observation that internal communication may not follow formal
structures and the organisation as a “social organism” may determine alternative
mechanisms and groupings, what Cherry calls “the true communication network.” As Tourish
and Hargie (2009, pp. 5-6) point out, the “linguistic turn” is now focusing attention on the
importance of language in a move away from communication theory that has been focused
on simply “making and sending messages”.

Public relations theory and internal communication

Excellence theory

6 Copyright Kevin Ruck


In 1984, Grunig and Hunt argued that a new era of internal communication had emerged,
described as “open” reflecting their two-way symmetric model, developed as part of an
“Excellence Theory” of public relations. This is an extension of Cherry’s (1978, p. 17)
definition of “true communication” that is “concerted, co-operative and directed toward some
goal.” According to Botan and Hazleton (2006, p. 4), public relations is “best understood as
an applied social science” and “Most scholars would agree that Symmetrical/Excellence
Theory is, at least, potentially a paradigmatic theory”. Not all scholars agree and excellence
theory is a contested approach with the most controversial element being two-way
symmetric communication based on mutual dialogue as a model of excellence. The locus of
academic debate has tended to be external communication, rather than internal, though
more than 26 years ago, Grunig and Hunt (1984, pp. 244-5) highlighted a “preoccupation
with technique” that leads to a conclusion that “A great deal of money is spent on achieving
a degree of journalistic slick which does little in communicating to employees but does much
to satisfy the egos of communications technicians”. In contrast, a two-way approach entails
making publications “more employee-centred than management centred” although this in
itself is not dialogical, so Grunig and Hunt (1984, p. 246) go further and argue that
“symmetrical programs also use many non-traditional, nonprint media and techniques” that
“emphasise interpersonal communication and dialogue with management.” More recently,
Kim (2007, p. 169) suggests that symmetrical communication “takes place through dialogue,
negotiation, listening, and conflict management…” Little, if any, follow-up academic research
has been conducted that explores the extent that internal communication is practised as
one-way or two-way communication, however, it can be hypothesised that a one-way
approach dominates practice. The concept of informed employee voice, examined later,
explores the way that both one-way and two-way internal corporate communication work in
tandem for effective employee engagement.

Grunig and Hunt’s models of communication are linked to situational theory (1984, pp. 143-
154) with the concept of “publics” introduced to identify groups of people who “face a similar
problem recognize that the problem exists and organize to do something about it”. For
example, in research conducted at three organisations in US Grunig (1975) identifies three
different employee publics; a management public, an older-employee public, and younger

7 Copyright Kevin Ruck


employees (dissatisfied in one organisation and more-educated in another organisation).
These categorisations are not overtly problem based and are more a demographic
segmentation. This begs the question as to whether employees form into groups around
issues in the same way as external groups. Grunig and Hunt (1984, p. 255) acknowledge
potential differences in claiming that unlike external publics an organisation has the “power
to create different kinds of employee publics”. This is because management has the ability to
change tasks, constraints and involvement. The practical implication of this are left under-
explored as the ensuing development of the excellence model is drawn primarily into the
external communication arena.

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


described as “predominantly a theory based on the approach of interpretive social science,
although it shares common elements with rhetorical and critical theories”. In a similar vein as
CCO theory, this merging of theories is open to challenge as to how far they are, in fact,
mutually exclusive or not. In calling for a pluralistic approach to studies of public relations,
Toth (2009, p. 49) summarises developments in excellence theory that started out as four
historical models (press agentry, public information, two-way asymmetric and two-way
symmetric) to a combination of symmetrical and asymmetrical and then a new set of
dimensions: one-way vs. two-way; asymmetrical vs. symmetrical; mediated vs. personal;
and ethical vs. unethical. Although Excellence Theory has dominated public relations studies
for the past two decades, three further theories have emerged in their own right: rhetorical,
critical, and relationship management.

Rhetorical and critical theory

Waymer and Ni (2009, p. 220) explore a rhetorical and critical approach within a public
relations framework and argue that “……employee relations is an important area of public
relations but it has been limited to top down communication from management to
employees. As a result, employees may find themselves battling against the dominant
discourse of the organisation”. This emphasis on the dominance of one-way downward
communication from the top echoes Grunig and Hunt’s earlier (1984) critique of practice.
In the public relations literature, critical theory is focused on persuasion, propaganda and
imbalanced power and control of media (L’Etang, 2006). As Heath, Toth and Waymer point
out (2009, p. 15), “Critical scholars attempt to unveil the hidden powers that alienate and
marginalise portions of society”. Waymer and Ni (2009, p. 219) argue that “Employees at the
overseas subsidiaries of multinational companies are an important group of such
“disempowered” publics”. Indeed, it may not only be employees in this particular setting who

8 Copyright Kevin Ruck


are disempowered if the predominance of communication in the organisation is one-way
from the top down. As Toth (2009, p. 50) explains, “The study of rhetoric concerns itself
principally with how individuals, groups, and organisations make meaning through argument
and counter-argument, to create issues, resolve uncertainty, compete to achieve a
preferable position, or to build coalitions – to solve problems”. Current attention is moving
towards how publics are more active in the construction of the meaning of their relationship
with the organisation. Again, the focus is primarily on external communication in the public
sphere, although Waymer and Ni (2009, p. 223) do highlight the “rhetorical wrangle in the
workplace” and the “problematic of voice”.

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


corporations in China, Waymer and Ni (2009, pp. 229) conclude that “the more the
organisation needs the employees, the more power these employees have”. This is, though,
acknowledged as a limited “contractual” perspective and whatever the reason for power
imbalances internal communication can be the bridge “to facilitate the development of
mutually beneficial employee-organization relationships”. The application of rhetorical theory
to internal communication has received little attention in the literature to date. In evaluating
critical and rhetorical theory, Toth (2009, p. 49) prefers a different criteria for than that set
out by Littlejohn and Foss, where primacy is given to Shoemaker’s (1997) emphasis on
simplicity of the theory, falsifiability, internal consistency and heuristic provocativeness.
Principles are omitted from this account and critical theory is noticeably weak in providing
guidance on how to act on the situation. Though rhetorical and critical theories are credible,
alternative, perspectives (albeit that they are underexplored for internal communication),
Botan and Hazleton (2006, p. 9) dismiss them as not providing “what the field needed in
order to adopt their approach as a viable alternative…” In the next section, relationship
management is reviewed as a different perspective on public relations theory.

Relationship management theory

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


according to Ledingham (2006, p. 466), been applied to a range of public relations functions,
including issues management, crisis management, community relations, media relations,
and public affairs. Relationship management stresses relationships over communication,

9 Copyright Kevin Ruck


and outcomes based on strategic planning. This represents a paradigm shift for public
relations theory as it should be based not on research relating to communication but on
relationship theory. Ledingham argues (2006, pp. 476-479) that relationship management
theory meets a number of criteria for theory and it specifically incorporates symmetrical
relationships and specifies measurable outcomes. Evaluated against Littlejohn and Foss’s
(2008) criteria for theory it includes all four aspects; philosophical assumptions, concepts,
explanations and principles. Ledingham (2006, p. 478) also suggests that relationship theory
is a general theory; it is overarching and “provides both scholars and practitioners with a
framework that is easily understood and that responds to the functional imperatives of
organisations, publics and the greater society”. Despite Herington, Scott and Johnson’s
(2005, p. 257) assertion that “it is this firm-employee relationship that practicing managers
also refer to as being critical to success”, the application of relationship management theory
to internal communication is missing from Ledingham’s list. Relationship management has
tended to infer that “publics” are external. For example, in Ledingham’s (2006, p. 470-1)
identification of dimensions of the quality of relationship management (trust, openness,
involvement, investment and commitment) the examples given are all external.

Welch (2006) highlights the importance of trust and distrust in relationship management and
calls for greater understanding of distrust as an indicator of relationships. Distrust emerges
as an important factor (Welch, 2006, p. 149-151), however, the question remains as to
whether or not the nature of an internal relationship is different to typical external
relationships that may be more transactional and less collaborative. In their exploration of
firm-employee relationships Herington, Scott and Johnson (2005, p. 269) found that
employees gave considerable attention to communication, attachment, and empowerment
as key elements of internal relationships. Kim’s (2007) study of the antecedents of
employee-organization relationships indicates that asymmetrical internal communication is
associated with less commitment, trust and satisfaction and symmetrical internal
communication is associated with communal relationships. This supports Grunig and Hunt’s
(1984) application of symmetrical communication to internal communication. However,
symmetric communication on its own is not enough for good employee relationship
outcomes, as Kim argues (2007, p. 196) “It must be combined with fair behaviour by
management and fair organizational policies and systems…” otherwise it is just “pseudo
symmetrical” communication.

Social capital

10 Copyright Kevin Ruck


Though not a public relations theory per se, the theory of social capital is becoming an
increasingly popular topic (Lee, 2009) and it has linkages to relationship management and
internal communication, “Social capital is generally defined as network engagement, norms
and trustworthiness, leading to economic and/or political benefit”. Nahapiet and Ghoshal
(cited in Lee, 2009, p. 253) outline three dimensions of social capital (see table 2). Social
capital is a relatively young concept and it has been defined in various ways. Kennan and
Hazleton (2006, p. 322) define it as, “the ability organisations have of creating, maintaining,
and using relationships to achieve desirable organisational goals”.

Dimension Definition Key concepts


Structural The system of network Access –ability to connect
connections Timing – ability to communicate quickly
Referrals – openness of network
Relational Trust and Trust – this is fragile or resilient
trustworthiness Identification – the extent that people feel
that they are connected to others
Communication The symbolic Achievement of relational goals (and thus
mechanism through instrumental goals)
which social capital is Taxonomy of strategies: facilitative,
acquired informative, persuasive, promise and
reward, threat and punishment,
bargaining, and co-operative problem
solving

Table 2 Social capital Hazelton and Kennan (2000, cited in Kennan and Hazelton, 2006, pp
324-8)

Structural and communication dimensions of social capital are extensions of Bryant and
Heath’s (2000, pp. 305-8) identification of four paradigms and the addition of a relational
component incorporates Ledingham’s theory. Together, it is argued that a capital value can
be placed on the benefits of the sociality of an organisation and it is this that distinguishes
social capital theory form other theories. Communication is a fundamental component of the
theory of social capital. However, as Kennan and Hazelton (2006, p. 320) observe, in the
management dialogue about the nature of the relationship between managers and
employees, there is a “tendency to see internal public relations as one concern among a

11 Copyright Kevin Ruck


constellation of concerns that may be connected to outcomes” This is to under-appreciate
the role of effective internal communication in all organisations. Building on this theme,
Malmelin (2007, p. 298) presents a new concept of “Communication Capital” where the
emphasis on the value of communication is stressed, “it is important that communication is
viewed more broadly and seen as a function that cuts through and involves the whole
organisation, as comprising both internal and communications within the organisation and
communications with stakeholders and other groups outside the organisation”. In the
development of the understanding of the value of intangible organisational assets, the value
of communication is now a strongly emerging factor.

Internal communication theory

In an application of excellence theory within public relations, Welch and Jackson (2007)
outline a new stakeholder approach to internal communication. This builds on Freeman’s
(1984, 1999) emphasis on the identification of internal stakeholders and suggests that team
peer, project peer and line manager relationships are standard stakeholder categories (see
table 3). This is a useful development for internal communication as it departs from Grunig
and Hunt’s (1984) situational theory that argues that publics (i.e. active stakeholder groups)
form around specific issues. The dimensions suggest a more static stakeholder group
membership defined by role and work rather than by issue or interest. This highlights the
importance of thinking about internal communication from the receiver’s point of view. Welch
and Jackson (2007, p. 186) also add a further concept, that of internal corporate
communication, as a dimension worthy of further development. It is defined as:

Communication between an organisation’s strategic managers and its internal


stakeholders, designed to promote commitment to the organisation, a sense of
belonging to it, awareness of its changing environment and understanding of its
evolving aims.

12 Copyright Kevin Ruck


Internal communication matrix
Dimension Level Direction Participants Content

1. Internal line Line Predominantly Line Employees' roles


management managers / two-way managers- Personal impact e.g.
communication Supervisors employees appraisal discussions,
team briefings
2. Internal team Team Two-way Employee- Team information e.g.
peer colleagues employee team task discussions
communication
3. Internal Project group Two-way Employee- Project information
project peer colleagues employee e.g. project issues
communication
4. Internal Strategic Predominantly Strategic Organisational /
corporate managers / top one-way managers-all corporate issues e.g.
communication management employees goals, objectives, new
developments,
activities and
achievements
Table 3 Welch and Jackson (2007), Internal Communication Matrix, Rethinking Internal
Communication, Corporate Communications: An International Journal Vol. 12 No. 2, 2007
pp. 177-198

As Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 185) observe, team peer, project peer and line manager
communication have been extensively researched. However there may be further, more
informal, categorisations of employee stakeholder groups. Iverson and McPhee (2008, p.
176) suggest that “Communities of practice (CoPs) offer a productive solution for improving
knowledge and knowledge management, but the communicative processes that enact CoPs
have not been explored, leaving CoPs as an organizational black box”. Whitworth (2006, p.
205) also highlights the importance of less obvious stakeholder groups and argues that the
nonformal network is often dismissed. He describes an example as “the group of smokers
from several departments who gather round the communal outdoor ashtray and compare
notes about the latest executive promotion”.

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


communication and team/peer/project team communication and employee engagement
remain under-explored. It is the three-way association between team/project/peer internal
communication, internal corporate communication and employee engagement that offers the
potential of greater levels of employee engagement in all organisations. Though Welch and
Jackson (2007, p. 188) state that internal corporate communication, among other goals, can
promote a sense of belonging and contribute to organisational commitment, there is also a

13 Copyright Kevin Ruck


concern, as Welch and Jackson acknowledge, that a predominantly one-way approach to
internal corporate communication leads to information overload and thus disengagement.
Indeed, it could be argued that internal corporate communication can be one-way and two-
way; more symmetrical, as Grunig and Hunt (1984) suggest and more relational as
Ledingham (2006) suggests. The logistics of senior managers discussing strategy with all
employees, especially in large organisations are considerable, though not insurmountable.
The danger is that if upward feedback from line managers is left to middle mangers to pass
on to senior managers it may get diluted in the process.

Building on the emphasis of looking at internal communication from the perspective of the
receiver, Marques (2010, p. 49) points to concerns raised by Chen et al (2006) that
research has tended to ignore member satisfaction with organizational communication
practices and seeks to address this through the identification of criteria for successful
communication. Zaremba (2006, p. 114) suggests that “foundational” criteria are; timely,
clear, accurate, pertinent and credible. In academic research, Marques (2010, p. 52) found
that responsibility (content and context), conciseness, professionalism (business-like) and
sincerity (genuineness) are also important and these dimensions are either supplementary
or at the same time result from Zaremba’s criteria. These findings are based on a qualitative,
phenomenological research design with 20 participants and therefore, as a small study,
caution should be given to wider applicability.

In further academic research, Kalla (2005, p. 302) highlights the lack of application of theory
to practice highlighted earlier in this paper, “…a paradox exists because, although increasing
awareness concerning the importance of communication to organisations exists, that
knowledge appears to have rarely translated to practice”. In terms of managing internal
communication, Kalla (2005) argues that an integrated approach is important. Four domains
are suggested: 1) Business (the practicalities), 2) Management (knowledge sharing), 3)
Corporate (that done by professional internal communication teams) and, 4) Organisational
(with a focus on meaning). This contrasts with Welch and Jackson’s (2007) stakeholder
matrix of internal communication. Kalla is using a communication typology with a focus on
content. However, Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 183) argue that, “If internal communication
is the strategic management of interactions and relationships between stakeholders at all
levels within organisations, these stakeholders need to be identified”. In comparing Kalla and
Welch and Jackson, Kalla’s corporate and organisational domains appear to be conflated
into Welch and Jackson’s internal corporate communication. Business (the practicalities)
would be part of team peer and project peer stakeholder groups, and management
(knowledge sharing) would be included in all four dimensions. To summarise, although

14 Copyright Kevin Ruck


Cheney (2007, p. 80) suggests that “Organization (or management) communication is by
now a well-established sub-discipline within the larger field of communication studies…” the
establishment of internal corporate communication is not yet a fully established theory. It is
approached form a variety of perspectives, though these rarely include the rhetorical, critical,
and relationship management theories that are emerging in public relations theory.

Interpersonal internal communication

Welch and Jackson (2007, p185) argue that interpersonal communication has been
extensively researched, however, Bambacas and Patrickson (2008, p. 53) suggest that “It
would appear that the literature on communication has investigated general aspects of
interpersonal communication rather than communication skills” and that “Few articles have
considered specific interpersonal communication variables”. It is therefore appropriate to
briefly explore effective internal interpersonal communication before turning to employee
engagement in the next section. Larkin and Larkin (1994, p. 82) state that supervisors are
the key group of people for communicating with frontline employees, however, they argue
that, “Thinking that supervisors are the problem leads to thinking training is the answer” and
that this is flawed and “we should stop treating supervisors as communication imbeciles”.
According to Larkin and Larkin (1994, p. xi) there are three ways to communicate with
employees: 1) Communicate directly to supervisors, 2) Use face-to-face communication, and
3) Communicate relative performance of the local work area. It is clear that communicating is
what managers spend a lot of the day doing, as Tourish and Hargie (2009, p. 9) report, “…
supervisors spend between one-third and two-thirds of their time interacting with what are
still sometimes termed “subordinates”. In contrast with Larkin and Larkin, academics Tourish
and Hargie (2009, p. 15) state that agreement in the literature suggests that number one in
best communication practices by leading companies is “Communications training…
especially for senior leaders”. However, what should training be about, if it is to lead to
commitment and engagement? According to academic research conducted through in-depth
interviews with 32 senior HR managers, “the skill of maintaining clarity and consistency of
messages was rated as having the utmost importance” Bambacas and Patrickson (2008, pp.
65-6). The research also indicates that there are often “problems in trying to link
organisational expectations, the organisational vision to those of the individual…this
coincided with the two-way communication problem that was continuously voiced by
respondents”. This highlights the significant challenges in integrating internal corporate
communication with communication at the team/project peer and line manager level in a
consistent way. Failing to do this, according to Bambacas and Patrickson (2008, p. 64)
means that commitment will not be secured. Clearly, as Tourish and Hargie suggest,

15 Copyright Kevin Ruck


operational managers do require ongoing training to fine tune communication skills, such as
being able to juggle one-way and two-way communication. Internal communicators also
have to raise the bar on practice so that the context for line manager conversations is crystal
clear and upward feedback is commonplace, heard, considered, and feedback also
provided.

Employee engagement theory

What is employee engagement?


In a report on engagement that takes a clinical psychological perspective through academic
ethnographic research, Kahn (1990, p.693), defines it as, “…the harnessing of organization
members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves
physically, cognitively and emotionally during role performances”. This is a view that
emphasises the individual in a work role, focused on psychological presence (Kahn, 1992, p.
322). Though aspects of psychological presence, such as attentiveness, connection,
integration and focus outlined by Kahn (1992, pp. 324-8) provide evidence of the nature of
engagement for the employee in their work role and in interaction with others, the wider
organisational dimension is not considered in as much depth. Although norms are included
as a mechanism for engagement, with an emphasis on leaders and culture (Kahn, 1992, pp.
335-6) the role of internal communication is not considered. Communication is also omitted
from Kahn’s (1992, p. 340) recursive model of psychological presence. Building on Kahn’s
psychological perspective of engagement, Luthans and Peterson (2001, p. 379) argue that
manager self-efficacy is a significant component of engagement, “…we propose that
manager’s self-efficacy may be related to employee engagement because as the manager’s
employees become more engaged (cognitively and/or emotionally) in their work, the
manager acquires confidence and belief in her/his abilities to create and build and engaged
team or group successfully”. This emphasises the importance of creating an environment
that enables employees to become engaged. It is focused primarily at the individual or group
level and the full role of wider organisational communication is again not considered.
Saks (2006, p. 621) argues that there is only limited research on employee engagement and
therefore little has been achieved in theory development. Social exchange theory (a
communication theory) is proposed as a theoretical base (Saks, 2006, p. 622) with its
foundation in reciprocal relationships. So, for example, employees are engaged because of
the reciprocal exchanges, both at supervisor and organisational levels. Saks found (2006, p.
612) that, “…there is a meaningful distinction between job and organization engagement”
and furthermore, that “organization engagement was a much stronger predictor of all the

16 Copyright Kevin Ruck


outcomes than job engagement”. The implications for practice include the suggestion that
organisations that address employees concerns and demonstrate caring attitudes towards
employees create a culture whereby this is reciprocated through higher levels of
engagement.

Bakker and Demerouti (2008, p. 209) claim that engagement is characterised by “vigor,
dedication, and absorption” and suggest that these relate to the physical, emotional and
cognitive components (outlined by Kahn, 1990). A job demands-resources model of
engagement (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008, p. 223) emphasises work pressures and
individual job resources such as autonomy and personal traits such as optimism. Internal
communication is not considered as a contributory factor. Macey and Schneider (2008)
suggest that engagement is a set of constructs that integrates state engagement (passion,
energy, enthusiasm, and activation), behavioural engagement (adaptive behaviour) and trait
engagement (personality attributes). Their conceptualisation extends to the inclusion of
organizational conditions that serve to facilitate and encourage state and behavioural
engagement. Macey and Schenider (2008, p. 29) note that “…organizations must promote a
sense of trust that employees will benefit from the psychological and behavioural
relationships with which they enter with the organisation”. This is therefore a broader
approach than more work focused definitions, though practical guidelines that refer to the
way that organisations go about promoting a “sense of trust “ are not provided, so this
approach too falls short of meeting the principle requirement for theory.

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


MacLeod and Clarke (2009, p. 8) came across 50 definitions. They conclude (2009, p. 9)
that:
We believe it is most helpful to see employee engagement as a workplace approach
designed to ensure that employees are committed to their organisation’s goals and
values, motivated to contribute to organisational success, and are able at the same
time to enhance their own sense of well-being (italics added).

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


commitment, for example, is central to Welch and Jackson’s (2007, p. 186) definition of
internal corporate communication. Securing a commitment to organisational goals that leads
to motivation to organisational success is the overarching aim for strategic internal
communication according to leaders in the consulting world such as Quirke (2008, p. 114).
This suggests that positive attitudes towards and organisation do not come about in solitary

17 Copyright Kevin Ruck


isolation or through the business strategy or internal processes per se, they arise through
the way that people are involved in these and the communication around them.

Drivers for employee engagement


Most of the research on the drivers of employee engagement has been conducted by
consulting firms (Saks, 2006, p. 600; Attridge, 2009). For example, in a Towers Perrin Global
Workforce Study conducted in 2007-08 that involved an online poll of 90,000 employees
worldwide the top ten global drivers of employee engagement are identified (see table 4).

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


2. The opportunity an employee has to improve skills capabilities
3. The organizations reputation for social responsibility
4. The opportunity an employee has to provide input into decision making in his department
5. The organization’s ability to quickly resolve customer concerns
6. An individual employee’s own readiness to set high personal standards
7. Excellent career advancement opportunities
8. An individual employees interest in challenging work assignments
9. An individual’s relationship with her supervisor
10. The organization’s encouragement of innovative thinking

Table 4 Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study Top Ten Drivers of Employee Engagement, Gebauer
and Lowman (2008, p13)

Gebauer and Lowman (2008, p15) note that there are regional variances in these drivers,
however, senior management’s sincere interest in employee well-being was the top driver in
seven of the eighteen countries in the study. In the UK, the top ten drivers are somewhat
different (see table 5).

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


2. Improved my skills and capabilities over the last year
3. Reputation of organisation as a good employer
4. Input into decision making in my department
5. In combination with government programmes, benefit programmes generally meet my needs
6. Organisation focuses on customer satisfaction
7. My manager inspires enthusiasm for work
8. Salary criteria are fair and consistent
9. Opportunity to learn and develop new skills
10. Employees understand how to satisfy customers

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

18 Copyright Kevin Ruck


In comparing the UK with the global study, an organisation’s reputation for social
responsibility is replaced by the reputation it has as a good employer. There is more of an
emphasis on salary and benefits in the UK. There are also subtle differences in areas such
as customer service, opportunities for employees and the relationship with a
supervisor/manager. This is an alert to the possibility that there may be cultural factors for
employee engagement in different countries. However, the results of consultancy led
surveys should be treated with some caution as the output is dependent on the questions
asked.

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


traditional drivers into three separate categories: 1) Instrumental – pay and benefits, 2)
Cultural – values, ethics, reputation, community contribution, brand,
vision/purpose/mission/strategy, and leadership example from symbolic leaders and 3)
Workplace – right level of challenge, opportunities to apply creativity, bosses who engage
employee in decision making/change, bosses who are fair, bosses who inspire, bosses who
give opportunity and resources to develop capabilities, bosses who stretch, trust and make
people accountable, colleagues who an employee respects, likes and learns from. This
contrasts with academic research conducted for the CIPD by Truss et al (2006, p. 45) that
identified the three main factors that influence employee engagement as; 1) having
opportunities to feed your views upwards, 2) feeling well informed about what is happening
in the organization, and 3) thinking that your manager is committed to your organization.

Synthesising various perspectives, MacLeod and Clarke (2009) reflect that of the people
consulted for their report to the UK government, most highlighted four broad drivers/enablers
(see table 6).

1. LEADERSHIP - provides a strong strategic narrative which has widespread ownership and
commitment from managers and employees at all levels. The narrative is a clearly expressed
story about what the purpose of an organisation is, why it has the broad vision it has, and how
an individual contributes to that purpose.
2. ENGAGING MANAGERS are at the heart of this organisational culture– they facilitate and
empower rather than control or restrict their staff; they treat their staff with appreciation and
respect and show commitment to developing, increasing and rewarding the capabilities of
those they manage.
3. VOICE An effective and empowered employee voice – employees’ views are sought out; they
are listened to and see that their opinions count and make a difference. They speak out and

19 Copyright Kevin Ruck


challenge when appropriate.
4. INTEGRITY Behaviour throughout the organisation is consistent with stated values, leading to
trust and a sense of integrity.

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

These four drivers/enablers reflect a broader approach than the individual level of analysis in
the academic literature that is often more focused on work itself, personality and the
associated job and tasks (Robinson et al, 2004; Erickson, 2005). As Macey and Schenider
suggest (2008, p. 19), “There is strong evidence to indicate that the organisation itself,
especially its goals and values, can also be a source of attachment and commitment that
lead people to identify with the organization as a whole…” and the notion of “fit” of personal
values to organizational values “has not characterised the research on engagement”.

Employee engagement and performance

Bakker and Demerouti (2008, p. 216) suggest that academic studies in the Netherlands,
Spain and Greece indicate a positive link between engagement and job performance. Key
factors are; positive emotions, better health, ability to mobilise resources and transfer of
engagement to others. A broad conclusion is made by MacLeod and Clarke, (2009, p. 34)
that employee engagement generates better financial performance in the private sector and
better outcomes in the public sector. This is backed up with extensive practitioner based
data and an array of case study material. However, given the lack of consensus on what is
meant by employee engagement and the broad definitions that exist (Gebauer and Lowman,
2008, p. 2, Cook, 2008, p. 3, MacLeod and Brady, 2008, p. 11, and Axelrod, 2002) direct
correlations to performance outcomes are very difficult to ascertain. Indeed, Macey and
Schneider (2008, p. 21) assert that “Most of the engagement measures we have seen failed
to get the conceptualization correct…”. Furthermore, Gebauer and Lowman (2008, p. 9)

20 Copyright Kevin Ruck


argue that no studies answer the question about which comes first, performance or
engagement. They suggest that this is missing the point anyway and “what matters most is
that engagement and performance feed each other in a continuous virtual circle.” In
countering this point, Buckingham (cited in MacLeod and Clarke, 2009, p. 13) is adamant
that “it is engagement that leads to performance, and this is a four times stronger
relationship than performance leading to engagement”. MacLeod and Clarke (2009, p. 11)
argue strongly that “there is evidence that improving engagement correlates with improving
performance”.

Most of the research conducted on engagement and performance is carried out by large
consultancies, such as the often quoted global study carried out by Towers Perrin-ISR in
2006. It found that in companies with high levels of employee engagement, operating
income improved by 19.2 per cent over 12 months. This finding is based on data from
surveys of 664,000 employees from 50 companies, of all sizes, around the world,
representing a range of different industries. Separate research conducted by Towers Perrin
in 2004 suggests that “a 15 per cent increase in engagement correlates with a 2.2 per cent
increase in operating margin” (cited in Macleod and Brady, 2009, p. 46). According to Gallup
(2006), in addition to profitability, other benefits of employee engagement include higher
customer advocacy and higher productivity. Cook (2008, p. 21) highlights research that
suggests that “highly engaged employees are 33 per cent less likely to leave their
organization within the next year”. Another benefit of employee engagement is employee
well-being. According to Gallup (2006) eighty-six per cent of engaged employees say they
very often feel happy at work, as against 11 per cent of the disengaged. Forty-five per cent
of the engaged say they get a great deal of their life happiness from work, against eight per
cent of the disengaged. Levels of engagement are, according to Truss et al (2006, p. xi),
alarmingly low - only three in ten of UK employees were actively engaged with their work.
And, according to Towers Perrin, only 12 per cent of UK public sector staff are highly
engaged. However, much of the data should be treated with caution. As Macey and
Schneider (2008, p. 21) argue that “…any measure that asks how satisfied an employee is
with conditions at or of work or asks about the presence of particular conditions of or at work
is not a measure of any of the three facets of the engagement construct we have
elucidated”. So, despite an overwhelming array of positive indicators, as a result of the
difficulties in establishing a firm construct for employee engagement, it is not currently
possible to show direct correlations of cause and effect with performance outcomes.

Integrating internal communication and employee engagement

21 Copyright Kevin Ruck


Up to this point, communication, internal communication and employee engagement have
been treated as separate constructs. It has been argued that human communication and
internal communication theory has generally neglected potential associations with employee
engagement and employee engagement theory has not always fully considered potential
associations with communication theory. In this final section of the paper, exceptions to this
contention are examined, culminating in a proposed new integrated approach to internal
communication and employee engagement.

Internal corporate communication and employee engagement

According to Saks (2006) and Kress (2005, cited in Welch and Jackson , 2007 p. 186),
internal corporate communication reinforces the importance of “clear, consistent and
continuous communication in building employee management”. Marques (2010, p. 55),
suggests that responsibility (content and context), conciseness, professionalism (business-
like) and sincerity in internal communication results in “improved interaction, greater trust,
greater understanding, enhanced efficiency, better performance, and enhanced
gratification”. In O’Donovan’s (2009) survey of business leaders about employee benefits,
clear communication emerged as a strong differentiator in employee motivation in a
recession; 79 per cent of business leaders who answered negatively to all questions relating
to utilising employee opinion, rewarding staff for their efforts and clearly communicating with
their employees have perceived a drop in motivation. Only 12 per cent of business leaders
who feel they clearly communicate to employees perceived a drop in motivation. Attridge
(2009, p. 389) reports that research conducted by consultants Watson Wyatt (2007)
indicates that “…firms that communicated effectively with their employees were four times
more likely to also have high levels of engagement…” Mercer’s People at Work Survey
(2002) also found that “…better communication from company executives is associated with
better engagement from employees”. Tourish and Hargie, (2009, p. 10) report that in the
UK’s 100 best companies to work for (as identified by the Sunday Times), 63 per cent of
those listed had employees who are strongly engaged and “unsurprisingly, communication
emerges as a recurrent theme”. Tourish and Hargie (2009, p. 17) go on to suggest there is
also a link between internal communication (based on accurate information, trust and
interaction) and actual job satisfaction. This is a departure from an emphasis on work activity
itself (Leiter and Bakker, 2010, p. 2). Furthermore, the CIPD (2010, p. 17) also argue that
two-way dialogue is critical to employee engagement and that “…strengthening the

22 Copyright Kevin Ruck


individual links between employees and top management – in the form of the CEO or
directors – is increasingly high on the agenda in many organizations”.

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


consultancy based research that has highlighted work engagement and the psychology of
pride and immersion in the task. Despite the emerging evidence of the importance of an
organisational dimension and the associated relevance of internal communication, the
acknowledgment of organisational engagement is less prominent and communication is
rarely mentioned. To redress this, a definition of organisational employee engagement is
required, making the centrality of internal communication clearer:

Organisational employee engagement is a communicative approach whereby


employees are informed, have a voice that is heard and acknowledged, and where
managers show commitment consistent with organisational values.

This effectively differentiates organizational employee engagement from work employee


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

Interpersonal communication and employee engagement

The conduct of direct communication in team peer, project peer and line manager settings is
a key component of the overall employee engagement jigsaw and without this, effective
corporate internal communication will have far less impact. As Luthans and Peterson (2001,
p. 379) have highlighted, the level of engagement of a manager is a major factor in the
ability of her/him to engage their team or group. Bambacas and Patrickson (2008, pp. 65-6)
prioritise the ability to provide clear and consistent messages, however, Truss et al (2006, p.
42) conclude that “the ability to consult and involve are critical managerial skills that require
more development for a substantial proportion of managers…” They also report that 46 per
cent of people do not feel either interested or involved in their job (Truss et al, 2006, p. 25).
This may be because as Waymer and Ni (2009, p. 220) observe, employees can sometimes

23 Copyright Kevin Ruck


find themselves “battling against the dominant discourse of the organisation”. In the context
of change communication, Salem (2008) identifies poor interpersonal communication skills
and conflict avoidance as key obstacles. The drivers for engagement shown in tables 4 and
5 both reinforce direct communication in the opportunity an employee has to provide input
into decision making in his department and the way that a manager inspires enthusiasm for
work. In terms of the way feedback is provided to employees, Attridge (2009, p. 391)
suggests that positive feedback is critical and when supervisors focus on strengths or
positive characteristics this has a dramatic effect on feelings of engagement. As MaCleod
and Clarke suggest (2009, p. 75), engaging managers are at the heart of organisational
culture, “they facilitate and empower rather than control or restrict their staff; they treat their
staff with appreciation and respect and show commitment to developing, increasing and
rewarding the capabilities of those they manage”. This is effectively taking a relationship
management rather than a communication management approach, where trust and
trustworthiness are primary factors and is reflected in “communal relationships” that result
from symmetrical communication (Kim, 2007, p. 168).

Employee voice

Employee voice is term that overlaps with other terms such as involvement, empowerment
and democracy and is linked to participation in organizations (Budd, Gollan, and Wilkinson,
2010). Marchington and Wilkinson (2005) suggest that there are three dimensions; direct
communication, upward problem-solving and representative participation. Budd, Gollan and
Wilkinson (2009, p. 305) argue that a renaissance in interest in participation is based on
economic (generation of higher levels of performance in the post mass production era),
moral/ethic, and pragmatic grounds. Smythe (2007, p. 35) emphasises the importance of
participation and states that “there are two ways to frame employee engagement”; 1) the
alignment model – give employees the same view/data/experience as decision makers.
Much internal communication is based on this approach; explaining the strategy or decision

24 Copyright Kevin Ruck


made by a few to the many, and 2) the real engagement model – opening up decision
making to those who will add value and sustainability. This approach means that planning of
employee engagement needs to be done as an integral part of decision making rather than
as part of post-decision-making implementation.

In a recent study on voice and engagement, the CIPD (2010, p. 2) highlight the need for
employers to focus on “the quality of voice across their organisation, not just the process of
consultation”. According to CIPD (2010, p3) employee voice is used to mean “…a process of
two-way communications, the exchange of information between managers and employees,
and enabling employees to “have a say” about what goes on in their organisation”. The
CIPD report concludes (2010, p. 17) that “Direct communication between employee and line
manager, within a positive workplace culture set by top management, is generally seen as
the main engagement driver”. However, employee voice also has to be informed employee
voice, based on effective internal corporate communication. According to Truss et al (2006,
p. 17), 42 per cent of respondents stated that they were not kept very well informed and only
13 per cent of respondents stated that they always believed in the information received.

An integrated approach to internal communication and employee


engagement

Internal communication and employee engagement are multi-dimensional terms with


differing theoretical bases. Internal communication theory is informed by human
communication theory and strategic public relations theory. Employee engagement is
informed by organisational psychological theories. Central to both is commitment, motivation
and employee well-being. Various approaches to categorising internal communication have
been explored. These can be synthesised into internal corporate communication, as defined
by Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 186). However, the one-way communication categorisation
of internal corporate communication is limiting and it is extend here as comprising two
separate dimensions; relational and organisational. This recognises that internal corporate
communication can be two-way as well as one-way. Relational internal corporate

25 Copyright Kevin Ruck


communication incorporates a relationship management approach grounded in symmetrical
communication. It includes an emphasis on employee voice and the ability to have your say
and opportunities to feed views upwards. This also needs to be supported with fairness in
operational management, otherwise as Kim (2007, p. 29) observes it will simply be “pseudo
symmetrical” communication. Organisational internal corporate communication includes the
requirement to keep employees informed. This, typically, one-way flow of communication
has been criticised as dominating practice, however, as Truss et al (2006, p. 45) observed,
there is a fundamental need to feel well informed about what is happening in the
organization.

The parallel combination and synchronisation of relational and organisational internal


corporate communication are connected to the simultaneous requirement to provide
“employee voice” and a strong narrative of organisational vision and purpose. The two
operate in tandem and relational internal corporate communication acts to counter-balance
the potential over-reliance on one-way communication. This then provides a constructive
framework for more team communication which is synthesised here into Welch and
Jackson’s (2007) stakeholder categorisation; project and team peer, and line manager.
Communication is more interpersonal and aspects that emerge as important are clarity,
consistency and involvement. It can be conjectured that project and peer communication is
linked to integrity, where behaviour is consistent with organisational values. It can also be
conjectured that line manager communication is linked to being an “engaging manager”
where facilitation, consultation and involvement are key facets of management. This can be
visualised in a new integrated approach to internal communication and organisational
employee engagement (see diagram 1).

26 Copyright Kevin Ruck


Diagram 1 Integrated Approach to Internal Communication and Organisational Employee
Engagement

The arrows in this integrated internal communication and organisational employee


engagement approach are intended to signify where the strongest associations are most
likely to be found. This does not imply that line manager communication is not linked to

27 Copyright Kevin Ruck


integrity or that project/team peer communication is not about being an engaging manager. It
suggests that task oriented communication is likely to be more associated with behaviour
consistent with values that engage people into action. The approach does not explicitly show
leadership (or senior manager) communication; this is implicit in all aspects of internal
corporate communication and direct communication, though it is likely to operate mostly
within both relational and organisational levels of internal corporate communication. The
approach shows internal corporate communication as a framework setting level that is
complemented and supported at the team communication level, and this (if managed
effectively and expertly with high quality processes) leads to organisational employee
engagement as an outcome. The approach does not explicitly indicate how change
management communication is addressed. As Dainton and Zelley (2005, pp. 174-5) point
out, this is an important third function of internal communication (in addition to socialisation,
and guidance and control). Internal communication underpins successful change
management (Salem, 2008) and the principles of the approach apply equally in times of
change as much as in stable conditions.

Finally, the approach is not intended to imply that the dimensions of engagement shown are
the only dimensions. The separate construct of work employee engagement, based more on
immersion in work itself, is omitted. Clearly, work engagement, is also a very important
factor and the omission from this integrated approach is not intended to diminish that
importance. The practical implications of the approach have most impact on two
organisational functions: human resource management and internal communication
management. This paper suggests that communication is the golden thread that underlies
organisational employee engagement, in ways the benefits the employee and the
organisation. As Waymer and Ni (2009, p. 229) argue, there is an urgency for “…public
relations and HR to form a meaningful partnership; there is no more time for battles over
territory”. The benefits of both managing effective internal communication at all levels and
building communication competencies at all levels are too great to be lost in turf wars. It also
goes beyond the integration of HR and internal communication and forms the basis of
organisational wide belief in the value of communication for organisational employee
engagement.

The new integrated approach to internal communication and organisational employee


engagement has significant implications for further research in the field. Initially, the
relationship between internal corporate communication and direct employee communication
should be explored in more detail. The specific employee engagement outcomes that result
from this can then be investigated more precisely. There is room for further analysis of the

28 Copyright Kevin Ruck


linkages between internal communication and employee engagement from both rhetorical
and relationship management theoretical perspectives as these have rarely been employed
to date and offer the potential of new insights. The approach also has implications for
internal communication and employee engagement measurement, in that the constructs
used for surveys may need to be revised and combined to take greater account of the
importance of communication at the differing levels suggested above. Finally, the approach
aims to more fully establish the practice of internal communication as a strategic
management function; one that is indispensible to the effective management of
organisations, and one that is the golden thread to improving levels of engagement that
benefit organisations and employees.

29 Copyright Kevin Ruck


Bibliography
Attridge, M (2009) Measuring and Managing Employee Work Engagement: A Review of the
Research and Business Literature, Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, Vol.
24., Issue 4., pages 383-398
Axelrod, R.H. (2002) Terms of Engagement, Changing the Way We Change Organizations, San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, (2008) Towards a model of work engagement, Career Development International,
E Vol.13., No. 3., pages 209-223
Bambacas, M., Patrickson, (2008) Interpersonal communication skills that enhance organisational
M commitment, Journal of Communication, Vol. 12., No. 1., pages 51-72
Boje, D. M. (2008) Storytelling Organisations, London: Sage
Budd,J. W., Golan, P. J., (2010) New approaches to employee voice and participation in organizations,
and Wilkinson, A Human Relations, 63(3) 303-310.
Chen, J., Silverthorne, C., (2006) Organisation communication, job stress, organizational commitment, and
and Hung, J job performance of accounting professionals in Taiwan and America, Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, Vol 27., No. 4, pages 242-9.
Cherry, C. (1978) On Human Communication, A Review, A Survey, And A Criticism, London:
The MIT Press
Cheney, G. (2007) Organizational communication comes out, Management Communication
Quarterly: Vol 21. No.1 pages 80-91.
Cook, S. (2008) The Essential Guide to Employee Engagement, Better Business
Performance Through Staff Satisfaction, London: Kogan Page.
Craig, R. T. (1999) Communication Theory as a Field, Communication Theory, pages 119-61.
Dainton, M., Zelley,E.D. (2005) Applying Communication Theory for Professional Life, A Practical
Introduction, London: Sage
Daly, F., Teague, P. and (2003) Exploring the role of internal communication during organisational change,
Kitchen, P Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol 8. No. 3, pages 153-
162.
Easterby-Smith, M., Management Research, Third Edition, London: Sage
Thorpe, R., and
Jackson.P.R.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston: Pitman
Freeman, R.E. (1999), Response: divergent stakeholder theory, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 233-6.
Gallup Organisation (2006) ‘Engagement predicts earnings per share’.

Gebauer, J., Lowman, D. (2008) Closing the Engagement Gap, How Great Companies Unlock Employee
Potential For Superior Results, New York: Portfolio, Penguin Group.
Grunig, J.E. (1975) Some Consistent Types of Employee Publics, Public Relations Review 1
(Winter 1975): 17-36.
Grunig, J.E. (1992) Symmetrical Systems of Internal Communication in Grunig, J.E. (ed)
Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Grunig, J.E., Hunt, T (1984) Managing Public Relations, Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning

Heath, R. L., Bryant, J (2000) Human Communication Theory and Research, Second Edition:Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Heath, R., Toth, E.L., and (2009) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations II, Abingdon:

30 Copyright Kevin Ruck


Waymer, D Routledge
Hazleton, V., Kennan, W. (2000) Relationships as social capital: reconceptualising the bottom line,
Corporate Communication: An International Journal, 5, pages 81-6
Herington,C., Scott, D and (2005) Focus group exploration of firm-employee relationship strength, Qualitative
Johnson, L.W. Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 8, No.3, pages 256-276
Iverson, J.O., McPhee, (2008) Communicating knowing through communities of practice: Exploring
R.D. internal communicative processes and differences among CoPs. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 36(2), 176-199.
Kahn, W.A. (1990) Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at
Work, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33. No.4, pages 692-724
Kahn, W.A. (1992), To B e Fully There: Psychological Presence at Work, Human Relations,
Vol 45. No. 4, pages 321-349
Kalla, H. K. (2005) Integrated internal communications: a multidisciplinary perspective,
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4 pages 302-14

Kennan, W.R., Hazelton, V, (2006) Internal Public Relations, Social Capital, and the Role of Effective
Organizational Communication. In: Botan, C.H. and Hazelton, V. eds. Public
Relations Theory II, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
L’Etang, J.
(2006) Public Relations Critical Debates and Contemporary Practice, London:
Routledge
Larki, T.J., Larkin, S. (1994) Communicating Change, Winning Support for New Business Goals, New
York: McGraw-Hill
Lee, R. (2009) Social capital and business and management: Setting a research agenda,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Volume 11, Issue
3, Pages 247 – 273, Blackwell Publishing and the British Academy of
Management
Leiter, M.P., and Bakker, (2010) Work engagement: Introduction. In Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. eds.
A.B Work Engagement, A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Hove:
Psychology Press
Luthans, F., Peterson, S.J. (2002) Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy, implications for
managerial effectiveness and development, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 21. No. 5, pages 376-387.
MacLeod, D. , Brady, C. (2008) The Extra Mile, How To Engage Your People To Win, Harlow: FT Prentice
Hall.
MacLeod, D., Clarke, N. (2009) Engaging for Success: enhancing performance through employee
engagement, A Report to Government, Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills, www.bis.gov.uk
Macey, W.H., Scheider, B. (2008) The Meaning of Employee Engagement, Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 1, 3–30.
Malmelin, N. (2007) Communication capital, Modelling Corporate Communications as an
Organizational Asset, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol.
12 No. 3, 2007 pp. 298-310, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Marchington, M., Wilkinson, (2005) Participation and Involvement, in S Bach (ed), Personnel Management in
A. Britain, (4th Edition), Oxford: Blackwell.
Marques, J.F. (2010) Enhancing the quality of organizational communication, a presentation of
reflection-based criteria, Journal of Communication, Vol 14. No 1, pages 47-58.
McPhee, R.D, Zaug, P. (2009) The Communicative Constitution of Organizations: A Framework for
Explanation. In: Putnam, L. L. and Nicotera, A. M. (eds.) Building Theories of
Organization, The Constitutive Role of Communication, New York: Routledge.
Mercer Human Resource (2002) People at Work Survey.
Consulting
Putnam, L.L., Nicotera, (2009) Introduction: Communication Constitutes Organization. In: Putnam, L. L.
A.M., McPheeR.D. and Nicotera, A. M. eds.
Building Theories of Organization, The Constitutive Role of Communication, New
York: Routledge: 1-9.
O'Donovan, D. (2009) Staff who understand reward are more motivated, Employee Benefits.
Available from: http://www.employeebenefits.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?
id=9400&d=pg_dtl_art_news&h=0&f=0 [accessed 22 September 2009].

31 Copyright Kevin Ruck


Quirke, B. (2008) Making the Connections, Using Internal Communication to Turn Strategy
into Action, Second Edition, Aldershot: Gower Publishing Ltd.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. (2004) The Drivers of Employee Engagement. Brighton, Institute for Employment
and Hayday, S. Studies.
Salem, P. (2008) The seven communication reasons organizations do not change,
Corporate Communications: An International Journal Vol. 13 No. 3, 2008
pp. 333-348
Saks, A.M. (2006) Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement, Journal Of
Managerial Psychology, Vol.21. No. 7, pages 600-619.
Schaufeli, W. B. and (2010) Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept.
Bakker, A. B. In Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. eds. Work Engagement, A Handbook of Essential
Theory and Research, Hove: Psychology Press
Smythe, J. (2007) The CEO: Chief Engagement Officer, Turning Hierarchy Upside Down to
Drive Performance, Aldershot: Gower Publishing Ltd.
Taylor, J.R. (2004) Finding the Organization in the Communication: Discourse as Action and
Sensemaking, Organization, Vol. 11, No. 3, 395-413
Toth, E.L. (2009) The Case for Pluralistic Studies of Public Relations, Rhetorical, Critical,
and Excellence perspectives, in Toth, Heath and Waymer, (eds) Rhetorical and
Critical Approaches to Public Relations II, Abingdon: Routledge
Tourish,D., Hargie,O. (2009) Communication and organisational success, in Hargie, O and Tourish, D
(eds) Auditing Organizational Communication, Hove: Routledge.
Towers Perrin-ISR (2006) The ISR Employee Engagement Report.

Truss,C., Soane, E., (2006) Working Life: Employee Attitudes and Engagement 2006, Chartered
Edwards, C., Wisdom, K., Institute of Personnel and Development.
Croll, A., and Burnett,J.
Watson Wyatt Worldwide (2007) Secrets of top performers: How companies with highly effective employee
communication differentiate themselves: 2007/2008 communication ROI Study.
Waymer,D., Ni, L (2009) Connecting Organisations and their Employee Publics: The Rhetorical
Analysis of Employee-Organization Relationships (EOR), in Heath, R.L., Toth,
E.L., and Waymer, D (eds) Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations
II, Abingdon: Routledge
Welch, M. (2006) Rethinking relationship management, Exploring the dimension of trust,
Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, 2006, pages 138-155.
Weick, K. E. (2005) Sensemaking in Organisations, London: Sage.
Welch, M., Jackson, P. R. (2007) Rethinking internal communication: a stakeholder approach, Corporate
Communications: An International Journal Vol. 12 No. 2, pages 177-198.
Whitworth, B (2006) Internal Communication in Gillis, T (ed) The IABC Handbook of
Organizational Communication, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Zaremba, A. (2006) Organizational Communication: Foundations for Business & Collaboration,
Mason: Thomson South-Western

32 Copyright Kevin Ruck

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen